David Hockney's Secret Knowledge
 

I just watched a documentary about David Hockney's explorations of artists' use of lenses and mirrors through the past 600 ears. It was called "Secret Knowledge" made in 2001 by the BBC.

He pinned hundreds of colour copies of paintings onto boards in his studio starting with ones done in the 1300s through to C20th works and there was a very distinct jump at 1420AD. This was about when oil paints were invented but I think it also coincided with the invention of lenses (telescopes etc)There was another distinct change when cameras were invented but that is another story.

He finished his programme by recreating one of Carravaggio's painting (three men playing cards)using a lens, by putting his model in costume in strong light and then positioning his canvas so a clear image projected onto it (upside down)which he traced with charcoal. He then had the model change pose and moved the canvas to the appropriate position and repeated the process of charcoal, as he did the third man. His image was very close to the original.

He likened the whole process to what modern artists do with computers. That is take one bit of one image and add another bit from somewhere else and the background from anywhere.

I'm off to buy a copy of his book called "Secret Knowledge from a Forgotten Age" and I'm planning to invest in an overhead projector. Who said painting was hard??

With all his new
 

"found" information...Dave Barry, I think it was, said he refuses to say he "found" any restaurants that are listed in the yellow pages. It's like a sports fan discovering the forward pass.

But beyond these "NEW DISCOVERIES", I wonder if any of these millions of artists that have discovered this will see any improvement in their own crude paintings - especially the author.

You can see an earlier discussion of this at: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=259

Hi Tim,

I'm curious. Have you seen the documentary?

Hockney said nothing about photography except that the invention of same freed the artist from having to paint realistically and I didn't get the impression that he thought the Old Masters "cheated"

I think that if any painters of the past did use optics, they did so in a concession to speed, not because of a lack of skill.

There are plenty of evidence from painters today that artists can draw and paint from a live model very accurately without the aid of any optics. It is my opinion that most if not all the master painters of old could draw and paint from life and could do so quite skillfully. If they chose to use such devices, it would have been because they were a novelty and possibly because they saved them some time.

The mistake many painters have made since the second generation of impressionists is that they don't ever learn the skill and go right to saving time and it shows in the work - I did this too and am now having to make up for it.

Cheating?
 

Did I say cheating?

Lenses
 

The lenses you mentioned suggest cameras which are a big part of the whole concept of the book. Much of this is and has never been much of a secret to artists. I disagree with many of his conclusions and arguments. My point is, so what? Hockney uses a camera in every one of his paintings and I can't help but think; so? The best cameras made wouldn't help an artist who can't paint.

Bottom line
 

In his book, Hockney illustrates the use of the same device he claims that Ingres used to do his drawings. In comparing Ingres' drawings to Hockneys' it is quite obvious that it takes far more than a mere optical device to create masterful drawings. Hockney manages to be inaccurate, cartoonlike and generally heavy-handed compared to the genius that personifies all that Ingres touched. It's actually quite sad.

Hear, Hear, Marvin! Well said!

(or is it, Here, Here!) ?:D

If you understand the use of the cartoon, layers and assistants in the studio, Hockney falls flat on his face. It's that simple.

For speed, use much darkness, as well as a coloured oil study. See Rubens or Van Dyck. It is sad to see people still falling for the Hockney theories. ;C

Hey Tim,

A little white in that facial hair and we will be seeing snow and reindeer. Ah for all these new looks. :o

I mentioned in a recent post that I had posted a response to Hockney's book on my website. I would like to direct attention to the two articles at

www.kirkrichards.com/articles.htm

concerning Hockney's theory.

One article there deals with Hockney's total misunderstanding of the artists' motivation and uses quotes from the artists themselves to demonstrate the error of his thesis, and also describes the standard requirements of students who competed for the prestigious "Prix de Rome." Ingres and others who competed and won did so under the careful scrutiny of judges and officials and no optical aids of any sort were permitted.

The other article by Gregg Kreutz takes Hockney's 7 main "proofs" and responds to them point by point.

Take a look.

Best,
Kirk

Margaret--

Before you run off to get Hockney's book and a projector, you've missed the point. Tools and skills are not the same thing. It's as if one assumes that one can establish a nice side business in brain surgery just because one buys the scapel from the same place as the surgeon.

When not working from life, I always start with a careful drawing. This is primarily to learn the structure of the face and head before I start slapping on the paint. In very short order, the drawing is totally obscured, and it's the same long march to the finish, with a lot of side trips and loops on the way. If any tool could streamline this preliminary work, it would still be the same process with the painting. No shortcuts, no tricks. If you can't paint, the result will be horrible no matter what device you started with.

Good painting will never be anything but **** hard. But there is nothing more fun, nor ultimately more rewarding. If it were easy, there would be no museums. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Best--TE

Relax everyone!
 

Hey, don't panic!

Like everyone here, I've spent years studying and drawing. I can do it without the shortcuts! ;)

It's just nice to dream sometimes that there is an easier way, but I guess if there was, no one would bother painting at all.

We need people like Hockney to rouse us out of our complacency occasionally and he certainly got plenty of discussion going.

Must admit I have bought an overhead projector though. Can't say it does the job for portraits because the lines are too blurry. It is however excellent for silk painting and my 4' x 3' tropical fruit and flower paintings.

Apart from his theories... Which are fun anyway. I wish Hockney had drawn and painted more portraits over the years. He could 've been a genius.

Peter

Hockney's a genius!
 

Well, according to Hockney in his book, he's done "hundreds" of portraits. Wow! You'd think he would have improved over time, but oh well. I just got this book for my birthday, after looking at it in the store for months. I love it! To wit:

1 - He's right, there is a mysterious sort of acceleration in Northern Europe at about 1420-30, and Southern Europe a hundred years later. Something probably happened to improve painting in general. In my opinion, the camera probably played a role, but was not the major factor.

2 - He's right, those guys draw and paint wayyyy better than DH.

3 - The part of the book talking about the "errors" produced by the use of cameras is wonderful! I've noticed a lot of them before, but many I just said "huh, that looks a little weirrrd." Some things he says are errors are simply attributable to the style of the time, though, aren't they? Other things are errors I could easily reproduce without a camera!

The 20th century art movements did some wonderful things, opening up galleries and tastes, allowing artists to play in their reindeer games whether or not they had any training, craftsmanship, etc. I'm not being sarcastic - I really like modern art. I really don't like Impressionism, but I like that it happened. And while realism and classical realism seem to have evolved, did they evolve at the same pace?

Basically, I would like the $16,000 I spent on art school back!! That was only 2 years, and it was a while ago, but I'll tell you I learned more from Bob Ross, Bill Alexander and books than I learned in school. One of the reasons I left is because I didn't see any reason to stay - when I went to senior shows, loads of people had ideas and angst, had a drive to paint, but *none* of them could paint like the people on this forum. I thought "well, I'm not angry - what do I have to paint about?" So I thought, hey I'm no artist, I should go.

In school, we all learned how to draw on the right side of our brains, and then, uh, well, we did that some more. (Yes there may have been mysteries unfolded in the 1.5 years I missed, but then wouldn't the seniors have evinced it?) If ever *once* there had been a Tim Tyler, Daniel Greene, Raymond Kinstler, Karin Wells, Bill Whitaker, Chris Saper, etc etc I would have stayed, and left behind this nagging feeling that I just wasted 15 years of my life.

So long story longer, DH I think is pointing out a lot of things, including a general lack of understanding of the mechanics of painting, not just on his part, but on a lot of people's parts.

Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Percy
 

Apart from the discussion about his views on the use of mechanical aids in painting. When I gave my comment on David Hockney I had one thing in the back of my mind. Before the man and his talent gets ridiculed... He DID make the painting 'Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Percy'. (although I guess the 'Bouguereau-school of modelling faces' won't like it). Isn't it a unique painting with a grandeur reminiscent of the great eras in painting which lie far behind us?

More information about this painting you can find here:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/H/h...kprcy.jpg.html

It's sad to see people bash artists like him all too easily.

Peter

Did anyone catch this on 60 Minutes last night?

I thought it was really interesting, it reminded me of the thread Tim started about the maturity of painting. Hockney zeroed in right on the time decided upon.

I thought the part of all the "left" hands appearing all of a sudden was amazing. I guess if you look at these artists as trying to operate their business and getting the most work possible, they must have had a number of ways to save time.

The chandelier and distortion of the tablecloth, I thought, were equally interesting.

ARC and Goodart
 

Check out ARC and Goodart-yahoo, there's quite a rage going on over there.

Tim,

Could you please give exact web addresses for these?

Sure, here's they are http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goodart

http://www.artrenewal.org/quotes1.asp

-Tim