>>116685
I frankly don't grasp that nuance of medieval art quite well enough to give a satisfying description of it yet, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Sorry.
Art history goes into very weird places when the styles it's dealing with are trying to depict things beyond what the eye sees. Just imagine the fun future art history students might have as they're trying to figure out what on earth that 2D/3DPD distinction was. The conversations already get weird enough when anons stop and try to articulate what that means, even though we intuitively understand parts of it. It might get even stranger in a future, more distantly-removed perspective. A fed-up future autist might be tempted to occam's razor it all away, and claim the Showa to Reiwa-era Japanese were just bad at drawing faces.