Perspective in Ancient Art: A Historical Analysis

The Mastery of Perspective in the Art of Antiquity

The question of whether ancient artists possessed a thorough knowledge of perspective has long been debated. This analysis explores the use of linear and aerial perspective in the arts of antiquity, from the colossal sculptures of Phidias to Roman frescoes and mosaics. By examining historical texts and surviving monuments, we seek to determine if their approach was a codified science, as developed during the Renaissance, or a more intuitive practice, a 'perspective of sentiment' based on observation and aesthetic effect.

We distinguish between two kinds of perspective: speculative and practical. The first encompasses optical theory, while the second involves the art of representing objects as the eye perceives them, arranged at a distance. Its subdivisions are linear perspective and aerial perspective, depending on whether they deal with form alone or with both form and color.

Artists today excel in the rigorous art of perspective, but did the ancients possess a thorough knowledge of it? This is a highly controversial question, which we will now endeavor to elucidate.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, several remarkable scholars attempted to prove, not without success, that all branches of art were known to the ancients, and that perspective, in particular, had been brought by them to its highest degree. Although the partisans of antiquity were numerous, there were nevertheless severe detractors who had the temerity—for it was temerity at the time—to deny the ancients any knowledge of perspective, which, according to them, was attributed to them out of blind admiration.

To this end, both sides invoked every possible author, cited every available text, and supported opinions of varying degrees of exaggeration. Despite so many learned dissertations, the question has never been definitively settled, and the time has come to resolve it.

The Origins of Perspective in Architecture and Sculpture

Wall painting from Room H of the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale

Before we begin, it seems appropriate to discuss the etymology of the word "perspective." It comes from the Latin perspecta or perspicio, meaning "I consider attentively, I examine closely." This might suggest that the Greeks had little knowledge of the theory, since the word has no equivalent in their language.

However, one cannot doubt the relatively extensive notions the ancients had of linear perspective and optics. Their architects, in particular, deeply imbued with the power that geometric forms combined with skillfully calculated proportions can exert on the human mind, early on demonstrated a combination of rare qualities and diverse knowledge. Consequently, architecture was ranked by Plato and Cicero among the most important sciences, alongside philosophy and medicine. Vitruvius all but requires the architect to know everything; for in addition to history, which provides precious indications for decorative elements; music, which teaches him how to arrange a theater according to the laws of acoustics; and astronomy, which is useful for the construction of sundials, he demands a thorough study of drawing, geometry, optics, arithmetic, and physics—sciences that, as we know, are closely related to architecture.

Notes

¹ Pliny gives it a height of one hundred and forty feet. ↑

² Cicero (*Letters to Atticus*, Bk. II, epist. 3), Vitruvius (*De architectura*, Bk. I, ch. 1), and Aulus Gellius (*Attic Nights*, Bk. XVI, ch. 16) have taught us what the optics of the ancients consisted of. It contained three different parts: the first taught architects how to arrange the windows and openings of a building so as to produce the most favorable light; the second part concerned the construction of mirrors; the third, finally, designated by the name of Scenography, indicated the art of decorating the interior and the stage of theaters, as will be seen later. ↑

³ According to M. H. Bazin, in his remarkable thesis on the *Condition des artistes de l'antiquité grecque*, painters were paid for their pictures at a rate per figure. The tyrant of Elatea, Mnason, around the middle of the 4th century BCE, dealt with the artists he employed according to this rather singular tariff. Thus, according to the information from Pliny (XXXV, 36), we find the following accounts: "To Aristides of Thebes, for a battle against the Persians with one hundred figures, 10 minae per figure (nearly 93,000 francs); to Theomnestus, for heroes, twenty minae per hero (about 2,000 francs); to Asclepiodorus, for the twelve gods, thirty minae per god (more than 33,000 francs)." For all the figures in a large painting to be valued at the same price, remarks the author we are citing, for example in a large historical painting, what then was the state of perspective among the Greek painters? ↑

The Mastery of Perspective in the Art of Antiquity

The Origins of Perspective in Architecture and Sculpture

Topics

Techniques

Mouvements