The Thought Process - Added September 15, 2010
Recollection of seeing the distorted scull in other unrelated work certainly drew my initial attention and curiosity, but was not the sole reason why I chose to pursue anamorphosis and projections. As I explored the topic, I came more and more to realization that projections play a silent yet integral part in our perception, relating the phenomenon to the way objects are reflected on the surface of the water on a tranquil day, the shadows projected by buildings as the sun sets, and how these shadows distort when they are cast on non-linear surfaces. Regardless of their magnitude, projections take place autonomously and contribute to the synergy and awareness of the 'real' (Descartes would probably argue here).
This was clearly not the case with works of Lazzarini, Wenner, Dali and Holbein. The modality and the varying degree to which anamorphosis was presented was unconventional at the very least. Lazzarini, for example, chose a very realistic silhouette-like projection. All its contours were perceived as anatomically correct. Yet it was not perceived as real because the setting in which the work was presented lacked references that would support the projection.
Wenner's presentation was very different. He created a very complex scheme with finite detail, and if one were to omit everything outside of it, the work would most certainly go right pass the radar. It's macro-assessment says otherwise, however, and just like Lazzarini's Skulls, reveals a conflict of perception. It is depicted on a flat surface that is meant to be walked on, and despite its realistic internal climate, triggers a massive visual turmoil.
Holbein's Ambassadors is different altogether. The anamorphic projection of the skull is a literal distraction and perhaps explains why I immediately recalled seeing it several years back - it's just not something one could easily forget. The intrinsic difference between Ambassadors and earlier cited works lies in the fact that the painting must be viewed in stages. If the viewer approaches the painting in side motion, the skull registers with the visual cortex while it is still in the peripheral vision. It is also the only object in the painting that is seen at that time. Once the movement stops, the rest of the painting becomes apparent and the skull temporarily vanishes from the register - an instant change of scenery.
Dali's Persistence of Memory may initially be perceived as unrelated to any of the three works described so far, but such conclusion would not be accurate. Anamorphosis is synonymous with distortion, but unlike previously observed spatial distortions of tangible objects, Dali distorts the only dimensional medium that lacks substance - the time itself.
![]() | |||
| Skulls (Robert Lazzarini, 2000) |
![]() | ||||||||
| Dies Irae (Kurt Wenner, 1995?) |
![]() |
| Persistence of Memory (Salvador Dali, 1929) |
![]() |
| The Ambassadors (Hans Holbein the Younger, 1533) |




Great recollection! And a good start on this inquiry. It would be interesting to hear a little more about your research on the topic of anamorphosis & projection. Is there something else that draws you to this idea besides that itch to figure out where you'd seen this distorted skull before? How does the Dali piece fit into the theme? This was probably not clear, but all blog posts (unless otherwise noted) should be 250-350 words.
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting! I have revised the post and added my train of thought on this.
ReplyDeleteI found some other artists exploring anamorphosis, in both drawing and sculptural forms, William Kentridge and Carsten Holler. (Their images will be posted on my blog because they wont post in the comment box, which i know you probably already experienced.) I find in these works, its hard to decide which is more engaging, the stretched image, the method of viewing it as a reality, or the 'real' interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting that you, Ivan, and I are all talking about different aspects of perception in art. Perception is reality, and it is an important topic to discuss, especially in an age where the digital world isn't necessarily tangible, but certainly perceived as real. Distortions and anamorphosis of reality and images happen more easily and frequently as well with combinations of technology and artists' creativity. The world is becoming more and more simulated and hyper-real, and we have to constantly rethink our 'angle' on what we are perceiving.
The idea that anamorphosis has been around since the 15th century was quite compelling to me as well. In looking up the definition of anamorphosis it is defined today as:
ReplyDeletea. An image that appears distorted unless it is viewed from a special angle or with a special instrument.
b. The production of such an image.
c.Evolutionary increase in complexity of form and function.
However in the 1913's version of Webster it was defined as "A distorted or monstrous projection or representation of an image on a plane or curved surface, which, when viewed from a certain point, or as reflected from a curved mirror or through a polyhedron, appears regular and in proportion; a deformation of an image."
I started wondering if the variations in definitions through time paralleled or could be seen in it's visual counterparts in time?