Theory On Trial: Science Behind Piero's Painting

The Flagellation c. 1455
by Piero della Francesca
Oil and tempera on panel, 59 x 82 cm
Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino

--------------

Can an artistic piece of work be interpreted using mathematical methods? Is it valid to make assumptions that a Renaissance painter (who is also a mathmatician) used geometric rules to guide his artisitic creation?

An article from this week's Nature reported a science historian's discoveries, uncovering mysteries surrounding a Renaissance masterpiece - The Flagellation by Piero della Francesca (c. 1455). Its most puzzling feature falls on the identification of the three men standing on the right (see above).

David King, a historian of scientific instruments (Frankfurt, Germany), proposed his interpretation of Piero's painting. It revealed elements of mathematics and how they shaped Piero's vision for his art.

How did King's discovery begin?

Originally, King was interested in a particular 15th Century Astrolobe - instrument used by astronomers to tell timeline and alignment of planets. (see below). It was a gift from Johannes Regiomontanus to Cardinal Ioannis Bessarion, dated around the time Piero painted The Flagellation. A learned Greek scholar, Cardinal Bessarion was Regiomontanus' mentor. The gift to his teacher was made before Regiomontanus left Vienna for Rome.




What intrigued David King was the "spacing pattern" of the inscription on the bottom - letters were unevenly distributed. King decided to study it further. It roughly translates to: "Under the protection of Bessarion, I arise in Rome in 1462 as a work of Johannes explaining the rotation of the universe." More, a rather surprising detail came out of King's readings: the Cardinal Bessarion had been proposed to be the bearded man in The Flagellation.

King and Holzschuh, then, enlarged the inscription to align letters to figures in the painting (see vertical lines drawn over the painting below). Decoding the inscriptions meant solving "identities" for each figure. For example, "IO from IOANNIS". These deductions helped King propose multiple identities for each figure in the "flagellation scene", contrary to conventional belief.

But what about the three men? King proposed the following:
Bearded man: Bessarion
Youth: Regiomontanus
Man on the right: multiple identities that include Giovanni Bacci (a possible sponsor)

King argued that multiple identities ensured that the painting could be interpreted in different ways, thus paying tribute to its original title "They came together in one" (Convenerunt in unum).

Where did the math come into play? -- in the "gloden ratio", said King.
" (A:B) = [(A+B):A] " King hypothesized that Piero used it to precisely workout "viewer perspectives" for the painting. If true, Piero was ahead of his time.




Is King's theory fact or fiction?
Many critics and art historians disagree with King's theory, though he has supporters, too. Evidence King needs to prove his theory may never be found, said Architect James Bradburne (Florence, Italy). King needs to show direct evidence that calculations were made for sketching the draft of the painting and that alignments were recorded according to the Astrolobe for Cardinal Bessarion.

It is gratifying to me that artists used mathematical (or, scientific) theories to inspire and guide their art. What is artistic creation, if it is not built on improvements discovered by men to reveal humanity? Artists of today might want to think back on masterworks created during the Renaissance period, when knowledge from diverse areas intermingled, leading to a creative product. For example, studying Human Anatomy led to technical advancements in painting and sculpture, under Humanism influence.

I think modern-day educational directions are deficient in teaching people to combine knowledge from various seeminly unrelated fields. Most professional fields have schematized steps to teach a person a specific set of skills. BUT, is that all one needs? Aren't we taught to think "outside of the box"?



News Feature:
Nature 446, 488-492 (29 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446488a; Published online 28 March 2007

For a "real" lecture, go to:
http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb13/ign/Code.htm

Oh, Charlie Brown

http://www.snoopy.com/comics/peanuts/index.html

Re-Making Mosquitoes

Malaria, a devastating parasitic disease, kills millions of children per day in many countries in Africa, South America, & South/Southeast Asia. It is caused by parasites in the Plasmodium genus. These parasites are transmitted via female Anopheles mosquitos thus spreading malaria from person to person.

For the past three decades, scientists have been looking for clues and for evidence as to how to device an "intervention method".

There are three major concerns:
1) Can we re-engineer mosquitoes so they canNOT become "carriers" for malaria parasites?
2)Will these mosquitoes survive, if their genomes are modified?
3)Will they procreate and make a new population outside of laboratory environment?

The first two of these concerns have been brought to our attention when scientists began to publish their findings in 2003. They found that they could re-engineer certain species of Anopheles with an altered genome. A special protein peptide called SM1 blocks mosquitoe's gut and thus prevents Plasmodium development. It can be genetically engineered into the mosquitoe genome such that mosquitoes can pass-on the SM1 gene to their progenies.

Will these progenies surivive when they come in contact with infected blood? The most recent research article addressed this question. SM1-Mosquitoes were tested for survival fitness, compared with regular wildtype mosquitoes of the same species, when they were exposed to infected blood in the laboratory. If mosquitoes had only one copy of the SM1 incorporated into their genome, rather than 2 copies, they could survive better but doesn't reduce mosquitoe's resistence to malaria. Their experiments have to be repeated, of course, for Plasmodium species specific to human infections. It can turn out to be a powerful new technology for the future.

However, I cannot stop to wonder: Will a re-engineered mosquito species replace what's already in existence in nature? How many "mosquito generations" will it take??



Marrelli M. T., Li C., Rasgon J. L. & Jacobs-Lorena M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104 . 5580 - 5583 (2007).
Catteruccia F., Godray H. C. & Crisanti A. Science, 299 . 1225 - 1227 (2003).
Riehle M. M., et al. Science, 312. 577 - 579 (2006).