09-16-2009, 03:16 PM
If you look at photographs there is clearly no continuation between the legs, though.
http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=h ... N%26um%3D1
(last photo on the web page)
To me it seems that the artist doing the drawing simply assumed that the conventional opinion that those are pteruges is basically true and so he started seeying things were there are none. Unless he had a better photograph to work with or was face to face with the sculpture this seems like a pretty bad example of a "scientific" drawing. Every single photo I've seen shown no continuation between the legs at all.
I also can't find any real reason to assume that this is a clumsy attempt on the part of the original sculptor to portray pteryges.
http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=h ... N%26um%3D1
(last photo on the web page)
To me it seems that the artist doing the drawing simply assumed that the conventional opinion that those are pteruges is basically true and so he started seeying things were there are none. Unless he had a better photograph to work with or was face to face with the sculpture this seems like a pretty bad example of a "scientific" drawing. Every single photo I've seen shown no continuation between the legs at all.
I also can't find any real reason to assume that this is a clumsy attempt on the part of the original sculptor to portray pteryges.
Pedro Pereira
