DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18826#0026
10 ON PERSPECTIVE. [LECT. I."
distinctly seen by us; those on each side of it, are-
somewhat less seen (though perhaps to calculate the
difference might he difficult): those on each side of
them, still less; and so on, lessening in accuracy as
the distance increases, till those remote from the
center are disordered, and indeterminate.
If this be fact, of what use are perspective repre-
sentations which extend to many degrees on each
side of the center ? is it not rather embarrassing the
spectator to offer such ? especially, when we well
know, that by choosing a proper distance, we re-
duce the whole to comprehensibility. Who that
designed to view St. Paul's Church, for instance, or
any similar object of great magnitude, would advance
close up to the pillars of the frontispiece ? on the con-
trary, he would walk from the object, I say, from the
church, till he had acquired a station properly dis-
tant from whence the eye might include the whole,
within a few degrees of its central line of vision.
Thus, then, we have confined the truth of vision
(consequently the truth and the art of Perspective)
first of all, to the centre, and to a certain extent
around it ; secondly, to that distance from the
spectator (looking forwards), at which it is worth
while to apply the rules of vision : i. e. to the space
more immediately adjacent to him, and to a small
field of view, which he more accurately inspects.
The rules of vision are useless, applied by compasses
to distant mountains, to the parts of buildings very
far off, or where no objects offer a gradation : A
plain sky, a plain sea, are no subjects for Perspec-
tive : but, where the eye can most closely inspect,
in
distinctly seen by us; those on each side of it, are-
somewhat less seen (though perhaps to calculate the
difference might he difficult): those on each side of
them, still less; and so on, lessening in accuracy as
the distance increases, till those remote from the
center are disordered, and indeterminate.
If this be fact, of what use are perspective repre-
sentations which extend to many degrees on each
side of the center ? is it not rather embarrassing the
spectator to offer such ? especially, when we well
know, that by choosing a proper distance, we re-
duce the whole to comprehensibility. Who that
designed to view St. Paul's Church, for instance, or
any similar object of great magnitude, would advance
close up to the pillars of the frontispiece ? on the con-
trary, he would walk from the object, I say, from the
church, till he had acquired a station properly dis-
tant from whence the eye might include the whole,
within a few degrees of its central line of vision.
Thus, then, we have confined the truth of vision
(consequently the truth and the art of Perspective)
first of all, to the centre, and to a certain extent
around it ; secondly, to that distance from the
spectator (looking forwards), at which it is worth
while to apply the rules of vision : i. e. to the space
more immediately adjacent to him, and to a small
field of view, which he more accurately inspects.
The rules of vision are useless, applied by compasses
to distant mountains, to the parts of buildings very
far off, or where no objects offer a gradation : A
plain sky, a plain sea, are no subjects for Perspec-
tive : but, where the eye can most closely inspect,
in