@Mark
Don't know if fits, but I do remember an illustration with a number of different 'citadels?' in pastel colors as a border.
Unfortunately, it didn't make it into the file on generic buildings. I think it was related to the Crusades as there were certain Islamic elements to some of the examples. It may have been in the KBR library. Lots of architecture in some of those texts.
Would invented Classical buildings qualify?
Do you know Hypnerotomachia Poliphili? A lot of invented architecture described there - with drawings.
@R H
We need to see these things in the way they were perceived in Q2 of the 1400s. We need to know the history and traditions relevant to those times. Religion would certainly be foremost. Heraldry had a part in religion and religion had a part in heraldry. Think of all the different types of crosses used in heraldry.
The VMs is contrived in a way that does not explain itself plainly. It 'borrows' a variety of iconic elements, modifies the appearance in various ways that produce visually ambiguous but *recoverable* structural illustrations, as exemplified by the VMs Cosmos. The use of images from different sources intentionally increases the difficulty of a full interpretation in several illustrations.
The VMs appears in the manner of some strange, even exotic, herbal text book. It appears to be instructional and informative. However, it is not. It is not an example of information provided. Instead, it is the quiz that follows afterward. Do the clues in the VMs illustrations (such as the 43 undulations - not without some ambiguity) provide details that the reader can reconnect to viable historical sources? Clearly the dualistic interpretation of heraldic orientation on White Aries is an intentional use of misdirection. This sort of trickery might be styled as medieval 'sophistication', a test of interpretation based on altered iconographic elements and word etymology.
The problem of ambiguous misdirection is the recovery of the correct direction. Can heraldic canting be used to 'uncant' something that has been canted? It should work - that is the purpose, but how much ambiguity can be added? How much trickery? How does interpretation function if information and vocabulary have been lost, if the old iconic elements have now lost their meaning?
And there's the problem with individual investigations. One VMs theory cannot stand on its own because of the ambiguity. Yet over the years a certain set of possibilities from various sources that share a more restricted provenance within the C-14 dates and have shown geographic ties with Paris and Dijon, a potential difficulty minimized by the Anglo-Burgundian occupation of Paris from 1420 to 1435, have now accumulated and are significant for further investigation to discover where it all may lead.
Is there farther to go? Absolutely.
Don't know if fits, but I do remember an illustration with a number of different 'citadels?' in pastel colors as a border.
Unfortunately, it didn't make it into the file on generic buildings. I think it was related to the Crusades as there were certain Islamic elements to some of the examples. It may have been in the KBR library. Lots of architecture in some of those texts.
Would invented Classical buildings qualify?
Do you know Hypnerotomachia Poliphili? A lot of invented architecture described there - with drawings.
@R H
We need to see these things in the way they were perceived in Q2 of the 1400s. We need to know the history and traditions relevant to those times. Religion would certainly be foremost. Heraldry had a part in religion and religion had a part in heraldry. Think of all the different types of crosses used in heraldry.
The VMs is contrived in a way that does not explain itself plainly. It 'borrows' a variety of iconic elements, modifies the appearance in various ways that produce visually ambiguous but *recoverable* structural illustrations, as exemplified by the VMs Cosmos. The use of images from different sources intentionally increases the difficulty of a full interpretation in several illustrations.
The VMs appears in the manner of some strange, even exotic, herbal text book. It appears to be instructional and informative. However, it is not. It is not an example of information provided. Instead, it is the quiz that follows afterward. Do the clues in the VMs illustrations (such as the 43 undulations - not without some ambiguity) provide details that the reader can reconnect to viable historical sources? Clearly the dualistic interpretation of heraldic orientation on White Aries is an intentional use of misdirection. This sort of trickery might be styled as medieval 'sophistication', a test of interpretation based on altered iconographic elements and word etymology.
The problem of ambiguous misdirection is the recovery of the correct direction. Can heraldic canting be used to 'uncant' something that has been canted? It should work - that is the purpose, but how much ambiguity can be added? How much trickery? How does interpretation function if information and vocabulary have been lost, if the old iconic elements have now lost their meaning?
And there's the problem with individual investigations. One VMs theory cannot stand on its own because of the ambiguity. Yet over the years a certain set of possibilities from various sources that share a more restricted provenance within the C-14 dates and have shown geographic ties with Paris and Dijon, a potential difficulty minimized by the Anglo-Burgundian occupation of Paris from 1420 to 1435, have now accumulated and are significant for further investigation to discover where it all may lead.
Is there farther to go? Absolutely.