02-10-2017, 10:01 AM
"I read the links and the blog you posted, and i have to say i disagree. If You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks like aconitum to you then we have a considerable difference in perception of the images presented, which is good."
I did NOT say You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks like Aconitum to me. I know what Aconitum looks like. I can also draw a dead-accurate picture of one.
I said that if the VMS illustrator were drawing Aconitum, it is more likely to be drawn like f93r, upright, with a flower spike, quite possibly showing seeds without the pod, etc.
This is based on studying ALL the plants in the VMS to learn exactly how the illustrator chose to represent things. There are many discernible patterns in the way plants are drawn and certain symbolic consistencies also.
It's not about what I think the plant looks like. It's about how he or she thought the plants looked and what the illustrator chose to focus on, and what was chosen to be represented literally or symbolically.
I did NOT say You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks like Aconitum to me. I know what Aconitum looks like. I can also draw a dead-accurate picture of one.
I said that if the VMS illustrator were drawing Aconitum, it is more likely to be drawn like f93r, upright, with a flower spike, quite possibly showing seeds without the pod, etc.
This is based on studying ALL the plants in the VMS to learn exactly how the illustrator chose to represent things. There are many discernible patterns in the way plants are drawn and certain symbolic consistencies also.
It's not about what I think the plant looks like. It's about how he or she thought the plants looked and what the illustrator chose to focus on, and what was chosen to be represented literally or symbolically.