Arguement

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I will be first up today, and as they say, “He who goes first…wins.” I have no doubt that the “wise” and “virtuous” man who sits to the left of me has a sound mind of reason and a pure heart of…well…purity, that will guide him in the selection process. Why, I know not of another man with such an eye for the beautiful, as Lorenzo Medici. Lorenzo’s tastes in art rest their weary bones, and they are weary from so much patronizing…is that the right word? Well, I mean to say he is a patron, and his taste rests next to that of the dogs…I mean gods. This divine knack for seizing beauty by its throat and choking the life INTO commissioned artworks will no doubt lead old Lorenzo well in selecting the perfect artwork for his collection. What is the perfect artwork you may ask? A vision of mathematical perspective perfection. A piece whose orthogonals do not meander in strange, unconvincing ways, but rather stay steady and true to course. (Kind of like Iraq) The great Medici needs a work conceived and executed by a master. Symbolism, humanism, Platonism, and any other ism have only secondary importance to the pointedly prestigious and profound practice of perspective. If one has figures masterfully rendered, down to the most insignificant detail, but no sensible ground to place the figure, what does one have? Garbage. Or in more amiable terms, an artwork where the realism of the figure is lost in empty or imaginary space, where figures float, un-anchored as if nothing else is important. (SCOFF!) Why, my dear friends, my fellow art lovers, I contend that such a work does not exists as art, at least not as the noble art we know, art whose wings have been clipped by classical dogma and whose legs almost crippled by good Christian morals. A work without exact perspective is like breakfast without wine. PREPOSTUORUS! The work I have here, to offer up to the art god Lorenzo, exemplifies mathematical deconstruction of the mystical operations of the eye. The viewer is tricked into seeing depth, taken advantage of, and appropriately so, for he is a lesser being. Who wants a work of art that makes no claims to mimic reality? That doesn’t presume grandeur in its appropriation of the work of the universe? That doesn’t deify the artist? Or make the audience feel inferior for not knowing how he did it? I certainly don’t. And neither did Piero della Francesca. Unfortunately, Piero couldn’t be here today. You see, the universe has since…er…uh, how do I say… re-claimed its handy work, despite Francesca’s “godly” perspective ability. I shall grant only one concession, and that is this: all of the artists being represented here today have attempted to mimic a god. All have sought to separate themselves from the commoner through the means of trickery and deception, and all exist as testaments to the unflinching and offensive gall of humanity. But none does it quite like Piero. The man wrote the book on perspective, literally, its called De prospectiva pingendi. His works highlight the great importance of rendering images through cold and serious mathematics, as opposed to silly intangibles like intuition, emotion, or creative dissent. In fact, I put it to you, comrades, that Piero was not an artist at all, but a mathematician moonlighting as an artist. And, my dear Lorenzo, you of all people should realize that the making of art, with all it’s complexities and demands for rigorous organization, should never be left to an artist! That, my friend, would be like allowing a professor to profess, or permitting a concubine to conk your bine. Utterly ridiculous. Thus, great Lorenzo Medici, whose third eye shines brightest when the lights are off, I leave you to ponder these facts in hopes you’ll see things from my perspective.