Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:47:01.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anthroposeen: The Invention of Linear Perspective as a Decisive Moment in the Emergence of a Geological Age of Mankind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

Philipp Lepenies
Philipp Lepenies*
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin, Otto Suhr Institute for Political Science, Ihnestraße 21, 14197 Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The beginning of the Anthropocene has been inconclusively debated. Usually, its starting point is linked to the moment in which some measurable human physical impact, such as global carbon dioxide emissions, increased in an unprecedented manner. However, to grasp the fact that mankind became at some point the major change agent of the earth system it is important to identify how and when humans began to perceive their role as that of an active creator, capable of dominating and changing nature. Although no monocausal explanation exists, I argue that the invention of linear perspective in fifteenth-century Renaissance Italy was a major trigger. Linear perspective changed the way humans saw and interpreted the world around them. It fostered an anthropocentric worldview that placed humans in control of their physical environment, allowed the advancement of scientific methods and the ultimate disenchantment of the physical world. Linear perspective marks the beginning of the ‘Anthroposeen’ without which the Anthropocene would not have manifested itself in the accelerated way it has. This holds important lessons. It reminds us that to understand the nature of the Anthropocene, we have to understand the parameters that made us think, see and ultimately act the way we do.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 583 - 599
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Crutzen, P. and Stroemer, E.F. (2000) The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change Newsletter, 41, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
2. Crutzen, P. (2002) The geology of mankind. Nature, 415, p. 23.Google Scholar
3. Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B. and Sverkeret, S. (2013) Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science and Policy, 28, p. 4.Google Scholar
4. Costanza, R., Graumlich, L.J. and Will, S. (Eds) (2007) Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, Dahlem Workshop Series (Boston: MIT Press).Google Scholar
5. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P.A., Moore, B. III, Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner, B.L. and Wasson, R.J. (2004) Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (Berlin: Springer)Google Scholar
6. Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L. et al. (2011) The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. Royal Swedish Academy of Science, DOI 10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x.Google Scholar
7. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J. and McNeill, J.R. (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio, 36, pp. 614–621.Google Scholar
8. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. and McNeill, J. (2011) The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, p. 843.Google Scholar
9. McKibben, B. (1989) The End of Nature (New York: Random House).Google Scholar
10. Smith, B. and Zeder, A.M. (2013) The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 4, pp. 8–13.Google Scholar
11. Zalasiewicz, J. et al. (2015) When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, in press (available online http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045).Google Scholar
12. Ruddiman, W.F. (2003) The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Climatic Change, 61(3), pp. 261–293 doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa.Google Scholar
13. Balter, M. (2013) Archeologists say the ‘Anthropocene’ is here – but it began long ago. Science, 340, 19 April, pp. 261–262.Google Scholar
14. Lepenies, P. (2014) Art, Politics, and Development. How Linear Perspective Shaped Policies in the Western World (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).Google Scholar
15. Field, J.V. (1997) The Invention of Infinity: Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 7.Google Scholar
16. Belting, H. (2008) Florenz und Bagdad: Eine westöstliche Geschichte des Blicks (Munich: Beck), p. 104.Google Scholar
17. Guillén, C. (1971) On the concept and metaphor of perspective. In Literature as System: Essays toward the Theory of Literary History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 287.Google Scholar
18. Panofsky, E. (1991) Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York: Zone Books), p. 76.Google Scholar
19. Edgerton, S.Y. (2009) The Mirror, the Window and the Telescope: How Renaissance Linear Perspective Changed Our Vision of the Universe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
20. Edgerton, S.Y. (2006) Brunelleschi’s mirror, Alberti’s window and Galileo’s ‘perspective tube’. História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos, 13 (suppl), p. 160.Google Scholar
21. Alberti, L. ([1435] 2004) On Painting (London: Penguin), p. 87.Google Scholar
22. Damisch, H. (1987) 1993 L’origine de la perspective (Paris: Flammarion).Google Scholar
23. Edgerton, S.Y. (1975) The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
24. Kubovy, M. (1986) The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
25. Krautheimer, R. and Krautheimer-Hess, T. (1970) Lorenzo Ghiberti (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 14.Google Scholar
26. Kemp, M. (1990) The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 22.Google Scholar
27. Panofsky, E. (1927) Die Perspektive als ‘Symbolische Form. In: F. Saxl, (Eds), Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1924–1925 (Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner), p. 285.Google Scholar
28. Panofsky, E. (1915) Das perspektivische Verfahren Leone Battista Albertis. Kunstchronik, 26, pp. 507–516.Google Scholar
29. Panofsky, E. (1925) Die Erfindung der verschiedenen Distanzkonstruktionen in der malerischen Perspektive. In: K. Koetschau, (Ed.), Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 45, pp. 84–86.Google Scholar
30. Edgerton, S.Y. (1980) The renaissance artist as quantifier. In: M.A. Hagen, (Ed.) The Perception of Pictures, vol. 1 (New York: Academic Press), pp. 179–212.Google Scholar
31. Baxandall, M. (1972) Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
32. Gombrich, E. (1972) The visual image. Scientific American, 227(3), pp. 82–96.Google Scholar
33. Holly, M.A. (2000) Figural speculations. In: A. Payne, A. Kuttner and R. Smick, (Eds), Antiquity and its Interpreters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 278.Google Scholar
34. Cassirer, E. (1923) Philosphie der Symbolischen Formen. Die Sprache. Vol. 1 (Berlin: Cassirer).Google Scholar
35. Cassirer, E. (1925) Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen. Das Mythische Denken. Vol. 2 (Berlin: Cassirer).Google Scholar
36. Cassirer, E. (1929) Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen. Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Vol. 3 (Berlin: Cassirer).Google Scholar
37. Field, J.V. (2005) Piero della Francesca: A Mathematician’s Art (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
38. Edgerton, S.Y. (1991) The Heritage of Giotto’s Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
39. Panofsky, E. (1962) Artist, scientist, genius: notes on the ‘Renaissance-Dämmerung. In: W.K. Ferguson, R. López, G. Sarton, R.H. Bainton, L. Bradner and E. Panofsky, (Eds), The Renaissance: Six Essays (New York: Harper and Row), p. 172.Google Scholar
40. Belting, H. (2007) Himmelsschau und Teleskop: Der Blick hinter den Horizont. In: P. Helas, M. Polte, C. Rückert and B. Uppenkamp, (Eds), Bild/Geschichte: Festschrift für Horst Bredekamp (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), p. 206.Google Scholar
41. Belting, H. (2004) Der Blick durch das Fenster: Fernblick oder Innenraum? In: K. Corsepius, D. Mondini, D. Senekovic, L. Sibellano and S. Vitali, (Eds), Opus Tessellatum: Modi und Grenzgänger in der Kunstwissenschaft. Festschrift für Peter Cornelius Clausen (Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag)), pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
42. Belting, H. (1990) Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar
43. Panofsky, E. ([1943] 1955) The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
44. Bredekamp, H. (2000) Gazing hands and blind spots: Galileo as draftsman. Science in Context, 13(3–4), pp. 423–462.Google Scholar
45. Drake, S. (1973) Galileo’s language: mathematics and poetry in a new science. Yale French Studies, 49, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
46. Drake, S. (1977) Galileo and the career of philosophy. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38(1), pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
47. Baron, H. (1943) Towards a more positive evaluation of the fifteenth-century renaissance. Journal of the History of Ideas, 4(1), p. 40.Google Scholar
48. Machamer, P. (1998) Galileo’s machines, his mathematics, his experiments. In: P. Machamer, (Eds), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 64–65.Google Scholar
49. Karpinski, L.C. (1939) Descartes and the modern world. Science, 89(2303), p. 151.Google Scholar
50. Cassirer, E. (1927) Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance (Leizpzig: Teubner), p. 192.Google Scholar
51. Weber, M. ([1917] 1992) Wissenschaft als Beruf. In: W.J. Mommsen, B. Morgenbrod and W. Schluchter, (Eds), Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, vol. 17 (Tübingen: Mohr), pp. 71–111.Google Scholar
52. Mitter, P. (1994) Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 32.Google Scholar
53. Lycett, A. (1999) Rudyard Kipling (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson), p. 27.Google Scholar
54. Ruskin, J. (1859) The Two Paths: Being Lectures on Art and its Application to Decoration and Manufacture, Delivered in 1858-1859 (London: Smith Elder).Google Scholar
55. Belting, H. (2008) Perspective: Arab mathematics and renaissance Western art. European Review, 16(2), 183–190.Google Scholar
56. Kemp, M. (1987) A chaos of intelligence: Leonardo’s Trattato and the perspective wars at the Académie Royale. In P. Rosenberg et al. (Eds), Il se rendit en Italie: Etudes offerstes à André Chastel (Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante), pp. 415–426.Google Scholar
57. Schneider, P. (2008) Eine Frage der Deutungshoheit: Wissenschaftlicher Bilderkrieg in Paris um 1650. Gegenworte: Heft für den Disput über Wissen, 20, pp. 44–48.Google Scholar