Crispijn de Passe the Elder’s etching with engraving, “God creates the fish and the birds”, c1612

Crispijn de Passe the Elder (aka Crispin Van de Passe; Crispin De Passe) (1564–1637)

“God creates the fish and the birds”, c1612, published in Arnhem in two editions by Johannes Janssonius (aka Joannes Jansonius; Jan Jansson; Jan Jansz) (1588–1664) in the series of sixty plates (incuding the title plate), “Liber Genesis”—the second edition features the four lines of Latin verse in two columns as shown here—and later as a third edition in the 18^th century by Isack Gvree in Amsterdam featuring two lines of Dutch text. (See Ilja M Veldman 2001, “Profit and Pleasure: Print Books by Crispijn de Passe” (Studies in prints and printmaking 4), Rotterdam, pp. 61–72.)

Engraving and etching on laid paper with small margins, backed with a support sheet.

Size: (sheet) 9.2 x 13.8 cm; (plate) 8.3 x 12.7 cm; (image borderline) 7.2 x 12.4 cm

Lettered on plate below the image borderline in four lines of Latin in two columns: “Genus natantum …/ …// …/ …choros.”

State ii (of iii?) lifetime impression with the addition of four lines of Latin text in two columns (1612) signifying the second edition (and second state) before the erasure of these lines of text and lettering with two lines of Dutch text (c1700–50) in the third state.

Franken 1342 (Daniel Franken 1881, “L'oeuvre gravé des van de Passe”, Paris); Hollstein Dutch 855 (F W H Hollstein 1949, “Dutch and Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts c.1450-1700”, Amsterdam).

The Rijksmuseum offers the following description of this print (in its third state):

(Google transl.) “God creates fish and birds so that the water abounds with living creatures and flies birds along the sky.” (http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.collect.161302)

Condition: crisp, well-inked and well-printed life time impression with small margins and backed with a support sheet of archival (millennium quality) washi paper. The sheet is in excellent condition (i.e. there are no tears, holes, folds, abrasions, significant stains or foxing).

I am selling this small luminous print—note the remarkable portrayal of God as a figure modelled in glowing light rather than material substance—for AU$195 in total (currently US$140.95/EUR124.26/GBP108.67 at the time of posting this listing) including postage and handling to anywhere in the world (but not, of course, any import duties/taxes imposed by some countries).

If you are interested in purchasing this fascinating engraving from the early 1600s, please contact me (oz_jim@printsandprinciples.com) and I will send you a PayPal invoice to make the payment easy.

This print has been sold

This is a rare print in that it not only offers an image of what the artist believes God might look like, but also that it is a convincing graphic representation of a figure glowing with spiritual light. Although I have little experience in trying to portray an ethereal vision of any figure—let alone God—I think that this image from the early days of the 1600s is spectacularly successful given that most representations show spiritual figures as if they were made from varying degrees of tangible flesh and blood.

Now that I have explained my appreciation for Crispijn de Passe’s achievement in portraying what God might look like as he creates life in the sea and sky, I wish to point out a somewhat curious spatial anomaly in his representation of the Lord: my perception that the lower half of the Lord is clearly in front of the tree shown on the left and ambiguously BEHIND the same tree in the representation of the Lord’s upper half.

This spatial conundrum is undoubtedly unintentional, but to my eyes the illusion of twisting in the spatial arrangement is very apparent. The reason for the illusion is simple: in the depiction of the Lord’s lower half, the silhouette edge consists of convex curves suggesting that the shape of the Lord’s clouds overlap (i.e. “sit on top” of) the surrounding ground. By contrast, in the depiction of the Lord’s upper half, the silhouette edge consists mainly of concave curves (with the exception of a convexity to the left of the Lord’s head) inviting the eye to perceive that the tree overlaps the Lord’s aura.

Suspension of disbelief: Van't Padje, Scheyndel, Rosetsu, Boissieu, Pintz & Sadeler

What are some ways that artists can fully engage a viewer?

Samuel Coleridge’s famous phrase “suspension of disbelief,” from his Biographia Literaria (1817), is a fine description of the way that viewers often engage with artworks. By this I mean that they “suspend” their conscious thoughts about how the image was created and immerse themselves in a visual dialogue with the image (as discussed in the earlier post, Five key responses to art.). For instance, when I look at Reflections, by one my students, Jason Van’t Padje, a feeling of being metaphorically absorbed within the image occurs; the image is simply riveting and I find difficulty in looking away. In short, my engagement with the reality of knowing that I am looking at an image is suspended and replaced with a state of reverie in which I enter into the spatial realm of the image.

Jason Van’t Padje

Reflections, 2012

Digital image

Sadly, sometimes this “suspension” collapses when viewers are unable to overlook technical shortcomings, such as the incorrect position of the reflected moon in Gillis van Scheyndel’s (active, 1622–79) rare night-scene, Landscape in Moonshine (shown below). 

Gillis van Scheyndel (active, 1622–79)

Landscape in Moonshine, c. 1650

Etching on paper without visible chainlines, watermarked “J. Kool”

9.8 x 14.3 cm (plate); 16.7 x 20.4 cm (sheet)

Hollstein 115 lll (of lll)

Condition: strong impression with wide margins, remnants of mounting hinges (verso), in very good condition. I am selling this print for $180 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you are interested or click the Buy Now button below.

This print has been sold

View of whole sheet

Detail of Gillis van Scheyndel’s Landscape in Moonshine, c. 1650

Whether an artist’s goal is, or even should be, about suspending a viewer’s disbelief cannot be answered with a definitive “yes” or “no.” After all, there will always be exceptions to any broad proposal. Moreover, following a discussion with a colleague, I have come to understand that there are some viewers who will never experience total immersion in an artwork. They are simply not disposed to “letting go” (i.e. they are unable to forget that they are looking at an artwork regardless whether this may be an image or a movie) and so any endeavour to induce total immersion in an artwork is a doomed exercise.

To be frank, even I struggle to suspend my disbelief when looking at artworks as my brain’s wiring engages in flicking between rationalising what I am looking at and immersion in a flow of reverie—what some refer to as being “in the zone.”  I am fully aware of this personal propensity as I am presently looking at Nagasawa Rosetsu’s (1754–99) painting, Standing Crane (shown below), hanging in my studio. In this flicker between conscious rationalisation and subconscious absorption in looking and feeling, the moment of rationalisation is when I marvel at the confidence of Rosetsu’s ink strokes and the unapologetic awkwardness of his composition (in the sense that the crane’s body tangentially brushes against the right edge of the painting). When my mind then flicks to a subconscious phase, I view the way that he portrays the crane as a point of departure for projecting my vision of the artist’s rebellious spirit (for which Rosetsu is famous) and imagine myself in the artist’s shoes.

Nagasawa Rosetsu (also known as Gyo, Masakatsunoinn, Chougyo and Hyokei) (1754–99) or a follower of Rosetsu

(left) view of the whole scroll

(right) detail of image section

Standing Crane

Ink on paper scroll with bone roller ends

60 x 208 cm (scroll); 116 x 46 cm (image)

Condition: light surface wear to image and small perforations to mount, otherwise in good condition.

I am selling this painting for [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page 

Rosetsu (Signature)

Gyo (Seal)

Detail of Rosetsu’s, Standing Crane

Regarding how artists work towards triggering a viewer’s shift from conscious scrutiny to subconscious engagement, one important device is the way an image is framed. To explain the subtle ways that a frame can play a major role, the following discussion will address a range frame types and underpinning issues that help to immerse the viewer into a visual dialogue with the image.

An interesting visual device to begin with is the keyhole effect that is essentially an optical illusion where the viewer examines the portrayed subject through a keyhole framed aperture. Like the Holly and Clover illusion discussed in the earlier posts, Representing light and Holly & Clover, the effect is to do with the silhouette edge and how the framing of a subject affects the way we perceive it. In the case of the Holly and Clover illusion, the effect is driven by either a scalloped format similar in shape to a holly leaf that pictorially “pushes” the framed subject backward into a void whereas a format shaped like a clover leaf pictorially “pulls” the framed subject forward. With the keyhole effect the illusion is not so much about a pictorial “push” and “pull,” but rather about creating a type of stereoscopic vision.

The illusion of three-dimensions that forms when looking at an image through a keyhole-like aperture—an “x”-shaped aperture has a similar effect to the traditional keyhole shape—is driven by a sensation of spatial disjunction. This experience probably arises from the viewer’s psychological abandonment of the surrounding space in favour of the realm visible through the opening. To demonstrate this odd phenomenon I will use Jean-Jacques de Boissieu’s (1736–1810) vignette portrait, Le Père Cotrot, Garçon Teinturier à Lyon (shown below).

Jean-Jacques de Boissieu (1736–1810)

Le Père Cotrot, Garçon Teinturier à Lyon, 1770

Etching, engraving, drypoint and roulette on Chine appliqué

20 x 16 cm (plate); 26.4 x 23.5 cm (sheet)

Signed in plate lower right: “DB 1770”

Perez 46

Condition: strong impression, damp patch lower right (2 cm from plate mark), traces of handling, otherwise in good condition.

I am selling this print for [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you are interested

When this print is viewed as de Boissieu intended (i.e. with the head of Cotrot dissolving into his surroundings) the graphic representation of pictorial space surrounding Cotrot is designed to extend, with indulgence of a viewer’s suspension of disbelief, to the space that the viewer occupies. Essentially the two spatial realms—the graphic of the print and the real of the viewer—are metaphorically smudged. This is not the case when a keyhole or similar aperture frames the portrait of Cotrot, as shown below.

With an overlay of this kind, the space that the viewer occupies is divorced from the space surrounding Cotrot by virtue of the keyhole acting as a privileged viewpoint in what is essentially a wall-like barrier presented by the frame. Each viewer’s reading of what they see when looking through such an aperture will be different, but, from my reading, I see a fragment of a world that seems as real as the space I occupy. This illusion of a super reality underpins the keyhole effect and how it generates a suspension of disbelief in a spatial realm of which we can only have a glimpse.

The Keyhole Effect

From my explorations using different shaped formats I discovered that horizontals and verticals featured in the format shape interferes with this perception of spatial disjuncture. For example, in the experimental watercolours, Decorative Panel A and B shown below, I am not convinced that the square-edged format employed in them triggers the same perception of a super reality exhibited with the formal keyhole shape. Instead, the effect is like the Holly and Clover illusion of “push” and “pull” underpinning Rudolf Arnheim’s insight in Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye  (1974) that “convexity makes for the figure, convexity for the ground” (p. 232).

James Brown

(left) Decorative Panel A, 1991

(right) Decorative Panel B, 1991

Watercolour on Arches paper

(each panel) 61.8 x 35.8 cm

These paintings have been sold

Compare, for example, the effect when Boissieu’s print is viewed through a “+”- shaped aperture (shown below) to the effect when it is viewed through an “x”-shaped (shown further below). To my eyes the angled aperture of the “x”-shape creates a much stronger illusion of spatial disjuncture than I see with the “+”- shaped aperture.

View through a “+”-shaped aperture

View through an “x”-shaped aperture

Of course, any framing edge to an image acts as a line of demarcation separating the physical realm occupied by the viewer from the pictorial realm of the image. Going further, usually this line of demarcation acts as a picture plane window for the spatial illusion it frames, as can be seen in I.G. Pintz’s TAB. DVII—IOB. Cap. 1. v. 16. 18. 19. Decora et Pecora Iobi proftrata (shown below). Interestingly, Printz has made his window effect a critical component of this print by facilitating a visual dialogue between the framing edge and the pictorial depth of the image. This notion of dialogue arises because the motifs represented in the engraved frame contain skulls, storm clouds with wind-blowing cherubs and what I assume are funerary urns, all of which are symbols correlating with the cataclysmic scene portrayed within the pictorial window.

I.G. Pintz [Johann Georg Pintz] (1697–1767)

TAB. DVII—IOB. Cap. 1. v. 16. 18. 19. Decora et Pecora Iobi proftrata , 1731

From Scheuchze’s (1672–1733) Physica Sacra

Engraving on laid paper

32 x 20.6 cm (plate); 42.2 x 25 cm (sheet)

Condition: superb impression with no foxing. The sheet exhibits toning at edges and traces of handling. The print has generous borders on three sides but the right side has a 1 cm border from the plate mark.

I am selling this print for [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. 

View of the whole sheet

Detail of TAB. DVII—IOB. Cap. 1. v. 16. 18. 19. Decora et Pecora Iobi proftrata 

In terms of physical frames made of timber and glass, there is a long and well entrenched tradition of using physical frames to present images as windows to another realm. Even the poor, who were unable to afford frames for their artworks, had a solution when they came to display artworks. In the two very early engravings by Raphael Sadeler I (1560/61–1628/32) and Jan Sadeler I (1550–1600) shown below, for instance, canvas laminated to the front and the back of the prints provide a cost effective solution to making the prints more robust for handling and, importantly, for creating a window-like effect. Note that these prints still show evidence of pin holes where they were affixed to the wall and hand-colouring to make the illusion of pictorial depth more real.

Raphael Sadeler I (1560/61–1628/32)

after the design by Marten de Vos (1532–1603)

Saint Bavo, 1593-94

State 1 (of 2)

Engraving, hand-coloured with linen backing (verso) and linen frame border (recto)

18.9 x 22.5 cm (sheet)

Bartsch 7101.105 S1; Hollstein (1980) 21.124; Hollstein (1995-96) 41.1007

Condition: slightly silvery impression with no foxing but general surface dustiness.  As noted above, the print is laminated with linen verso and recto and has been coloured by an old hand.

I am selling this print for $80 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. 
Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you are interested or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

Detail of Sadeler’s Saint Bavo showing the linen frame

Jan (Johannes/Johan/Joan) Sadeler I (1550–1600)

After a lost drawing by Marten de Vos (1532–1603)

Saint Joannicius, c. 1587

(“After a career as a soldier, the saint retired to Mount Olympus in Bithynia. His death in 846 is celebrated on 4 November.” [Bartsch 70001.396])

State 1 (of 2)

Engraving, hand-coloured with linen backing (verso) and linen frame border (recto)

18.9 x 22.7 cm (sheet)

Bartsch 7001.396; Hollstein (1980) 21.426; Hollstein (1995-96) 44.1029; Senechal (1987) 18; Edquist (1990) p. 82, no. 95b

Condition: slightly silvery impression with no foxing but general surface dustiness, stains and wear. A small patch is missing lower centre where the letter “i” should be in “Dei.” As noted above, the print is laminated with linen verso and recto and has been coloured by an old hand.

I am selling this print for $80 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you are interested or click the “Buy Now” button below.

This print has been sold

Although framing devices, especially the keyhole effect, can trigger Coleridge’s “suspension of disbelief” the image itself must support the flow of total engagement. In the next post I will discuss some of the conventions underpinning the depiction of foreground, middle distance and distance that support a viewer’s total engagement. Before ending this discussion, however, I need to point out that a viewer’s absorption in looking does not necessarily mean that an image must be a well-composed cohesive image. Indeed, sometimes a viewer’s experience of being immersed in the imagery is all about fragmentation. For instance, when I look at Saint Joannicius (shown above), my attention is fragmented into a series of spatial cells, each with its own spatial realm to explore (see the digital mapping of the key spatial realms below). What I mean to point out by this insight is that there are more elements to capturing and sustaining a viewer’s interest than artful composition. In fact, some of the most memorable images are those that challenge our expectations.

Spatial cells in Sadeler’s Saint Joannicius

Holly & Clover: Earlom & Lorrain

What is a simple way of making a river look shallow or deep?

Before I begin to propose a solution to portraying the relative depth of water—or the depth to any spatial void for that matter—I need to address an important issue concerning the prints examined in the following discussion. When an original drawing is copied onto a printing plate for reproduction, as is the case with Richard Earlom’s mezzotint of Claude Lorrain’s drawing [plate] No. 5 (shown below), invariably some of the subtleties of the original drawing are lost in the translation from one medium into another. While this is probably unavoidable there is also the chance that the reproductive printmaker may make changes to “improve” the original image with slight adjustments. I mention these possibilities as the approach to portraying depth that I now wish to propose could be interpreted as a critique of Lorrain’s drawing when in fact the image I am examining is really the outcome of Earlom’s interpretation of Lorrain’s drawing.

Richard Earlom (1743–1822) after

Claude Gellée known better as Claude Lorrain (1600–1682)

[Plate] No. 5. From the Original Drawing in the Collection of R.P. Knight Esq., c. 1775 from Liber Veritas published by John Boydell, 1807

Mezzotint on wove paper,

23.2 x 31.5 (plate); 30 x 42.8 cm (sheet)

Condition: faint spotting on verso and a 0.5cm tear on left margin well away from the image otherwise in excellent condition with no blemishes.

I am selling this print for [deleted] including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.

[Deleted] 

One way to represent depth of water is to employ a very simple illusion involving the shape of the body of water. When representing shallow water, artists use outward bulging curves like those of a clover leaf to depict the water’s edge (see clover shape below). When representing deep water, they use inward arcing curves like those of a holly leaf to depict the water’s edge (see holly shape below). This focus on the shape of the body of water involves what perception theorists describe as a “figure and ground” illusion. For theorists, the water is perceived as the “figure” when it is perceived to be on top of the surrounding rocks or earth by virtue of convex curves and as “ground” when it is perceived to be below the surrounding rocks or earth by virtue of concave curves.

(left) clover shape (right) holly shape

To illustrate this phenomenon I have made a schematic drawing of a waterfall with a pool of water at its base (see below). Compare how the perception of the water’s depth changes from shallow water when the pool is constructed with convex curves like those of a clover leaf as opposed to deep water when the pool is constructed with concave curves like those of a holly leaf.

(left) shallow water with clover shape (right) deep water with holly shape

In Earlom’s [plate] No. 5 this perceptual play of representing the water is “figure” (i.e. shallow) and “ground” (i.e. deep) is interesting to examine. If we look at the silhouette edge of the rock closest to the centre of the pool (see detail below), for instance, the water is scalloping its outline leaving the rock as a holly shape. From my viewpoint this is an awkward arrangement as, especially at the more distant aspects of this rock the water appears to be on top of the rock. Going further when the upper edge of the rock is isolated from its context the water could well be interpreted as overlapping the rock like the ocean tide coming over a shoreline (see detail further below).

Detail of No. 5.

Detail of No. 5.

Artists can overcome such a problem by “building” concave curves out of either straight lines or small convex sections. Interesting the same idea of only using straight lines or convex curves is also applicable to drawing people as our bodies are fundamentally bone, tendon and muscle with very few concave areas. To illustrate the difference of how the outline of the rock would appear if the curves were replaced with straight and convex lines see the digital alterations below.

(above) detail of No. 5 with concavities

(below) digitally altered detail of No. 5 without concavities

A good example of the use of a holly-shape configuration of rocks around water can be seen in another mezzotint by Earlom reproducing a different drawing by Lorrain, No. 43 (shown below). Here swirling water is depicted with very few concavities but this print has one other interesting feature with regard to water: it portrays a narrow body of water by the darkening the tone of the water into the more distant reaches of the stream. This is a fascinating visual device as large bodies of water, such as lakes and broad rivers, are portrayed as becoming lighter into the distance whereas the reverse is true for narrow bodies of water like streams and creeks. In the digitally modified images further below the tonal arrangement on the water has been reversed to illustrate this phenomenon.

Richard Earlom (1743–1822) after

Claude Gellée known better as Claude Lorrain (1600–1682)

[Plate] No. 43. From the Original Drawing in the Collection of R.P. Knight Esq., c. 1775

from Liber Veritas published by John Boydell, 1807

Mezzotint on wove paper,

20.7 x 26.3 (plate); 27.2 x 34 cm (sheet)

Condition: Excellent condition with no blemishes. Cut unevenly with 0.5 cm margin on left, 7.3 cm margin on right, 2.5 cm margin on top and 4 cm margin at bottom.

I am selling this print for $85 AUD including postage and handling to anywhere in the world. Please contact me using the email link at the top of the page if you have any queries or click the “Buy Now” button below.

(right) [Plate] No. 43.

(left) digitally altered image showing reversal of tonal gradations on river