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

[robitusson]

2.08: Falco draws a line over the Campin underdrawing himself, then uses this line, his own, as evidence for the line quality of lens users! Extraordinary.

It really is very hard hard to ignore his own bias to prove this theory to be correct.

[tokotokotoko3]

Hah, loved the face of Hockney in the end.

Great talk.

[idleworms]

"I mean, Van Eyke's "Arnolfini Marriage" has an optic in it, the concave mirror that existed around that time."

The one in the image is convex, not concave. Convex makes the reflected image smaller - useful for wide angle reflections - like a rear view mirror in a car.

Of course, if they made convex mirrors, they likely (as mentioned in the clips in this lecture) made concaves. Concaves magnify, which is why they are used in Newtonian telescopes, and for projecting popes onto canvases.

[mojobrando]

Well the conclusion being drawn here is that this devalues Van Eyck & Companies genius is very laughable. Even with the use of optical tools it would be practically impossible to find an artist that can create a painting that can compare to Van Eyck's quality. I have no doubt that optics were used but the propaganda of "Thats why modern art is superior" which Hockney sets forth is nonsense. As Jackson Pollack said, "Technique is just a means at arriving at a statement".

[GenericGene]

Most of the great masters went to art school to enhance their skills in painting techniques run by renowned painters as a general rule, the use of optics was a instrumental part of their learning. Well done - its about time someone put the optics question to rest.

[richmond436]

they used optics cause they didn't know how to draw

[KPattonArt123]

You have to be joking. Where are there examples of optics in old masters writings, or within their paintings? You regularly see self portraits showing their materials and canvases in progress. You never see optical devices. You also don't see any artists writing about it, whether published, in their notes, or in letters to each other. Hockney et al have no response to this, so they just say it was a "trade secret."

[GenericGene]

Look it up on Google -

[KPattonArt123]

There was a large improvement in painting during the Renaissance. But there was also a large improvement in sculpture during the same period. How would an optical device help sculpture?Also,how large would the camera have to be,being that many of the sculptures of this time period(Like Michelangelo's "David") were enormous in size. How could a small camera help produce a 3d sculpture,and how could a lens from that time period have high enough resolution to project the size of "David" clearly?

[KPattonArt123]

The reality is that the use of optics wasn't used much up until the 19th century.The L'Ecole des Beaux Art started teaching photography/optical devices in 1863. We have examples of camera obscuras dating to very late 18th century.Read older texts on painting to see how much info there is on optics.Read writings by Vasari,Solomon J Solomon,Eastlake,Ruskin,Sir Joshua Reynolds,Thomas Bardwell,Veronese,Van Dyck,etc.These span 1500-1890,& were largely influential in their time.None discuss optics

[KPattonArt123]

Paintings didnt begin looking photographic until the late 18th century.Prior to this, the vast majority of paintings looked conceptualized.

It's sort of silly listening to an art historian discussing drawing and painting.They show a traced line by Warhol,then to a line in an old painting & say it must have been traced froma lens,too.But look at the drawing itself,it looks conceived, not photographic.They then ignore 400 years of common knowledge:artists transferred by tracing their cartoons.duh!

[KPattonArt123]

He then shows a "history of optics in art," which shows paintings from 1400-today, the last being a Chuck Close. Yet the Chuck Close is the only painting that looks photographic. The earlier paintings looked more like a conceived illustration, most of them couldn't even be posed in a set up in reality (let alone traced from a lens), they are composed in the mind. The first artists that could be described as photographic were the 19th century French artists.

[KPattonArt123]

Also, he and Hockney always refer to artists of the past "eyeballing." The idea that a person can just "eyeball it" and create something so accurate seems astounding. But where is the historical use of the term "eyeballing"? Drawing is not about eyeballing really hard to draw. The old masters emphasized painting from large essential shapes, down to smaller ones. It's called blocking in, refer to Vasari, Eastlake, and Charles Bargue's books.

[KPattonArt123]

I've looked it up on google. I'm a professional painter. I've researched art historical techniques thoroughly.

The reality is that Renaissance art doesn't even look photographic.The art of that time, up through the Mannerists, was conceptual in appearance.That is,they were drawing an IDEA of something,not a very perceptually accurate rendering OF something.Compare it with 19th century French art or photographs, for instance.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 Old masters don't have to write about these techniques for them to be used. Secrecy could have been the reason why the painters never depicted the optics in their paintings and plausibly why they didn't want the next Joe Schmo to be come a great artist because they didn't want to have to compete. That's actually irrelevant compared the evidence presented by the optics professor. Did you actually read the entire book by David Hockney?

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon Yes, I read the book. You're also ignoring art history by saying "they didn't want to compete." That's ignorant. Every great master came from the studio of another artist. Knowledge was passed down through master-apprentice. It started in the guilds in Italy, into the private studios, and into the academies (not to be confused with todays university education system). Artists taught each other, it's been a 600 year long community.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 You are right, tracing a image doesn't make a great artist, portraits are not tracing but the under drawings are. All the masters had under drawings except Caravaggio. The secrecy is not inconceivable, DaVinci didn't want his findings and writings read by anyone but himself. Most artists couldn't read and write at the time so that could be a good reason why they didn't. And to say that the masters divulged EVERYTHING they knew is also not possible.

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon "All the masters had under drawings except Caravaggio." That's not true. Most artists, like Rubens and Van Dyck, did their "underdrawings" straight in oil. They'd use a medium value paint and draw in their painting, and then work directly in color on top of that. Check out any unfinished Rubens or Van Dyck and you'll see what I'm talking about. It makes the underpainting undetectable, because it IS the painting.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 Very well and interesting, thanks for the pointer.

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon Also, tracing an image doesn't make a great artist. The most important part of painting has to do with the "l'effet ensemble," as the old masters called it. If you were to hide information, that'd be the important information to hide. Of course, the information isn't hidden, Hockney just doesn't understand it.

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon Anyways, the optics the professor and Hockney uses greatly distorts the drawing, and there's no historical references to it before the 19th century.But there's old masters instructions that discuss tracing onto glass and transferring the drawing,i.e. a less distorted drawing.

Check out Merimee, Cennini, Vauthier, Ruskin, Eastlake, and Solomon J Solomon's books. These are the techniques of the old masters in their own words. None discuss optics,only one discusses tracing on glass.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 There are plenty of references to the camera obscura technique and the use of lenses. You don't need a direct link by the artist in order to say that they used these techniques. The other thing is someone who discovers these techniques may not be artists themselves and not have a use for them. What I would really like to see you try and dispute are the mathematical calculations on the distortions that the professor described in the paintings.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 I mean, Van Eyke's "Arnolfini Marriage" has an optic in it, the concave mirror that existed around that time. DaVinci in his notebooks shows a machine to carve and polish these mirrors which are very easy to project images, it's not even a possibility that they could have used these?

[KPattonArt123]

@anikinippon Da Vinci's notebooks also had helicopters. Perhaps he flew to China to learn about optics? haha jk. But really, Da Vinci's notebooks don't show optics, it shows flat mirrors that one can set a grid on and trace onto, and then transfer the drawing to the final panel/canvas.

[anikinippon]

@KPattonArt123 That's not true, concave mirror polishing potters wheel was also in there. Even then there is no evidence that DaVinci used concave or flat mirrors for his artwork. BTW a mirror is an optical device, there is a clear distinction between using a flat mirror and a lens or concave mirror though. It would be very hard to prove if an artist like DaVinci used a flat mirror reflection, they were very rare and and indistinguishable in figures from "eye balling".