I wish I had known about this site earlier. The “Rare Book Room”.

Many of my posts share findings about two particular prints published in Albrecht Dürer’s 2nd edition of the Painters Manual 1538 (Unterweysung der Messung). In order to see these woodcuts in relation to their descriptive texts and their ‘context’ within the book, I had to travel to Melbourne, Nürnberg, Munich and Vienna.

I could have had a very good ‘preview’ of this book on the “Rare Book Room” site where a good quality, page by page, reproduction of the Manual is available.

On the intro page of this fantastic site it says: ‘The Rare Book Room site has been constructed as an educational site intended to allow the visitor to examine and read some of the great books of the world.’ And it is a pleasure to turn the pages of these special books.

You can see the two prints by Dürer I referred in some of my posts in the rare bookroom here:

The Draughtsman of the Lute and A draughtsman drawing a reclining woman.

My blogs about the ‘Lute’ print are:
‘Did Albrecht Dürer get it wrong, a surprise discovery in one of his prints’
‘Ist Albrecht Dürer ein Fehler unterlaufen eine überraschende Entdeckung in seinem Holzschnittes der Zeichner der Laute’
‘Further to Albrecht Dürer woodcut The draughtsman of the Lute’

My blogs about the ‘Reclining woman’ are:
‘A page out of Dürer’s own copy of the Painters Manual’
‘Male or Female? One of Dürer’s prints in the context of gender, feminism and other theories.’
‘Dürer lost in translation? German Klartext and English translation of one page of Dürer’s handwritten manuscript of his 2nd edition of the painters manual’

Dürer lost in translation? German ‘Klartext’ and English translation of one page of Dürer’s handwritten manuscript for his 2nd edition of the Painters Manual.

The image below shows a word-by-word and line-by-line ‘translation’ of Dürer’s handwriting in clear text. In this text Dürer describes the use of his illustration of the ‘grid system’ as a drawing aid. Please find a discussion about this illustration here. Below the image is the English translation by Walter L. Strauss (The Painter’s Manual, 1977, pge 435). I matched the line sequence of the English translation with the one of Dürer’s manuscript to allow for an easier comparison of the two texts. Please click on the image to enlarge and read the German Klartext.

Translation of Dürer

(Ektachrome Signatur: 4 L.impr.c.n.mess. 119, http://www.bsb-muenchen.de)
Please find more details about this page in my earlier blog here.

Walter L. Strauss’ translation:

1. There is yet another method of copying an object and of
2. rendering it larger or smaller according to one’s wish, and
3. it is more practical than using a glass pane because it is
4. less restricted. In this method one uses a frame with a grid
5. of strong black thread. The spaces or quadrangles should
6. be about two fingers wide. For scanning,
7. one must prepare a pointer whose height should
8. be adjustable to be at eye level, which is
9. marked ‘o’. Then place the object to
10. be drawn a good distance away. Move it or bend
11. it as you like, and view it from
12. level ‘o’ to ascertain that it is in
13. the proper position, so as to please you. Then
14. place the grid or frame between the object and the pointer.
15. If you prefer to use fewer spaces of the grid,
16. move it closer to the object. Check how many spaces of the
17. grid will be utilized to accommodate the width and height
18. of the object and then draw a grid, large or small,
19. on which you wish to draw. Now begin to scan the object with your eye -point
20. o- placed above the pointer, and where it points on the grid in the frame, mark it
21. off on the grid on your sheet of paper. It will be good, and it will be
22. correct. But if you prefer to drill a small hole into your scanner,
23. it will serve the same purpose equally well. I have drawn
24. this method below.
notice on the margin (+ on a sheet of paper or a panel)

My thoughts about this text:
As I pointed out earlier here this text appeared in the second edition of Dürer’s painters manual together with a preliminary sketch for the woodcut ‘A draughtsman drawing a reclining woman’. This second and extended edition had 22 additional illustrations. It was commissioned in 1538 by his wife Agnes and printed by his friend Hieronymus Formschneyder ten years after Dürer’s death.
Several ‘inconsistencies’ appear when comparing Dürer’s manuscript with the final printed version. Firstly he makes references to the ‘eye-point’ marked ‘o’ in lines 9 and 12. He shows this point in his sketch, however in the printed version the text still shows the ‘o’ but the final printed illustration does not.
Secondly the ‘gender change’ in the illustration itself. Dürer drew a male model in front of the artist while the printed version shows a female model. This printed version has given rise to much discussion. Please see earlier blog about this print.

Sketch 1525?

Print 1538

Male or Female? One of Duerer’s prints in the context of gender, feminism and other theories

Dürer drew a man not a women. See for yourself:

Duerer's preliminary sketch showing a man not a woman.

(The woodcut based on this sketch by Dürer’s appears ‘mirrored’ in the printed version as a consequence of the printing process. Ektachrome Signatur: 4 L.impr.c.n.mess. 119, http://www.bsb-muenchen.de )
Please find more details about this sketch in my earlier blog here.

This blog intents to question the basis of some of the interpretations of the woodcut ‘Draughtsman drawing a reclining woman’ by Albrecht Dürer. This image is the basis of discussions in the context of gender, feminism and post modernism. This is the widely known image on which these discussions are base:

Duerer's 'Draughtsman drawing a reclining woman'

The following sentences are taken out of some of the texts, with links to the full text where they are quoted from, followed by my own thoughts on Duerer’s intention in regards to this illustration.
Purdue University:
The result confirms our suspicion that vision exists in Dürer’s image as the scene of sexual possession. Dürer’s engraving presents us with a specular economy that sublimates touch into sight and dominance into art. And we, by implication, are present as a third party to these events….

Suny College at Oneonta:
The opposition between male culture and female nature is starkly drawn in this image; the two confront each other. The woman lies in a prone position; the pose is difficult to determine, but her hand is clearly poised in a masturbatory manner over the genital. In contrast to the curves and undulating lines of the female section, the male compartment is scattered with sharp, vertical forms; the draughtsman himself is up and is alert and absorbed. Woman offers herself to the controlling discipline of illusionistic art. With her bent legs closest to the screen, the image recalls not simply the life class but also the gynaeocological examination.

Even at Stanford University someone cannot help but to make a comment about this image:
A wooden frame covered with a grid of black threads, together with an eyepiece – represented here by a small obelisk – permitted an artist to replicate the scene before him onto a drawing surface ruled with a matching grid. We will repeat his demonstration in class. Nobody will be asked to undress.

Now my thoughts:
What leads me to question these readings is a handwritten text and preliminary sketch by Albrecht Dürer himself. I came across these sources while sighting an Ektachrome reproduction of one page in Dürer’s own copy of the 1st edition 1525 Painters Manual at the Bayerische Staatsbiliothek in München, Germany.
Please find more details about this sketch in my earlier blog here.

Dürer had planed further additions for the 2nd edition of his Manual. The sketch and descriptions were inserted as a loose leaf in a (his own) copy of the 1st edition.
Now what is interesting is that this 2nd edition was printed in 1538 commissioned by his wife Agnes Dürer – 10 years after his death. As is obvious from this initial sketch that he shows a man – the artist – drawing another man and NOT a woman.
In my view Dürer’s intention was how to best illustrate this particular drawing system – subdividing the picture plane in squares as reference areas to be reproduced on a drawing surface with the same number of squares.

That he used a human figure as a ‘subject’ in this print follows from his intense study and documentation of the human proportions he did at this time– also published as a book after his death. In other illustrations about the use of aids to achieve a perspective drawing, he had used a simple object, like a vase or more challenging objects eg a lute. In this image he uses the complexity of the human figure, especially when observed in such a way that it will display foreshortening; difficult to capture even for an experienced hand.

I have absolutely no problem in ‘taking a work of art’ to support one or another theory or point, but in this case I believe the authors of the texts above might have reached different conclusions if they would have known about Dürer’s own view as shown in the sketch of this so well known and discussed print.

There are further ‘clues’ in the text that he had written on the same page. I will blog soon a transcript/translation in German and English from his handwriting.

A page out of Albrecht Duerer’s own copy of the Painters Manual

I visited several print-rooms in Europe in April this year in the hope to find evidence in support of my theory of the ‘misaligned perspective’ . (see earlier blogs: ‘Blog 1 English version’ , ‘Blog 1 Deutsche Version’ , ‘Blog 2′). Using funds from the Carrick Award, I saw original versions of the wood cut of ‘Man drawing a lute’ at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (Nürnberg, Germany) and at the Albertina (Vienna, Austria) as well as high quality ‘Ektachrome’ slide at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (München, Germany) this slide held the biggest surprise for me, but more about this slide later.

In Nürnberg I was able to see a copy of the print in question as a single leaf (proof) and several (historic) books holding references to this print. In Vienna I got presented a copy of Dürer’s Manual which was cut at the margins and included also some drawings about medieval defense installations from an other book by Duerer. It was a special moment when these original Renaissance works were brought out of the vault and presented for close inspection.

None of the works I saw at either location could provide me with any further inside about my theory. The senior curator at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Dr. Rainer Schoch, made me aware that the Bayerische Staatsbiliothek in München holds a copy of Dürer’s own copy of the 1525 Manual with handwritten comments and additions, an advice which let to very exciting new insides about this Manual.

My visits to Nürnberg and Vienna were prearranged so I could see the original artworks, however the visit to München was spontaneous with only a few hours to spend allowing not enough time to retrieve Duerer’s own copy of the Manual from the air conditioned vaults but I was able sight an ‘Ektachrome’ reproduction of the page with ‘Man drawing a lute’. As this Ektachrome shows the book opened, two pages are visible. On the right side is the print of ‘Lute’ but the left page is covered by an inserted loose leaf with a hand written text and sketch by Dürer himself.

On this loose leaf he has described the use of an additional drawing system to achieve a perspective drawing. The published print of this sketch is usually referred to as the ‘(Daughts) Man drawing a reclining woman’ or in German ‘Ein Mann zeichnet eine liegende Frau’. It was printed in the 2nd edition – the 1538 edition of this Manual which was published by his wife, Agnes Dürer, 10 years after his death, it appears in a significantly altered version. Here is a low resolution of digital reproduction of this slide. I will blog a translation of the text and some further thoughts on Dürer’s sketch and its printed version in the near future.

One page out of Dürer

Ektachrome Signatur: 4 L.impr.c.n.mess. 119 (http://www.bsb-muenchen.de) (I purchased a digital reproduction of this Ektachrome and have permission to publish it as part of my research)

I like to thank Frau Barbara Fellner for her assistance and her skillful navigation to make the findings in Munich possile.