Art history blog - Assignment Example

27 February Illusionist space vs actual space Illusionist space can only be a reflection of the actual space, but can not be its replacement. Paintings tend to imitate the actual space, but the difference is never eliminated. In fact, two-dimensionality is just a concept. Two-dimensionality of paintings is quite debatable as the strokes tend to intrude into the actual space even with the lightest stroke possible. While the three-dimensionality of paintings is negligible and may not even be observable by naked eye, yet it always exists.

However, irrespective of the thickness of stroke, a painting can never be as much part of a real environment as a sculpture is. A sculpture becomes one of the features of the environment. A sculpture is something that can be moved around, and touched from every side. The background of the sculpture changes as the observer moves around it. This is not achievable with a painting. Space reflected in a painting is quite limited in its scope in that the painting is hung against a wall. The environment of the characters inside the painting is restricted to the boundaries of the painting.

There is an abrupt change in the environment as the observer shifts the sight from within the border to outside it. On the contrary, the observer can interact with the sculpture in a more realistic way as there the observer is personally an element of the sculpture’s environment. As a sculpture outweighs the painting in all of the discussed aspects of space, it can be said that the actual space is more powerful than illusionist space.