R. Sale,
I think analysis and comparison must go hand in hand.
Pre-school children play a game where they are shown, say three pictures of beach balls, with two coloured red and one coloured blue. They are asked to "pick same" and "pick different". That's one level at which pictures can be compared.
A slightly more sophisticated version is suitable for teenagers: five articles are pictured - say, two showing pictures of furniture, one showing a domestic animal, one a wild animal and one showing a vase of flowers. They are asked "which does not belong'?
That's still kid's stuff, and many people stay at that level when comparing pictures.
So to argue provenance and meaning, it is important to not only produce the pictures one thinks "like" but to explain in detail both the points one sees they have in common, AND the points of difference, and then - most important of all - to produce the primary and secondary evidence which explains the significance of these particular pictures in their common, and differing, aspects. Only at that level does it begin to have relevance for provenancing a manuscript, or in this case the origins and evolution of imagery in the Vms.
And I do think it necessary to treat each image, in each section, *before* forming any conclusions about the whole thing. IMO
So - from my point of view, comparison-and-analysis with documentary evidence are needed to deal with a problematic group of pictures.
I think analysis and comparison must go hand in hand.
Pre-school children play a game where they are shown, say three pictures of beach balls, with two coloured red and one coloured blue. They are asked to "pick same" and "pick different". That's one level at which pictures can be compared.
A slightly more sophisticated version is suitable for teenagers: five articles are pictured - say, two showing pictures of furniture, one showing a domestic animal, one a wild animal and one showing a vase of flowers. They are asked "which does not belong'?
That's still kid's stuff, and many people stay at that level when comparing pictures.
So to argue provenance and meaning, it is important to not only produce the pictures one thinks "like" but to explain in detail both the points one sees they have in common, AND the points of difference, and then - most important of all - to produce the primary and secondary evidence which explains the significance of these particular pictures in their common, and differing, aspects. Only at that level does it begin to have relevance for provenancing a manuscript, or in this case the origins and evolution of imagery in the Vms.
And I do think it necessary to treat each image, in each section, *before* forming any conclusions about the whole thing. IMO
So - from my point of view, comparison-and-analysis with documentary evidence are needed to deal with a problematic group of pictures.