Quote:Diane:
Thereafter we saw Koen, and then JKP and various others determined to move beyond the style in which the imagery had been treated from 1912 to 2010...
I don't think I can be described as being "determined to move beyond the style in which the imagery had been treated from 1912 to 2010..."
I write what interests me, in whatever way seems appropriate... I had no knowledge of how the imagery had been treated, other than Edith Sherwood's plant IDs and her assertion that one of the month labels was da Vinci's name written backwards.
I only started looking at historical opinions (such as the idea that the page that looks like a map might be a map) when issues came up on the forum that had me scratching my head. Even now I only look at historical opinions in a very cursory way.
Studying medieval manuscripts (including the VMS) is more interesting to me than looking at other people's interpretations of the VMS. It's only very recently that I've made any effort to visit other researcher's blogs and even now, I do so in a haphazard way and I still haven't read most of the early ones.
.
The imagery is interesting, quirky, fun. I do enjoy it... and I think most people hope that the imagery will illuminate some of the text but, in the end, it may not. If someone took an illustrated but unfinished manuscript and added text that is unrelated to the drawings, and if the text is eventually unraveled, then the imagery will recede into history as a fun diversion rather than a key to the mystery of the text.