Abstract
The present chapter discusses some new findings on the question of how Masaccio constructed the perspective in his Trinity fresco. Some scholars have attempted to reduce the anomalies in the work using photogrammetry and computer analysis. On such grounds it has been argued that Masaccio used the normal technique known as costruzione legittima. However, the aberrations discovered in situ strongly suggest that Masaccio’s fresco is not a model of linear perspective. The concurrence of the vanishing lines in one point is only approximate, and the foreshortening of the intervals is flawed. Masaccio apparently used the lines of the plane joining the abaci of the capitals as a guide when he drew the lines of the coffered vault. But since the horizontal plane and the barrel vault are not coincident, he adopted an erroneous method of foreshortening—a fact that has been disregarded up to now. The thesis that Masaccio designed the fresco with the aid of a ground plan and elevations is dubious, and the search for its ideal viewing point is destined to remain an unending quest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Before 1989, the main works on the construction of perspective were: G.J. Kern, Das Dreifaltigkeitsfresko von S. Maria Novella. Eine perspektivisch-architektur geschichtliche Studie, Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen 24 (1913): 36–58; P. Sanpaolesi, Brunelleschi, Milan, 1962; H.W. Janson, “Ground plan and elevation of Masaccio’s Trinity fresco” in F. Douglas et al., eds., Essays in the History of Art presented to Rudolf Wittkower, London, 1967, pp. 83–88; J. Polzer, “The anatomy of Masaccio’s Holy Trinity,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 13 (1971) 18–59. Further references are given in the article by Field, Lunardi and Settle cited in note 5 below.
- 2.
E. Panofsky, “Die Perspektive als symbolische Form,” Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 4 (1924/5): 258–331; Perspective as Symbolic Form, p. 62.
- 3.
Alessandro Parronchi, “Le fonti di Paolo Uccello: I perspettivi passati,” Paragone 89 (1957), p. 7.
- 4.
John White, The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space, London, 1967; transl. Naissance et renaissance de l’espace pictural, p. 146.
- 5.
Judith V. Field, Roberto Lunardi, Thomas B. Settle, “The perspective scheme of Masaccio’s Trinity fresco,” Nuncius 4/2 (1989): 31–118. They write (p. 34): “The very success of the Trinity fresco in presenting space that seems as real as the figures that inhabit it may explain why so many scholars have taken the perspective scheme for granted.” This observation has been reiterated on many occasions, see note 7.
- 6.
Martin Kemp, The Science of Art. Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat, London, 1990, draws up an inventory of at least six errors but supports the idea of the use by Masaccio of a ground plan and elevations. A sophisticated system has been proposed by Jane A. Aiken in “The perspective construction of Masaccio’s Trinity fresco and medieval astronomical graphics,” Artibus et Historiae, 31 (1995): 171–187. She postulates that Masaccio obtained the diminution of the vault ribs with the help of an astrolabe and stereographic projection. Nevertheless, it is highly questionable whether the orthographic and stereographic projections of the astronomers were “readily available sources to Masaccio and Brunelleschi,” p. 173. The length and complexity of the procedure shows an evident lack of proportion between the ends and the means, so that one would be justified in wondering whether so sophisticated a technique had ever actually been used. See Volker Hoffmann, “Masaccios Trinitätsfresko: Die perspektivkonstruktion und ihr Entwurfsverfahren,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 40 (1996): 42–77. Rona Goffen, ed., Masaccio’s Trinity, Cambridge, 1998. “The Trinity of Masaccio: perspective construction—isometric transformation—coordinate system,” Art, Science and Techniques of Drafting in the Renaissance, 4th ILabHS, working paper, Florence, 24 May-1 June 2001. Cristina Danti, ed., La Trinità di Masaccio. Il restauro dell’anno duemila, Firenze, Edifir, 2002.
- 7.
Danti, La Trinità di Masaccio, pp. 89–94 and, most importantly, plate VII. Judith V. Field, in The Invention of Infinity: Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance, 1997, p. 72; “What mathematical analysis can tell us about a fifteenth-century picture,” in Art, Science and Techniques of Drafting in the Renaissance, 4th ILabHS, working paper, Florence, 24 May-1 June 2001.
- 8.
Volker Hoffmann, “Brunelleschi’s invention of linear perspective: The fixation and simulation of the optical view,” Art, Science and Techniques of Drafting in the Renaissance, 4th ILabHS, working paper, Florence, 24 May-1 June 2001, p. 2.
- 9.
After having unsuccessfully tested a three-point reconstruction (Entwurf/Dreipunkte-Rekonstruktion), the author experiments with a four-point reconstruction (Ausführung/Vierpunkte-Rekonstruktion) that corresponds to a superimposition of the photogrammetric and perspective drawings based on a fixed congruence of the following points: F (vanishing point), A and B (the upper corners of the abaci of the ionic capitals in the foreground) and C′ (the top corner of the abacus of the ionic capital in the background on the left), Hoffmann, “Masaccios Trinitätsfresko,” p. 45. Danti, La Trinità di Masaccio, plate VII.
- 10.
Hoffmann, “The Trinity of Masaccio,” p. 8 (italics mine).
- 11.
“As the construction of linear perspective first and foremost centers around questions of projective geometry… the demonstration will have to be of a geometrical nature,” Hoffmann in “The Trinity of Masaccio,” p. 2.
- 12.
Hoffmann understands by costruzione legittima either the “viewing beam method” of Alberti or the “distance point method” of Piero della Francesca. It is common knowledge that both of these approaches lead to the same results, but Hoffmann makes some attempt to show that the second method fits in better with Masaccio’s perspective scheme. We will leave aside the semantic difficulty that emerges when one applies the word costruzione legittima to an early Quattrocento painting. Scholars have written at great length on this anachronism; for instance Field, The Invention of Infinity, and Pietro Roccasecca, “Il ‘modo optimo’ di Leon Battista Alberti,” Studi di Storia dell’Arte 4 (1993): 245–262.
- 13.
Field et al., “The perspective scheme,” pp. 49–50.
- 14.
The mean difference between the four angular values, reported in situ, represents 22 mm on the arch line.
- 15.
Field et al., “The perspective scheme,” pp. 49–50.
- 16.
So much so that we no longer need an “artistic” explanation for the difference between angle AMJ′ and the three other angles: “The best explanation for the ‘incorrect’ positioning of the outermost ribs would seem to lie in a consideration of the surface geometry of Masaccio’s picture. As painted, the ribs link Christ’s hands with the volutes of the columns. Moreover, their closeness to the receding edges of the front abaci allows the eye to run easily along these lines, whereas the short receding edge might otherwise have been rather lost against the pattern of the vault,” Field et al., “The perspective scheme,” pp. 50–51. Masaccio could have followed the simple pattern enhanced by Hoffmann.
- 17.
Hoffmann, “The Trinity of Masaccio,” p. 6.
- 18.
With the exception of the lines drawn from the abaci of the capitals, but these run in a somewhat erratic manner, so that the right and left abaci provide us with a distance point varying from simple to double (see Sect. 4.5).
- 19.
Listed here are some examples of such coffered vaults. Type I (square-coffered barrel vault): Thermae in Rome, Nympheaum of Cicero’s Villa in Formia, S. Andrea in Mantova by Alberti, S. Pietro in the Vatican by Bramante and Maderno, Gesù in Rome by Della Porta. Type II (flat ceiling with square coffering): Basilica of the Palace in Treves, S. Maria Maggiore in Rome. Type III (dome with square coffering): Pantheon in Rome, S. Maria in Campitelli in Rome by De Rossi, Library project by Durand. Type IV (other Baroque geometrical patterns): S. Carlo ai Catinari in Rome (circles), S. Andrea al Quirinale in Rome by Bernini (hexagons), S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane in Rome by Borromini (hexagons, circles, ovals and crosses).
- 20.
Hoffmann, “The Trinity of Masaccio,” pp. 11–12, admits that Masaccio used ground plans when creating this perspective: “It is fairly obvious that one of those plans had to be the ground plan… To this [Masaccio] added either the frontal elevation or the side elevation. But there is reason to believe that Masaccio actually used both the frontal elevation and the side elevation.” Nothing is obvious here, except the need to establish such an assumption.
- 21.
Field et al., “The perspective scheme,” p. 49.
- 22.
Field et al., “The perspective scheme,” pp. 42–43, nevertheless tried in Appendix 6 to determine the viewing distance by another method, using the vanishing lines of the abaci of the capitals. But they did not manage to achieve a viable result, because there is too great a discrepancy between the distance obtained from the upper front abacus (594.4 cm) and from the lower back abacus (345.7 cm).
- 23.
Hoffmann, “Masaccios Trinitätsfresko,” plates 1–6.
- 24.
- 25.
Hoffmann, “Brunelleschi’s invention of linear perspective,” p. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raynaud, D. (2016). Fact and Fiction Regarding Masaccio’s Trinity Fresco. In: Studies on Binocular Vision. Archimedes, vol 47. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42721-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42721-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42720-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42721-8
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)