As far as I can recall, Nick Pelling first brought to notice the presence of sgraffito in the ms. I can't see any mention in his blog or in the first mailing list, so I suppose it was a reference in his book. Searcher's recent post brought the point again to mind.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The manuscript is replete with details significant for accurately provenancing the pictures' content and the single greatest difficulty I've encountered in providing formal commentary and contextual material online, is the fact that the idea is so widespread that (a) art is 'easy' and universally accessible and (b) that everything I say can be nothing more than personal impressions or internet gleanings from wiki articles etc.
My training began in 1975. I retired 18 months ago. Throughout that time and even now, I doubt that I've spent more than two or three days a month when I wasn't studying because we cannot grasp the significance of a detail without having an existing background against which its significance becomes clear. You know, it wasn't just guesswork or accident or subjective impressions that allowed me to see the astronomical significance and historical setting for the 'cross' detail in one folio or of the plant-heads in f.33v. etc.etc.etc.
What I'm trying to say, then, is that we are not competing with each other for 'reputation points' on this forum, but to correctly understand more about this manuscript. What I want to add to that is that is that IF the scratches are deliberate - which might be impossible to determine, even at first hand - then the presence of sgraffito is significant.
I've mentioned 'sankai' glaze with reservation, too, because I've not troubled to look into it other than noting that sankai would be compatible with other details. For example, even in that same piece, the style for the rim - and the ring of circles (actually bosses) - are quite right for Asian ceramics, and the ring of bosses is positively incompatible with i theories of an all Latin Christian provenance for the content.
I understand that such information and comment as I have provided denies the validity of theories to which many have invested not only time and effort but something of their self-esteem, and that others cannot see why anyone's opinion should not be considered as good as anyone else's. But there are very few professions where that sort of equality applies, and iconographic analysis isn't one.
So, about sgraffito - I can give anyone interested in what it could mean (if the scratches are deliberate) a reading list as long as you like.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The manuscript is replete with details significant for accurately provenancing the pictures' content and the single greatest difficulty I've encountered in providing formal commentary and contextual material online, is the fact that the idea is so widespread that (a) art is 'easy' and universally accessible and (b) that everything I say can be nothing more than personal impressions or internet gleanings from wiki articles etc.
My training began in 1975. I retired 18 months ago. Throughout that time and even now, I doubt that I've spent more than two or three days a month when I wasn't studying because we cannot grasp the significance of a detail without having an existing background against which its significance becomes clear. You know, it wasn't just guesswork or accident or subjective impressions that allowed me to see the astronomical significance and historical setting for the 'cross' detail in one folio or of the plant-heads in f.33v. etc.etc.etc.
What I'm trying to say, then, is that we are not competing with each other for 'reputation points' on this forum, but to correctly understand more about this manuscript. What I want to add to that is that is that IF the scratches are deliberate - which might be impossible to determine, even at first hand - then the presence of sgraffito is significant.
I've mentioned 'sankai' glaze with reservation, too, because I've not troubled to look into it other than noting that sankai would be compatible with other details. For example, even in that same piece, the style for the rim - and the ring of circles (actually bosses) - are quite right for Asian ceramics, and the ring of bosses is positively incompatible with i theories of an all Latin Christian provenance for the content.
I understand that such information and comment as I have provided denies the validity of theories to which many have invested not only time and effort but something of their self-esteem, and that others cannot see why anyone's opinion should not be considered as good as anyone else's. But there are very few professions where that sort of equality applies, and iconographic analysis isn't one.
So, about sgraffito - I can give anyone interested in what it could mean (if the scratches are deliberate) a reading list as long as you like.