"The very thing it should not do" and "even right down"

[Bushwhacker]

I don't understand very well "The very thing it should not do" in the following context:

"Why does illusionistic baroque painting always use every trick in the book to pretend to be real? even right down to the outstretched hand of Banning-Cocq that is so praised for breaking the painter's picture surface - the very thing it should not do"

Please, does the very thing it should not do mean "the hand itself should not beak the picture surface"?
Does even right down mean even exactly there, in the outstretched hand of Banning-Cocq?

Thank You for your help. :-D:up:

 

[David L.]

A painting is two-dimensional, where depth is captured/reproduced through the position and size of objects and people in the picture.
Now, do you remember Back To the Future 2. Think of the usual poster, two dimensional, that you see advertising a film, and compare that to where the shark springs out of the advertising display for JAWS 19, like 3-D.
The writer is saying, a painting is 2 dimensional, yet they are trying to pretend it's real, as 3-D as real life; and the hand is painted as breaking the flat surface of this 2-D representation - it doesn't 'jump out', but it does protrude out of the rest of the picture. Another way of seeing it is looking down into water and seeing fish and seaweed under the surface, and some log sticking out of the water, breaking the surface of the water.
It's not the hand itself that shouldn't break the surface - t's the flat surface of the picture itself which shouldn't have been broken.
He says the illusionist baroque art uses every trick to make a picture seem real. How far will they go in trying to give this 'realistic' impression? -as far as right down to the trick of making the hand break out of the canvas and give a 3-D effect. So, right down to = as far as you can go.

 

[Bushwhacker]

A painting is two-dimensional, where depth is captured/reproduced through the position and size of objects and people in the picture.
Now, do you remember Back To the Future 2. Think of the usual poster, two dimensional, that you see advertising a film, and compare that to where the shark springs out of the advertising display for JAWS 19, like 3-D.
The writer is saying, a painting is 2 dimensional, yet they are trying to pretend it's real, as 3-D as real life; and the hand is painted as breaking the flat surface of this 2-D representation - it doesn't 'jump out', but it does protrude out of the rest of the picture. Another way of seeing it is looking down into water and seeing fish and seaweed under the surface, and some log sticking out of the water, breaking the surface of the water.
It's not the hand itself that shouldn't break the surface - t's the flat surface of the picture itself which shouldn't have been broken.
He says the illusionist baroque art uses every trick to make a picture seem real. How far will they go in trying to give this 'realistic' impression? -as far as right down to the trick of making the hand break out of the canvas and give a 3-D effect. So, right down to = as far as you can go.

Thank You very much for your kind and helpful answer, but as for the very thing it should not do, you kindly say is for "shouldn't have been broken" which is something already done, while should not do is for something that wouldn't be done, despite the fact it's been or not done. At least it what I think to understand. Can you explain that, please? :-D:up:

 

[Bushwhacker]

Thank You very much for your kind and helpful answer, but as for the very thing it should not do, you kindly say is for "shouldn't have been broken" which is something already done, while should not do is for something that wouldn't be done, despite the fact it's been or not done. At least it what I think to understand. Can you explain that, please? :-D:up:

Some help on that, please.:-D:up:

 

[David L.]

Bushwacker sent last message to me as PM, and I responded with a PM.

David L.