(22-07-2025, 05:32 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I may very well be part of a minority here, but I am not all that much into 'image comparisons' or perhaps rather: 'image analysis'.
It may well be the case that this was true at one time, but it's not how I see things now. The majority of people willing to do proper research focus on textual properties, while study of the images remains in a deep crisis.
I do agree that people's background, training and specialization matters a lot here. People with a STEM background are used to working with different kinds of research and evidence than those with a background in humanities and arts. You can't mathematically prove the symbolism of a flute lying under the bed of a lady in a painting. But there are ways to provide context and evidence for a plausible interpretation.
It may be that the Voynich images are
so obscure though, that even experienced art historians may not be able to say much about it. And that's the crisis: we may never solve the text, but this book also has
a lot of images. And images carry meaning, and meta-information about their origins. We shouldn't ignore them, but don't know how to approach them.
In the past, the method often used (and I include my past self and Velinska in this) was to keep throwing large amounts of spaghetti at the wall to see if something sticks, and then try to forcefully connect the sticky strands. This method of desperately looking for parallels and trying to build a narrative around them has become rarer these days. But no better paradigm has taken its place.
Some of our best parallels are from Naples, or Alsace, or England, or Germany, or Venice... How do they all fit together, where do these traditions meet, how do we decide what matters and what doesn't?