On the Use of Optical Devices by Renaissance Painters - Part 1 of 5

[Tordah90]

I dont know all this so called ''avant gard'' people are just full of shit, promote homosexuality & shitty way of using brushes. Parting the old ways out of just jealousy because they are so inept that cant even hold a pencil correctly.

This is why the world is going to hell because of all this avant gard design publicity media shit. And now they are vulgarly going against what the most talented did in the past.

Maggots will always be maggots

[robitusson]

As Falco says "25 million people a year didn't see what I'm going to show you." 25 million people a year weren't attempting to piece together Frankenstein evidence from they were looking at to fit an ego trip thesis. That is why they didn't see it.

[jmmax100]

What is the fuss? Its a very interesting book, Hockney is an interesting artist, Falco an

entertaining speaker, the lucida and obscura interesting technological wizardry from the middle ages and as I don't have an Ingres or a Van Eyck hanging on the wall, I couldn't care less how the artists painted them or even drew them. The reaction to hockney is more strange than the notion that the masters may or may

not have used optics to put out a half decent painting. Weird.

[yocanbanconit]

How does he explain accurate three-dimensional modeling of the human figure in classical era roman wall paintings, made at the same time egyptians were still making their flat, two-dimensional figures? Were the ancient romans also using optics?

[anikinippon]

@yocanbanconit Are speaking about the statues or wall paintings or are you comparing the two together? There is a vast difference between sculpture and the art of painting. In the art of painting, the Egyptians were not doing naturalistic shading or contrast in their painting, they were solid color. So if you are arguing that they were able to do life like sculptures and not paintings, there is no comparison.

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon If optics explains the advances in painting during the Renaissance, then what explains the advances in sculpture during the same time period? Yes, we went from Byzantine painting to Raphael during the Renaissance. But we also went from mediocre sculpture to Michelangelo within the same time period. How do you, Falco, and Hockney explain that?

[anikinippon]

@yocanbanconit Now, if you are going to compare the evidence for roman paintings, there is textual evidence in David Hockney's book "Secret Knowledge" that has evidence that mirrors existed from around 4th BC to around 65 AD from the writings "Questiones naturalis". This would explain the reason why more naturalistic human images exist in painting in Rome, especially the encaustic paintings during that time period.

[yocanbanconit]

@anikinippon I didn't say anything about sculpture. The use of optics in the past, or whether some artists experimented with them, is unimportant. For hundreds of years people who've modeled or sat for their portraits have described the working methods of master painters, and they don't mention the use of mirrors or cameras. Hockney's idea on this subject is like a conspiracy theory in which the most obvious facts must be ignored.

[anikinippon]

@yocanbanconit That's an ad hominem fallacy, just because people didn't write about it didn't mean they weren't used, their existence is clear. Just because Vermeer was more open about the use of optics doesn't mean others were. The reasons for secrecy could be easily explained by wanting to be regarded as a great artist and hold a monopoly on that, that's not absolute but it's plausible. Your arguments are not related to the facts presented by the video.

[yocanbanconit]

@anikinippon What you and Hockney are doing is generalizing. My earlier argument was a sound one. The evidence is overwhelming. Hockney made an extraordinary claim and has to back it up with something more than the anecdotal. You can't say that some great artists MIGHT have used optics, therefore all great artists DID use optics. THAT'S a fallacy.

[anikinippon]

@yocanbanconit I have been speaking with a classically trained painter and you are correct on that point. After asking one basic question I started seeing many of Hockney's errors. The question is how many classically trained artists these days ever use "optical devices" and are VERY life like? It hit me like a brick, even though what Hockney said was plausible, it's doesn't mean it's true. I've been reviewing the book and can only find 3 paintings where it was likely that an optical device...

[anikinippon]

@yocanbanconit was used. I'll be making a video on the errors in the book that I found, and there are many after talking with the painter that I realized on my own from just observing and reading the book again. Thanks for the input.

[milesmathis]

So, Falco finally got into Wiki as Hockney's puppet. Pathetic. A fake physicist coattailing on a fake artist.

[anikinippon]

@milesmathis "Charles M. Falco, UA Chair of Condensed Matter Physics, Professor of Optical Sciences, Professor of Physics

PhD, University of California, Irvine, 1974

MS, University of California, Irvine, 1971

BS, University of California, Irvine, 1970 " -University of Arizona website.

"Several Hockneys have sold recently for between £2m and £3m." -David Hockney goes big with gift to Tate

Who's fake again?

[milesmathis]

you are, and just proved it. Fake people judge eachother by money and degrees.

[anikinippon]

@milesmathis Maybe you are just saying that because you can't get either.

[milesmathis]

@anikinippon Yes, just what a fake person would consider a cutting retort. Do you want to try again? I am sure you can make yourself look worse.

[KPattonArt123]

His beginning premise was wrong. "Renaissance masters like Van Eyck or Bellini were geniuses who produced their paintings by talent alone."This is vague rhetoric. Many classical masters and historians dont even believe in talent.Masters nearly always apprenticed with other masters, who taught them the craft of painting.Masters paint by understanding principles like the inverse square law of light,anatomy,subsurface scattering,etc, not by a vague concept of talent or just "eyeballing" really hard

[milesmathis]

@KPattonArt123 The inverse square law of light? Yes, tell us more about how masters paint, oh master.

[KPattonArt123]

@milesmathis Ah, I know your website very well. You cut a lot of people down, which is always a very entertaining read. Anyways, I know you're very well aware of the classical realist movement, and I'm a classically trained painter. My grandmother also studied similarly in the very early 20th century.You know the whole "lineage" idea.Regardless. What I call the "inverse square law" is what the Old Masters called the "fall of light." I prefer scientific terms over traditional terms. Less vague.

[KPattonArt123]

@milesmathis I think we probably agree on a lot of things much more than you know-- being that you don't know me, but I've read through most of your site. I know you're very entertaining to watch debate, but I really don't feel like going back and forth with you on here. For one, I'll probably agree with most of what you say. For two, you present your arguments in a very rude way, which is entertaining from the outside, I admit. I'm not trying to be rude myself, it's just kind of true. :)

[zepps88]

interesting topic

[Pidirects]

optics were the photoshop of the day, daddy.

[GenericGene]

Projecting reflections for paintings has been around for centuries, that's pretty obvious, thank goodness they used these techniques, they were able to preserve the people and events of the those moments in time. Good Post.