BRUNELLESCHI AND THE CAMERA

OBSCURA: THE DISCOVERY OF

PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE
SHIGERU TSUJI

Ii quali simulacri se nascieranno di loco alluminato dal sole paran proprio dipinti in
essa carta ...
Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1508
Quell'uso che fanno gli Astronomi del cannocchiale, i Fisici del microscopic, quel
medesimo dovrebbon fare della Camera Ottica i pittori. Conducono egualmente tutti
cotesti ordigni a meglio conoscere, e a rappresentar la Natura.
Francesco Algarotti, 1763
Two lost panel paintings recorded as executed by Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446)
have received much attention in the literature because the origin of linear perspective
has been linked with them. One such panel is said to have depicted the Florentine
Baptistry of San Giovanni. This paper will propose the method by which
Brunelleschi reproduced the monument through reconstruction of the
contemporaneous circumstances. The opinion presented here differs from those
set forth previously by various authors! regarding both Brunelleschi's method and
his disposition for the Baptistry panel painting. This proposal is concise and limited
in its methodological discussion precisely because Brunelleschi's experiment -
as will be described - seems much simpler and more empirical than has heretofore
been suggested. Like other essayists, however, the author will cite the famous text
of the artist's biographer, Antonino di Tuccio Manetti, as the primary source.
A portion of Manetti's The Life of Brunelleschi states:

And this matter of perspective, in the first thing in which he showed it,
was in a small panel about half a braccio square (una tavoletta di circa mezzo
braccio quadro), on which he made an exact picture (from outside) of the
church of San Giovanni di Firenze (dove fecie una pittura assimilitudine del
tempio di fuori di Santo Giovanni di Firenze), and of that church he portrayed
as much as can be seen at a glance from the outside: and it seems that in
order to portray it he placed himself inside the middle door of Santa -
Maria del Fiore, some three braccia (e' sia stato a ritrarlo dentro alla porta del
mezzo di Santa Maria del Fiore qualche braccia tre) , done with such care and

Art History Vol. 13 No.3 September 1990 ISSN 0141-6790

 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

delicacy, and with such accuracy in the colours of the white and black
marbles, that there is not a miniaturist who could have done it better
(fatto con tanta diligenza e gentilezza e tanto apunto co colon" de marmi bianchi et
e
neri, che non miniatore che I'avessi fatto meglio); picturing before one's face
that part of the piazza which the eye takes in, and so towards the side
over against the Misericordia as far as the arch and corner of the Pecori,
and so of the side of the column of the miracle of San Zenobio as far as
the Canto alla Paglia; and as much of that place as is seen in the
distance, and for as much of the sky as he had to show, that is where the
walls in the picture vanish into the air, he put burnished silver, so that
the air and the natural skies might be reflected in it; and thus also the
clouds which are seen in that silver are moved by the wind, when it
blows. In which painting, because the painter needs to presuppose a
single place, whence his picture is to be seen, fixed in height and depth
and in relation to the sides, as well as in distance, so that it is impossible
to get distortions in looking at it, such as appear in the eye at any place
which differs from that particular one, he had made a hole in the panel
on which there was this painting, which came to be situated in the part of
the church of San Giovanni, where the eye struck, directly opposite
anyone who looked out from that place inside the central door of Santa
Maria del Fiore, where he would have been positioned, if he had
portrayed it; which hole was as small as a lentil on the side of the
painting, and on the back it opened out pyramidally, like a woman's
straw hat, to the size of a ducat or a little more. And he wished the eye
to be placed at the back, where it was large, by whoever had it to see,
with the one hand bringing it close to the eye, and with the other holding
a mirror opposite, so that there the painting came to be reflected back;
and the distance of the mirror in the other hand, came to about the
length of a small braccio; up to that of a true braccio, from the place
where he showed that he had been to paint it, as far as the church of San
Giovanni (quella dilazione dello specchio dall'altra mana veniva a essere la distanza
velcirca, di braccia piccoline, quanta a braccia vere dal luogo dove mostrava essere
stato a ritrarlo per insino al tempio di San Giovanni), which on being seen, with
the other circumstances already mentioned of the burnished silver and of
the piazza etc. and of the perforation, it seemed as if the real thing was
seen (pareva che si vedessi'l proprio vera): and I have had it in my hand, and
I can give testimony. 2

THE FIRST STEP: DRAWING BY THE USE OF CAMERA OBSCURA

It is our contention that Brunelleschi painted his Baptistry panel by the following
method.
He placed himself within the Santa Maria del Fiore, just inside the central portal
with the doors somewhat ajar. He then attached a board or plate previously prepared
with the proper aperture (to serve as a diaphragm) to the opening between the

277
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

doors at eye-level, and covered the remaining upper and lower areas of the
opening." Next, Brunelleschi placed an easel at a slight distance from the doors,
and on it he stood perfectly upright a panel prepared with gesso. Having done
this, the image of the Baptistry standing before the Cathedral was cast upon the
panel in an inverted and reversed image (plate 6). In order to obtain an image
with the best possible characteristics for being reproduced by drawing, the artist
had to adjust the easel and panel, in consideration both of their distance from the
doors and of the composition, by moving the panel up and down; he then took
up his brush, tracing the outline of the Baptistry and copying it in detail just as
it was reflected on the panel. The execution of coloration was undertaken once
back in his studio, as was the application of silver or tin to the sky portion.
Brunelleschi undoubtedly spent many hours experimenting and planning before
finally setting up his easel in the Cathedral. The determining factor in obtaining
the brightest and sharpest image possible on the panel, given the conditions of
a darkened interior, was the shape of the diaphragm's aperture. Generally speaking,
the phenomenon of projecting externally located, illuminated object(s) into a dark
room through a small hole in the wall would have been common knowledge in
Brunelleschi's time." Nevertheless, although the phenomenon was known, the
actual size of the hole is very rarely mentioned in descriptions; rather, 'small' was
the usual extent of any mention ." Therefore, Brunelleschi must have determined
the shape of the aperture through his own experiments. When one considers that
information regarding this phenomenon had heretofore been garnered by
astronomers or optical theoreticians, and conducted by using the sun or a candle-
flame, Brunelleschi - who chose urbanscapes as new subjects - had all the more
need to experiment independently. The principle is precisely the same for each
case, but the appropriate aperture shape varies according to the dimension and
luminosity of the reflected object as well as the intended application of the image.
The so-called 'pinhole' of contemporary photography must ideally be a minute
hole measuring 0.3 mm." This dimension presumes the use of light-sensitive film
on to which a relatively small image is imprinted. But in Brunelleschi's case the
image was reflected on a white surface of gesso and transferred with the naked
eye by brush. If a minute hole of the above size were utilized, the brightness would
be quite insufficient and it would be impossible to produce a workable image.
Experiments by the author have determined that an aperture diameter of about
20 mm can produce a sufficient likeness of exterior objects. If the diameter is reduced
to 10 mm, the outlines of details will remain somewhat blurred, but the image
is quite recognizable. For sharper detail, a smaller aperture is desirable; thus, the
reduction of aperture diameter is proportionate to sharpness. As noted above,
however, if the aperture is overly reduced then the brightness becomes insufficient
and the image unreadable. Should we wish to increase the brightness of the image,
there is no choice but to bring the panel closer to the diaphragm; in this case,
however, the space between the latter two may not allow an artist to work
comfortably. That is, in order to permit the artist to move a hand-held brush freely,
a space of at least approximately 20-30 ern is necessary. Below, the author will
determine the actual distance between the panel and diaphragm used by
Brunelleschi.
With the early camera obscura, which lacked a lens, the angle of convergence

278
 A

BATT I STERD
_Yl.. . __

6 Reflection of the Baptistry image within the Cathedral

279
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

of the object as it enters the aperture and the corresponding angle of divergence
upon the screen within a black box or darkened room are equal. Therefore, when
the screen (or panel) upon which the object is reflected is vertical, the triangles
created on either side of the aperture by these respective angles and vertical lines
will be homologous triangles. Furthermore, these angles are never affected by a
change in the diameter of the aperture. Based on results obtained by the author
at the original site, as seen in plate 6, it would be necessary to have an angle of
elevation (A 0 W) of 39° and an angle of declination (B 0 W) of 13° between
the diaphragm opening and the upper and lower edges, respectively, of the supposed
boundaries in which the complete image of the Baptistry from top to bottom is
to be included. Moreover, these same angles have exact correspondence to those
angles which comprise the angle of divergence within the dark room, i.e., the angle
of elevation L. A 0 W equals L. A' 0 E, and the angle of declination L. BOW
equals L. B' 0 E. Consequently, using h to represent the height of the panel and
d for the distance between the panel and diagragm, d may be calculated by the
following formula:
d (tan 39° + tan 13°) = h
h h h
d = 0.96 h
tan 39° + tan 13° 0.81 + 0.23 1.04
(h = 29.2 em.)
d = 29.2 em. X 0.96 = 28 em.

The distance 28 em, approximately equal to the height of the panel h, which has
been described by Manetti as 'circa mezzo braccio', 7 corresponds with the
measurement of '20-30 em' noted above as necessary for free movement of the
artist's hand and brush. When this distance is used, the author determines from
experimentation that an aperture diameter must be greater than 2 mm in order
to obtain an acceptable degree of image brightness."
Another necessary point to consider is that the board or plate on which any
aperture is to be made has a thickness which will, in turn, usually determine the
depth of the aperture. The proportions of the aperture required to view a scene
differ from those used for observations of the sun or a candle-flame, which comprise
a narrower visual angle and require a special device. When the angle of elevation
is, as noted above, 39°, the minimum angle of divergence for forming the 'image
circle' is twice that, i.e. 78°. If we use as an example a modern-day camera lens,
the corresponding lens would be a 26-mm wide-angle lens. However, if the board
is thick, that is, the hole deep, the entering ray of light will be disturbed at the
perimeter (a phenomenon known as vignetting) and it is impossible to achieve a
wide image circle. As a countermeasure, one may utilize either a diaphragm with
an aperture in the shape of a cone (i.e. a small hole on one side and on the reverse
a larger hole)," or a hole in a very thin metal plate!" in order to obtain a wide
image circle of not only 78° but over 90° as well.
When deciding upon the distance between the diaphragm and panel, as above,
the vertical position of the panel must also be determined based upon the projected
image. The inverted image of the Baptistry produced by the ray of light passing

280
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

through the aperture as defined above would occupy a greater portion below the
aperture level than above it (i.e. E 0 A '> E 0 B '). In order to eliminate the
unimportant area of the ground that extended from the Baptistry base, the panel
could be shifted downward in position (i.e. the image upward), or Brunelleschi
may have used a panel a size larger than that initially noted and later cut it down.

THE SECOND STEP: APPLYING THE PEEPSHOW (ZOGRASCOPE)

TRICK FOR VIEWING

In this way Brunelleschi drew the Baptistry in situ and, after returning to his atelier,
applied the pigments; upon completing this stage he certainly thought at length,
as a result of which he further determined the treatment and viewing method to
be applied.
The first problems confronting Brunelleschi were that the image produced on
site was inverted and reversed. In regard to the inversion, the artist could simply
turn the panel top to bottom. To deal with the image reversal, or so-called mirror
image, however, it was necessary to employ some device for right viewing. The
only expedient method was to reflect the panel in a mirror. Viewing the panel
in this manner, however, is problematic, because the image reflected in the mirror
cannot be viewed straight-on but only obliquely from beyond the edge of the panel,
which causes some perspectival distortion. Therefore, after some consideration the
artist must have proceeded as follows. He created a hole in the panel, determined
by visually extending an imaginary line from the aperture (diaphragm) in situ to
the Baptistry facade. The position of this hole may be compared to the vanishing
point defined later by Alberti in the application oflinear perspective. After having
made this hole he then held a mirror to face the image on the panel and viewed
its reflection from behind the panel through the hole he had created (plate 7). Indeed,
according to Manetti's biography of Brunelleschi, there was a hole on the front
of the panel, 'as small as a lentil ... and on the back it opened out pyramidally,
like a woman's straw hat, to the size of a ducat or a little more'. This treatment
allowed one to view through the hole as closely to the panel as possible, and thus
gave a wide angle view of the entire Baptistry as reflected in the mirror.
The image that Brunelleschi saw reflected in the mirror must have greatly
surprised him; it was a great discovery. Firstly, the view through the peep-hole
with one eye would have produced an even greater three-dimensional effect than
a view with two eyes, and Brunelleschi would likely have been surprised at the
realistic sense of proximity of the Baptistry as reflected in the mirror. Secondly,
he could discover by holding the mirror in one hand and moving it to and fro
that a most realistic approximation of the Baptistry could be achieved somewhere
between the intervals of movement. 11 He discovered that the principal key to the
perfect illusion consisted of the same ratio for the size of the actual Baptistry to
the mirror-reflected Baptistry, as for the distance between the diaphragm aperture
and Baptistry in situ to that between the eye and the mirror-reflected Baptistry. 12
In this case, because the visual angle A" 0 I B" (angle of elevation 39 ° + angle
of declination 13°) for the reflected image is the same as angle A 'OB I and A 0 B
at the time the panel was produced, the triangle between the eye and the mirror-

281
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

A'

1
W'

7 Geometry of panel and mirror

reflected Baptistry is the same as that between the diaphragm aperture and the
panel, and therefore similar to that between the diaphragm aperture and the real
Baptistry in situ (~ A" 0' B" = ~ A' 0 B' C/) ~ A 0 B). As can be seen in plates
6 and 7, the view from the Cathedral in situ is replaced by that of the naked eye
behind the panel; thus, the original Baptistry form is represented by travelling
a similar but inverse visual course. 13 This was an epoch-making discovery and an
experience of the greatest importance for the history of perspectiva artificialis.
Brunelleschi was undoubtedly satisfied with the image he saw reflected in the
mirror through the peep-hole: the Baptistry itself would have appeared fully three-
dimensional and the space of the surrounding piazza would have receded deeply.
He then took up his brush and moved toward completion of the panel. As regards
the sky, he may have initially tried to apply ultramarine to the panel, but he
apparently arrived at a preference for the effects of a mirrored surface. Thus, he
applied silver plate or leaf to the panel and polished it. With this assertively
innovative application, the blue of the real sky and its white clouds could be reflected.
By using this method, however, the true sky was first filtered by the metallic silvery
surface, and then once again by the reflection of the panel in the mirror, resulting
in a final sky-image that was of great depth and greatly neutralized.
Although the initial idea to view the panel by mirror, as noted above, was
undoubtedly to rectify the resulting mirror image, Brunelleschi must have known

282
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

or soon discovered that, in fact, the reflected image of the painted architecture
and its surroundings were much closer to the 'feel' of the original scene than was
the panel representation alone. That is, neutralization - or the reduction of the
viewer's information regarding the texture and thus flatness of the picture plane
- was effected by the mirror. 14 The artist's final product was certainly of great
surprise to the contemporary viewer in that it convincingly represented reality.

BRUNELLESCHI'S USE OF THE CAMERA OBSCURA: PROOFS

That Brunelleschi employed the camera obscura method in the first step of his
task to produce the Baptistry panel has been asserted by the author. Proofs for
this assertion are detailed below.

Proof 1: The picture showed a faithful reproduction of the actual scene

According to Manetti's document, Brunelleschi's panel was 'an exact picture of

the church of San Giovanni' and it was 'done with such care and delicacy ('latto
con tanta diligenza e gentilezza') , and with such accuracy in the colours of the white
and black marbles, that there is not a miniaturist who could have done it better'.
That is, his statement attests to the fact that Brunelleschi's work was a realistic
rendering of an actual scene and the architecture in situ and that it was a detailed
depiction much like that of a miniature. The panel faithfully reproduced details
of the Baptistry such as sculptural ornamentation and the white and dark green
marble decoration on the surface of the building. Certainly, one of the most
outstanding reasons for Brunelleschi's choice of the Baptistry was its status as a
prominent building in Florence, and his primary motive could thus be inferred
as to reproduce faithfully this reputed architectural monument.
To arrive at the invention of perspective painting, an artist necessarily proceeded
quickly but exactly through a number of steps, as follows: (1) reproduction of the
actual architectural scene on the picture surface; (2) analysis of the perspectival
picture and the discovery of the one-point perspective principle; (3) invention of
the pictorial perspective system; (4) practical application of the invented perspective
rules in painting. It seems certain that Brunelleschi's work encompasses the first
and second steps but not the last step, 4, which comprises works such as the 'Citto.
ideale, (by the school of Piero della Francesca, Galleria Nazionale delle Marche,
Urbino; Staatliche Museen, Berlin; Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore) and many
other paintings that depict invented architectural scenes. Brunelleschi painted the
Baptistry not to apply but to find perspective. And for this purpose, thus realizing
as faithfully as possible the scene composed by the actual buildings, it is obvious
that the camera obscura was the expedient method.

Proof 2: The picture was a mirror image

According to Manetti's statement, in order to view the Baptistry panel properly

one should view its mirror reflection from behind, looking through an opening
made in it. This implies that the picture itself was a mirror image. Whether the

283
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

fact that it was a mirror image was intentional or an unavoidable result of some
feature of the artist's method is an important issue for consideration. If it was
intentional then the mode of viewing the panel by mirror would have been
predetermined as would be the inverse depiction. If this were the case, Brunelleschi
would have had purposefully to carry out the painstaking procedure of transforming
a right image to a mirror image, which would have involved a sophisticated and
complicated mathematical method. The author does not believe that this would
have been possible in Brunelleschi's time, since his work predates the related history
of the representation of perspective pictorial space.
If Brunelleschi' s panel was drawn by using the Cathedral building as a camera
obscura, as the author asserts, then it would represent the oldest known example
of this method as appliedtopainting. Of course, Brunelleschi' s early method displays
any number of distinguishing characteristics and resultant effects, one of which
is certainly the mirror image. In order to obtain a right image when using the
camera obscura one must exchange the picture panel with tracing paper, ground
glass or some translucent material and view the image from behind it, or place
a mirror between the aperture and picture plane. Leonardo da Vinci specifies the
use of thin paper as a picture plane which must be looked at from behind.l" and
this type of adapted camera obscura was in general use by at least the sixteenth
century.l'' Since Brunelleschi did not use such a technically advanced camera
obscura he most likely copied the image as it was projected upon the gessoed panel-
surface, which was necessarily a mirror image. That is, the fact that Brunelleschi's
panel showed a mirror image - an inevitable result of an early-type camera obscura
method - should serve as a definite proof that he utilized such a method.l"

Proof 3: The picture was of an unusually small size

The measurement of the panel offered by Manetti, circa mezzo braccio quadro, or
approximately 29 ern square, was unusually small for general panel painting.
Manetti's mention of the panel as like a miniaturist's work was not only appropriate
to describe its detail but also its small size. This is explained by the situation described
above, whereby the small aperture required for producing a projected image of
the desired sharpness in the darkened Cathedral meant that the brightness was
determined by moving the panel as close to the aperture as would allow for its
unobstructed execution by the artist. The author determines from experimentation
that if the distance were 28 em, the height of the reflected image of the Baptistry
would have been 24 ern, therefore, the size of the panel mezzo braccio quadro (29 ern
X 29 cm) should have been sufficient to enclose the reflected image'" (plate 8).
When the lens was applied later to the camera obscura the problems of sharpness
and brightness were mostly eliminated, but in the earlier type of camera obscura
method, the inevitable result of reproducing an image was a work of small size.

Proof 4: Brunelleschi's working position as described by Manetti is situated in the optimum

conditions for use of the Camera Obscura method

Manetti writes: 'it seems that in order to portray it he placed himself inside the
middle door of Santa Maria del Fiore, at some three braccia (approx. 175 cm)';

284
A

~.28<7--~
------ -1- _
I ,
,
I

\
\
\
\

1
I
I
1
.,. -
I
I
I
/~ r-~-:--~-...,. --- - - --_.
B / I
--;--r-
I
I
1
t:--
e-,
1"-.
o 1 I
78. - --- .::_=.....__t.::...-
I

,,- r -
I '.I
230 -.,..., r
\ I
\ I
\
-,
\ I
/

/
at 0 /
I

32.4,32.4
/
I
- --_._----
64.8 a
8 Presumed measures and angles for the position of the Baptistry picture panel: 8A When the distance is
set to 28 em; 8B When the distance is shortened to 23 cm; 1: Angle of utilized image circle; 2: Effective
picture angle (horizontal); 3: Effective picture angle (vertical)
285
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

Brunelleschi's working position inside the Cathedral as imagined by Manetti and

that hypothesized above by the author are one and the same'" (plate 9). Because
the Baptistry and Cathedral essentially comprise a central axis, when one stands
inside the central portal of the Cathedral one may obtain a direct frontal view of
the Baptistry. The distance between the Baptistry and Cathedral, too, allows the
Baptistry to be sufficiently framed - neither too close nor too far - for pleasing
composition. The axis formed by the Baptistry and Cathedral runs nearly east to
west, with the Cathedral facing west and the Baptistry facing east, so that during
some hours before noon the facade of the Baptistry is lit by the sun and the Cathedral
portal is in shadow. In early morning, the shadow of the campanile and the
Cathedral cut off the Baptistry's facade, but nearer to noon the facade emerges
completely from the shadow. This constitutes a situation necessary for realizing
the camera obscura effect, as described by Leonardo:
I say that if the front of a building - or any open piazza or field -
which is illuminated by the sun has a dwelling opposite to it, and if, in
the front which does not face the sun, you make a small round hole, all
the illuminated objects will project their images through that hole and be
visible inside the dwelling on the opposite wall which should be made
white; and there, in fact, they will be upside down ... 20
Under these same conditions, Brunelleschi worked in the morning hours - the
time that was then common for labour - to execute his panel. Significantly, if
the artist used the pre-existing Cathedral building as a temporary camera obscura
in this manner, it would represent the earliest phase of experimentation of the so-
called 'room-type camera obscura'. 21

Proof 5: For representing the actual scene, the camera obscura method is especially convenient

To reproduce an image of an existing scene, the artist is often interested in the

most expedient means. Examples of devices that bear witness to this interest from
the Renaissance period are the squared grid and mirror, among others. The mirror,
after Filarete's mention on it 22 has been cited by numerous scholars as having
been employed by Brunelleschi in the making of his perspective. One school of
opinion states that the image was projected directly on a mirror or a panel to which
silver leaf was applied; another that while viewing the image projected on the mirror
it was drawn on an adjacent panel. 23 Kemp has described the impossibility of
these methods, an opinion which I would fully endorse:
The technical difficulties in the use of a static mirror in this manner are
considerable. The image in a mirror is a very slippery thing. An
absolutely fixed viewpoint must be established between the mirror and the
object, because the perspective relationships change with each shift in the
observer's position. The viewer's head must necessarily occlude that part
of the object which lies on and near the all-important visual axis ...
Painting on the actual surface of a mirror just does not seem to be a
practical proposition. With the paint itself, the brush and observer's head
obscuring progressively more of the image floating behind the mirror
surface, the necessary precision would have been impossible to obtain.f"
286
 \

9 Presumed working position inside the central portal of the Cathedral

287
 HRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

Kemp's idea that because 'the image in a mirror is a very slippery thing' it
cannot serve as 'a modello or "underdrawing'" is, I think, correct. The mirror
cannot be a support upon which the image reflected in it is drawn.
Kemp asserts that Brunelleschi used a medieval measuring technique comprising
a mirror and other tools, and that this played the principal role in the birth of
the artist's perspective panel. His explanation lacks, however, any suggestion of
an appropriate method by which the great amount of data necessary to the
perspective composition of the panel image was transferred and assembled in
perspective order. One cannot help but question how the data not only for the
primary features of the building's height and width but also for relating specifically
to more detailed areas were measured and applied. If the details were omitted and
simply assessed by eye, such data would outweigh the primary skeletal features
and the majority of the design would thus be drawn by eye, with a resultant loss
of precision. Comparatively, none of the other practical or mathematical methods
presented elsewhere to date are as expedient as the camera obscura - with its
more directly applicable technique - as a means to reproduce the actual scene
in question. In the history of artistic technology, as well as in technology more
generally, convenience has prevailed over inconvenience.

Proof 6: The history of the camera obscura will be completely revealed with Brunelleschi's
experiment

Potonniee, author of the remarkable History of the Discovery of Photography, has noted
that:

A solar ray filtering through some narrow aperture into a darkened room
and there showing as a luminous round spot is a phenomenon known for
many centuries. The first use made of this seems to have been the
examination of solar eclipses without danger to the eye. Who was the first
to do this? Roger Bacon might be named without hurting the truth but
without certainty. Some time later it was learned that through this hole
contrived in the wall or window, the image of all exterior objects
delineated themselves in the room, and one could observe also the
passers-by and the public square. Who was the first to see this? We have
no clear description of it prior to that of Leonardo da Vinci. A passage in
Roger Bacon which I have quoted in speaking about projections where
concave mirrors are described reflecting exterior objects, is too vague to
reach any conclusion. Between Bacon and Vinci more than two hundred
years elapsed. Two centuries of silence as to the camera obscura. This
seems incredible and can only mean that we have no knowledge of other
writers who speak of the subject. If we could trace them, the history of
the camera obscura would unroll the successive steps of its progress from
antiquity to our day and one would recognize it without always knowing
the authors; it would be seen how the arrangements became more and
more complicated by the increasingly ingenious applications. Thus, it is
vain to single out anyone as inventor of the camera obscura because
there is no such individual. If this honour must be bestowed upon any

288
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE

one of the scholars who have most contributed to it, whether it be Vinci,
Bacon or Guillaume de Saint-Cloud, of whom we know so little, it must
be bestowed on Porta. However, what a difference from the camera of
Bacon to that of Vinci!25

Two centuries of silence between Roger Bacon and Leonardo da Vinci could
be justifiably broken by Brunelleschi and the big difference between the camera
of Bacon and that of Leonardo would be mediated by Brunelleschi's. The primitive
arrangement of the camera obscura, i.e., the use of a real room with a small aperture
and the application of neither lens, mirror nor translucent screen should take its
proper position in the history of the discovery of photography. Prior to Leonardo,
the first to see and to employ in painting the image of exterior objects as delineated
in a room through a hole contrived in the wall could well be Brunelleschi.

CONCLUSION

In this way, Brunelleschi utilized the camera obscura principle to paint the Baptistry
in perspective; then he introduced a peep-hole-viewing device through the re-creation
of a view structure similar to that originally captured by the camera obscura (plate
7). Because this device was presented for the first time, Florentine artists and citizens
were greatly impressed. His work, as regards both the application of the camera
obscura to artistic ends and the use of a peepbox-type device, represents the very
first stages in their respective developments, but what is most significant is that
his achievement is the first veduta work in history, one that was apparently rich
in distinctive realism.
The importance of his work, however, is not limited to the above. Also of
significance are the fundamentals it incorporates from which emerged the important
concepts of monocular perspective and perceptual depth effect through the
homologous triangles described above. These developments were a major factor
and inspiration in the realization of a formal perspective system for the realistic
expression of form and depth. The camera obscura functioned very conveniently
but shows major drawbacks at the same time: (1) it is always necessary to use a
dark room or box for working; (2) it is only possible to represent a real scene.
The second was a particular problem for painters at that period who had rarely
treated an actual scene. It had become an urgent issue to find a perspective system
that had no need of a dark room and functioned similarly to the camera obscura
to represent an imagined scene as well as a real one. The camera obscura experiment
by Brunelleschi served as a practical and feasible device for the realization of pictorial
perspective space prior to the beginning of major theoretical inquiries, and
represented the origin of perspectiva artificialis after a long history of perspectioa naturalis.
Brunelleschi's genius as an 'inventor' led him to discover one-point linear
perspective, more through the practice of the camera obscura than through
theory.f" The opinions presented in this essay do not detract from but rather
reinforce the common opinion of Brunelleschi as a pioneer artist of perspective
during the Renaissance and, above all, as an engineer - and therefore an inventor
- of ingenuity and truly great merit. He undoubtedly contributed to the birth

289
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE
of three concepts, the camera obscura, the zograscope and the linear perspective
system, all ancestors of our modern methods of reproducing the three-dimensional
world.
NOTES
The author would like to acknowledge his gratitude to Prof. John White for helpful criticism, and to Mrs Cynthea
J. Bogel for the correction of the author's English and her useful suggestions.
For various interpretations of Brunelleschi's
panel, see the following (ordered
chronologically):
E. Panofsky, 'Die Perspective als "symbolische
Form''', Vortriige der Bibliothek Warburg,
1924-1925, Leipzig, 1927, pp. 258-331.
G.C. Argan, 'The Architecture of Brunelleschi
and the Origins of Perspective Theory in the
Fifteenth Century', Journal of the Warbu~t: and
Courtauld Institutes, vol. 9, 1946, pp. 96-121.
R. Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Princeton
1956, 2nd ed. 1970, pp. 234-41.
D. Gioseffi, Perspectioa artificialis per la storia della
prospettioa: spigolature e appunti, Trieste, 1957.
J. White, The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space,
London, 1957, pp. 113-21.
J. Lemoine, 'Brunelleshi et Prolemee', Gazette
des beaux arts, no. 51 (1958), pp. 281-96.
R. Klein, 'Pomponius Gauricus on Perspective',
Art Bulletin, vol. 42, no . .3, 1961, pp. 211-30.
A. Parronchi, Studi sulla dolce prospettioa, Milano,
1964.
R. Beltrame, 'Gli esperimenti prospettici del
Brunelleschi', Atti dell 'Accademia Naz. dei Lincei.
Classe di Scienze Morale, Series VIII, vol. 28
(1974),3-4, pp. 417-68.
S.Y. Edgerton, The Renaissance Rediscovery of
Linear Perspective, New York, 1975.
C. Verga, 'La prima prospettiva del
Brunelleschi', I, 2. Critica d'arte, vol. 42, nos.
154-6 (1977), pp. 71-83; 43, nos. 157-9
(1978), pp. 119-32.
R. Arnheim, 'Brunelleschi's Peepshow',
Zeitschrift fur Kunstseschichie, band 41, 1978, Heft
I, pp. 57-60.
M. Kemp, 'Science, Non-science and Nonsense:
the Interpretation of Brunelleschi' s Perspective',
Art HiJtory, vol. I, no. 2, 1978, pp. 134-61.
N. Pastore, 'On Brunelleschi's Perspective
"Experiments" or Demonstrations', Italian
Journal of Psychology, 1979, vol. 6, pp. 157-80.
S. Lang, 'Brunelleschi's Panels', La prospettiva
nnascimentale: Codijicazioni e lrasgressioni, Firenze,
1980, pp. 63-72.
J .A. Lynes, 'Brunelleschi's Perspectives
290
Shigeru Tsuji
Tokyo Arts University
Reconsidered', Perception, 1980, vol. 9, pp.
87-99.
G. Degl'Innocenti, 'II dimensionamento della
tavoletta del primo esperimento prospettico
brunelleschiano', Filippo Brunelleschi, la sua opera
e il suo tempo, Firenze, 1980, pp. 561-70.
L. Vagnetti, 'La posizione di Filippo
Brunelleschi nell'invenzione della prospettiva
lineare: precizazioni ed aggiornamenti', Filippo
Brunelleschi, la Jua opera e if suo tempo, Firenze,
1980, pp. 279-306.
E. Battisti, Brunelleschi: The Complete Work,
London, 1981, pr. 102-13.
P.A. Rossi, 'Soluzioni Brunelleschiane:
prospettiva, invenzione ed usa', Critica d'Arte,
vol. 56, nos. 175-77, 1981, pp. 48-73.
M. Kubovy, The Psychvlogy of Perspective and
Renaissance Art, Cambridge, 1986.
H. Damisch, L 'Origine de la perspective, Paris,
1987, pp. 91-134.
2 For Manetti's original text: D. De Robertis,
Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi (di Antoni Manetti),
Milano 1976. The English translation used here
is fromJ. White, op. cit., pp. 114, 116. Also,
H. Saalman & C. Engass, The Life of Brunelleschi
by Antonio di Tuccio Manetti, London, 1970, has
both the original Italian text and an English
translation.
3 Brunelleschi must have noticed previously,
whether in the Cathedral or in another building,
the effect of the projection of an exterior image
through some aperture of the door on the floor
or wall. It may have been possible, in certain
specific conditions, for the artist to have utilized
the keyhole; however, this is very unlikely, due
to the extreme importance of the aperture form,
as is explained below in the text.
4 In fact, observations and applications of camera
obscura before Brunelleschi include those of the
sun (eclipse) by Aristotle, Alhazen (Ibn al-
Haitham), Roger Bacon, Witelo, Pecham,
Guillaume de Saint-Cloud; a candle flame by
Alkindi, Alhazen and others; and of vista or
landscape, beginning with Brunelleschi and
followed by Leonardo, Papnutio, Cardano,
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE
Della Porta, Barbaro, Benedetti, Kepler,
Kircher, Zahn and by many scholars and 'artists
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
References for the history of the camera obscura
and related theories include the following: J.
Waterhouse, 'Notes on the Early History of the
Camera Obscura', The Photographic Journal, 25
(new series), 1901, PI'. 270-90; M. Gliozzi,
'L'invenzione della camera obscura', A rcheion ,
vol. 14 (1932), PI'. 221-9; G. Potonniee , The
History of the Discovery of Photography, New York,
1936, PI'. 1-46; H. & A. Gernsheim, The
History oj Photography, jrom the Camera Obscura to
the Beginning oj the Modern Era, London & New
York, 1955, 1969; H. Gernsheim, The Origins oj
Photography, London, 1982; G. Federici
Vescovini, Studi mila prospettioa medievale, Torino,
1965; D.C. Lindberg, 'The Theory of Pinhole
Images from Antiquity to the Fourteenth
Century', Archive for History of Exact Sciences, vol.
5, 1968, PI'. 154-76, vol. 6, 1970, PI'.
299-325; J.M. Eder, History oj Photography, New
York, 1972; D.C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision
from AI-Kindi to Kepler, Chicago & London,
1976; J.H. Hammond, The Camera Obscura,
Bristol, 1981.
5 Among many mentions of a 'small' aperture in
these various experiments, the author knows of
only one example that gives a concrete
description of the aperture size: 'the size of the
hole was about the same as that made in a
barrel for the purpose of decanting wine', in an
almanac compiled by Guillaume de Saint-
Cloud, astronomer of the thirteenth century,
describing the method of observation of an
eclipse of the sun (Potonniee , op.cit., p. 21;
Hammond, 01'. cit. , p. 9).
6 M.H. Pirenne, Optics, Painting and Photography,
London, 1970, PI'. 15-19.
The question of whether' circa mezzo braccio
quadro' represents the area of the picture or the
length of its sides is discussed by Beltrame
(op.cit , , p. 428), Kemp (op.cit., PI'. 137-8),
Damisch (01'. cit. , PI'. 101-02) and others.
Here, I have interpreted Manetti to mean a
square with half-braccio sides, because a square
form would have been most suitable to enclose
the centrical reflection image caused by the
camera obscura. The Florentine braccio at that
time corresponded to 58.4 cm., thus a mezzo
braccio is 29.2 ern.
8 The measurement of 2 mm is nearly seven
times that of the standard 0.3 mm used in
pinhole photography, and the brightness of the
former is equal to the latter value squared, or
about fifty times brighter.
9 Della Porta said 'the hole is to have the form of
a cone, of which the base must be turned to the
sun, the top to the room ... ' (Giovanni Battista
della Porta, Magiae Naturalis; siue, De miraculis
rerum naturalium, 1st ed., 1553; M. Gliozzi,
op.cit., p. 225; Potonniee, op.cit., p. 7).
291
10 Leonardo said 'let the little perforation be made
in a very thin plate of iron.' The complete
passage from Leonardo is as follows: 'An
experiment, showing how objects transmit their
images or pictures, intersecting within the eye
in the crystalline humour. This is shown when
the images of illuminated objects penetrate into
a very dark chamber by some small round hole.
Then, you will receive these images on a white
paper placed within this dark room and rather
near to the hole, and you will see all the objects
on the paper in their proper forms and colours,
but much smaller; and they will be upside down
by reason of that very intersection. These
images, being transmitted from a place
illuminated by the sun, will seem actually
painted on this paper which must he extremely
thin and looked at from behind. And let the
little perforation be made in a very thin plate of
iron.' ('La sperientia che mosira come Ii obbietti
mandino Ie loro spetie over similitudini intersegate
dentro all'ochio nella umore albugino si dimostra
quando per alcuno piccolo spiraculo rotonda penetrano Ie
spetie delli obbietti alluminati in abitationefortemente
oscura; aUOTa tu riceoerai tale spetie in una carta
bianca posta dentro a tale abitatione alquanto vicina a
esso spiraculo e vedrai tutti Ii predeui obbietti in essa
carta colle lor propie figure e colori, ma saran minori e
fieno sotto sopra per causa della detta intersegatione Ii
quali simulacn se nascieranno di loco alluminato dal
sale paron propio dipinti in essa carta, la qual vuole
essere sottilissima e veduta da riverscio, e 10 spiracolo
detto sia fatto in piastra sottilissima di ferro ... ')
(Italian and English translation from J.P.
Richter, The Literary Works oj Leonardo da Vinci,
New York, 1970, vol. 1, p. 142, §71).
II The actual distance between the panel and the
mirror should be 14 em, half of 28 em, which is
the distance between the panel and the mirror-
reflected image (W' 0'), the same as that
between the aperture and the panel (E 0) at the
time the image was projected on the panel
(plates 6, 7).
12 In Manetti's text, the words 'breccia piccoline' are
used as meaning 'scale' or 'reduced scale', in
contrast with 'braccia oere': Some scholars
interpret this scale to be an integral number,
i.e., 1:60 (Krautheimer, op.cit., p. 237), 1:100
(Degl'lnnocenti, op.cit., 1'.565), 1:150
(Beltrame, op.cit., p. 434). Actually, the ratio
of diminution can be calculated as about 1: 120,
but the number is not necessarily integral,
because the panel picture was not the original
project plan for construction, rather a
reproduction of an existing building.
13 Here we recall Alberti's words: 'And you must
know that no painted thing looks equal to the
true thing when one does not look from a
certain distance; but we shall give the reasons
for this when we write about the demonstrations
made by us, which were called miracles by
friends who looked upon them in surprise' ('Et
 BRUNELLESCHI AND THE DISCOVERY OF PICTORIAL PERSPECTIVE
sappi (he cosa niuna dipinta mai parra pari aile vere
dove non sia ceria distantia a oerderle; rna a, questo
diremone Jue ragioni Sf mai scriveremo di quelle
dimostrationi quali, fatte da noi, Ii amici ueggendole et
meraoigliandosi chiamaoano miracali'). From Alberti,
Della pittura, ed. L. Malle, Firenze, 1950, p.72.
14 Similarly, Alberti once noted' A mirror will be
a [(ood judge for you to understand; for I know
how things that are well painted may have great
beauty in the mirror'. (' Et saratti ad conoscere
buono giudice 10 specchio ne so come le case ben dipinte
malta abbino nella specchio gratia'). Alberti Malle,
op.cit., p. 100.
15 According to Leonardo, 'These images, being
transmitted from a place illuminated by the sun,
will seem actually painted on this paper which
must be extremely thin and looked at from
behind.' For the complete quotation, see n.lO.
16 Among the many figures of the sixteenth
century who described the camera obscura with
lens or mirror are the following: Girolamo
Cardano, Giovanni Battista della Porta, Danniel
Barbaro, Ignazio Danti, Giovanni Battista
Benedetti (Waterhouse, op.cit.; Potonniee,
op.cit., pp. 8-16; Hammond, op.cit., p. 16).
17 According to Manetti, another known panel by
Brunelleschi of the Piazza della Signoria showed
a correct image; therefore, if the artist had used
the camera obscura, he may have employed one
of the translucent materials noted. Whether or
not the camera obscura was used for the second
panel is, however, unclear and is an issue that
needs to be further pursued. Manetti described
this work as follows: 'He made in perspective
the piazza of the palace of the Signori of
Florence, with everything on it and round about
it, as much as can be seen, standing outside the
piazza or really on a level with it, along the
facade of the church of Santo Romolo, past the
corner of the Calimala Francesca, which rises
on the aforesaid piazza, a few braccia towards
Orto San Michele, whence is seen the place of
the Signori, in such a way that two faces are
seen completely, that which is turned towards
the West and that which is turned towards the
North: so that it is a wonderful thing to see
what appears, together with all the things that
the view includes in that place. Afterwards
Paolo Uccello and other painters did it, who
wished to counterfeit and imitate it; of which
have seen more than one, and it was not as well
done as that. Here it might be said: why did he
not make this picture, being of perspective, with
that hole for the eye, like the little panel from
the Duomo towards San Giovanni? This arose
because the panel of so great a piazza needed to
be so big, to put in it so many different things,
that it could not, like the San Giovanni, be held
up to the face with one hand, nor the mirror
with the other; for the arm of a man is not of
sufficient length that with the mirror in his
292
hand he could hold it at its distance opposite the
point, nor so strong that he could support it.
He left is to the discretion of the onlooker, as
happens in all the other paintings of all the
other painters, although the onlooker may not
always be discerning. And in the place where he
put the burnished silver in that of San
Giovanni, here he left a void, which he made
from the buildings up: and betook himself with
it to look at it in a place, where the natural air
showed itself from the buildings upwards' (From
White, op.cit., p. 117).
18 If the distance were shortened to 23 em, the
reflected image of the Baptistry would be
smaller and the surrounding space of the
building larger (plate 8b). But this smaller space
would mean less room for the artist to work in.
19 The viewpoint surmised by Manetti cannot be
identified precisely in situ today, because the
facade of the Cathedral has been altered since
Brunelleschi's day. But it is possible to say that,
in so far as the present doorway structure is
concerned, the viewpoint '3 braccia inwards from
the portal' should be included within the range
P-Q (plate 9) assessed by the author. The
visual angles are varied according to the nature
of each, as shown in the diagram (plate 8). The
angle that should be kept within the central
doorway, establishing the view point behind the
door, was the effective picture angle
(horizontal), 55°. As the Cathedral was in the
midst of reconstruction when Brunelleschi made
his experiment, there may have been a lack of
darkness inside. If so the artist could cover the
space under the entrance arch from behind and
make a complete dark-room (plate 9). For the
plans and the measures of the Cathedral, see G.
Rocchi, and others, Santa Maria del Fiore - II
corpo basilicale, Milano, 1988.
20 Richter, op.cit., p. 141, §70.
21 Hammond, op.cit., p. 2.
22 Antonio Averlino detto il Filarete , Tratiato di
Architettura, ed. L. Grassi & A.M. Finoli, 2 vols.
Milano, 1972, vol. 2, Libro XXIII, pp. 653,
657.
23 Krautheimer, op.cit., p. 236; Gioseffi, op.cit.,
pp. 80-1; Arnheim, op.cit., p. 59; Lynes,
op.cit., p. 93; Edgerton, op.cit., pp. 145-50.
24 Kemp, op.cit., p. 148.
25 Potonniee , op.cit., pp. 22-3.
26 The cause of Manetti' s silence on the use of the
camera obscura by Brunelleschi would likely be
due to the artist's well known secretive
character and loathing to reveal his method, as
recorded by Taccola and Vasari (cf, Vasari, Le
Vite ... , vol. 1, pp. 306-10; F.D. Prager, 'A
Manuscript of Taccola, quoting Brunelleschi, on
problems of inventors and builders',
Proceedings of American Philosophical Society,
vol. 112, 1968, pp. 131-49; Kemp, op.cit., p.
135; see also Kubovy, op.cit., pp. 33-8).