10-09-2016, 03:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 03:44 PM by Tisquesusa.)
What is meant with "illustrator"?
It is clear the VMS is compiled by different people (Currier A, B and subsets) and in a specific order:
1 - the illustrations (with ink/pen)
2 - the text
3 - the infill with paint
What I remarked in my first post here was that the drawings seem to have been done by (one, or more, of) the author(s); the fluent smooth lines resemble the text smooth lines.
I still see the paint job as very poor; it looks like a skilled craftsman left his manuscript and at night his 12 year old child was colouring the images with paint...
When we talk about "illustrator 1"; the person drawing, I'd say he is skilled; doesn't make many huge mistakes (some smaller ones yes) and draws smoothly and elegantly, no matter the subject.
If "illustrator" refers to the painter, it would be ridiculous to call that person a skilled painter.
So "ilustrator = skilled or not?" would be answered with yes AND no.
E.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The drawings of the "samovars" (as I call them; the cylinders) are done well, the roots of the plants are smooth, the lines consistent, etc.
The "centaur without head" that looks like this root is well done, showing the artist had an understanding of body shapes: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The face of the Sun on f67v2 is well done. Then the "12-year old son" came and destroyed that nice face with some blue paint:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It could be that the author(s) of the drawings and text died/disappeared and someone else painted the VMS with paint, covering text (in the samovars) and doing an ugly job.
Question: have the texts that are painted over been summarised and analysed somewhere? They might mean something/have a different statistical spread in terms of "language" or so?
It is clear the VMS is compiled by different people (Currier A, B and subsets) and in a specific order:
1 - the illustrations (with ink/pen)
2 - the text
3 - the infill with paint
What I remarked in my first post here was that the drawings seem to have been done by (one, or more, of) the author(s); the fluent smooth lines resemble the text smooth lines.
I still see the paint job as very poor; it looks like a skilled craftsman left his manuscript and at night his 12 year old child was colouring the images with paint...
When we talk about "illustrator 1"; the person drawing, I'd say he is skilled; doesn't make many huge mistakes (some smaller ones yes) and draws smoothly and elegantly, no matter the subject.
If "illustrator" refers to the painter, it would be ridiculous to call that person a skilled painter.
So "ilustrator = skilled or not?" would be answered with yes AND no.
E.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The drawings of the "samovars" (as I call them; the cylinders) are done well, the roots of the plants are smooth, the lines consistent, etc.
The "centaur without head" that looks like this root is well done, showing the artist had an understanding of body shapes: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The face of the Sun on f67v2 is well done. Then the "12-year old son" came and destroyed that nice face with some blue paint:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It could be that the author(s) of the drawings and text died/disappeared and someone else painted the VMS with paint, covering text (in the samovars) and doing an ugly job.
Question: have the texts that are painted over been summarised and analysed somewhere? They might mean something/have a different statistical spread in terms of "language" or so?