viz.

Video Credit: Youtube.com

“Anamorphosis thrives on mystery, and its masters rarely give away their secrets.” The Brothers Quay thus introduce the technique of perspectival distortion, which they document in their short film De Artificiali Perspectiva, or Anamorphosis (1991). This film provides viewers with an introduction to a little known post-Renaissance technique, whose etymological origin derives from the Greek ana (again/against), morphe (shape/form). Re-form against form. Anamorphosis submits a classical paradigm of geometrical perspective to systematic spatial manipulations that thwart a conventional “centric” viewer’s apprehension of representational form on a canvas. In order to satisfactorily envision an anamorphic puzzle, the viewer must adopt an off-axis, lateral, or “eccentric” angle of sight. The mechanics of such sight further requires that the viewer assume a monocular, cyclopean, or “keyhole” gaze, which flattens visual depth and paradoxically conjures up an embedded three-dimensional image. The mechanics of this “eccentric” vision offers an apt analogy for the uncanny aesthetic of anamorphosis.

 Video Credit: Youtube.com

Daniel Collins explains, “This is not the stuff of mass media. . . . this ‘secret discourse’ is ideally suited for the depiction of difficult or illicit subject matter. . . . [In anamorphic art] the viewer occupies the vantage point of a voyeur who must commit (to) the act of seeing. . . . [this technique lends] the reader/observer a special role, an active function—in a word, an identity” (77–78). Lyle Massey contends that an “anamorphic perspective challenges both the supposedly rational construction of vision associated with perspective and the assumed rationality of the Cartesian subject.” (1148). Maria Scott compares anamorphosis to a topology akin to the labyrinth, suggesting that it performs “a gesture of address rather than . . . a simple representation.” Anamorphosis mobilizes the effects of surprise and fascination, entrapping the viewer in the context of its representation. As the embodied observer’s gaze merges with the hidden form staring back, the anamorphic movement destabilizes the subject/object dichotomy necessary for the office of objective criticism. In Stephen and Timothy Quay’s 2009 appearance at the European Graduate School, they liken the experience of anamorphosis to the surrealists’ notion of the “chance encounter.” There is something unsettling about the realization of an anamorphic perspective, not simply because it engenders a sequence of uncanny affects but also because it places the observer in a difficult position of reconciling an “eccentric” awareness.

Video Credit: Youtube.com

Image Credit: wikipedia.org

As much as De Artificiali Perspectiva features trompe-l‘oeil effects of anamorphosis, the film also emphasizes texture and tactility, whether one considers the pink patch from which the protagonist pulls the thread of sight or the coarse curtains that descend to close one scene and transition into another. The Brothers highlight the importance of texture and tactility in their working process. Stephen, for example, explains how they hand craft miniature sets and homemade puppets from found materials. “We’re firm believers that the hands know more than the brain. . . .We’re great scavengers of flea markets. It’s the old surrealist principle of the chance encounter between an object placed here next to that object that the guy carefully sets out on the stall every morning <[Timothy: unconsciously> he unconsciously will set up a conjugation of images and/or an object. We’ll go around and go ‘there it is—he said something.’ So these are great little found moments that I think are weirdly, very, important for our work. It’s the thing animation studios would find disruptive. . . . We would be fired pretty quickly on a Tim Burton film.” As I watched their lecture, I was struck by the thought of how this process might unfold. Stephen and Timothy Quay dismiss the suggestion that they possess a “telepathic” faculty, although it seems quite clear that they share creative and intellectual duplexity: “[Stephen:] Our focus is very, very, very narrow in the sense of what <[Timothy:] we can give you.>” (see part one, 55 seconds; see also Part 7, 1 min. 39 sec.).

What the Brothers give is a glimpse into the powerfully obscure. In their explanation of what subject matter motivates them, they state, “We’re clearly not interested in masterpieces. To us, anamorphosis is a much more interesting chapter than just straight classical perspective. . . . It’s hard to find a good book on anamorphosis. What we’re talking about are metaphors for further exploration.” Those readers interested in applications of anamorphosis in critical theory might check out Jacques Lacan’s Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (1964) or Slavoj Zizek’s Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture (1992).

Image Credit: http://users.telenet.be/thomasweynants//anamorphose-anamorphose.html

Daniel Collins has affiliated the technique of anamorphosis with subversive elements of the magical and taboo. The Brothers’ description of their film (perhaps intentionally) reinforces this strange aura. Stephen asks the audience, “[Stephen:] Do you know what the art of anamorphosis is? It’s artifical perspective. It’s distortion. <[Timothy:] Everybody knows the Holbein painting—the skull and the bone. . . . [For] this project, originally we wrote to [Jurgis] Baltrusaitis because he had written a book, which was published in English. We wrote to him directly to say ‘could we have his collaboration?’ His wife wrote back immediately saying that on the day our letter arrived, he died. And so we dedicated the film to him. . . . In the book Baltrusaitis mentions that the original impulse for the painting was that you would actually enter the room and see a life-size painting and you would be immediately shocked because they were life size. As you walked in you saw two men, two ambassadors. And your first sight is an elongated shape. But as you approach, you notice there is a door on the right. So as you move closer towards it, you took in all the magisterial eloquence and lavishness of costume. And so you slowly move toward the door, satisfied that you had seen everything. And at the last minute, this thing at the bottom of the painting continued to nag at you and so you cast the last glance before going through the door, and this skull—this unidentified object—suddenly came into shape. Then you realize that life comes to death (veritas), and that is your last glimpse. We had chosen about six others, but the stipulation was that we had to use that painting.> The Brothers’ ultimate collaborators on their film, Roger Cardinal and Sir Ernst Gombrich, would bring to bear an unparalleled expertise. Below is an excerpt of Gombrich speaking with Charlie Rose in 1995. His remarks on “mystery” early on in the conversation (1 min. 45 sec.—2 min) are intriguing.

Video Credit: Youtube.com 

My post has treated anamorphosis in a general way thus far, but it is worth noting that this technique is extremely diverse. Readers interested in the variety of anamorphic techniques should visit Thomas Weynant’s website, “Anamorphoses, The World of Hidden Image” http://www.visual-media.be/visualmedia.html. Anyone interested in making their own anamorphic art, furthermore, can experiment with photo/image programs that allow alterations of the vertical and horizontal grid. Below is an everyday example of anamorphosis and a video of a large-scale anamorphic art project.

 Image Credit: http://users.telenet.be/thomasweynants//anamorphose-anamorphose.html

Video Credit: Youtube.com

Works Cited

Daniel L. Collins, "Anamorphosis and the Eccentric Observer: Inverted Perspective and Construction of the Gaze," Leonardo 25.1 (1992): 73–82

Lyle Massey, "Anamorphosis through Descartes or Perspective Gone Awry," Renaissance Quarterly 50.4 (1997): 1148–89.

Maria Scott, "Lacan's 'Of the Gaze as Objet Petit a' as Anamorphic Discourse," Paragraph 31.3 (2008): 327–43.