Re: VMs: Ornate Containers vs. properties diagram

[Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 27 May 2005, Stefan Urbanek wrote:
> I am not sure whether the "ornate containers" are containers at all. Has
> anyone made an analysis of the so-called "pharmaceutical" section?
>
> The "containers" look more like diagrams. If you look at them, they are
> composed of "modules" or "parts". A part has it's shape and it's color.
> There are parts that are repeating between "containers". Also you can
> see, that certain group of plants is related to certain container.

This intrigued me.  It's not very different from the Chernoff Faces
approach to the stars.  (Which I haven't gotten much further with!)

> Questions
> - what are the parts used? (color + shape)
> - what combinations there are?
> - are there any common visual properties of plants across groups where the
> groups share equal part in a container?
> - are there any non-visual properties of depicted plants that can be connected
> to the "parts"?

Any answers?

> Also note, that most of the plants have large roots. On many images it
> looks like a root was taken from one plant, then cut and some other
> plant was put into the root.

I wonder if one of the problems with recognizing plants in the VMS is that
the artist combined specific features of interest with a conventionalized
or even arbitrary matrix.  In addition, some of the man or beast-in-plant
images seem to make more of the traditional mythology of various herbs -
the mandrake, for example - than of their physiology.  The problem for the
interpreter, then, is to determine what is merely filler, and what is of
interest, and with the latter whether it depicts or instead signifies.
If there's anything in this assessment, then we could very well be looking
at plants with big roots from other plants.  Or, rather, at Frankenplants
asssembled from a random mix of real, symbolic, and conventional parts.
In identifying such plants one would need to know not only the physiology
of the plants, but also their mythology, and the artist's conventions for
representing and combining things.

> Looks like the author used more advanced description techniques, not
> only text and exact visualisation of the surrounding world. By "advanced
> technique"  I mean something very common we use today, like charts,
> relations-ship diagrams or "zooming" of an image part. Those techniques
> require a bit of abstract thinking as it is not only "drawing what i
> see".

If there are practices of this nature, one could argue that they were
anachronisms and indicative of a late forgery.  I'm not sure if I see
them, however.

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list