+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Relying on external imagery (/thread-2919.html)
[split] Relying on external imagery - Mark Knowles - 06-09-2019
I have noticed a behaviour that is easy to succumb to and quite common and that is the practice of scouring manuscripts for images that look very loosely similar to the image in the Voynich that one is interested in and then postulating a relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to look for a correspondence to images in the Voynich amongst other sources and sometimes this can be very productive, but it should not be pursued to the extent of the man spotting Jesus's face in a pizza. I think, as with Nick Pelling's block-paradigm idea, we should not doubt the extent to which the output of the author's work was original and that a given drawing in the Voynich may not have a parallel in another manuscript.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - -JKP- - 06-09-2019
I don't assume things have to be exactly the same visually to have some kind of thematic or cultural relationship, but I do think that most things are products of their time in one way or another.
I scour manuscripts because I enjoy it and I learn from it (I don't just look at the pictures, I read them).
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Koen G - 06-09-2019
(06-09-2019, 01:31 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have noticed a behaviour that is easy to succumb to and quite common and that is the practice of scouring manuscripts for images that look very loosely similar to the image in the Voynich that one is interested in and then postulating a relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to look for a correspondence to images in the Voynich amongst other sources and sometimes this can be very productive, but it should not be pursued to the extent of the man spotting Jesus's face in a pizza. I think, as with Nick Pelling's block-paradigm idea, we should not doubt the extent to which the output of the author's work was original and that a given drawing in the Voynich may not have a parallel in another manuscript.
The persons who made the VM were not hermits who existed in complete ignorance of external society. We know that they were familiar with Zodiac images (whether from churches or manuscripts or both).
Medieval culture was one of images. And the makers of those images would often assume that the viewer was illiterate, and should be able to "read" the image without any text. And indeed, even in manuscripts where image and text go hand in hand, we often see that the images have a programme of their own.
When I look for images of a certain thing (for example most recently, the Beasts of Revelation), the question I want to answer is: how did medieval artists picture this thing? Are there any trends? Difference between time periods? Regional differences? Differences between various traditions?
I can understand that the VM is a unique creation (or if it wasn't, its other versions are gone). But to know the visual vocabulary of the environment in which is was made, is one of the best weapons we have at our disposal.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Mark Knowles - 06-09-2019
(06-09-2019, 08:26 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-09-2019, 01:31 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have noticed a behaviour that is easy to succumb to and quite common and that is the practice of scouring manuscripts for images that look very loosely similar to the image in the Voynich that one is interested in and then postulating a relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to look for a correspondence to images in the Voynich amongst other sources and sometimes this can be very productive, but it should not be pursued to the extent of the man spotting Jesus's face in a pizza. I think, as with Nick Pelling's block-paradigm idea, we should not doubt the extent to which the output of the author's work was original and that a given drawing in the Voynich may not have a parallel in another manuscript.
The persons who made the VM were not hermits who existed in complete ignorance of external society. We know that they were familiar with Zodiac images (whether from churches or manuscripts or both).
Medieval culture was one of images. And the makers of those images would often assume that the viewer was illiterate, and should be able to "read" the image without any text. And indeed, even in manuscripts where image and text go hand in hand, we often see that the images have a programme of their own.
When I look for images of a certain thing (for example most recently, the Beasts of Revelation), the question I want to answer is: how did medieval artists picture this thing? Are there any trends? Difference between time periods? Regional differences? Differences between various traditions?
I can understand that the VM is a unique creation (or if it wasn't, its other versions are gone). But to know the visual vocabulary of the environment in which is was made, is one of the best weapons we have at our disposal.
I have seen many mutually contradictory theories , i.e. they can't all be true, where people have drawn on an image in a manuscript to justify their theory. In some instances the images are strikingly similar, in other instances the parallels seem pretty weak. Some people believe the 9 Rosette page is an almost exact reproduction of another document, which may or may not survive; I think the author was sufficiently imaginative to invent his own form of illustrating his subject. The author was certainly a person of his/her time, but like you and me, he/she had his/her own ideas and sufficient intelligence to conceive of his/her own forms of representation. So yes, of course, there are and must be significant contemporary influences, but I personally reject the model of the author as someone mindlessly copying from other documents, which some people seem to suggest. Ultimately it is about striking the right balance between recognising the author's influences, including those in other manuscripts, and treating the author as having an inventive mind. I tend to think that Voynich researchers too often site very weak parallels with other documents, the very loose similarities with which could easily be coincidental.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Koen G - 06-09-2019
How do you know the current document was not an exact copy of one made, say, in 1410?
Or copy of one made in 1350, updated to the style of the early 15th century?
How do you know it is not a unifying copy of several earlier sources?
How do you know there was just one author?
I'm not saying any of those statements must be right or wrong, but you seem to be convinced about these matters. Why?
(I'm going to split the last few posts after adding this one).
RE: [split] Relying on external imagery - -JKP- - 07-09-2019
Well, there's personal opinion and there's research.
My personal opinion, at least for now, is that the author did have an inventive mind. I think he or she took ideas where they could be found and expressed them in his or her own way. I am doubtful this is an exact copy of anything, but who knows... maybe it is and the person who did the one before it was the one with an inventive mind.
I do however, think that the basic content, regardless of how it was drawn or expressed, was typical for its time (early 15th century). In the Middle Ages, there was nothing unusual about combining plants, hygiene/medicine, astrology, and cosmology and/or religion. In fact, those were some of the most popular topics.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Mark Knowles - 12-09-2019
(06-09-2019, 10:46 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do you know the current document was not an exact copy of one made, say, in 1410?
Or copy of one made in 1350, updated to the style of the early 15th century?
How do you know it is not a unifying copy of several earlier sources?
How do you know there was just one author?
I'm not saying any of those statements must be right or wrong, but you seem to be convinced about these matters. Why?
(I'm going to split the last few posts after adding this one).
I wrote a response to this earlier, but it got lost as I had a problem with my phone.
I do not know the current document was not an exact copy of one made, say, in 1410 or 1350. However I think that very unlikely. If it was written in a natural language in an unknown script then that would be possible, but I think given the structure of the text and geographical origins of the Voynich it seems to me that the natural language hypothesis is highly questionable. Why would one make an exact copy of a meaningless text or an enciphered text? Those ideas and quite a jump and so without evidence to the contrary I think we should assume not. (The Voynich could be 1 of 10 identical copies produced by the author, but this is big leap and Occam's razor demands that without any evidence we really need to reject that idea.)
The nature and structure of the text points to me of an imaginative individual it therefore seems very likely that the drawings are correspondingly imaginative rather than duplicates. If it is a copy of an existing manuscript, but written with enciphered or meaningless text then why do that when the viewer could look at the original?
It seems that if choose to encipher something, if it is enciphered, then you do so to protect some original or unique content.
Similarly if you are trying to produce a mysterious object for sale then it makes sense to produce content that is more mysterious.
That fact that we have not found one source for specific page of the manuscript and therefore Nick Pelling's block-paradigm, suggests to me that the whole contents was not from different sources.
Of course, I think the manuscript is one of it's time and therefore influenced by other manuscripts from that time or before, such as alchemical herbals, but I do think there is an underemphasis on the author's inventiveness and far too much emphasis on illustrations from other manuscripts that if one squints loosely resemble what we see in the Voynich. Also I think there is an underemphasis on not manuscript sources and influences. Purely as an example, my theory or the 9 rosette page is based on relatively few manuscript illustrations and heavily on geographical or architectural sources as some other people have done.
I do not know there was just one author I intend to refer to one author, where it is not important to the argument, for simplicity rather than writing "author(s)". Similarly I often find myself writing "he" instead of "he/she" for simplicity and brevity. Though it is true I think there was essentially one author, who may have had some assistance from those working for him, and that the author was Male, but that is a completely argument and subject.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Searcher - 12-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The nature and structure of the text points to me of an imaginative individual it therefore seems very likely that the drawings are correspondingly imaginative rather than duplicates. If it is a copy of an existing manuscript, but written with enciphered or meaningless text then why do that when the viewer could look at the original?Here I absolutely agree. The cipher (the unknown script of the unknown content) is the main diifference between the VMs and usual medieval manuscripts. The most of known ciphered manuscripts don't contain any illustration at all, obviously, by the reason to keep their secret which could be revealed due to some details of pictures. If I would be encryptor I'd like to put images that confuse readers, lead away from a matter of a text, or, in another case, I'd make realated and meaningful but quite incomprehensible images.
It seems that if choose to encipher something, if it is enciphered, then you do so to protect some original or unique content.
Similarly if you are trying to produce a mysterious object for sale then it makes sense to produce content that is more mysterious.
...
Of course, I think the manuscript is one of it's time and therefore influenced by other manuscripts from that time or before, such as alchemical herbals, but I do think there is an underemphasis on the author's inventiveness and far too much emphasis on illustrations from other manuscripts that if one squints loosely resemble what we see in the Voynich.
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Koen G - 12-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know there was just one author I intend to refer to one author, where it is not important to the argument, for simplicity rather than writing "author(s)". Similarly I often find myself writing "he" instead of "he/she" for simplicity and brevity. Though it is true I think there was essentially one author, who may have had some assistance from those working for him, and that the author was Male, but that is a completely argument and subject.
I personally like to say "makers" and "they". There is agreement about two different hands. Additionally, someone left color annotations. In normal manuscripts, we know that this is done by person a for person b, and most likely this is the same in the VM. So it is safe to say that at least two people were involved (or three if the painter is a different person than the scribes), and we don't know the exact division of labor between them.
Anyway, back to methodology. I personally welcome a multitude of approaches. At the end of the day we want to see this thing solved, so if someone wants to do his research in a way you personally think is not the best, why not let them?
I often see people conducting "research" that I think won't lead to anything, but I don't mind, they might just uncover something useful along the way.
(It's a different scenario when a ridiculous theory gets disproportional exposure, as we've seen earlier this year...)
RE: Resemblance between central rosette's "towers" and small-plants' "containers". - Mark Knowles - 12-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 09:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know there was just one author I intend to refer to one author, where it is not important to the argument, for simplicity rather than writing "author(s)". Similarly I often find myself writing "he" instead of "he/she" for simplicity and brevity. Though it is true I think there was essentially one author, who may have had some assistance from those working for him, and that the author was Male, but that is a completely argument and subject.
I personally like to say "makers" and "they". There is agreement about two different hands. Additionally, someone left color annotations. In normal manuscripts, we know that this is done by person a for person b, and most likely this is the same in the VM. So it is safe to say that at least two people were involved (or three if the painter is a different person than the scribes), and we don't know the exact division of labor between them.
Anyway, back to methodology. I personally welcome a multitude of approaches. At the end of the day we want to see this thing solved, so if someone wants to do his research in a way you personally think is not the best, why not let them?
I often see people conducting "research" that I think won't lead to anything, but I don't mind, they might just uncover something useful along the way.
(It's a different scenario when a ridiculous theory gets disproportional exposure, as we've seen earlier this year...)
I am not saying anyone can't do what they want. My point is to question the methodological culture one often finds in Voynich research and to suggest there is a case for people approaching the manuscript on the basis that recognises the author's originality and one where one questions more whether the loose similarity that one sometimes finds between certain manuscript drawings and drawings in the Voynich might be coincidental rather than indications of a relationship. Also I think methodologically we should be prepared to consider sources other than illustrated medieval manuscript, such is historical sources and others. Don't get me wrong whilst I have not looked at your research with regard to the Zodiac drawings, and therefore I am very reluctant to give an opinion on the subject, it is definitely the case that there is a striking visual similarity between the Gemini drawing and that of the source you found. So I am certainly not saying that one should not compare illustrations of the period with those in the Voynich just stating my concerns regarding the current limited methodological approach employed my many people in this regard.