ADO on Reverse Perspective
Studio Wim Goes
Engagement: Mediating Tactics
‘What is landscape? Is it the familiar view from the window, the unknow streets of the neighbourhood, or is it the sublime beauty of nature, the wilderness of jungle? Wherever we find our definitions, landscapes exist at the opposite ends of perspective – from a very personal space, where we attach meaning, context, derive safety, and aspects of identity, to the often-compulsive apprehension of the unknow, in views of wilderness’.
Watts, E, (2012). Images in a Meta Landscape – The work of Ng Sai Kit, Klock, Hong Kong
During the studio we interact with the elective ‘Art & Architecture’.
The crossed sessions are organized with Sint-Lucas Architecture in collaboration with LUCA School of arts.
Architects and artists meet and discuss. They peer review each other’s work.
Wim Goes, philosopher Dr. Muhleis and guests will lecture.
We present and discuss work in progress in a publication of a book.
We start from research questions, to be discussed during the sessions, e.g.
– How to be at the opposite ends of perspective?
– How to involve personal space, meaning, context, aspects of identity, the unknown, …?
– We start from references. Something speaks, it evokes, we feel presence……
– Can we transform the sense of ‘presence’ in another medium (music, film, painting, model, drawing, poetry, photography, …)?
Each participant has to make an intermedium workpiece., resulting from these discussions
These intermedium workpieces are peer-reviewed during the sessions: How do others perceive your work? And why, how? Is there a common ground, something we share? What are the elements of Reverse Perspective?
From this intermedium workpiece we question how it could relate to an architectural context, translating it into an architectural proposal (from the opposite end) (= model, drawing, …) (= final workpiece).
Format and medium is free (music, film, painting, model, drawing, poetry, photography, …)
Final workpiece: architectural proposal
Model, drawings, …
We make an exhibition for the jury (intermedium work)
Crossed session with elective
Working process during the (crossed) sessions
We write 1000 words about Reverse perspective in relation to your work.
We focus on the relationship of image and architecture in order to establish presence, not via linear perspective, but via elements of Reverse Perspective as described by professor C. Antonova. . Starting from practice, we want to end up with theory. Therefore we have to study first the relation between icons and orthodox architecture in the horizon of the study of Antonova (I), secondly the relation of images configured by Reverse Perspective and architecture in general (II), like in cubism or recent paintings of David Hockney in comparison with possible architectural responses. This means we have also to explore conceptually: the relation of image/representation and architecture/presence (III) and the difference between a secular, historical (modernist and contemporary) understanding of Reverse Perspective and its orthodox, ongoing history (IV).
Already at young age Wim Goes was confronted with contemporary art. Meeting and discussing with artists and art curators changed his vision on the position of people in and towards art and architecture, a position allowing the human presence to complete the art and architectural work.
Exhibitions, lectures, … ‘on Reverse Perspective’ can be found on:
School of Architecture, dr. Sam Kebbel and associate dean Mark Southcombe, Victoria University of Wellington
Vienna University, Clemena Antonova, Research Director of the “Eurasia in Global Dialogue”
programme, Institute for the Human Sciences, Vienna
LUCA School of Arts, dr. Volkmar Muhleis, campus Sint-Lucas Gent and Brussel
Alberti, L. B. (2004). On Painting. London: Penguin Books
Antonova, C. (2010 Space). Time, and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God. Farnham: Ashgate
Aureli, P. V., Giudici, M. S. (eds.) (2016). Rituals and Walls: The Architecture of Sacred Space. London: AA Publications
Damisch. H. (2000). The origin of perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Florensky, P. (2002). Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art. London: Reaktion Books Ltd
Gombrich, E. H. (2002) Art & Illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. London: Phaidon
Huylebrouck, D. (2016). Mathematics and popular painting in Congo. In Cueppens, B., and Baloji, S. (eds.) Congo Art Works (pp. 86 – 105) Lannoo: Africa Museum Tervuren;
Kuma, K. (2008). Anti-Object: The dissolution and disintegration of architecture. London: AA Publications
Pallasmaa. J. (2012). The Eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. West Sussex: Wiley
Panofsky, E. (1997). Perspective as Symbolic Form. New York: Zone books
Tarkovsky, A. (1988). Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema. University of Texas Press
Antonova, C. (2010). On the Problem of “Reverse Perspective”: Definitions East and West. Leonardo. Vol. 43, No. 5. pp. 464-469
Avci, O. (July 2015). Rethinking architectural perspective through reverse perspective in orthodox Christian iconography. A|Z ITU Vol. 12. No. 2. pp. 159-171.
Huylebrouck, D. (2016). Reverse Fishbone Perspective. FME Transactions. Vol. 45, No. 2. pp. 209 – 214
Marcikic, I., Paunovic, M. (2017). Inverse perspective in Cézanne’s art. FME Transactions. Vol. 45. No.2. pp. 301-306.
Rowe, C., Slutzky, R. (1963) Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal. Perspecta. Vol. 8, pp. 45-54
Mühleis V., Goes W. (2019), Interview on Reverse Perspective with prof. Clemena Antonova, Sofia
Mühleis V. (2018), Mediations on Reverse Perspective, Brussels
Goes W. (2019), Case study I: Reverse perspective and flagshipstore Yohji Yamamoto, Ghent
Goes W. (2019), Case study II: Reverse Perspective and Refuge II, Ghent