From Cartesian perspectivalism, whose very name indicates its technical and mathematical nature, to the art of describing and the baroque, Martin Jay highlights the importance of each artistic tradition and its contribution to the modern era in Scopic Regimes of Modernity.  While the target of much criticism for the "de-eroticizing of the visual order" (8), Cartesian perspectivalism should not be lightly dismissed as it may have been a precursor to the development of the Western scientific tradition.   Each of the three visual subcultures, while influential, had their downfalls and errors with attempting to depict the "'true' vision" (20).  However, Jay is right not to dismiss any or all three, as humanity is built upon the mistakes of others.  How else do we learn to succeed if not by evaluating the past and by improving upon it.  The art of describing directly contributed to photography and impressionism.  Alberti or Brunelleschi did not introduce Cartesian perspectivalism in one day, but rather were the culmination of countless efforts in the attempt to perfectly represent the 3-dimensionality of reality upon a canvas.  

I find it ironic that with all the rules that encompass Cartesian perspectivalism, there was no concern for the double vision, so to speak, of human eyesight.  Rather, it focused on the monocular viewer.  I feel like this is a gross misrepresentation, since the entirety of the painting was constructed as a double geometric pyramid, with one apex consisting of the vanishing point and the other as the single eye.  Additionally, I fail to grasp the concept of how 

there cannot be a combination between the technical aspect of Cartesian perspectivalism and the visual creativity.  Why does one have to exist without the other?