Light, Descartes, Cubism

Readings for this week were pretty varied, though none particularly extensive. Each operated as a kind of poke for thought, and not a deep exploration. Quick and insincere introductions to gender theory, 'gaze,' and semiotics were maybe the most memorable.

Although Descarte's essay on optics is outdated and verifiably incorrect, it does offer some interesting observations as metaphor and theory, as they pertain to the world of art in particular. This is most likely why it remains an important addendum to the canon, though its science is dead.

Let's dissect: "[engravings] represent to us forests, towns, people, and even battles and storms; and although they make us think of countless different qualities in these objects, it is only in respect of shape that there is any real resemblance. And even this resemblance is very imperfect, . . . in accordance with the rules of perspective they often represent circles by ovals better than by other circles, squares by rhombuses better than by other squares, and similarly for other shapes."

This last bit is perhaps the most interesting. Descartes is alluding to an idea which might not realize itself in the world of art for the next 300 years. Those maybe seven years when Cubism was most prevalent, these ideas of the slavery of forms in two dimensions were finally explored. Descartes was discussing the idea that a square object is better represented by a rhombus because of the rules of perspective. Those rules didn't seem to be loudly confounding artists until Braque and Picasso took up arms against them in 1907.

Some things take a while to come around, eh?