Voynichy Faces: BNF Coislin 174

[rikforto]

Quite the opposite.  One can see the evolution of his nymph drawings from Aries 1 onwards, from absolutely horrible to just bad.

I think you have to make some very fine judgments to detect that much of a difference:
       
The first is from Aires and the second from Sagittarius. My tastes are the second is worse---I tend to think the nymphs on Sagittarius look a little more rushed, but I am cautious about reading too much out of such subjective judgements. Several hundred nymphs into the cycle I do think the artist has sharpened the stroke on the nose a bit, but it's the same basic shape and gesture, and the other orbital bone stroke is about the same. The chin is better formed (and done once, not redone) on the first. The eyes line up better in the second on this particular example, but that's something varies throughout. These deviations are pretty small at a glance. (Eggyk, you posted before I finished, but I wrote this first!)

I'm not going to die on the hill that these are particularly good---the arms sure are an experience to see:
   
But shoulders, while better done in better quality works, are not particularly naturalistic in medieval art:
       
No surprise---the humanist emphasis on correct anatomy came from the humanist interest in anatomy, which was a taboo at the time. It was also coupled with a renewed interest in perspective not seen since antiquity. 

There's a general assumption that naturalism is better---the long reach of the humanists---so here is third-rate artist Pablo Picasso on the matter:
   
It's interesting to look here at where he is downstream from the humanists---those neck muscles!---but also where he's offering a flatter and distorted perspective that shows us things representationally, as in the guitar and shoulder alsinment. I want to stress I'm not suggesting the VMS arm above is basically a lost Picasso because I agree it is worse than just stylized, but it is a mistake not to see method, training, and experience in the things which are consistent, especially when others seem to style their work much the same way.

Hence why BNF Coislin 174 is of interest; it is evidence into lower quality art from the time where the arms are also...certainly related to the body in a way:
   
What is revealing here is not just what craftsmanship apparently included---a stylized way of sketching faces---but what it excluded---detailed knowledge of anatomy and perspective. Part of being a craftsman is knowing how to get a job done, and evidence is that shoulders anatomy and perspective were not what was being valued for this kind of work, else we would see that in the exemplary works. It bears repeating: it is a mistake not to see method, training, and experience in the things which are consistent.