I prefer the woodcut by Hans Burgkmair
because it was more realistic, depicted the rhino in its actual natural form. It
is less fanciful,
more down-to-earth. Hans Burgkmair wood cuts are less stylized than in Durer's
drawing. There are similar features among the two versions including the stance,
tail, proportions, bulk, spread-out toes.
In comparison to Durer’s Rhinoceros, Burgkmair’s
differs because the horn is shorter, the facial expression, and gentler markings
both of body and legs, presence of rope and chain binding the forelegs. Durer’s version for decades after it had been
proved to be a work of imagination rather than of observation. Durer’s versions
of the rhino woodcut have exaggerated features based on his interpretation of
the rhino from his imagination rather than from observation.
The depiction I found to
be the most amusing was the depiction by Dr. Giovanni Giacomo Penni, the Florentine doctor titled“Forma
e natura e costumi de lo Rinocerothe”.
The
woodcut shows a sympathetic, naive creature, with beady eyes, its forelegs
hobbled and chained, its folds of skin clothing it like a surcoat, the ribs.
Instead of showing a strong, fierce and exotic animal he illustrates it as a weak,
frail, and tired rhinoceros with no strength or power.
No comments:
Post a Comment