19-10-2016, 05:59 PM
Marco: Thanks, this is the kind of exchange of ideas I was hoping for when I made this thread.
I'm not sure if I explained well what I meant with attributes vs. non-attributes. The distinction is also not always clear.
Let's say there's an image of a man digging a hole with a shovel. This shovel is usually not an attribute, because it alone does not tell us who or what this man is. Is he a grave digger? A grave robber? A farmer? A gardener? Looking for treasure? Construction works?
So I would say that a shovel alone is not an attribute, it's an object one can use. A man shoveling is usually a realistic depiction of an item being used to interact with the environment.
The crossbowman is in between. The bow, in combination with his outfit, could possibly tell us specifically who or what he is, giving it the qualities of an attribute in this case. If he is meant for Sagittarius here, it tells us what he is, and whether or not he uses the bow is irrelevant. On the other hand, the weapon is quite literal and soldiers, hunters, guards or tournament archers really used bows.
This is the reason why the crossbow is one of the few items in the manuscript which I would analyze is having non-attribute properties. This can be seen as a guy actually about to shoot a bow, and it makes sense.
I included the Christian example because it shows pure attribute use. St. Stephen possibly never held a palm like that, and he certainly never balanced two stones on his shoulders and one on his head - while holding a book as well. The attributes tell us who or what the figure is, but he does not use them. Of course this is just one example of a billion. Attributes are used in art throughout the ages.
(PS: to avoid anyone arguing about the exact meaning of "attribute", this is just how I use the word because I think it allows us to make a meaningful distinction here.)
Now if we look back at the nymphs holding out an item with stretched arm, we see that:
- they occur in relative isolation
- the item does not interact with other nymphs
- the item does not interact with the environment
This is a little bit different in the image you posted, since there seems to be a slight interaction between figure2-item-figure1.
In the VM there is clearly interaction possible between nymphs, we see them fight and hold hands etc. But items are not involved in that interaction, which to me seems like a possible indication of the St. Stephen type. Nymphs holding items can interact, but the item is not used in that interaction.
Diane:
Something like that seems possible, and it might explain the limited set of poses for nymphs that are standing in a row. I'm nowhere near understanding this level of meaning though - I'm afraid this will have to go hand in hand with understanding the text...
I'm not sure if I explained well what I meant with attributes vs. non-attributes. The distinction is also not always clear.
Let's say there's an image of a man digging a hole with a shovel. This shovel is usually not an attribute, because it alone does not tell us who or what this man is. Is he a grave digger? A grave robber? A farmer? A gardener? Looking for treasure? Construction works?
So I would say that a shovel alone is not an attribute, it's an object one can use. A man shoveling is usually a realistic depiction of an item being used to interact with the environment.
The crossbowman is in between. The bow, in combination with his outfit, could possibly tell us specifically who or what he is, giving it the qualities of an attribute in this case. If he is meant for Sagittarius here, it tells us what he is, and whether or not he uses the bow is irrelevant. On the other hand, the weapon is quite literal and soldiers, hunters, guards or tournament archers really used bows.
This is the reason why the crossbow is one of the few items in the manuscript which I would analyze is having non-attribute properties. This can be seen as a guy actually about to shoot a bow, and it makes sense.
I included the Christian example because it shows pure attribute use. St. Stephen possibly never held a palm like that, and he certainly never balanced two stones on his shoulders and one on his head - while holding a book as well. The attributes tell us who or what the figure is, but he does not use them. Of course this is just one example of a billion. Attributes are used in art throughout the ages.
(PS: to avoid anyone arguing about the exact meaning of "attribute", this is just how I use the word because I think it allows us to make a meaningful distinction here.)
Now if we look back at the nymphs holding out an item with stretched arm, we see that:
- they occur in relative isolation
- the item does not interact with other nymphs
- the item does not interact with the environment
This is a little bit different in the image you posted, since there seems to be a slight interaction between figure2-item-figure1.
In the VM there is clearly interaction possible between nymphs, we see them fight and hold hands etc. But items are not involved in that interaction, which to me seems like a possible indication of the St. Stephen type. Nymphs holding items can interact, but the item is not used in that interaction.
Diane:
Something like that seems possible, and it might explain the limited set of poses for nymphs that are standing in a row. I'm nowhere near understanding this level of meaning though - I'm afraid this will have to go hand in hand with understanding the text...