< terug

Reverse Perspective

ADO on Reverse Perspective
Studio Wim Goes
Academic year 2020-21, semester 3, Ghent
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


Studio assignment

How to be at the opposite ends of perspective?

How to involve personal space, meaning, context, aspects of identity, the unknow, …?

We start from references. Something speaks…

Can we translate it in another medium (music, film, painting, model, drawing, poetry, photography, …)?

Resulting in an intermedium workpiece.

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 (in a specific medium) we question how it could relate to an architectural context.

let’s make an architectural proposal from the opposite end.

During the studio we interact with the elective ‘Art & Architecture’*.


(*Sometimes we share sessions with the elective on Friday afternoon.

If possible, please keep your Friday afternoon free from other assignments when choosing the studio!)


The cross sessions are organized between Sint-Lucas Architecture and LUCA School of arts.

Architects and artist meet and discuss.  They peer review each other’s work.

Wim Goes, philosopher Dr. Muhleis and guests will lecture.

Could we make an exhibition all together?



Intermedium workpiece
Format and medium is free

architectural proposal
Model, drawings, …

Working on a publication

Working on an exhibition
Cross session

With guests


Research question

What we focus on is the relation of image and architecture, to establish presence, not via linear perspective, but elements of Reverse Perspective as professor C. Antonova described. We do a practical test, before there is a theory. Therefore we have to study first the relation between icons and orthodox architecture in the horizon of the study of Antonova (I), second 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).



At a very early stage Wim Goes is 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’ to find 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