virtualterritory

I got this 1.7MB PowerPoint file attached to an email showing a series of stunning images of the earth from space. I particularly enjoy the images showing the shadow line between day and night.

BlueBeauty 1.7 MB slide show might take a while to download.
The last slide motivates the viewer to ‘send’ this file out wide. I am not sure as to who owns the images, as only agencies like NASA or ESA could capture such images, so the intellectual property might be an issue with this PowerPoint file. If it is a NASA image then there seems not much of a problem here.

On the NASA site they state as for the guidelines to use their materials they state:
Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites

Still Images, Audio Files and Video.
NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages.

A friend from Germany has recently send me this extremely exciting link about the most interesting image visualization software I have seen for some time. Especially with the demonstrated possibility to harness the global collective visual data with many applications for education and entertainment.

The Photosynth technology preview is a taste of this new - and most exciting - way to view images on a computer. This software takes a large collection of photos of a place or an object, analyzes them for similarities, and then displays the photos in a reconstructed three-dimensional space, showing you how each one relates to the next.

Its architect, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, shows it off in this standing-ovation demo (you will need broadband).

Using photos of oft-snapped subjects (like Notre Dame) scraped from around the Web, Photosynth (based on Seadragon technology) creates breathtaking multidimensional spaces with zoom and navigation features that outstrip all expectation.

Seadragon promises speed of navigation is independent of the size or number of objects (images and large amounts of text) and its performance depends only on the ratio of bandwidth to pixels on the screen. This leads to smooth transitions and near perfect scaling for screens of any resolution (wall-sized displays to mobile devices).

Seadragon is an incubation project resulting from the acquisition of Seadragon Software in February by Microsoft.

You can access gigabytes of photos in seconds, view a scene from nearly any angle, find similar photos with a single click, and zoom in to make the smallest detail as big as your monitor.

Its aim is to change the way we use screens so that visual information can be smoothly browsed regardless of the amount of data involved or the bandwidth of the network.

Just imagine the possibilities of a convergence of Photosynth/Seadragon and flickr, google earth and second life like systems for education. I just hope this helpful and exciting technology will filter through to average customers and not suddenly disappear from the public eye.

While researching into the perspective relationship between the picture elements of this print (see earlier posts in English and in Deutsch) I noticed several ‘abnormalities’ in reproductions of this so well known work by Duerer. These abnormalities appear on paper representations and on digital images of this print. This post is to bring together these titbits.

In 2006 I was privileged to see originals of Dürer’s ‘The Painters Manual’, these splendid copies of this renaissance publications are held at the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) in Melbourne, Australia. The ‘Man drawing a lute’ image is towards the back of these publication and is relatively small in size, 182 x 132 mm, rather like a postcard, the detail and the precisions of the lines however are impressive. The NGV, which very generously opened its archives for me, holds a large if not the largest collection of Albrecht Dürer’s graphic and print work outside Germany.

Now to the abnormalities in the reproductions:
1.) The vertical ‘rift’ in the upper middle of the print.
The following image shows in its upper part the print as in the original publications, while the image in the lower part shows it with the ‘rift’.

I found this distortion not present in the 1525 or the 1528 (NGV, Melbourne) publications but in many reproduction of images on the internet and in the following books, some declare to show ‘facsimile’ of Dürer’s print works.

Dürer today, pge 48
1970 and 1978 by Heinz Moos Verlag, Munich, ISBN 3-7879-0119-1
The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht Dürer, illustration 338, Edited by Dr. Willi Kurth
1963, Dover Publication, New York, ISBN 0-486-21097-9
Albrecht Dürer, Les Gravures sur Bois
1978, Art et Culture, Paris, No d’impression: 5799

Initially I believed it to be a clue to help prove that Dürer (or the woodcutter) had made a mistake or change to the original print leading to the wrong relation of the perspective elements as discussed in earlier posts on this blog (see earlier posts in English and in Deutsch). But as I had to discover, while inspecting the almost 500 year old originals at the NGV, this distortion is not visible in the original editions. It seems to be an artefact from a later printing process of copies. The paper might have been ‘pinched’ at an early print run and subsequent copies and facsimiles have just helped reproducing this fault.

2.) The change in the quality of line.
Close inspection of the originals also showed a visible change in the quality of the line delineating the white space on the table below the open frame with the point drawing of the lute. This change is visible in all reproductions of this print. The weight or thickness changes at this location, some seem to run together with their neighboring line just as if they have been corrected or added later. And to support my theory (see earlier posts in English and in Deutsch), these ‘abnormal’ lines start where I suspect the frame should be placed in the composition of the print to make the perspective alignment of all elements right. Here is a crop of the highest resolution image I was able to find, which shows the changes in lines clearly.

I found this image on ArtStore.

3.) ‘Pirate’ copy of this print

On ArtStore there are several digital images of Dürer’s ‘Man drawing a Lute’ print, one of them looks like it had been printed from a re cut woodblock. It shows ‘1530’ as date, two years after Dürer’s death !– the original had 1525 as date - and a sanitised point-drawing of the lute. Duerer’s work, very popular during his life time achieved respectable retail prices leading to illicit copies.

Finally, I found a little reference about a handwritten note by Dürer on the back of the 1st edition in Nuernberg on the back of this print. I love to know what he wrote, as it might shed some light on some of my questions I have about the composition of this work. This remark appears on page 266 in the 3rd of three volumes, this book focuses exclusively on Dürer’s book illustrations. These wonderful books, edited by Rainer Schoch, Matthias Mende and Anna Scherbaum, are the most comprehensive publications about Duerer’s print (Druckgraphische) work. I hope one day to be able to read Dürer’s note and to find out more about this significant print.

If you have any further information about this print by Dürer or any comment about my views of his work please get in touch.

As I find it difficult to define the term ‘designer/maker’, the very core of our new Design Arts degree offer at the ANU, School of Art, I like to bring to this blog some of the short statements by my colleagues. These are taken from the de/sign/ed catalogue.

Approaching this term from different - in this case - individual points of view, will help forming a more complete definition. This third statement is by Nadege Desgenetez, lecturer Glass workshop ANU, School of Art.

I am drawn towards handsome objects that cleverly serve a purpose: After choosing an artistic path, I soon recognised that making was an essential part of my approach to creating objects. The making process nurtured my design principles.
Glass has been an incredible vehicle for my preoccupations with design. Looking to celebrate the intrinsic qualities of the material, I try to develop an aesthetic vocabulary around its technical language.

(My statement you can find as part of my first posting below)

Recently I came across the clip on youtube showing a novel gui (graphic user interface), the BumpTop 3D Desktop , as a way to help manage a user to sort icons of documents on their computer’s desktop. Of interest are the subtle references to our habits in keeping some sort of organizational structure in chaotic piles of paper.
At first glance this gui looks playful and I thought it would be great to have, especially with a pen based input like on a tablet computer. Then I noticed that the stacks of documents just look like poker chips being pushed about ( the ‘$$$ ringed’ hand, at sec 12 in the clip, might be a give away).

The interaction with computers the input side of things is still mostly base on the WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system a rather archaic way of interfacing with computers, especially when it comes to graphics or 3d modeling work. There are however some devices like the Phantom Haptic Device by Sensable that enable the operator to touch, feel and manipulate virtual environments.

More about haptic .

The following chapter is from a presentation at the Challenging Craft conference in Aberdeen, Scotland 2004.

1.2 RESEARCH INTO INTEGRATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES WITH CRAFT

Any research to integrate new technologies within craft can only benefit through the direct involvement of craft practitioners. Their ‘hands-on’ approach will shape the practical outcomes required to make new technologies a tool for their practice.

The following TACITUS project is an example of looking at how a craft practitioner could better interact with a CAD system. The lack of dexterity while designing on a CAD system, typically using only a mouse and keyboard, was at the heart of the TACITUS project.

Ann Marie Shillito presented a paper about the TACITUS project at the PixelRaiders 2 [6] conference in April 2004 at the Sheffield Hallam University. A practicing artist herself, she shared her findings in regards to this project: ‘Our research has identified that a niche exists, in the germinal phase of designing, for exploiting the potential of a digital medium with haptic feedback. Such an interface would enable idea formulation and creative activities to be performed with the same intuitive & fluid transmodal interaction as sketching on paper and with as great a sense and degree of engagement as in modelmaking.’ The stated aims of this three-year collaborative research project include the exploitation of the advantages of being able to work, think and respond in a virtual environment [to stay] more ‘in touch’ with creative working practices and to discover the degrees of multi-sensory feedback required for artists and designers to work intuitively using their tacit knowledge and skills. TACITUS was based on the Reachin Technologies using the Phantom Haptic Device that enables users to touch, feel and manipulate virtual environments. The user’s dominant hand holds the finely engineered force feedback pen-like mechanism which has had its stylus tip accurately calibrated to the x,y,z co-ordinates of the virtual space.

When I had ‘first-hand’ experience with such a device at the Haptic Workbench at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, I was intrigued how convincingly ones mind can be fooled by a simulated hand–eye interaction. After distorting virtual material for a while I noticed, that the hardest surface sensation the Phantom device was able to simulate was that of a cricket ball. When the simulated tool silently clicked against the virtual surface, it produced the feel of hitting leather. Being a silversmith I found this feedback irritating and distracting. This kind of research is an example of looking at the ‘front-end’, the input-side, trying to overcome the limitations of mouse and keyboard while interacting/modelling on CAD system.

[6] Ann Marie Shillito, Tacitus Project, www.pixelraiders.org/
Accessed 7/7/04, 3:10 pm.

As I find it difficult to define the term ‘designer/maker’, the very core of our new Design Arts degree offer at the ANU, School of Art, I like to bring to this blog some of the short statements by my colleagues. These are taken from the de/sign/ed catalogue.

Approaching this term from different - in this case - individual points of view, will help forming a more complete definition. The second statement is by Roger Hutchinson, silversmith. Technical officer Gold and Silversmithing workshop ANU School of Art.

For me design is the process of overcoming problems in an effort to make an idea become a real, functioning object.

These problems arise when first sketching the idea and continue through the whole making process to the finished object. Although my original concept or idea doesn’t change, overcoming the problems and compromising to achieve an acceptable result often changes the form of the finished object from that shown in the first sketches. Researching while designing, often uncovers changes in technology that will alter the form of an object, how easy it is to make, how well it functions, etc.

How well I solve the problems determines how well the finished object functions and whether it is aesthetically pleasing. It is this process of overcoming or ‘designing out’ problems in an effort to create a new and exciting object that, I find, is the challenging and rewarding aspect of making.

(My statement you can find as part of my first posting below)

As I find it difficult to define the term ‘designer/maker’, the very core of our new degree (Design Arts) offer at the ANU, School of Art, I like to bring to this blog some of the short statements by my colleagues. These are taken from the de/sign/ed catalogue.

Approaching this term from different - in this case - individual points of view, will help forming a more complete definition. The first one of these statements is by Jannet DeBoos, head of ceramics.

My practice has always been centred on domestic ceramics, the processes by which it comes into being and the performative aspects of use by which it gets ‘remade’. I have since the mid 1980’s regularly exhibited work that presents these usually private acts publicly.

I have worked with other media (sound and video/film) to examine the nature of production, and with other materials (polystyrene and disposable plastics) to examine the way we use things. Since 1996 I have been involved in the examination of what is ‘lost’ (if anything) when domestic ceramics items are no longer handmade. (What if the importance of ‘handling’ is not in the making, but only in the use?).

In exploring these questions, I have become the ‘designer’ rather than the ‘maker’ in a collaboration with the Huaguang Company’s Bone China division (Zibo, PRC). This project is very ‘hands-on’ and I work closely with both the mould makers and factory workers as the pieces are produced, and adjusted. I have been particularly interested in the way that the change in material (porcelain to bone china) affects changes in the product, and how ‘design’ has created a resonance between the handmade and the factory ware.

(My statement you can find as part of my first posting below)

Link to English version
Visuelle Untersuchung des Holzschinttes ‘Der Zeichner der Laute’, bei Albrecht Dürer, 1525.

Was folgt ist ein direktes Ergebnis unterrichts gestützter Forschung.

Auf der Suche nach historischem Bezugsmaterial für unsere neue Design Basisklasse fiel mir der Holzschnitt ‘Der Zeichner der Laute’ von Albrecht Dürer auf. Ich konnte nicht voraussehen, dass dieser weltbekannte Druck mich in eine umfassende Internet- und Literaturforschung führen und mich am Ende den Meister der Nördlichen Renaissance noch mehr schätzen lernen würde. Die Entdeckung und Ergebnisse sind in den folgenden Zeilen und Abbildungen festgehalten.

Albrecht Dürer, der bedeutende Künstler wurde 1471 in Nürnberg - zu seiner Zeit ein Zentrum des Kunsthandwerkes - geboren. Er war gebildet und mit vielen seiner einflussreichen Zeitgenossen befreundet. Seine Reisen nach Italien, der Schweiz und in die Niederlande machten ihn damals zu einem Kosmopoliten. Während seiner zweiten Italienreise schrieb er 1506 an den Humanisten und Freund Willibald Pirckheimer, es würde ihm jemand mehr über ‘geheime Kunst der Perspektive’ zeigen. (a, Strauss 1977). Zweifellos waren es die Einsichten in diese Kunst, die ihn die perspektivischen Apparate entwickeln liessen, die er in seinen Büchern so überzeugend illustrierte.

Albrecht Dürer ist für seine Gravuren, Holzschnitte, Gemälde sowie für seine illustrierten Bücher, wie dasjenige über die ‘Underweysung der Messung Mit dem Zirckel un Richtscheyt’ bekannt. Der Holzdruck ‘Der Zeichner der Laute’ ist im vierten Band der ‘Unterweissungen’ unter dem Kapitel ‘Über die Theorie der Perspektive’ zu finden. Darin illustrierte Dürer wie man mittels seiner praktischen Vorrichtung eine detaillierte perspektivische Abbildung auf einer schwenkbaren Leinwand festhalten kann. In der ersten Auflage von 1525 zeigt Dürer zwei Vorrichtungen die es ermöglichen eine Perspektive korrekt abzubilden. Zur Neuauflage dieses Buches, -es erschien 1528 in Dürer’s Todesjahr-, hatte er drei weitere Apparaturen entwickelt. Sein Ruf als Künstler, sein Interesse an der Geometrie und seine Erfindungen lassen ihn ebenbürtig neben Raphael und Leonardo da Vinci erscheinen.

Ich verwende Albrecht Dürer’s Druck mit der Laute in meinem Unterricht, da er das Prinzip der Bildebene klar illustriert. Um die Abhängigkeit der Abbildungsgröße vom Abstand der Bildebene zum Betrachtungspunkt zu demonstrieren, habe ich eine ‘zeitgenössische’ Variante dieses dürerischen Systems entwickelt. Zwei Glasplatten werden in etwa einem Meter Abstand voneinander so aufgestellt, dass ein Objekt durch beide Glasplatten (Bildebenen) betrachtet werden kann. Ein Laserpointer, auf einem Stativ montiert, verkörpert den Betrachtungspunkt. Wenn aktiviert, leuchtet der Laserstrahl durch beide Glasplatten auf das Objekt und lässt gleichzeitig einen roten Punkt auf beiden Bildebenen sowie dem Objekt erscheinen. Die Studenten tasten dann das Objekt mit dem Laser Punkt für Punkt ab und markieren die dominierenden topologischen Merkmale auf den gläsernen Bildebenen. Beide Glasplatten zeigen, wie erwartet, eine gleiche Punktverteilung, jedoch in zwei verschiedenen Größen. Photokopien von beiden Bildebenen erlauben den Studenten dann perspektivisch korrekte Zeichnungen in zwei verschiedenen Größen anzufertigen.

Durch diese Erfahrung mit meinen Studenten, bekam ich eine gute Vorstellung von dem Zusammenhang des Abstandes Betrachtungspunkt/Bildebene und der Abbildungsgröße. Bei näherer Betrachtung des Dürer Druckes fiel mir auf, dass die Abbildung der Laute zu groß erscheint. Ich öffnete eine digitale Version dieses Bildes in der Bildbearbeitungs Software ‘Photoshop’ zur visuellen Untersuchung. Nachdem ich die Leinwand mit der Laute in Dürer’s Druck isoliert und perspektivisch korrekt manipuliert hatte, konnte ich eine Kopie davon in den offenen Rahmen projizieren. Die Verbindungslinie (Faden), die den Taststab an der Laute und den Betrachtungspunkt an der Wand verbindet, durchdringt die simulierte Leinwand in der korrespondierenden richtigen Position . Jedoch, wenn man einen anderen Punkt an der Laute wählt, wie z. B. den Berührungspunkt des Griffbrettes mit der Tischoberfläche, stellt sich heraus, dass der Projektionsstrahl zum Betrachtungspunkt die Leinwand nicht an der korrekten Stelle durchdringt.

Dürer’s Zeichnung der Laute ist überdimensioniert, zu groß. Verbindet man den Berührungspunkt des Griffbrettes mit dem korrespondierenden Punkt in der Leinwand, zeigt sich, dass dieser Projektionsstrahl weder zum Betrachtungspunkt zeigt, noch mit der ersterwähnten korrekten Linie konvergiert, also keinen gemeinsamen Betrachtungspunk hat.

Ich war überrascht, dass Dürer, ein Meister der Zentralperspektive – die Zweipunktperspektive war zu seiner Zeit noch nicht entwickelt – solch eine fehlerhafte Darstellung veröffentlichen würde. Ebenso verblüffte mich, dass eine Illustration von Prinzipien perspektivischer Darstellung ihre eigenen Regeln so eindeutig ignoriert. Es war weiterhin erstaunlich, dass ich keine Hinweise in der kunsthistorischen Literatur in Bezug auf diesen Fehler in dem so bekannten Holzschnitt finden konnte.

Was veranlasste Dürer diesen Fehler in seinem Buch abdrucken zu lassen? Platzierte er den Rahmen zu weit rechts, um der dominierenden Person - ich vermutete sie stelle den Meister dar – mehr Raum zu geben, während der Assistent, der den Schnittpunkt des Fadens im Rahmen festhält, sich mit eingeschränktem Raum abzufinden hatte? Es erschien plausible und Dürer’s Eitelkeit entsprechend, dass dem Meister mehr Raum zugeordnet werden musste. Jedoch sollte mich der Meister selbst eines Besseren belehren. In seinen Anweisungen zu diesem perspektivischen Zeichenapparat schreibt er: (sinngemäß) “Nun gehe wie folgt vor. Platziere eine Laute oder ein anderes Objekt nach eigenem Gutdünken vor den Rahmen, jedoch so, dass sich das Objekt während der Arbeit nicht bewegt. Lasse Deinen Assistenten den Taster hantieren….”. Dies stellt ohne Zweifel klar, dass die Figur rechts in der Abbildung den Meister darstellt und nicht den Assistenten wie ich fälschlicherweise angenommen hatte.

Die Abbildung der Laute ist als Punktzeichnung wahrheitsgemäss umrissen, jedoch zu gross für den Rahmen in der gezeigten Position. Es stellt sich die Frage:’ Wo müsste der Rahmen stehen, um die Punktzeichnung der Laute in der dargestellten Grösse erscheinen zu lassen? Wie das Laserexperiment mit den Studenten bestätigt, ist die Abbildung umso grösser je näher die Bildebene - der Rahmen mit der Leinwand – beim Objekt ist. In Dürer’s Holzschnitt müsste der Rahmen mehr nach links, also näher an die Laute rücken. Im weiteren fiel mir bei genauerer Betrachtung des Holzschnittes die eigenartige Stellung der linken Hand des Assistenten auf, dessen ausgestreckter Arm mehr auf der empfindlichen Vorrichtung mit der geöffneten Leinwand zu lasten schien, anstatt diese zu unterstützen. Mit Hilfe der Bildbearbeitungs Software verschob und verkleinerte ich den Rahmen bis er genau in die Hand des Assistenten passte. In dieser Position ist der Rahmen nur von der Seite zu sehen und stellt sich als senkrechte Leiste dar. Anschliessend markierte ich drei Referenzpunkte auf der Punktzeichnung der ausgeklappten Leinwand. Der erste Punkt, von Dürer selbst gewählt, markiert den Berührungspunkt des Taststabes mit der Laute, der zweite ist am Ende des Griffbrettes, und der dritte schliesslich zeigt die Stelle, wo der Hals des Instrumentes auf dem Tisch aufliegt. Im nächsten Schritt habe ich dann diese drei Punkte am Instrument selbst markiert und sie dann durch Linien mit dem Betrachtungspunkt an der Wand verbunden.

Nun veränderte ich die Position einer Leinwandkopie mit der Punktzeichung und den Referenzpunkten und verkleinerte diese perspektivisch korrekt bis sie der Rahmengrösse entsprach. Da die Leinwand zusammen mit dem Rahmen nun in die Mitte des Druckes zu stehen kommt, erscheinen sie - typisch für die Zentralperspektive - in der Seitenansicht. Dafür zeigt sich nun klar, dass alle Elemente, die Bezugspunkte am Instrument zusammen mit ihren Referenzpunkten auf der Leinwand im Betrachtungspunkt konvergieren.

Das lässt den Schluss zu, dass Dürer ursprünglich geplant hatte den Rahmen dem Assistenten in die Hand zu geben, um dadurch die grösstmögliche Abbildung der Laute zu erreichen. Diese Stellung des Rahmens reduzierte jedoch die Klarheit der Illustration, da der Rahmen nur als Leiste zu sehen ist, und die Leinwand samt den Referenzpunkten von der Durchdringung des Tasterfadens unsichtbar bleibt.

Meine Schlussfolgerung ist, dass Albrecht Dürer bewusst die geometrisch richtige Darstellung zu Gunsten einer besseren Illustration des Prinzips aufgab. Dürer spielt mit den Bildelementen und gibt unserem Wahrnehmungssinn in einer pseudo-realen Konstruktion den Eindruck einer wahrheitsgemässen Situation. Er hat diese Illustration so überzeugend in den Block geschnitten, dass es fast fünfhundert Jahre und die Entwicklung benutzerfreundlicher Bildbearbeitungs - Software bedurfte um diese Täuschung aufzuzeigen. Der Holzschnitt, der über Jahrhunderte so erfolgreich Prinzipien der Perspektive darstellte, hat für mich dadurch nur noch mehr an Wert gewonnen, da er eine Geschichte erzählt. Eine Geschichte über die Illustration von Prinzipien der Zentralperspektive und zugleich von den Grenzen dieses Abbildungssystems. Es war zu keiner Zeit meine Absicht diesen Meister der Renaissance zu kritisieren oder herabzusetzen, Dürer selbst steht mir hier zur Seite. Er schreibt in einem Entwurf eines Vorwortes zu einem geplanten Buch (c, Strauss, 1977):”Aber mit Gottes Hilfe möchte ich das Bisschen, das ich gelernt habe publizieren, selbst auf die Gefahr, dass man mich verspottet. Es soll mir aber nichts ausmachen.”

Strauss W. (1977). (a), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 7. New York. Abaris Books.

Strauss W. (1977). (b), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 391. New York. Abaris Books.

Strauss W. (1977). (c), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 8. New York. Abaris Books.

These initial outcomes had been presented at Art and Authenticity at the Australian National University in November 2006, Canberra and at the ACUADS conference in September 2006, Melbourne.

Vielen Dank an Fritz Thurnheer für die geduldige Hilfe bei der Uebersetzung dieses Textes ins Deutsche.

Link zur Deutschen Version

Visual research using Albrecht Dürer’s perspective illustration in the print of his woodcut Man drawing a lute 1525.

The following is the outcome of ‘teaching-led research’ and about the initial visual research project stimulated by a surprise discovery of an error in one of Albrecht Dürer’s illustration. This discovery was a result of teaching perspective drawing as part of the Design Arts core program.
While searching for historical reference material for our new Core Design class, I came across the print ‘Man Drawing a Lute’ a woodcut by Albrecht Dürer.

Little did I know then, that his well-known image would lead me into a web and literature search and leave me with an ever greater admiration for this master of the northern Renaissance. The discovery and the outcomes of the research are documented here in a series of images.

Albrecht Dürer, the well-known German printmaker was born in 1471 in Nuremberg a significant centre of the crafts at the time.

He was well educated and acquainted with many influential contemporaries. Journeys to Italy and the Netherlands made him a cosmopolitan of his time. It was during his second visit to Italy in 1506, that he learned about ‘the secret art of perspective’, (a, Strauss 1977).

He was famous for his engravings, wood cuts, paintings and his publications amongst them ‘The Painters Manual’.

This manual comprises four books; it is in the fourth book in the chapter about the theory of perspective where one can find the image ‘Man Drawing a Lute’. Dürer’s interest in suggesting practical solutions to capture subtle perspective distortions is evident through his inventions. In the 1525 edition of this manual, Dürer shows two apparatuses to create a perspectively correct drawing. In 1528, the year of his death, when this Manual was republished, he had added three more contraptions. It is his reputation as an artist, his interest in geometry and inventing that lets him stand as equal next to Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci.

As part of teaching perspective drawing I used Albrecht Dürer’s image with the Lute as it illustrates clearly the concept of the picture plane. To demonstrate the relationship between the image size and the distance of the picture plane to the viewpoint (eyepoint) I devised a contemporary version of Dürer’s system.

Two upright windowpanes were placed in front of each other, about a meter apart, with an object placed so it could be observed looking through both windows at the same time. A laser pointer fixed on a tripod acted as the eyepoint and was positioned in such a way, that the laser beam would point to the object shining through both image planes. If activated a red dot became visible on the object and simultaneously on both planes. Students adjusted this laser beam to scan major features of the object point-by-point and marked each point on the two transparent windows. As expected both image planes showed the same pattern of marks, one on each glass pane, but they were different in size. Both glass plates with the point scatters were then photocopied and given to the students to draw on. By connecting the right dots on each photocopy two perspectively correct images in different sizes of the scanned object appeared.

As a result of this exercise with my students, I was aware of the effect the distance of the picture plane to the eye point has on the resulting image size. While contemplating Albrecht Dürer’s image, I got suspicious about the large size of the lute sketched on the canvas in his illustration. Loading a digital version of this image into Photoshop provided all the tools needed to visually manipulate its elements. After copying and isolating the canvas onto a new layer, I then perspectively distorted it and I placed the canvas with the lute back into the frame.

The line connecting the probe to the eyepoint still correctly connects the lute through the corresponding point on the canvas to the eyepoint. However if one chooses any other feature of the lute, eg where the neck of the instrument touches the table, and connect its position with the eyepoint, one will see that it does not match with the point in Dürer’s lute on the canvas in the frame.

His drawing of the lute is much too large. By drawing a line from the neck of the lute through the corresponding location on the canvas it does not converge with the first line, in other words the lines do not have a common eyepoint.I was intrigued that Dürer, who was a master of the centre- or one-point perspective, the only perspective system known at his time, would make such a mistake. Unbelievable that the very image used to illustrate concepts of perspective drawing would fail to apply its own rules. I was further surprised that I could not find any reference to his error in this well-known image.

What led Dürer to allow this mistake to be printed? Was the frame for the canvas placed to the far right to make space for the prominent figure on the left – who I thought was the master, while the assistant marking the position of the string in the frame had to put up with working in a confined space? I began to believe that it was a sign of Dürer’s vanity, as he did not miss any opportunity to place his initials prominently in his imagery, almost as we use logos today. In the painting for the ‘Landauer Altar’, commonly referred to as ‘All Saints’ from 1511, he even added a miniature self-portrait next to his logo in the lower right corner.

However, the master himself proved me wrong. In the translated version of The Painters Manual by Walter Strauss (b, Strauss, 1977), Dürer provides explanations about his second perspective apparatus. He advices: ‘Now proceed as follows. Place a lute or another object to your liking as far from the frame as you wish, but so that it will not move while you are using it. Have your assistant then move the pointer…’. This meant that the man on the right was in fact the painter and not the assistant as I had wrongly assumed.

If the drawing of the lute, which seemingly shows a true point pattern of the instrument, was too large for the frame in its current position one can ask: ‘Where would the frame need to be shifted to, to make Dürer’s woodcut right?’ As the student’s experiment had demonstrated, the closer the picture-plane – the frame with the canvas – is to the object, the larger the object will be depicted. For Dürer’s image this would mean that the frame has to move to the left nearer to the lute. Inspecting Dürer’s print closely, I noticed that the hand of the assistant who is holding the edge of the opened canvas had an odd shape and the stretched arm was rather resting then supporting this fragile contraption. Again with the help of digital image manipulation I isolated and moved elements of the image. First I focused on three reference points on the canvas; the one Dürer used himself at the far end of the Lute, one at the end of the fingerboard and one where the neck rests on the table. Then I identified these points on the Lute itself and connected them with straight lines to the eyepoint.

Then I scaled, moved and perspectively distorted the frame in a way that it would meet the hand of the assistant. After this the canvas with the three points marked was also scaled, moved and perspectively distorted to fit back into the frame in its new position. As the frame has moved into the centre of the image, the canvas can be seen only side-on, it appears almost as a line.

However all the reference points and the projected lines suddenly match up. This proves in my view that Dürer had initially planned to place the frame in the centre of his Illustration. However, placing the frame in the centre would have made it impossible to show how to mark the position of the string connected to the assistance’s pointer within the frame and therefore diminished the clarity of the principle he wanted to illustrate.

In conclusion, if my assumption is right, that Albrecht Dürer’s decision to sacrifice the true construction within his print for the sake of a clear illustration of the principle was deliberate, I have great respect for this bold approach. It successfully illustrated in all these years some of the principles of creating a perspective drawing. He crafted this woodprint with such confidence, that it took almost five hundred years and the advent of easy to use image manipulation software to reveal its fault. Now that I am aware of its error, this print showing a ‘Man Drawing a Lute’, has even more to offer, as it tells a story about the limitations of the one point perspective and plays with the picture elements and its perceived effects.

This discovery was an immediate result of my teaching involvement with the Bachelor of Design Arts core program; it will have a direct effect on development of content for this course in the future and will stimulate further ‘teaching-led research’.

In presenting this discovery I did at no time intended to criticise or otherwise belittle this great master of the Renaissance, but even in this regard Dürer comes to my aid. In one of several drafts for the introduction of a projected book he writes (c, Strauss, 1977): ‘But with God’s help, I want to publish the little that I have learned even at the risk of being ridiculed. I shall not mind.’

Strauss W. (1977). (a), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 7. New York. Abaris Books.Strauss W. (1977). (b), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 391. New York. Abaris Books.Strauss W. (1977). (c), The literary remains of Albrecht Dürer. Translation of and comments to The Painter’s Manual by Dürer A. (1525) Page 8. New York. Abaris Books.

These initial outcomes had been presented at Art and Authenticity at the Australian National University in November 2006, Canberra and at the ACUADS conference in September 2006, Melbourne.

In 2005 I first tried to illustrate the changes to the rhythm of making introduced by digital technologies. I presented it as part of my papers at the Northlands Glass (Sept 05) and the Smart Works Design and the handmade (March 07) conferences. In the following paragraphs the underlying principles, which have helped shaping the flowchart on which this text is based on, will be discussed.

Starting from a common point, the initial design, this flowchart compares the rhythm of making both from a traditional and from a new (digital) technologies perspective, ending again in a common point, the finished object.

The first or upper part of this graph shows the traditional working process where the work evolves under the makers hands. Every incremental step of the making process is assessed and will provide a moment of re-interpretation of the initial design. The original drawing will have included the knowledge of an experienced hand and will have considered all necessary processes required to make the object. The maker and the designer are one person with a clear idea of the outcome and how to achieve it.
During the making the design drawing becomes a mere reference, as with every new manual step new solutions emerge, inviting new possibilities to be explored. This is expressed in the flowchart as a closed feedback loop which will only cease in the moment the object is finished.

The second, lower part of this graph shows the relationship between the idea the CAD (computer aided design) drawing and the final object and how they are influenced by digital technologies. These technologies are the computers used for the design work as well as the computer controlled manufacturing processes CAM (computer aide manufacturing) which translate the CAD drawings into objects.

This is following the argument by Robert Shiel [1] in his ‘Design through making’ (PDF doc) essay, he states: “……the tools of representation (CAD) have merged with the tools of fabrication (CAM) and machines now challenge the drawing as a direct instruction to make”. He continuous: “Whilst CADCAM is neither drawing nor making in the familiar sense, it is a hybrid mode where the investigation of ideas is engaged with the tactile and the physical. What is important about CADCAM is that it connects the drawing to a machine that makes. It is the drawing that has undergone the greater revolution. Acting as an instruction to make, the drawing must now anticipate the performance and resistence of any given material to fabrication processes.”
I find it important to highlight, that the final object exists in the moment the CAD drawing is saved to the computers memory. In other words the draftsman becomes the craftsman, the designer the maker the drawing the object.

As new technologies play an ever increasing part in contemporary craft practice, any degree of integration of these different Rhythm are possible. These approaches have and will lead to new objects extending the boundaries of craft.
Integration of new technologies however poses consequences for the individual maker, the necessary skills need to be acquired together – requiring a steep learning curve together with a hefty bill to investment in equipment.While traditional tools will equip ones workshop for a very long time, new technologies are notoriously short lived. They are usually more specialised then universal and require original parts for replacement in case they break down.

An other way to illustrate the difference between the two rhythms is to look what is left after the work is done. In the traditional process, in this case in silversmithing, the scraps are ready to be recycled, while in the case of Rapid Prototyping, the scraps are actual objects which are just not right, left to be thrown out.

Digital technologies certainly open new doors for the maker, but how large the rooms behind these doors are, still needs to be assessed.

[1] Robert Sheil. Design through making (Pdf document)
Accessed 20 September 05 at 3:30 pm