Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Anthroposeen: The Invention of Linear Perspective as a Decisive Moment in the Emergence of a Geological Age of Mankind

  • Philipp Lepenies (a1)


The beginning of the Anthropocene has been inconclusively debated. Usually, its starting point is linked to the moment in which some measurable human physical impact, such as global carbon dioxide emissions, increased in an unprecedented manner. However, to grasp the fact that mankind became at some point the major change agent of the earth system it is important to identify how and when humans began to perceive their role as that of an active creator, capable of dominating and changing nature. Although no monocausal explanation exists, I argue that the invention of linear perspective in fifteenth-century Renaissance Italy was a major trigger. Linear perspective changed the way humans saw and interpreted the world around them. It fostered an anthropocentric worldview that placed humans in control of their physical environment, allowed the advancement of scientific methods and the ultimate disenchantment of the physical world. Linear perspective marks the beginning of the ‘Anthroposeen’ without which the Anthropocene would not have manifested itself in the accelerated way it has. This holds important lessons. It reminds us that to understand the nature of the Anthropocene, we have to understand the parameters that made us think, see and ultimately act the way we do.



Hide All
1. Crutzen, P. and Stroemer, E.F. (2000) The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change Newsletter, 41, pp. 1718.
2. Crutzen, P. (2002) The geology of mankind. Nature, 415, p. 23.
3. Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B. and Sverkeret, S. (2013) Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science and Policy, 28, p. 4.
4. Costanza, R., Graumlich, L.J. and Will, S. (Eds) (2007) Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, Dahlem Workshop Series (Boston: MIT Press).
5. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P.A., Moore, B. III, Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner, B.L. and Wasson, R.J. (2004) Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (Berlin: Springer)
6. Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L. et al. (2011) The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. Royal Swedish Academy of Science, DOI 10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x.
7. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J. and McNeill, J.R. (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio, 36, pp. 614621.
8. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. and McNeill, J. (2011) The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, p. 843.
9. McKibben, B. (1989) The End of Nature (New York: Random House).
10. Smith, B. and Zeder, A.M. (2013) The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 4, pp. 813.
11. Zalasiewicz, J. et al. (2015) When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, in press (available online
12. Ruddiman, W.F. (2003) The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Climatic Change, 61(3), pp. 261293 doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa.
13. Balter, M. (2013) Archeologists say the ‘Anthropocene’ is here – but it began long ago. Science, 340, 19 April, pp. 261262.
14. Lepenies, P. (2014) Art, Politics, and Development. How Linear Perspective Shaped Policies in the Western World (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
15. Field, J.V. (1997) The Invention of Infinity: Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 7.
16. Belting, H. (2008) Florenz und Bagdad: Eine westöstliche Geschichte des Blicks (Munich: Beck), p. 104.
17. Guillén, C. (1971) On the concept and metaphor of perspective. In Literature as System: Essays toward the Theory of Literary History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 287.
18. Panofsky, E. (1991) Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York: Zone Books), p. 76.
19. Edgerton, S.Y. (2009) The Mirror, the Window and the Telescope: How Renaissance Linear Perspective Changed Our Vision of the Universe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
20. Edgerton, S.Y. (2006) Brunelleschi’s mirror, Alberti’s window and Galileo’s ‘perspective tube’. História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos, 13 (suppl), p. 160.
21. Alberti, L. ([1435] 2004) On Painting (London: Penguin), p. 87.
22. Damisch, H. (1987) 1993 L’origine de la perspective (Paris: Flammarion).
23. Edgerton, S.Y. (1975) The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective (New York: Basic Books).
24. Kubovy, M. (1986) The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
25. Krautheimer, R. and Krautheimer-Hess, T. (1970) Lorenzo Ghiberti (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 14.
26. Kemp, M. (1990) The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 22.
27. Panofsky, E. (1927) Die Perspektive als ‘Symbolische Form. In: F. Saxl, (Eds), Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1924–1925 (Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner), p. 285.
28. Panofsky, E. (1915) Das perspektivische Verfahren Leone Battista Albertis. Kunstchronik, 26, pp. 507516.
29. Panofsky, E. (1925) Die Erfindung der verschiedenen Distanzkonstruktionen in der malerischen Perspektive. In: K. Koetschau, (Ed.), Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 45, pp. 8486.
30. Edgerton, S.Y. (1980) The renaissance artist as quantifier. In: M.A. Hagen, (Ed.) The Perception of Pictures, vol. 1 (New York: Academic Press), pp. 179212.
31. Baxandall, M. (1972) Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
32. Gombrich, E. (1972) The visual image. Scientific American, 227(3), pp. 8296.
33. Holly, M.A. (2000) Figural speculations. In: A. Payne, A. Kuttner and R. Smick, (Eds), Antiquity and its Interpreters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 278.
34. Cassirer, E. (1923) Philosphie der Symbolischen Formen. Die Sprache. Vol. 1 (Berlin: Cassirer).
35. Cassirer, E. (1925) Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen. Das Mythische Denken. Vol. 2 (Berlin: Cassirer).
36. Cassirer, E. (1929) Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen. Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Vol. 3 (Berlin: Cassirer).
37. Field, J.V. (2005) Piero della Francesca: A Mathematician’s Art (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
38. Edgerton, S.Y. (1991) The Heritage of Giotto’s Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
39. Panofsky, E. (1962) Artist, scientist, genius: notes on the ‘Renaissance-Dämmerung. In: W.K. Ferguson, R. López, G. Sarton, R.H. Bainton, L. Bradner and E. Panofsky, (Eds), The Renaissance: Six Essays (New York: Harper and Row), p. 172.
40. Belting, H. (2007) Himmelsschau und Teleskop: Der Blick hinter den Horizont. In: P. Helas, M. Polte, C. Rückert and B. Uppenkamp, (Eds), Bild/Geschichte: Festschrift für Horst Bredekamp (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), p. 206.
41. Belting, H. (2004) Der Blick durch das Fenster: Fernblick oder Innenraum? In: K. Corsepius, D. Mondini, D. Senekovic, L. Sibellano and S. Vitali, (Eds), Opus Tessellatum: Modi und Grenzgänger in der Kunstwissenschaft. Festschrift für Peter Cornelius Clausen (Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlag)), pp. 1731.
42. Belting, H. (1990) Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich: Beck).
43. Panofsky, E. ([1943] 1955) The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
44. Bredekamp, H. (2000) Gazing hands and blind spots: Galileo as draftsman. Science in Context, 13(3–4), pp. 423462.
45. Drake, S. (1973) Galileo’s language: mathematics and poetry in a new science. Yale French Studies, 49, pp. 1327.
46. Drake, S. (1977) Galileo and the career of philosophy. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38(1), pp. 1932.
47. Baron, H. (1943) Towards a more positive evaluation of the fifteenth-century renaissance. Journal of the History of Ideas, 4(1), p. 40.
48. Machamer, P. (1998) Galileo’s machines, his mathematics, his experiments. In: P. Machamer, (Eds), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 6465.
49. Karpinski, L.C. (1939) Descartes and the modern world. Science, 89(2303), p. 151.
50. Cassirer, E. (1927) Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance (Leizpzig: Teubner), p. 192.
51. Weber, M. ([1917] 1992) Wissenschaft als Beruf. In: W.J. Mommsen, B. Morgenbrod and W. Schluchter, (Eds), Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, vol. 17 (Tübingen: Mohr), pp. 71111.
52. Mitter, P. (1994) Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 32.
53. Lycett, A. (1999) Rudyard Kipling (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson), p. 27.
54. Ruskin, J. (1859) The Two Paths: Being Lectures on Art and its Application to Decoration and Manufacture, Delivered in 1858-1859 (London: Smith Elder).
55. Belting, H. (2008) Perspective: Arab mathematics and renaissance Western art. European Review, 16(2), 183190.
56. Kemp, M. (1987) A chaos of intelligence: Leonardo’s Trattato and the perspective wars at the Académie Royale. In P. Rosenberg et al. (Eds), Il se rendit en Italie: Etudes offerstes à André Chastel (Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante), pp. 415426.
57. Schneider, P. (2008) Eine Frage der Deutungshoheit: Wissenschaftlicher Bilderkrieg in Paris um 1650. Gegenworte: Heft für den Disput über Wissen, 20, pp. 4448.


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed