Humans have probably been looking at the moon for hundreds of thousands of years, but up until the Renaissance, drawings of the moon were basically rudimentary and lacking in surface detail.

There has been some suggestion that a carving at Knowth, Ireland, from the 3th millennium BC, may be a representation of lunar maria but the idea has met with some skepticism, and to my mind the similarity is marginal and possibly coincidental.

The first known pictures of the moon that give a realistic depiction of the surface are in paintings by Jan van Eyck, most notably the diptych called Crucifixion, completed by 1440. The gibbous moon is shown in the right of this linked panel, with clear representation of what we now call the Mare Imbrium, Mare Serenitatis, and other prominent features.

Left Panel of Crucifixion Diptych

The only other half-decent drawings of the moon before the invention of the telescope were made by Leonardo da Vinci some time around 1500. He noted that, even in the non-sunlit portion of the crescent moon, he could see the “seas” and other details, and correctly attributed this to the moon being lit by reflection from the earth (though he wrongly thought the reflection was mainly from the earth’s seas.)

One of Leonardo’s sketches:

The English astronomer William Gilbert also made some sketches, perhaps around 1590, but these were not known publicly until after his death. He was perhaps the first to give names to the lunar maria: e.g. what we call Mare Imbrium, he called Regio Magna Orientalis. In all he named 12 features in his sketch that was eventually published posthumously in a work called De Mondo Nostro. Whereas most of the prominent ancient and medieval scholars who gave an opinion thought the dark areas of the moon were actual seas, Gilbert thought the light parts were seas and the dark parts continents.

William Gilbert’s moon drawing

And that’s about it, up until the astronomical telescope era commencing in 1609.

I find this really quite surprising that there are not more lunar drawings than that. I realise it is not all that easy to see, but if you have an average pair of peepers you can easily make out the areas of light and shade. The moon, at least in the western and Arabic world, had been the subject of much writing and consideration, but not much close depiction.

>Humans have probably been looking at the moon for hundreds of thousands of years, but up until the Renaissance, drawings of the moon were basically rudimentary and lacking in surface detail.<

Not very surprising given that it wasn’t until the Renaissance that we find that sort of attention to accuracy in depictions of the natural world.

> And that’s about it, up until the astronomical telescope era commencing in 1609.

That can’t be right. I wonder where all the earlier drawings went?

mollwollfumble said:

> And that’s about it, up until the astronomical telescope era commencing in 1609.

That can’t be right. I wonder where all the earlier drawings went?

Some kind of conspiracy, eh?

I’m not sure if artists pre telescope and post telescope were interested in the topography of the moon.
How is the moon generally depicted in post telescopic art?

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m not sure if artists pre telescope and post telescope were interested in the topography of the moon.
How is the moon generally depicted in post telescopic art?

A short unscientific search would suggest that if you discount paintings specifically of the moon in post telescopic art there is little difference from pre telescopic art.

Err, sorry about the size of that.

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m not sure if artists pre telescope and post telescope were interested in the topography of the moon.
How is the moon generally depicted in post telescopic art?

A short unscientific search would suggest that if you discount paintings specifically of the moon in post telescopic art there is little difference from pre telescopic art.

That’s because it’s in the background, with the focus on foreground objects. You can’t focus on the foreground and infinity at the same time. Not with the normal human eye at any rate.

Peak Warming Man said:

Err, sorry about the size of that.

I read a review about that picture, that boy on the left is pulling the drapes over the old world of superstition represented by nature and the spooky moon and the room is illuminated by the new science of reason.

AwesomeO said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Err, sorry about the size of that.

I read a review about that picture, that boy on the left is pulling the drapes over the old world of superstition represented by nature and the spooky moon and the room is illuminated by the new science of reason.

It’s a big painting, I’ve seen it live in the National Gallery London.
It has a mystery. the bird is a Corella, native to Australia.
The painting was done before Australia was discovered.

AwesomeO said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Err, sorry about the size of that.

I read a review about that picture, that boy on the left is pulling the drapes over the old world of superstition represented by nature and the spooky moon and the room is illuminated by the new science of reason.

Yes but they’re suffocating that bird in a vacuum, which is why the children are upset.

AwesomeO said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Err, sorry about the size of that.

I read a review about that picture, that boy on the left is pulling the drapes over the old world of superstition represented by nature and the spooky moon and the room is illuminated by the new science of reason.

Pity we missed it then.

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m not sure if artists pre telescope and post telescope were interested in the topography of the moon.
How is the moon generally depicted in post telescopic art?

A short unscientific search would suggest that if you discount paintings specifically of the moon in post telescopic art there is little difference from pre telescopic art.

That’s because it’s in the background, with the focus on foreground objects. You can’t focus on the foreground and infinity at the same time. Not with the normal human eye at any rate.

Still, you’d expect it to pop up in landscapes.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a big painting, I’ve seen it live in the National Gallery London.
It has a mystery. the bird is a Corella, native to Australia.
The painting was done before Australia was discovered.

Cockatoo.

Bubblecar said:

AwesomeO said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Err, sorry about the size of that.

I read a review about that picture, that boy on the left is pulling the drapes over the old world of superstition represented by nature and the spooky moon and the room is illuminated by the new science of reason.

Yes but they’re suffocating that bird in a vacuum, which is why the children are upset.

It was probably their pet, but I suppose you can’t stand in the way of reason.

Well corellas are cockatoos, but they’re also found in the Philippines and Indonesia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump

JudgeMental said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump

If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet

This makes JVE’s work all the more remarkable, I suppose. I wasn’t particularly interested in the depiction of moon in art but in its close observation by “natural philosophers”, but it just so happens that the Crucifix contains one of only three decent pre-telescopic depictions known of the Moon to humanity.

dv said:

This makes JVE’s work all the more remarkable, I suppose. I wasn’t particularly interested in the depiction of moon in art but in its close observation by “natural philosophers”, but it just so happens that the Crucifix contains one of only three decent pre-telescopic depictions known of the Moon to humanity.

That’s a challenge.