08-11-2022, 09:08 PM
"Peer reviewed publishing about Voynich imagery doesn't happen a lot (I would say it doesn't happen, but I must surely be overlooking some past examples). One of the reasons is probably that writing about statistical properties of the the text allows for objective statements, while art history, by the very nature of the discipline, has an interpretative component."
Koen,
Clearly that is the general opinion. The interpretation of appearance is subjective. That's all that needs to be said, and the investigation is dismissed.
On the other hand, various medieval, artistic themes are given an iconographic representation, whether it's Eleazar under the elephant, Apollo hugging a tree, the Trojan horse, or David and Goliath. Each theme is represented in illustrations that are vastly different in appearance. Each illustration finds a way to convey the relevant theme.
Appearance is one aspect of interpretation; structure is the other. Structure is not subjective, it is objective. Structure is based on placement, size, number and other factors (color) not subject to multiple evaluations. In matters where appearance is undecided, structure can either affirm or negate the 'visual' similarity. If appearance is 50/50, and structure is affirmative, that's 1.5 out of 2.0, and it's a VMs winner.
One of the places where this has been successful is the VMs cosmos. The structural comparison with BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 reveals a rare similarity with an unusual cosmic representation. Yet visual appearance is vastly different from the VMs cosmos. Rather than matching like with like, the VMs representations can show willful ambiguity, contrasting pairings, and intentional alterations, like a code shift in the inverted T/O Earth or the dual orientations of heraldry on White Aries.
In the cosmos and elsewhere, the interpretation of appearance, when it is validated by structure, provides a more historically connected perspective on the sources of these VMs illustrations.
Koen,
Clearly that is the general opinion. The interpretation of appearance is subjective. That's all that needs to be said, and the investigation is dismissed.
On the other hand, various medieval, artistic themes are given an iconographic representation, whether it's Eleazar under the elephant, Apollo hugging a tree, the Trojan horse, or David and Goliath. Each theme is represented in illustrations that are vastly different in appearance. Each illustration finds a way to convey the relevant theme.
Appearance is one aspect of interpretation; structure is the other. Structure is not subjective, it is objective. Structure is based on placement, size, number and other factors (color) not subject to multiple evaluations. In matters where appearance is undecided, structure can either affirm or negate the 'visual' similarity. If appearance is 50/50, and structure is affirmative, that's 1.5 out of 2.0, and it's a VMs winner.
One of the places where this has been successful is the VMs cosmos. The structural comparison with BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 reveals a rare similarity with an unusual cosmic representation. Yet visual appearance is vastly different from the VMs cosmos. Rather than matching like with like, the VMs representations can show willful ambiguity, contrasting pairings, and intentional alterations, like a code shift in the inverted T/O Earth or the dual orientations of heraldry on White Aries.
In the cosmos and elsewhere, the interpretation of appearance, when it is validated by structure, provides a more historically connected perspective on the sources of these VMs illustrations.