Investigating illusion: Panofsky and others on perspective

In 1927, the eminent art historian Erwin Panofsky published an article about linear perspective, the history of its use in paintings, the principles underlying constructions and whether perspective could be regarded as a ‘symbolic form’, that is, as a subject in itself. Today his article, which is still widely read among historians of art, seems inadequate in several ways, notably in its treatment of what would now be regarded as the relevant mathematics and optics, and some matters of history of art; moreover, to today’s readers the article also raises questions not only about how the treatment of history of the sciences has developed in the last century but also about what we would now consider an acceptable approach to writing on perspective, a subject that does not wholly belong to either history of science or to history of art.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Published
2026-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-026-00358-y
Primary Topic
Architecture and Art History Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigating illusion: Panofsky and others on perspective

J. V. Field
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Architecture and Art History Studies
article

Investigating illusion: Panofsky and others on perspective

J. V. Field
article en

Abstract

In 1927, the eminent art historian Erwin Panofsky published an article about linear perspective, the history of its use in paintings, the principles underlying constructions and whether perspective could be regarded as a ‘symbolic form’, that is, as a subject in itself. Today his article, which is still widely read among historians of art, seems inadequate in several ways, notably in its treatment of what would now be regarded as the relevant mathematics and optics, and some matters of history of art; moreover, to today’s readers the article also raises questions not only about how the treatment of history of the sciences has developed in the last century but also about what we would now consider an acceptable approach to writing on perspective, a subject that does not wholly belong to either history of science or to history of art.

Archive for History of Exact SciencesVol. 80(1)
Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 37%
Architecture and Art History Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.