R. Sale,
You speak of "subjective visual similarity".
The "subjective visual similarity" approach is usually unproductive and I neither advocate it nor employ it.
By that standard, you'd end up with the sort of person who first says "oh the front page of the Book of Kells reminds me of a Persian carpet"... and who then shifts from trying to understand the manuscript to trying to lobby for their "theory" that the Book of Kells is about Persian carpets.
Other people are content with hypothesing and conclusions that are no more than "ideas".
And that's ok. But that's not the way I've been trained, and no professional works that way.
Because for many that you meet online, the manuscript no longer has an objective history and the purpose for being involved is because it's a hobby like some extra-clever cryptic crossword puzzle. Something to occupy leisure hours, a reason to socialise, and a way to fill the long hours between work and work: it's just an interesting thing to puzzle over.
And why not?
You speak of "subjective visual similarity".
The "subjective visual similarity" approach is usually unproductive and I neither advocate it nor employ it.
By that standard, you'd end up with the sort of person who first says "oh the front page of the Book of Kells reminds me of a Persian carpet"... and who then shifts from trying to understand the manuscript to trying to lobby for their "theory" that the Book of Kells is about Persian carpets.
Other people are content with hypothesing and conclusions that are no more than "ideas".
And that's ok. But that's not the way I've been trained, and no professional works that way.
Because for many that you meet online, the manuscript no longer has an objective history and the purpose for being involved is because it's a hobby like some extra-clever cryptic crossword puzzle. Something to occupy leisure hours, a reason to socialise, and a way to fill the long hours between work and work: it's just an interesting thing to puzzle over.
And why not?