258 G. Stavroulaki <strong>and</strong> J. Peponis Figure 109: Icon- capture polygons to icon 2 (black, grey <strong>and</strong> <strong>light</strong> grey l<strong>in</strong>es st<strong>and</strong> for dist<strong>in</strong>ct, <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>and</strong> elusive icons <strong>and</strong> wall-pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs)
<strong>Seen</strong> <strong>in</strong> a <strong>different</strong> <strong>light</strong> 259 4. The spatial structure of a visual regime The most fundamental effect of <strong>light</strong> is that it enables us to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between potential co-visibility, comparative co-visibility, relative visual prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>and</strong> relative visual attenuation, <strong>in</strong> relation to an object -<strong>in</strong> this case an icon- of reference. Potential co-visibility is associated with ly<strong>in</strong>g on the edge of the same visibility polygon, better still, on the same side of the horizon of an oriented visibility polygon, or better still with<strong>in</strong> the visual cone of an oriented visibility polygon. Comparative co-visibility arises when icons <strong>in</strong> addition to the reference icon become dist<strong>in</strong>ctly visible with<strong>in</strong> the cone of vision, or the horizon of a visibility polygon. Relative prom<strong>in</strong>ence arises when the icon of reference is more dist<strong>in</strong>ctly visible than other icons with<strong>in</strong> the visual cone or the visual horizon of a visibility polygon. Relative attenuation arises when the icon of reference is <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>ctly or elusively visible with<strong>in</strong> the cone of vision, but other icons become dist<strong>in</strong>ctly visible with<strong>in</strong> the visual horizon or the cone itself. The po<strong>in</strong>t, at this stage of development of our methodology, is not to immediately decide whether this list is exhaustive, or whether it appropriately captures significant conditions. Rather, the po<strong>in</strong>t is that these dist<strong>in</strong>ctions cannot be drawn by consider<strong>in</strong>g polygons of exposure <strong>and</strong> of capture, without also consider<strong>in</strong>g the underly<strong>in</strong>g fields not only of shaped space but also of illum<strong>in</strong>ated space. We can now summarize the visual regime that applies to the icon’s exposure. As one moves about church space, icons come <strong>in</strong>to varied relationships of potential co-visibility, comparative co-visibility, relative prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>and</strong> relative attenuation. Changes of condition occur not only as one crosses thresholds of exposure (the appearance <strong>and</strong> disappearance of objects beh<strong>in</strong>d occlud<strong>in</strong>g edges), but also as one crosses perceptual thresholds aris<strong>in</strong>g due to the distribution of <strong>light</strong> that punctuate otherwise un<strong>in</strong>terrupted space <strong>and</strong> otherwise unaffected relations of potential visibility. The changes are distributed over the entire <strong>in</strong>terior space. More importantly, they are unexpected <strong>and</strong> appear r<strong>and</strong>om. The space is <strong>in</strong>vested with iconography <strong>in</strong> such a way that even though its architectural composition is simple <strong>and</strong> easily <strong>in</strong>telligible, its experiential elaboration is complex <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>vites discovery. The actual exposure of icons is clearly subord<strong>in</strong>ate to the <strong>in</strong>terplay of shape, space <strong>and</strong> <strong>light</strong>. In turn, the experientially relevant structure of space results from the presence of icons, wall pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> the gazes that emanate from them. Museums of Byzant<strong>in</strong>e art do not seek, or do not succeed <strong>in</strong> reproduc<strong>in</strong>g this underly<strong>in</strong>g structure of experience. 5. Fields, thresholds, marks The visual regime described above arises from the superimposition <strong>and</strong> enmesh<strong>in</strong>g of the three fields identified earlier, the field of spatial relationships aris<strong>in</strong>g from built shape, the field of illum<strong>in</strong>ated space <strong>and</strong> the field of <strong>in</strong>tersect<strong>in</strong>g gazes. The <strong>in</strong>terplay of these fields <strong>in</strong> the church can be perhaps be further understood by draw<strong>in</strong>g a comparison to exhibition patterns at Castelvecchio which were analyzed <strong>in</strong> similar, but methodologically more primitive ways (Stavroulaki <strong>and</strong> Peponis, 2003). The pattern of co-visibility of statues <strong>and</strong> their <strong>in</strong>tersect<strong>in</strong>g gazes are as important to the spatial experience of Castelvecchio as the correspond<strong>in</strong>g patterns associated with icons are to Capnicarea. At Castlevecchio, however, the gazes of statues <strong>in</strong>terest so as to identify a relatively small set of significant positions, which act as counterpo<strong>in</strong>t to the ma<strong>in</strong> axes of movement <strong>and</strong> the positions from which more panoramic views are afforded. The effect is to punctuate a space which would otherwise be simply l<strong>in</strong>ear (from room to room) <strong>and</strong> simply hierarchical (from central axis
Change language