10 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Has been thoroughly debunked.,
This review is from: Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the lost techniques of the Old Masters (Paperback)
I don't know why David Hockney came up with this theory, but it's been debunked quite well, I believe. (Most notably Scientific American December 2004.)
The other 1-star review talks about Hockney's lack of drawing skill, and I'm afraid I have to agree about that. Don't get me wrong, he's a great artist--I love his use of color especially. His artwork is very enjoyable, but I thought it was obvious that drawing was not the focus of his work. Yet he is suggesting that some of the accuracy in these paintings could not be done without optical aids? Who is he to say what could NOT be done by people who clearly had much stronger drawing skills than him?
No one is saying that the Old Masters never used optics, but there is great doubt cast on them using optics for the reasons (and in the manner) that Hockney describes.
Read the Scientific American article for a detailed scientific explanation of the flaws in Hockney's theories, or do a Google search starting with David G Stork (he's the man who wrote the Scientific American article). He's not the only one debunking this theory, either.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Sep 2012 17:13:46 BDT
Thanks for a good review, and I'm searching for that article online now. However, it is well know that Canaletto and even Vermeer DID use a camera obscura for some of their works.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›