old master's 'tracing?'

[pibb991]

i recently checked out a book from the library called "Secret knowledge : rediscovering the lost techniques of the Old Masters" by David Hockney. i got it because i thought it was going to actually go over their painting techniques but instead it talks about hockney's theory that a lot of the old masters(not just vermeer) used a camera obscura device. from what i can remember its a sort of prism device the artist would look through and then trace but if he moved his eye the image would get distorted. he shows how paintings suddenly became more real looking after the discovery of the device. my memory is a little hazy but he showed a bunch of examples of many painters ranging from the 1300's to 1800's. has anyone heard of this theory or seen this book?

[Jason Manley]

yeah i saw the book...its funny that hockney (the author) can try to use those same techniques and his work still looks like shi#.

i could trace a rembrandt and it would not as good when i was done. EVER.

but on a serious note...some of the things in that book that he claims support his theory of lenses to project are BS. he shows how the detail tends to pull forward...of course it does..the artist pulls his spaces out of the paint with detail and texture...that kind of thing...i dont have the book here or i could give specific details.

some of the stuff in there was used...vermeer for example...but he is simply trying to discredit the old masters some. regardless of any device available, those people were trained to do it without any such help. One visit to a traditional atelier like Waterstreet or that of Richard Lacks students in minnesota will show you the truth. their skill is earned through hard work and hard work only...something mr hockney never attempted to do fully.

hackney..errr..hockney is a joke.

he could use photoshop to trace a rembrandt and it would not be as good as rembrandt...if ya know what i mean.

the book was good to make ya think though...it showed some interesting ideas...but it was biased on his old twentieth century attitude of belligerence toward traditional art values. His mind is closed. He has tried to find any reason he can to discredit those who built art history over hundreds of years. It is those very masters who show him to be the fraud that he is. he has no choice but to attempt to discredit them...after all..how else can he raise himself to their level. it sure wont be his painting that does it. EVER.

I view his book as his excuse for his own ineptitude.

thats my two cents.


j


j

[clayrodery v.03]

one of my art teachers totally buys into hockney's ideas and she tries to sell me the same thing. some fellow classmates, my teacher, and i went to the metropolitan museum in new york before christmas, and she was explaining his theory out loud when this guy came up to us and started telling us hockney's an ass and that he's full of shit. i already knew that and didn't buy hockney anyway, so i was like "this dude rocks", my teacher on the other hand got all flustered and argued back a little. i found that thoroughly amusing. but yeah, hockney's full of it, I dont care how many of the people where lefthanded in the painting. how does he know that for sure anyway?

[Anthony]

I think its Mr. Hockney that's projecting. He's projecting his own inadequacies onto the masters. It's like a politician who's dishonest always trying to figure out an honest man's "angle."

[Jason Manley]

boom...anthony keeping it simple.

well said ant


j

[bonedog]

I feel that the works of the great masters are above, beyond, and to the side of the technical means through which they created their works, regardless. We can't always see this magic, but certainly if one works diligently and honestly at his own craft a glimpse ought to be afforded to him/her.

I'm also reminded of dozens of beautiful master drawings that are more the product of the mind/imagination than of the eye.

-Bone

[egerie]

I was ready to get the fire retardant when I saw this thread but am glad it turned out like it did :)
2c : even if some "masters" did trace SOME of their work... so what ?

[henrihoux]

Obviously these "critics" know as much about art and its history as I know about nuclear physics. Please avoid showing your ignorance when trying to look smart. Hockney's book is relevant, truthfull and extremely important to 21 century art. As to Manley's comment : SHAME SHAME SHAME. Your are not fit to be an administrator !
By the way,
I'm a new here, and if this is the kind of things I'm bound to find regularly, I rather do it with rugby players over a bar and a beer.
Health to you all !
henrihoux

[fishw]

Apparently francis bacon moaned about being hung next to hockney at a show, saying hockney was "rubbish" and "dreary". in fact he didn't even want to be in the same room as hockney.

somewhat irrevelant, but while we're bashing hockney...

[glikster]

Obviously these "critics" know as much about art and its history as I know about nuclear physics. Please avoid showing your ignorance when trying to look smart. Hockney's book is relevant, truthfull and extremely important to 21 century art. As to Manley's comment : SHAME SHAME SHAME. Your are not fit to be an administrator !
By the way,
I'm a new here, and if this is the kind of things I'm bound to find regularly, I rather do it with rugby players over a bar and a beer.
Health to you all !
henrihoux
:nohope:

Feel free to "do it with rugby players over a bar and a beer".... but bear in mind that that sounds awfully uncomfortable.



PS. We need a schmuck smiley.

[Mullet]

All Hockney is, is a jealous second rate artist who tries to bring down the masters to make him look better. Not all the masters used camera obscura's

[Delight]

I think its Mr. Hockney that's projecting. He's projecting his own inadequacies onto the masters. It's like a politician who's dishonest always trying to figure out an honest man's "angle."
now THAT was an impressive pun.

[carlosranna]

Well, even if the masters were using the camera obscura, we gotta have in mind that it was something new. Very different from photos today... Those guys were the creative minds of their time! I see no problem about experiencing a technique...

Now, he can´t say that those great fellas weren´t able to draw and paint using only their observations! No he can´t!

[Flake]

"Hey, I can't do something, it must be impossible!"

[Justin.]

Bingo, Flake.

[Saturns Gate]

What the hell, the masters are all fake i tells ya! YES its a fact, im so much better then them now! = bullshit
;)

The Masters had a lot more time to work on there art back then, and put in 100percent. Thats why there the masters, not because they traced, even if they did. There good because they worked there little butts off all day everyday in most cases and diddent give a fuck what others thought.

Sean

[Dizon]

Them old masters busted their asses for the future artists. Most of the stuff we read in art books is what they spent years trying to figure out. From perspective, color, devices like the camera obscura, etc. Hockney should thank them.

[Seedling]

I love it how artists too jealous of the success of others like to attribute that success to the use of cheap tricks.

[Justin.]

You guys want to know a secret? Picasso just painted stupid random shit 2 or 3 times a day- I know it sounds crazy, but it's true.


Kiddin'. Not all of his stuff is stupid or random.

[Jason Ross]

After reading this thread I had to post. Seems that most people are bashing Hockney for having an opinion based off of "evidence" that he personally believes in and could be creditable. To some, Hockney seems to be pissing on the ideas that these people have of the "Great Masters". And such ideas, like religion, shape people's lives and make them into who they are today. So the kind of responses in this thread should be expected. Davinci Code anyone? There's such a negative response towards Hockney but the same people bashing him have never read his work at all or thoroughly. To be upfront I have not read his work at all really but I looked him up and the second quote I read about him quotes a passage in his book, "Optical devices certainly don't paint pictures," Hockney said. "Let me say now that the use of them diminishes no great artist." Just like that he's cleared in my opinion of every bashing post here. Dispite the ease of finding such knowledge people jump the gun and bash him..."He's jealous because he can't do it!" or whatever. I use an artograph projector myself. Not because I cant draw but its more practical when I want precision. I can use calipers, rulers, pencils with my thumb what ever other technique I learned up until now but I'm sure that the "Great Masters" probably thought of camera obscura as just another piece of technology to help them create art, not make the art for them. Unless the words "fake, fraud, and/or cheater" was used to describe the "Great Masters" (words I've heard about the use of the Artograph Projector) then most of these post are unfair. The underdrawing is only about 15% or less of the total time spent painting. Drew Struzan (Star Wars poster artist) uses an artograph prism pretty much exclusively but can anyone here say that that takes anything away from Drew? In 300 + years when students talk about "Masters" of art I'm sure his name will be in there somewhere (Drew Struzan not Hockney...well maybe hockney what do I know :P) . I must be jealous because I said Drew traces? Artist are like anyone else that dedicates themselves to a skill. That dedication is usually based off of inspiration and ideals so when those ideals/inspirations are challenged we fight back...Pride and all. I had to fight an angry mob to see "Davinci Code". There were even nuts protesting the "Lord of the Rings" movie. If you want to say that Hockney is wrong then discredit his evidence with your own evidence. Wether or not it's true that he is jealous of the "Great Masters" does not make his theory untrue that some "Great Masters" used an optical device in their painting process. What I find funny is that I have never heard of Hockney or his book until today. Guess I have to go read it now... Hockney is what now 70 years old or so?
Maybe he has something creditable to say...
Imagine in 500+ years in the future a not so good artist states in some book somewhere, "(Insert Conceptart.org artist's name here) used photoshop and painter to create their images". Some student somewhere who had dedicated his/her life to art because of your (insert Conceptart.org artist's name here) work is gonna respond on some forum the same way as most of the posts here.

[Seedling]

To be upfront I have not read his work at all really. . .

Wait. . . so you’re allowed to form an opinion based on a book you haven’t read, but no one else here is?

[Jason Ross]

The only opinion I've expressed is bashing someone who has an opinion when you have no knowledge of his/her full opinion. I'm not defending Hockney rather I'm defending another individual's right to have an opinion. The other opinion I've expressed is that if in fact he is correct...then so what. I have no opinion of whether or not his theory is true or not. My post doesn't say I believe him or not. I want to believe that he's wrong and that the "Great Masters" were above us mortals and all. I personally don't care if he's right or wrong. The "Masters" created life changing imagery.
Your response to my post would be valid if I actually based an opinion about Hockney without reading his book not on what his opinion is.

[Seedling]

Oh, my mistake, sorry.

Hey, if you're so interested in the book, you should write up a review of it when you've read it and share it here for everyone. I would be interested in reading what you write.

[Kresh]

I was looking up some Atlier programs in chicago on this site and they had this nice beefy section on Hockney, if any of you need a lil light on the subject heres the link
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp

Fuck You David Hockney

[Flake]

There's such a negative response towards Hockney but the same people bashing him have never read his work at all or thoroughly

I've read the book in question but mainly because it has many nice pictures.

[v0rbiss]

Dunno about his theoryes or believes, but he sure has some stunning drawings! :)

[Hyskoa]

Hockney was only partially correct. The old masters used the camera as a base and then their imagination and eyeballs to add the touch of genius and hard work to it.
Simple as that.

[Necrisque]

Hullo,
I'm a lurker. This is a really interesting subject though, so I'll make the exception and post, although I haven't read the book I have heard about the theory. This thread has sparked my interest enough to actually read it so I can have a proper opinion.

As of now, I think I agree with comparing it to artists today using digital media. It's very convenient for us for a number of reasons, like being able to play with layers and dynamically change something very fast without an eraser. Even in these times I have experienced controversy and claims that visual imagery created on a computer, especially 3D, is not art.

I don't know if this is any different for professionals, but I'm not one, so here goes: It doesn't matter if they did or didn't do it, for two reasons!

First, for someone like me, I am still overwhelmed by their dedication, I still respect these people who produce picture after picture throughout their lives. Hell, I even find it a struggle sitting down merely to sketch! I can't remember the last time I spent more than 45 minutes to draw any one thing. Then I hear about some old renaissance man who spends one or two years perfecting a painting. WHAT?!

Second, this magnifience can't just be measured in the level of realism. These artists are not cameras, but human, and so when you project something from your mind onto paper more follows.

[Koh]

Wow, I just looked up his art and it definitly isn't something I expected from an assumed famous artist, hmm. He's not bad, but he is definitly not amazing.
Whatever though, atleast he's famous.

[drd]

Great post Jason. As I was reading the bashing, as it will happen to anyone, I began to think like them...but I'd never read the book. I just took an opinion. Then You opened my eyes, yup. I hate when I do stuff like that because I do credit myself to being cleverer than most people my age, and many people tell me so, so I'm going to try and not fall into anything like that agaain.

I just looked up his artwork...wtf? He's nationally famous? My Tempera work is better than this.

What gives?

[armando]

Out of curiousity I went and picked this up at the library earlier today, so I'm only partly through it. There is some stuff I can criticize, but he also has some good points, and some funny observations like lots of figures becoming left handed for a forty year period. Once I finish the book I'll come back here and give it a proper critique.

I must say I was bothered by ignorant posts like these:
"It doesn't matter if they did or didn't do it"
"2c : even if some "masters" did trace SOME of their work... so what ?"
It matters because we are part of the realist tradition, so we should know it's history and development. The argument about the wide spread use of optical devices is important within the field of art history, and perception and human cognitive function.

[HunterKiller_]

Doesn't David Hockney take photos of homoseckual men?

[armando]

Well here goes the promised book review:

First issue is the title: Secret Knowledge rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters. "Techniques" refers to optical devices(camera lucida, convex mirrors, lenses) and how they might have been used. "Secret" implies there was some conspiracy by the Catholic church, never mind that there isn't enough evidence to suggest such a theory. So from the start it's unclear what the book is about: is it optics, conspiracy, his views on art? I guess the main argument in the book is that optics created an abrupt change in realism. This isn't true as the change towards realism started with Giotto and gradually progressed towards more realism, it was hardly abrupt.

He's also ignorant of the tradition of art instruction, he states on page 235 "I am probably one of the last people trained in the old art school ways". His drawing examples disprove this claim, showing his incompetents, never the less on pg 228 there's an article from Nature Magazine that calls him "one of the greatest draughtsman of our age", and "master of the pencil".

My main issue is that he doesn't take a stance either way on his opinion about optics. Sometimes he considers it as just a tool, other times its the "tyrannical, monocular vision of the lens". In some ways it seems that he's trying to discredit the classical tradition, but again it's always double talk. He constantly says that he doesn't believe an artist can get an accurate look without some type of tracing, but then contradicts himself when he says that it would be possible for an artist to learn the lens look and be able to duplicate it without an optical advice. He considers artists very secretive, in other words they won't share their techniques, pg 243 "Talking about secretiveness in artists, I saw a show in New York of a British painter Jenny Saville. They were very large nudes that she said are from photographs...but know one in the gallery knew how they were made. I doubt whether the artist would show anybody either."

I'm unsure of his opinion on the practicality of optical devices, at times the image is too fuzzy to be useful to paint from at other times pg263 it can "make marvelous detail we marvel about today". More contradictions pg 14 "and optics don't make drawing any easier, far from it", pg 45 "would have been very hard to do, even with optics".

On pg 128 there's a stupid error where he thinks Jesus is supposed to be a girl in Georges de la Tour's "St. Joseph the Carpenter". There's also a careless reference to E.H.Gombrich's "Art and Illusion" on pg 193, "Gombrich wanted to show how "difficult" it must have been for people to accept Manet's ackward style when they were used to academic portraits like the Fantin-Latour. Today I see "lens" and no "lens". It seems so perfectly clear." Actually Gombrich (pg 53 Art and Illusion) used those images to contrast the color of old paintings and newer paintings. Old paintings tended to have a golden look, an effect optics won't give, and some newer paintings were varnished to give them a similar look, the Manet was painted with bright colors. It's no coincidence that these pages in Hockney's book(192, and 193) are the only ones in black and white. I'm sure most of the other "evidence" is also misrepresented.

Hockney also adheres to the Modernist belief that perspective isn't really optical truth but just one possible interpretation of it. He believes that one point perpective is a lie, and that the collaging technique that was used in Northern Europe is more truthful "sophisticated" in his words. Of course he would say this since he used a similar technique in one of his photograpy pieces, he brings this back up several times throughout the book. So his illogical reasoning is that if one vanishing point is a lie, then many lies will make a picture more true.

Sloppy and repetitious, if you are curious to read the book basically all of it is summarized on the last two pages.

The book has a few good points, when he's not wasting our time with irrelevant criticism(Bouguereau), I think there is no doubt that optical devices would have been used for parts of paintings, and had an effect on the representation of light in paintings. Also Martin Kemp has some interesting ideas in the correspondence section, it would have been a much more interesting book if he had written it.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

Can't say much more than what others have already stated quite eloquently.

HOCKNEY IS A DOUCHEBAG.

The old masters drew things the same way CA'ers do. Simple observation.

[Haxxxor]

lol imo hockney is a good artist on what i have seen but if it is right what you said then he is an big idiot ^^.
the old masters wanted a way to get the right proportions because they were new at painting from life...
hockney should be grateful that they had experimented on new thechnics.

but at the 3. poster :
I dont care how many of the people where lefthanded in the painting...
many good artists were lefthanded...
for example:
dürer, rembrandt, raphael, michelangelo and at least leonardo were lefthanded

or do you mean cack-handed?

[Prometheus|ANJ]

I'm certain some old masters had assistants helping them and nice models posing for them. Credit where credit's due of course.

Artrenewal is kinda narrow in their promorion of 'real' art. Much of the stuff they worship is just glorified studies from life. Throw on some flimsy drapes on the model and and put a symbolic fruit/vase/animal on a table and it's done. Possibly nice looking, but personally I like seeing stuff coming from the imagination. If Hockey's 'copy machine' actually DID work then it would still be limited to rather boring real world items, or slightly morphed ones.

As a kid I used to think all artists 'cheated' in some way, i.e. used tons of reference, models, secret cheat techniques, more secret cheat techniques (that would make me a master over night if I only could figure them out), but then I realized that the skill ladder stretches further than I could see. It's gonna be a long climb but atleast I can get further on my own than I originally had thought.

I guess the artist can see and add appropriate details that just isn't there on the reference, like an aesthetic pronounciation of a muscle, or a bone showing its white just under the skin, lots of little aesthetic nudges that we expect to see on a generic body but might not be there on a given instance of a body. I think a lot of beauty comes from using averaged expected aesthetics, but then you break it in some places to get something unique and characteristic, like... Cindy Crawford's mole.

[armando]

but at the 3. poster :

many good artists were lefthanded...
for example:
dürer, rembrandt, raphael, michelangelo and at least leonardo were lefthanded

or do you mean cack-handed?

The left handed thing referred to a forty year period starting with Caravaggio where figures all of a sudden started to be portrayed as left handed, I think it's one of Hockney's better arguments. I think there's no doubt that the masters would have used optics, I'm sure they would have had to meet deadlines and other such concerns so they would have used whatever tool they needed to speed up the job. The fault of Hockney's "argument" is that he implies that the use of optical devices caused the change towards realistic painting, but it's more likely that the change happened first then optics would have been employed as a way of speeding up some parts of a painting.

Prometheus, yeah I also think that ARC is biased in their views, I also don't buy the billion dollar conspiracy theory to explain the emergence of modern art. Never the less that philosophy statement of theirs does have some good points.

[Flake]

ARC is a bit of a weird place, I can agree with quite a bit of their philosophy and I appreciate the resources that they offer but they're kinda stuck in this odd little 19th century bubble and totally dismissive of almost all contemporary art, cg work, illustration, comic books etc.

I love Waterhouse, Sargent, Leighton etc but I'm also a huge fan of some artists who aren't dead yet and almost none of them seem to fit into ARCs worryingly narrow idea of what constitutes "art"..

It seems like in their backlash against all things modern art that they're throwing out a lot of cool work simply because it doesn't fit their narrow spectrum of "acceptable", in much the same way as the modernists they hate so much threw out all those years of realist tradition when some of it might have proved really useful.

[armando]

It seems like in their backlash against all things modern art that they're throwing out a lot of cool work simply because it doesn't fit their narrow spectrum of "acceptable", in much the same way as the modernists they hate so much threw out all those years of realist tradition when some of it might have proved really useful.

Agreed.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

You might find it interesting, I spoke with all of those people on the GoodArt discussion board about this. It's populated by people like Fred Ross, Brian Yoder, Virgil Elliot...all of the bigwigs over at ARC.

The answer they gave me in regards to comic/entertainment art that it was definately art, but their focus was on serious realism paintings that were done for the sake of themselves, and not for entertainment.

Supposedly this would limit critics. Part of the reasoning was that illustrators had been berated for decades as not worthy of the title of fine artist, or even artist...why give them any more fuel by including art not made for the sake of art? (Though we all know comic book art is often not made for the sake of the story, but for itself)


It's worth noting that one of the most famous Magic: The Gathering card art artists won the first or second (I forget which) Art Renewal Salon competition, with a rather fantastic triptych. Donato Giancola. (That cool guy who has the cool open house every year)

They're very serious and not really into talking about animation art or those other things, instead, they want to focus on the foundations of art. Comics and cartoons obviously would make a poor foundation for art, but fine art, academic tradition and the techniques used by the old masters are a fine foundation for drawing comic art and animation.

I've really never encountered anyone on ARC badmouthing cartoons, comics or CGI. There was a whole other discussion on computer generated art on Goodart, as well...the reason for it being disallowed in the ARC competition was that there is no way to regulate it. I mean imagine finding out that the latest Salon winner was using painted over Bryce models. People would be in an outrage, judging by some of the heated discussions about it here on CA, on GFX and such.

I've seen this topic beaten to death elsewhere, but I've yet to see any evidence that ARC dislikes anything outside of realism and life studies. I think you can't argue with the level of quality on ARC. I mean, there's lots of Fantasy art in the ARC museum, from many artists. Fantasy art is a genre that stretches back thousands of years.

Also, keep in mind that living artists must submit an application to be listed in ARC's living masters gallery. ARC doesn't contact them. Considering the controversy surrounding ARC, would that be a good publicity move for say, Brom, Lassen, Vallejo or Giger? There's very little seperating the subject of their work from some of Bouguereau's...I'd be interested in hearing a case of a very famous fantasy realist like the ones i listed above, being refused.

My decision to listen to and support the ARC view was born from my decision that they were seeking to broaden the definition of art, not narrow it, and I did this after much consideration, reading and questioning the board members personally.

Perhaps this quote by Fred Ross (ARC chairman) sums it up perfectly:

"There are some who have misquoted me, or, worse, libeled ARC's philosophy and goals by claiming that we seek to repress artistic freedom. I would prefer there was no art, and no great paintings anywhere in the world, than that the freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear would be lost."

[Seedling]

Well here goes the promised book review:

Thanks for taking the time to write that all up!

[chaosrocks]

ok lets see
A. Hockney is a good artist. he sees things in a different way and shows you how to see them. This qualifies as Art

B. I don't thing this discussion really should lump together Hockney's artistry and his scholarship. they are different.

c. so what if the greats used a camera obscura...90 % of you use a computer..it doesn't invalidate the art. It is merely using the the technology as tools to forward the art. the tools used to make it may flavour the art but they don't define it. I don't think HOckney says the work in inferior because of these methods.

D. I challenge you to trace a photo. and paint it. unless you apply great skill and observation ..believe me, it will not be a vermeer.

chaos

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

so what if the greats used a camera obscura...90 % of you use a computer..it doesn't invalidate the art. It is merely using the the technology as tools to forward the art. the tools used to make it may flavour the art but they don't define it. I don't think HOckney says the work in inferior because of these methods.

No no, what Hockney was insinuating was that realism is only possible with this device and with photography in the modern day, and that illustrators and contemporary realists must use tracing. He pretty much dismissed the idea of artists being able to produce high realism without tracing. This is a joke. Every artist trained in an atelier for the past 500 years knows it's simple to draw a portrait from life without the use of optical devices or tracing paper. It's an insult to anyone who actually does know how to draw.

Hockney is wrong, and is spreading false misconceptions about how realism is produced, and how the old masters worked. The traditions the old masters laid down are still alive today, and none of them involve tracing from an optical device...it's too much of a pain in the ass! If they ever existed in schools, anywhere, they died out a long time ago.

That's why so many artists are up in arms about it. He's making false claims and damaging the reputation of illustrators with magnificient abilities to copy what they see in front of them without using a silly optical device. He should stick to his own art and leave his opinions about how other produce art to himself...obviously he doesn't have a clue on how to draw without tracing...his illustrative portraits just scream "photo paintover".


"I would be honored to send Mr. Hockney scans of my paintings, all done from observation of actual subjects, without using any external assistance or photographic images. Mr. Hockney would be welcome to watch me work from life, if he does not accept my word."

- Ted Seth Jacobs

Someone actually TRIED this experiment, to see if it did work...it was a complete disaster. Read on for more...

"Being curious about Hockney's theory, I aquired a couple of (cheap) concave mirrors, and together with a fellow student proceded to immitate Hockney's Flemish set-up during the Christmas holidays; by drawing portraits of each other. Because of the dark weather, we had to use a very bright lamp as a light source.....

...It went down like a lead balloon! After administering one darker layer of paint, my whole projection just vanished, because the projection surface wasn't white anymore. This was probably due to my weak mirror but still I can see this presenting problems. Next to that, I had to refocus a lot, because it was impossible to get, for instance, the whole of the banjo in focus at once, and it was very tricky, not to say impossible to change focus without changing the shape of the projection on the canvas thusly making the ends no longer meet."

Full article (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=70&forumID=8)


This is nothing more than a big fat grab for money and fame. By discrediting the old mastes he furthers his own aims to portray his paint globs as more legitimate. I say paint your damned globs, but stop spreading your lies!

[ArtEdGradStudent]

Alright, let's see... First of all Armando, thanks for reviewing the book and for finding so many interesting points about it - good detective work! I haven't read it, and I've only seen a few of his artworks, so I won't even give an opinion on Hockney. What I will say is this:

1. Although you're right that realism didn't start abruptly but has it's evolution stemming from Giotto & Cimabue, one has to note the coincidence of photorealistic work with the birth of photography in the 19th century. the Realist movement of Courbet and others actually predates the invention of the Daguerrotype by about a decade or two. There are several master painters whose work seems like a photography studio set up, such as the newclassical David. That all predates photography. But, there were some kinds of painting that were very difficult to the naked eye, as Gombrich points out in the introduction to The Story of Art, such as horses running, and also I'd note the shapes of waves and water. It was Muybridge who proved through photography that horses always have one leg touching the ground, even when running at full gallop (unless they jump of course). Also some of the best painters of ocean waves - Homer & Waterhouse - both worked after photography had already evolved to where you could photograph the ocean. I'm not saying these artists worked from photographs. I don't know enough about them. It's just puzzling for me not to have seen comparable work from any other artist that predates photography - if any of you can suggest some, please do.

2. One point perspective is a lie. So is 2 and 3 point. For one thing, all 2D illusions are lies, because they're not really 3D. They trick the eye. However, 1-3 point perspectives are also lies because they don't truly show the image in it's true, real form. Any computer animator knows there are actually 6 points of perspective in the real world - up, down, left, right, vanishing point, and the opposite vanishing point behind you. All the straight lines in 1-3 point perspective are actually curving arcs that wrap around you as you turn your head to view them. If you're inside a room typing at your computer right now, look up at the lines of the ceiling, and how they curve as you turn your head to view them. Photographers use fish-eye lenses to exaggerate this effect. Here's a crappy drawing I once made (freehand, no camera obscura) to illustrate this:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e144/arthursmithsfineart/ClassroomPerspectivesmall.jpg

[Haxxxor]

@armando
thanks for the explanation with that lefthanded thing

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

1. Although you're right that realism didn't start abruptly but has it's evolution stemming from Giotto & Cimabue, one has to note the coincidence of photorealistic work with the birth of photography in the 19th century.

Here I have to ask, what do you mean by photorealistic? It's widely regarded today that a photorealistic painting is a failure for the artist...it must be lifelike and realistic. Photorealistic only means it looks like a photo. Photographs cannot reproduce the same colors the human eye sees, which is why everyone is so hyped about digital cameras...finally we might be able to get close to life with digital.

But yes, there are realistic water paintings before the 1800's though you do have to wade through hundreds of works to find them. Try looking outside of landbound cities. We can fly anywhere we want now...the ocean is but an hour or two away for many of us. Back then, only ocean cities who also supported the arts could have some marine art to show for it. Try looking at some of the Venetian painters...Canaletto has some fine reproductions of the canals of Venice.

Bouguereau himself, who I must confess I think is Waterhouse's superior on a technical level with waves, definately used photographs, however, these, again, were referenced through observation, not tracing, and he actually visited the ocean to get color notes and sketches, etc, using photography only in his studio as an afterthought. The studies from life, sketchwork, etc, is much more important. It's much quicker to observe and sketch than it is to trace. I think anyone who has worked with traditional media will agree tracing is a big pain and rarely gives the results you need.

Going back to the subject on water...not only do we have a problem with people being landbound, not able to see actual ocean waves, but most art was a bunch of religious drivel pre 1800's. Artists were limited to their client's tastes and who wants to look at a bunch of waves when you can just go down to the lake. No, they wanted stuff they couldn't see everyday...Jesus and Mary and all of those other religious heroes they read about but could not see.

Thank goodness for 18th and 19th century Paris. They discarded the standards and started to paint sexy bodies next to the ocean, or next to satyrs or what have you. It was a big revolution culturally and technologically...science was a very sexy and fashionable thing back then. I don't think it's just a technological coincidence that both photography and art improved then. The medical fields were also booming, doctors were almost like rockstars.

Finally one of the best examples of camera obscura being a rediculous method of working is the fine art of Michelangelo. He's famous for his work on the Sistine chapel, but he reputedly hated painting and was forced to work on that. No, his real love was sculpture, and that's where he shone. And how the hell are you going to project an image on a block of marble and carve it, in the dark?

There's only one small inaccuracy on Michelangelo's David...the rest is perfect. I don't see a better advocate for observation and measurement being king than that statue, or any of the other realistic sculptures throughout antiquity. There a few artists on this site, who have trained in lineages stemming directly from Michelangelo's atelier and working methods, and those methods do not include tracing (except in the case of reproducing an already completed drawing)

[ArtEdGradStudent]

what's the inaccuracy on his David? If you mean the large head, that was done on purpose so you could see it from up on high - it was originally meant for the top of a building, and there's a copy of it that sits up on that building in Florence.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

Here you go:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2004/1222193.htm

"Michelangelo's David is the result of intense anatomy studies. Here the artist achieved an absolute perfection except for that muscle in the back..."

- Gulisano

[armando]

2. One point perspective is a lie. So is 2 and 3 point. For one thing, all 2D illusions are lies, because they're not really 3D. They trick the eye. However, 1-3 point perspectives are also lies because they don't truly show the image in it's true, real form. Any computer animator knows there are actually 6 points of perspective in the real world - up, down, left, right, vanishing point, and the opposite vanishing point behind you. All the straight lines in 1-3 point perspective are actually curving arcs that wrap around you as you turn your head to view them.


Vision is not 3D, a flat image seen from each eye is processed in the brain into an interpretation of 3D. For this reason pictures aren't lies, but take advantage of visual depth cues which the brain uses to interperpret form. Since pictures can't move, the use of 5 vanishing points would be a lie since we don't percieve straight lines as curved unless we follow them by turning our heads. The 6th vanishing point is of no concequence in real vision since we can't see behind our heads.

[briggsy@ashtons]

Has everyone here seen this?:

Art & Optics - New Theories of Opticality in Western painting of the past 600 years.
http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/

The site presents contributions by Hockney and Falco and their opponents to a rather heated two-day symposium at the Humanities Institute of New York University in December 2001 (Chuck Close suggested the subtitle "Look back in Ingres"). Here as elsewhere there is a good deal of acrimony and misrepresentation of opponents' positions on both sides, and things have subsequently gotten particularly ugly between Falco and his critic David Stork (http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/Nature9March2006.pdf).

While I share the opinion that Hockney's book stems largely from his rather embarrassing ignorance of what a classically trained draughtsman can do, it would be wise to keep a cool and charitable head as some truth undoubtedly resides on both sides. The idea that an artist such as Caravaggio, who rejected the classical style of training epitomized by the Carracci brothers, might have used optical devices is at least worth exploring, and on the webexhibits site Susan Grundy presents some interesting historical links that seem to tie in nicely with that possibility. The probable use of an optical device as a time saving measure by Holbein in some of his later (and less good) portraits was suggested long before Hockney.

[armando]

The second link doesn't work.

[ArtEdGradStudent]

Armando, I didn't say vision was 3D. I'm saying real rooms, people, sculptures, objects are 3D, and we recognize them as such. 2D images are illusions. Our eye gets to enjoy looking at them as flat planes and then as if they were 3D images, and back and forth. A lie and an illusion are similes. As for us only using 3 dimensions, the reality is we do turn our heads and look around. Straight lines refer to the immediate frame we have when we see what is straigh ahead of us. But we also have periferal vision, and a really accurate drawing that shrunk the frontal view and included the perifery would look more like the example sketch I drew. Now, just because the frontal view doesn't look very curved, it doesn't mean they're not part of a larger curving arc. You're just not seeing it all. But any "true" perspective would incorporate this concept.

[armando]

I'm saying that all images are 2D, all you have to do to test this is close one eye. What you're saying about how we see is true, but it can't be translated onto a flat surface: periferal vision can't be clearly seen, and is impossible to draw. It's only possible to notice the curve by turning your head. I'm looking at the crown moulding in my room, I stare straight at it looking up, I close one eye, and follow with my finger across it's straight trajectory, I turn my head and notice that my trajectory is now above the new direction of a new line, the old line I followed before turning my head no longer exists. The only way to draw curving straight lines and have them look correct would be to draw on concave surfaces, either the inside of a cylinder or a dome, otherwise the lines will be read as curved and not the intended straight. Still this won't be the complete visual experience since it still can't show movement or 2-eyed vision. It's an illusion in that we can't interact with the objects we see in a picture, but it's true in that the visual cues it uses to fool us are based on true visual experience.

[ArtEdGradStudent]

I see what you're saying, but do all the lines in my drawing read as curved or straight?

[armando]

I see the lines as curved but I know they're really supposed to be straight. I consider fisheye as more of a special effect rather than a direct representation of vision.

[ArtEdGradStudent]

I guess I should've said, the lines are curved, but do you see the objects as curved or straight? I think we just have different view points.