The Voynich Ninja

FWIW, the 'artist' had clearly never heard of perspective.

Do you prefer a linear perspective?

Or perhaps the artist had heard of perspective [3-D] and chose not to use it. All that extra time lining things up. Heck with it. Two dimensions are sufficient, three would be excessive. What is the purpose of the illustrations? This is clearly not a work of representational artistry. Do the illustrations constitute a form of communication? What does the artistry have to say?

What form does this communication take? Is the VMs expository? Was it intended to come right out and say what the author(s) intended to communicate as plainly as possible? Or is this something else? Something more complex, more involved, more intricate, more sophisticated, more tricky than was expected. Examples from certain investigations, starting with the VMs cosmos, show what the VMs artist knew and how they chose to represent that information. The examples make historical connections, and they also seem to show an intentional manipulation of appearance.

(11-05-2024, 09:12 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is something profoundly odd about the tubes in the flower of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the root of f33v, both Currier B pages assigned to scribe 2.





Is there anything comparable in contemporary imagery? It looks so un-medieval but then again many oddities in the VM have equivalents in other manuscripts. So far I certainly have not seen tubes in depictions of plants.

On the Rosette page, they also line the path in the south east from position 6 to 9. I too have always found them curious.

(12-05-2024, 06:57 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or perhaps the artist had heard of perspective [3-D] and chose not to use it. All that extra time lining things up. Heck with it. Two dimensions are sufficient, three would be excessive. What is the purpose of the illustrations? This is clearly not a work of representational artistry. Do the illustrations constitute a form of communication? What does the artistry have to say?

What form does this communication take? Is the VMs expository? Was it intended to come right out and say what the author(s) intended to communicate as plainly as possible? Or is this something else? Something more complex, more involved, more intricate, more sophisticated, more tricky than was expected. Examples from certain investigations, starting with the VMs cosmos, show what the VMs artist knew and how they chose to represent that information. The examples make historical connections, and they also seem to show an intentional manipulation of appearance.

Absolutely agree with you re intentional manipulation of appearance. Nymphs, for instance, appearing as pregnant women, but can stand in for male, female, gods or goddesses, water of life, angels, souls, star essence, etc. It’s only their context or implements that help identify them. And when you have a narrative, the same drawn nymph won’t appear again to continue the story, but a different one. You MUST already know the narrative/story exceptionally well to follow along. 

Which is why I’ve always thought the VMS might be some type of grandmaster test.

Indeed, it is a test to try to interpret the VMs illustrations in a manner that is applicable to the early 1400s. From the artist's perspective, certain images were apparently deemed too obvious, and consequently were disguised. The innate duality of VMs White Aries provides a second path of interpretation that connects with the Catholic tradition of the cardinal's red galero.

From the artist's perspective, the disguise was used to obfuscate something that was known. For much of modern VMs investigation, the disguise further served to obfuscate something that was unknown. And therein lies a problem.