08-09-2026, 02:44 PM
Quote:And personally I agree with Panofsky: the VMS looks provincial, rather than related with major Renaissance centers
A bit offtopic but I dislike Panofsky a bit and would be careful with any claims made by him. I am not any kind of art expert but I believe I have right to have own opinion. So here it goes:
In his prime time Panofski was considered a kind of superstar scientist but today there is a remarkable criticism about his claims and it seems he was a bit overrated. From Gemini AI:
Quote:While Panofsky was a towering figure in art history, specific interpretations he made have been contested or revised by later scholars. Rather than making simple factual mistakes, his specific readings of individual artworks often drew criticism for being overly speculative or constrained by his own theoretical frameworks.
Examples of areas where his interpretations faced pushback include:
- Over-Reading Symbolism: Scholars have argued that Panofsky occasionally saw complex literary, philosophical, or theological symbols in details that artists may have simply included for decorative or compositional reasons. This tendency to treat every minor element as an intellectual puzzle led some critics to accuse him of "over-interpreting."
- Perspectives on Renaissance Space: In his influential work on perspective as a "symbolic form," Panofsky argued that linear perspective was a systematic discovery of the Renaissance. Later art historians and theorists (such as Daniel Arasse) challenged these readings, showing that artists frequently bent or broke the rules of perspective intentionally for emotional or theological reasons, rather than failing at it or strictly adhering to a unified worldview.
- Rigid Categorization of Historical Eras: His distinctions between periods—such as his strict rules about how classical motifs were used and transformed during the Middle Ages versus the Renaissance—have sometimes been viewed as too rigid. Later historians have pointed out that cultural exchange and artistic revivals were much more fluid and messy than his structural boundaries suggested
In simple words he was a bit paranoid, seeing patterns in random things and connecting dots where there was no connection.
He made famous claims about the well known Arnolfini Portrait that it depicts a marriage which was later contested:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In case of Voynich Manuscript at first he claimed that " it was written in the south-western corner of Europe: Spain, Portugal, Catalonia, or Provence; but most probably in Spain." and "it shows Jewish or Arab influence, probably in connection with the Kabbala; but also Dutch or Flemish influence in the female faces and figures and some Spanish or anyhow southern qualities". He changed this view later but at the same time he started to believe it was made after 1500, inspired by "sunflower" picture claim.
As for "provincial" his quote goes ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )
Quote:However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I should not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident.
So he claimed that VM feels "medieval" and therefore was probably made by someone not accustomed with the recent fashion, living in in some small town where new trends come with a long delay.
But notice that he was comparing VM to other works from early 1500s and not early 1400s as he should.
If he compared it properly than VM probably wouldn't seem so old-fashioned and provincial.
Okay, enough rant
