19-08-2016, 09:52 AM
(19-08-2016, 09:19 AM)Sam G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I disagree that there is a meaningful distinction between identifying an image and understanding the intentions of the illustrator. Saying "this is an image of a feline animal" and "the illustrator intended this to be an image of a feline animal" are, in my view, functionally equivalent statements.
For me, the distinction is crucial.
The statement that an image looks like a certain animal (or plant) is the conclusion of the reader. It is made on the basis of the
experience of the reader. What is meant in the illustration is based on the experience of the artist / draughtsman, who lived
and worked 600 years ago.
Example: we can see a plant in an early herbal manuscript (not necessarily the Voynich MS), and recognise its similarity to
real life plant X. One of the criteria could be that the leaves are alternate. The problem is that in earliest herbals, the artists may
not have paid any attention to the leave arrangement at all. This is quite commonly the case, though for the Voynich MS we
don't (yet) know. In the later herbals (Fuchs etc.) these distinctions were made carefully.