17-12-2023, 10:09 PM
We need to know the things that the creator(s) of the VMs knew. They knew heraldry and they knew their history.
The blazon is bendy, argent et azure. It is the armorial insignia of the Fieschi family of Genoa. The pope in this matter was Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), who began the red galero tradition. He also made several of his nephews into cardinals, Ottobuono was elected Pope Adrian V.
The VMs artist has built an intentionally dualistic interpretation into the tub patterns on the White Aries page. The radial cloaking device works so well that the non-radial interpretation just gets skipped over and forgotten. There is an interpretation of orientation in which this illustration makes historical sense, and it has been intentionally disguised by VMs artist - along with the subtle inclusion of proper hierarchical placement and a quite a bit more.
This reveals the artist's knowledge of religious history. It also reveals that the artist (at least) has chosen to function with methodology that employs elements of visual deception and structural verification. It reveals a level of 'sophistication' (trickery) that was not previously appreciated.
Does VMs artistry lead to the heart of the matter, which is valid glyph interpretation?
The blazon is bendy, argent et azure. It is the armorial insignia of the Fieschi family of Genoa. The pope in this matter was Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), who began the red galero tradition. He also made several of his nephews into cardinals, Ottobuono was elected Pope Adrian V.
The VMs artist has built an intentionally dualistic interpretation into the tub patterns on the White Aries page. The radial cloaking device works so well that the non-radial interpretation just gets skipped over and forgotten. There is an interpretation of orientation in which this illustration makes historical sense, and it has been intentionally disguised by VMs artist - along with the subtle inclusion of proper hierarchical placement and a quite a bit more.
This reveals the artist's knowledge of religious history. It also reveals that the artist (at least) has chosen to function with methodology that employs elements of visual deception and structural verification. It reveals a level of 'sophistication' (trickery) that was not previously appreciated.
Does VMs artistry lead to the heart of the matter, which is valid glyph interpretation?