06-05-2020, 05:28 PM
Here's how I see it regarding VMs illustrations. Its problematic on all sides. Certainly ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder even has an accurate recognition of what the illustration represents. Too often investigators have been clueless to start with. Things get skipped over or incorrectly interpreted. Although perhaps this is improving with accumulated research.
So not only do readers bring their own ambiguities to the VMs, the VMs is stocked full of ready made ambiguities even for the investigator already well familiarized with medieval traditions. (Better than those of us who have to learn as they go.) The VMs "mermaid" is ambiguous. It is better compared as a whole "pond scene" with Harley 334. The VMs "critter" is ambiguous. The VMs "cosmos" is ambiguous. The VMs "zodiac" is ambiguous. And VMs White Aries is a whole other world.
If the geocentric Earth in the VMs cosmos is a copy of an illustration that has a pictorial representation, why isn't the VMs image also a pictorial representation, rather than changing to a linguistic version, which, per force, presents a totally different visual appearance? Because that is the artist's intent. If an investigation is only based on the comparison of visual similarity, then it will not succeed because alterations to appearance have been intentionally made. Appearance is superficial. To 'understand' something. it must be 'known' more deeply - by its structure, by its position, its function, its relationships, as these were defined by relevant traditions.
Comparatively, a musician must learn a tune in order to play it, and must 'know' that melody in order to improvise upon it. The VMs presents the artist's improvisations on medieval tradition, but when certain elements, significant connections, in that tradition have slipped away from the present perspective, (if we don't know the melody that serves as the basis for improvisation) then problems arise - as with the mermaid, the cosmos, the nebuly line. Yet,*somehow* in the VMs, all of this must come together.
So not only do readers bring their own ambiguities to the VMs, the VMs is stocked full of ready made ambiguities even for the investigator already well familiarized with medieval traditions. (Better than those of us who have to learn as they go.) The VMs "mermaid" is ambiguous. It is better compared as a whole "pond scene" with Harley 334. The VMs "critter" is ambiguous. The VMs "cosmos" is ambiguous. The VMs "zodiac" is ambiguous. And VMs White Aries is a whole other world.
If the geocentric Earth in the VMs cosmos is a copy of an illustration that has a pictorial representation, why isn't the VMs image also a pictorial representation, rather than changing to a linguistic version, which, per force, presents a totally different visual appearance? Because that is the artist's intent. If an investigation is only based on the comparison of visual similarity, then it will not succeed because alterations to appearance have been intentionally made. Appearance is superficial. To 'understand' something. it must be 'known' more deeply - by its structure, by its position, its function, its relationships, as these were defined by relevant traditions.
Comparatively, a musician must learn a tune in order to play it, and must 'know' that melody in order to improvise upon it. The VMs presents the artist's improvisations on medieval tradition, but when certain elements, significant connections, in that tradition have slipped away from the present perspective, (if we don't know the melody that serves as the basis for improvisation) then problems arise - as with the mermaid, the cosmos, the nebuly line. Yet,*somehow* in the VMs, all of this must come together.