The Art of Anamorphosis: Subverting Representational Conventions and Challenging the Observer

  • Rudi KnoopsEmail author
Part of the Avant-Gardes in Performance book series (AGP)


Knoops discusses the seventeenth-century medium cylindrical anamorphosis as a precursor to two defining traits of contemporary media culture, challenging representational conventions and questioning the observer. A study of cylindrical anamorphosis’s deep time signals how other ways of representation and of looking, and another status of the observer were alternative possibilities that did not become part of mainstream media. The analysis of Knoops’s media installation Mirror Mirror (2014) shows how a confrontation with the digital and the moving image magnifies these inherent qualities of cylindrical anamorphosis to subvert representational conventions and challenge the role of the observer, and illustrates how these traits reverberate in the media culture of our time.


  1. Baltrušaitis, Jurgis. 1977 [1969]. Anamorphic Art. Trans. W.J. Strachan. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1984. Anamorphoses ou Thaumaturgus Opticus. Les perpectives dépravées. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  3. Baudry, Jean Louis. 1986 [1970]. Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus. In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology. A Film Theory Reader, ed. Philip Rosen, 286–298. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bay-Cheng, Sarah, Chiel Kattenbelt, Andy Lavender, and Robin Nelson. 2010. Mapping Intermediality in Performance. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellour, Raymond. 1990. La double hélice. In Passages de l’image, catalogue expo, 37–56. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1996 [1990]. The Double Helix. In Electronic Culture: Technology and Visual Representation, ed. Timothy Druckrey, 173–199. Trans. J. Eddy. New York: Aperture.Google Scholar
  7. Boal, Augusto. 1985 [1974]. Theatre of the Oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, Stuart. 2007. Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crary, Jonathan. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duguet, Anne-Marie. 1988. Dispositifs. Communications 48 (1): 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eco, Umberto. 1984. Mirrors. In Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, 202–226. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 1989 [1962]. The Open Work. Trans. Anna Cancogni. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Elsaesser, Thomas. 2016. Film History as Media Archaeology. Tracking Digital Cinema. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grau, Oliver. 2003. Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Trans. Gloria Custance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Grootenboer, Hanneke. 2005. The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still-Life Painting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hansen, Mark B.N. 2004. New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Holländer, Hans. 2000. Spielformen der Mathesis Universalis. In Erkentniss, Erfindung, Konstruktion: Studien zur Bildgeschichte von Naturwissenschaften und Technik vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, ed, Hans Holländer, 325–345. Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar
  18. Kattelman, Beth A. 2013. Spectres and Spectators: The Poly-Technologies of the Pepper’s Ghost Illusion. In Theatre, Performance and Analogue Technology. Historical Interfaces and Intermedialities, ed. Kara Reilly, 198–312. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, Norman M. 2004. The Vatican to Vegas: A History of Special Effects. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  20. Knoops, Rudi. 2017. Cylindrical Anamorphosis. Thaumaturgical Origins and Contemporary Workings. Unpublished PhD dissertation, 333pp. Leuven/Antwerp: KU Leuven/University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  21. Kwastek, Katja. 2010. The Aesthetic Experience of Interactive Art: A Challenge for the Humanities—And for the Audience. Conference Proceedings ISEA. Dortmund: Druck Verlag Kettler.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2013. Aesthetics of Interaction in Digital Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Malcolm, Noel. 1998. The Titlepage of Leviathan, Seen in a Curious Perspective. The Seventeenth Century 13 (2): 124–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melchior-Bonnet, Sabine. 2001 [1994]. The Mirror: A History. Trans. Katharine H. Jewett. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mersch, Dieter. 2008. Representation and Distortion: On the Construction of Rationality and Irrationality in Early Modern Modes of Representation. In Instruments in Art and Science. On the Architectonics of Cultural Boundaries in the 17th Century, Theatrum Scientiarium, ed. Helmar Schramm, Ludger Schwarte, and Jan Lazardzig, vol. 2, 20–37. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Morse, Margaret. 1998. Virtualities: Television, Media art, and Cyberculture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Niceron, Jean-François. 1638. La perspective curieuse ou Magie Artificielle des Effets Merveilleux de l’Optique…, de La Catoptrique…, de La Dioptrique… Paris: Chez Pierre Billaine.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 1652. La perspective curieuse du R. P. Niceron, Minime… avec L’optique et la catoptrique du R. P. Mersenne, … du même ordre, mise en lumière après la mort de l’auteur. Paris: Vve F. Langlois.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1653 [1646]. Thavmatvrgvs opticvs, sev Admiranda optices, per radium directum: catoptrices, per reflexum […] dioptrices per refractum […] Pars prima […] Ad eminentissimum Cardinalem Mazarinum. Lvtetiæ Parisiorvm: Sumptibus Ioannis Dv Pvis.Google Scholar
  30. Rokeby, David. 1995. Transforming Mirrors. In Critical Issues in Electronic Media, ed. Simon Penny, 133–158. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  31. Royoux, Jean-Christophe. 2007 Beyond the End of Narrative: Allegories, Constellations, Dispositifs. Trans. Michael Gilson. In Explorations Narratives/Replaying Narrative, Le mois de la photo à Montréal, ed. Marie Fraser, 300–312. Québec: Bibliothèque nationale du Québec.Google Scholar
  32. Stafford, Barbara Maria. 2001. Revealing Technologies/Magical Domains. In Devices of Wonder. From the World in a Box to Images on a Screen, ed. Barbara Maria Stafford, Frances Terpak, and Isotta Poggi, 1–142. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Vermeir, Koen. 2004. Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall: Aesthetics and Metaphysics of 17th Century Scientific/Artistic Spectacles. Kritische Berichte: Zeitschrift Für Kunst- Und Kulturwissenschaften 32 (2): 27–38.Google Scholar
  34. Zyman, Daniela. 2015. Worldmaking. In Baroque Baroque—catalog of the exhibition Olafur Eliasson—Baroque Baroque, ed. Francesca von Habsburg, Agnes Husslein-Arco, and Daniela Zyman, 180–195. Berlin: Sternberg Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUCA School of ArtsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations