@MrParis1989 I encourage you to see the videos I made that are side by side comparisons of the paintings themselves. I made them in order to allow people to see the difference and not just me talking. Besides, most art scholars agree with what I say anyways, it's not likely the masters used "optical aids" such as lenses at all for their art.
@anikinippon the idea that a consensus of art scholars agrees on an opinion that does not require reworking the history books does not legitimize it anymore than the idea that a consensus of historians deciding to ignore the possibility that civilization is older than previously conceived based on the discovery of an underwater monolith off the coast of Honshu, Japan. Do not mistake laziness for legitimacy.
@anikinippon in your opinion sure, obviously why you made this video. To each his own, mine happens to find the evidence sufficient enough to make a point stronger than its contrary. Regardless, it is only my opinion.... exciting times ahead.
@MaximillianPiras And it is possible that the Mother Mary legitimately gave birth to a child without sex. It's more likely that Joseph was just a sucker for believing her but it is possible to believe she gave birth out of parthenogenesis. It's not likely though because there is no one alive that we have proven that it actually did happen ever. Same with this and besides with some of the examples Hockney gives, the timelines for inventing these optical devices doesn't match up well.
I can't see what useful conclusions anyone could make by comparing these two paintings. One is an architectural feature painted with the intention of creating an allusion of space, the other is a court painting. There are very few queues in the raphael for perspective in the Rapheal. The only thing you can say about its perspective is it's not realistic because the table is tilted artificially, so you can see the book, for it to match with the perspective of the sitter.
Why are you comparing paints? You seem to miss the entire point. Additionally, you should practice before you make your video - put all your ducks in order. I almost went to sleep waiting for you to make your points.
@RMP50 I have a better video where I go picture by picture on the fallacies that exist in the video where I do a slide presentation. If you aren't convinced after that, I can't convince you and you are no different than a creationist.
You do not understand painting if you cannot see the quantum leap between the "naturalness" of these two painting,which I as a painter for over 30 years am telling you it is do with much more than a change in media. It is to do with a completely different way of SEEING THE WORLD. This is what you seem not to understand.
I'm a photographer and I believe in Hockney's theory. However, this doesn't make me appreciate the Masters any less (if anything i've become more interested) I agree with this theory because upon looking at various examples, aesthetic values attributed to various focal lengths are presen in certian paintings. This is not 'real' as some people call it. The human eye does not see things this way, only through optics can things be seen like this. Also, the dramatic change around 1420 is obvious.
@DemonicGenocide Dramatic change =/= use of lenses. All the examples in the book don't point to anything significant. I implore you to consider watching my slide show where I actually go through the various examples of debunking the Hockney-Falco thesis. One of the logical fallacies is exactly what you mentioned, that 2 paintings using the same medium from different eras. Sure if you compare a herb book illustration and compare it to a Albert Durer watercolor, there is gonna be a vast change
@anikinippon I've watched your videos and considered your educated opinion so please do the same for me now... it’s good to state your opinions but to create a just argument you need to take other opinions into account. You don't do this. I and many others have made comments in favour of Hockney’s theory and you have simply repeated your video statements without being able to correct us. Life looks different through the lens... it looks like these paintings.
@DemonicGenocide Again I disagree, it's not likely that these classical artists used any lenses. Drawing and painting are two different things, David Hockney in his book only demonstrated with little practice, that you can realistically sketch a drawing on paper, no single example of how "easy" it is to paint. Also the evidence that Charles Falco provides is weak, like the "improper angles of the draperies", not all draperies back then we flawless and even then he only point out small areas.
@anikinippon You clearly don't understand what we (as photographers) mean when we talk bout angles... We are talking about the fundamental compositioning of the images. They appear as they would when looking through a camera lens... not the human eye.
@anikinippon Proof? My eyes and knowledge of photographic optics and art are the proof. Look into the fundamentals of photography and you may begin to understand. Various compositions within some of those paintings would not exist as such to the human eye. Only through a lens or compacted reflection. Geometric distortions and composition are the proof. You're welcome to your opinion but your way of thinking is also just a theory. Niether have physical proof.
@DemonicGenocide Well sure I've seen fairies and elves before too with my own eyes, if other people can't see it it's their own fault right? It's not about weather or not I wish it was true or not, it's about the supporting evidence and it's just not there. Absence of evidence is not evidence, I say with what I know about art history, technique, how masters passed on their craft, how a painting was made, the technology @ the time, and so on, it just doesn't seem likely.
@anikinippon Look, take a camera with say a 28mm lens or any lens actually look at something you may want to paint and then look at it through the camera. The composition is completely different. Things take on a certain chang when looked at through a lens. They start to look like certain paintings...
@anikinippon - I can see your point but the evidence is there throughout in many paintings. I spent many years studying Caravaggio among many others, some of his works are completely distorted consistently around the edges of the picture - the distortion is a perfect radial enlargement, the type you would only get from a curved lens. Caravaggio is still the genius I thought he was. There is a famous drawing of Leonardo Da Vinci using a gridded window to accurately draw a figure.
@vincentmichaelbrown I disagree, I looked at the evidence and it's not "consistently around the edges", the author or Dr. Falco don't even claim that. I encourage you to watch the better videos "Debunking Hockney 1-3" that I have posted after I made this one where I find the fallacies in the Hockney-Falco thesis that were, in my opinion, gaping holes in their theories. Of course, it's not to say that it never happened, but it's unlikely that the masters really did use these tools.
The evidence that lenses were used in many great paintings is incontrovertible. There are distortions that could ONLY come from a lens. It doesn't lessen the greatness of the work and any of the great painters were perfectly capable of painting without these devices, it was simply a labour saving method.
It is important to understand the working methods of the masters if we are to fully understand and learn from them.
Hockney can paint as well as anyone, he just choses to be himself.
@vincentmichaelbrown I disagree, for example the table cloth that is not perfectly symmetrical or proper linear perspective could happen for a number of reasons. And the question I have to ask is, why isn't the entire painting not considered when presenting the evidence? It's only small parts of paintings randomly selected, I am not suggesting there should be consistency but why not if it was such a good way to paint? You would imagine the evidence would be rampant but there isn't.
Hockney is considered a Modern Artist. A modern artist is only great or Creative if they are doing the "UnKnown". To birth New Visions, the real artist is Challenged by the difficulty of working with only hand and eye. These great Creators wouldn't even be painters if they had to be "copiers". They wouldn't even begin, because there was no challenge or opportunity to discover something that wasn't Visible..either in shape or color. Hockney is trying to excuse his own lack of talent.
the only question i have for david hockney is "So what if any optical device was used to make a painting?" Maybe they did, maybe not. It's not a big deal. Perhaps he's only interested in finding out how those paintings were made because it bothered him that he couldn't draw or paint like the masters or that his powers of observation are very limited. really stupid book by david hockney, the father of lifeless painting.
I tried using lenses and projections for drawing/painting but have found it to be totally impractical. The only thing you can get out of it is a very crude (but quick) line drawing, which is almost trivial. But sophisticated drawing or even painting.. forget it. You just can't see what you are doing. I think they might have used it, to make a quick crude drawing, or to get inspiration, but to atcually mechanically produce a painting (with tone/color) like H. suggests. It just doesn't work
@josvanr Tell that to oxpal, that was the point I was getting at. The presentations that I uploaded without video of me talking go into more depth into the subject with side by side comparisons.
@bananaphone83 Increase of skill by practice and persistence alone can explain the realism artists strived for in the renaissance. But they did use tools like grids to be "accurate" in their proportions and so on. All the great accomplishments artistically speaking during the renaissance do not require the use of lenses and/or mirrors and it doesn't seem likely that they did. I encourage you to see the videos where there are side by side comparisons that I did directly from the book.
This especially annoys me about Hockneys crap, 1400 wasn't just is the beginning of the renasissance it was also the end of the dark ages.
The dark ages were a time where there was one philosophy in europe and that was "if it repeats what's in the bible, it's redundant. If it says things that aren't in the bible, it's heresy." this stopped progress dead.
Whilst we were burning books Isamic nations were translating them...
So when europeans visited Al Andalus (modern day Spain/Portugal) they were able to visit the libraries where they were free to read and learn without fear of being called a heretic.
Eventaully these works some of which would be about engineering, agriculture, medicine, algebra, philosophy, logic found themselves being moved across Europe from 1100 onwards.
This allowed us to rediscover the knowledge of the Greeks and once these ideas had taken root they birthed the renaissance.
With the 500 character limit I can only manage a brief outline but the point should be clear.
If I know this how many people could Hockney have really questioned? This "thesis" is now dead, it's been discredited by experts in every field that matters including maths professors from MIT and university of Cambridge.
Even Hockney himself has stopped talking about it, when pushed he'll still claim that he "thinks" some artists use it but he's no longer making direct claims.
You say many things a figurative painter would never say. Like "you don't have to be a good drawer to be a good painter".
As painter most you do is drawing. Drawing means putting things in the right spot - if with pencil or oil doesn't matter.
The fact that painters today can do these things without a camera doesn't prove he is wrong. It is education about perspective and light and shadow that enables us to paint much more realistic today. And much of that knowledge comes from photographs.
@oxpal I actually say that because they are completely different skills, mixing color and drawing require similar but different talents. You should look at my videos with the side by side comparisons where I go into detail of why I think David Hockney is incorrect. Most art historians dismiss David Hockney's claims, it's not like I'm the first one to do so. Even with Charles Falco's expertise, it's still a weak claim because he assumes that only portions of the paintings "used optics".
I don't think you address what I'm saying. Mixing color is not drawing - it doesn't need that skill. But putting color on the canvas does. So Caravaggio had excellent drawing skills.
Also your other examples are weird. Like that color mediums are to blame for the differences. But isn't it super obvious: The color affects the color, not the perspective.
And if you say "most historians say x" - then please give some proof. Else I assume its just your feeling or wish, but not a fact.
@oxpal I was agreeing with you, if Caravaggio was an excellent draughtsman doesn't mean he's going to be a great painter in his career. Color x = color x is a weak example because depending on the medium, the visual texture of the color does change. Gouache is not going to look exactly the same as an oil painting. The visual texture is much different and a wall painting usually doesn't contain as much detail as an intimate portrait. So comparing the two in the book is pointless.
@oxpal For more information, make sure to check out "Hockney–Falco thesis" on wikipedia. It has a good explanation of the gaps in the theories, even on a very basic level of understanding the development of western art. There might be few examples that might have elements here and there of "use of optics" but the evidence is few and far between. Besides, if it's such a good method to make "accurate" or "life like" art, why do most experts not use the technique today? It just doesn't add up.
As for why todays artists don't use the tech: they do all the time! Projection and photo reference is an everyday thing in todays art. How you could think otherwise?
And we learned from photos, and can use that. Try to draw perspectives and you'll know how hard it is from life, without years of studying.
Then you'll also understand why mixing color has nothing to do with painting correct perspectives - and does not require similar talents than drawing. It's totally different tasks.
@oxpal The question is not necessarily weather we use it today or not, we do but you don't see Boris Vallejo or Julie Bell using projections for outlines or correcting their art. They use what Hockney calls "eyeballing" which assumes that the masters used no visual aids whatsoever, which is incorrect. I mean, daVinci used a grid and that was well recorded, it's a stretch to think he ever used, or even needed, mirrors or lenses as aids for his works.
To use Vallejo as example - of all people. He heavily uses photos - and doesn't even hide it. Does he project? Not sure, but very very likely, as this is common in his scene. They certainly don't eyeball.
If you want excellent examples of artists that eyeball, then look for Richard Schmid and Scott Burdick.
DaVinci is another odd example - he's a rather likely candidate for using tech. We know he had the knowledge and was not scared to use it - the rest is just guessing.
@oxpal Of course when I talk about "life like" art, I mean painting. It might be the case that you can do better sketches with an "optical device" but it's a stretch to convince anyone that you can paint on an unsketched surface (like Caravaggio) even with an ability to paint and say it's "easier" for the artist or "better". If you watch the rest of my videos, it might help you to understand these gaps that just don't really add up.
I've read the Wiki-article. And I see no major argument.
And I checked more of your videos. Do you do any art? Because none of it sounds like coming from someone with a basic experience with painting.
To say that the Limbourgs art is anything similar to Durer - or that they look lifelike... gosh. Their art is the best proof of the shortcomings of working without optics.
And I dont think you get what I'm saying about Caravaggio. Either way: What you said was wrong. Plain and simple.
@oxpal I don't know how what I said is wrong but I'll say it again, watch the other videos I posted. I was saying the talent of the Limbourg brothers are excellent and supposedly used no optics but Durer might have according to the book because of the "realism". Again, there is no strong evidence to support it with Hockney's historical research and Falco's optic research, they don't match up. Even more, it's unlikely by most art historian accounts.
Just look at the Limbourg art: totally whack perspectives - nearly insane. People only in 3/4 views. No sunlight - absolutely no shadows. These are all typical mistakes when not having reference. Just look at Caravaggio as counter example - and his lavish play with light. Do you not see the difference?
And as said before: please stop using "most historians" unless you prove it. Its a fake argument.
@oxpal I made no mention of perspectives, the reason is it's fairly irrelevant. The example in the book of Durer's watercolor of "Large Turf" from 1513 had no shadows either but was "realistic" when compared to a 12th century book, where books at that time didn't really have alot of detail and usually not done by skillful artists like the Limbourg Bros. You don't need a realistic background to have a realistic looking human figure and that's what I was referring to, that's what Hockney was...
@oxpal ..getting at. Most art historians don't submit to the Hockney-Falco thesis and that's why I say it, it's true, they don't. Go to any museum and talk to an expert on the subject of art history or technique, they will agree that it's not likely that the Hockney-Falco thesis is correct.
One mistake you're making here is equating a higher level of facility for drawing to producing a more realistic image. Hockney would never presuppose this, nor would any competent artist or art historian. For example, Picasso possessed both the talent and the trained facility to draw and paint like Raphael, but chose to execute his expert draughtsmanship in other ways. Producing a realistic image requires only the ability to copy; art comes over and on top of that.
@gordondragonninja76 Have you ever seen early paintings by Picasso like "The First Communion"? It's good, but I agree, he wasn't a Raphael by any means.
something else that needs to be borne in mind is that fresco painting must be very fast whereas oil painting can take forever. that obviously matters hugely to how a painter works and what the final product looks like. so, regardless of anything else i'd expect a fresco and an oil painting to look quite different. plus the fresco is going to be viewed from a greater distance, etc.
'Draghtsman' was the word you were looking for. The thing that convinces me about the theory is that there are paintings with foregrounds that are out of focus. When the eye is not focussing we can't see anything. So how can you paint something that is out of focus without a projection?
@anikinippon But it's only through photography that we know what something 'out of focus' looks like. Peripheral vision isn't out of focus. As soon as you look at something it becomes in focus. Poor eyesight wouldn't teach someone to paint the foreground in or out of focus. The table cloth Vermeer painting with complex patterns seemlessly moving in focus to out of focus, in the way a photograph would (not just randomly) proves at least some use or experience of lenses or mirrors.
@pablo4115 I actually did the videos with the picture presentation on why certain theories I think are wrong in greater detail. I also in there do mention the problem of comparing a fresco, which is essentially watercolor, to an oil painting. These comparisons are rampant throughout the book. Without looking to the back of the book and comparing the media types, I can see how people can easily be tricked into thinking that there must be some "optics" but it seems highly unlikely.
give me back my 3 minutes. this is retarded.
MrParis1989 4 months ago
@MrParis1989 I encourage you to see the videos I made that are side by side comparisons of the paintings themselves. I made them in order to allow people to see the difference and not just me talking. Besides, most art scholars agree with what I say anyways, it's not likely the masters used "optical aids" such as lenses at all for their art.
anikinippon 4 months ago
@anikinippon the idea that a consensus of art scholars agrees on an opinion that does not require reworking the history books does not legitimize it anymore than the idea that a consensus of historians deciding to ignore the possibility that civilization is older than previously conceived based on the discovery of an underwater monolith off the coast of Honshu, Japan. Do not mistake laziness for legitimacy.
MrParis1989 4 months ago
@MrParis1989 Your right, it's based on evidence and the evidence is so little that it wouldn't make sense to be legitimate.
anikinippon 4 months ago
@anikinippon in your opinion sure, obviously why you made this video. To each his own, mine happens to find the evidence sufficient enough to make a point stronger than its contrary. Regardless, it is only my opinion.... exciting times ahead.
MaximillianPiras 4 months ago
@MaximillianPiras And it is possible that the Mother Mary legitimately gave birth to a child without sex. It's more likely that Joseph was just a sucker for believing her but it is possible to believe she gave birth out of parthenogenesis. It's not likely though because there is no one alive that we have proven that it actually did happen ever. Same with this and besides with some of the examples Hockney gives, the timelines for inventing these optical devices doesn't match up well.
anikinippon 4 months ago
thanks for the counterpoints; It would be nice however if you pronounced the italian masters a bit more correctly, or at least make the attempt to:P
goodflo911 5 months ago
What an arrogant person.
misternylon 6 months ago
I can't see what useful conclusions anyone could make by comparing these two paintings. One is an architectural feature painted with the intention of creating an allusion of space, the other is a court painting. There are very few queues in the raphael for perspective in the Rapheal. The only thing you can say about its perspective is it's not realistic because the table is tilted artificially, so you can see the book, for it to match with the perspective of the sitter.
KnockoffNigeI 7 months ago
ur kidding me right? we have no drawings from carravagio because it was close to 4 centururies ago.
arcitejack 7 months ago
@arcitejack We have drawings from other painters of his prestige and caliber though from the same period.
anikinippon 7 months ago
pronounced "casteelioni" ... just sayin'
ammusi 8 months ago
Why are you comparing paints? You seem to miss the entire point. Additionally, you should practice before you make your video - put all your ducks in order. I almost went to sleep waiting for you to make your points.
RMP50 9 months ago
@RMP50 I have a better video where I go picture by picture on the fallacies that exist in the video where I do a slide presentation. If you aren't convinced after that, I can't convince you and you are no different than a creationist.
anikinippon 9 months ago
Drawing(!) is the basis of all (representational) visual art. *I can demonstrate.
However, we hear no mention from contemporary observers (even portrait subjects, sitters) of the drawing machines Hockney mentions.
art4med 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are a silly little boy...
boxingstar 11 months ago
You do not understand painting if you cannot see the quantum leap between the "naturalness" of these two painting,which I as a painter for over 30 years am telling you it is do with much more than a change in media. It is to do with a completely different way of SEEING THE WORLD. This is what you seem not to understand.
Heronjim 11 months ago
@Heronjim Well with discovery and use linear perspective there would be a "quantum leap". But again, that requires no special lens or mirror.
anikinippon 11 months ago
I'm a photographer and I believe in Hockney's theory. However, this doesn't make me appreciate the Masters any less (if anything i've become more interested) I agree with this theory because upon looking at various examples, aesthetic values attributed to various focal lengths are presen in certian paintings. This is not 'real' as some people call it. The human eye does not see things this way, only through optics can things be seen like this. Also, the dramatic change around 1420 is obvious.
DemonicGenocide 1 year ago
@DemonicGenocide Dramatic change =/= use of lenses. All the examples in the book don't point to anything significant. I implore you to consider watching my slide show where I actually go through the various examples of debunking the Hockney-Falco thesis. One of the logical fallacies is exactly what you mentioned, that 2 paintings using the same medium from different eras. Sure if you compare a herb book illustration and compare it to a Albert Durer watercolor, there is gonna be a vast change
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon I've watched your videos and considered your educated opinion so please do the same for me now... it’s good to state your opinions but to create a just argument you need to take other opinions into account. You don't do this. I and many others have made comments in favour of Hockney’s theory and you have simply repeated your video statements without being able to correct us. Life looks different through the lens... it looks like these paintings.
DemonicGenocide 1 year ago
@DemonicGenocide Again I disagree, it's not likely that these classical artists used any lenses. Drawing and painting are two different things, David Hockney in his book only demonstrated with little practice, that you can realistically sketch a drawing on paper, no single example of how "easy" it is to paint. Also the evidence that Charles Falco provides is weak, like the "improper angles of the draperies", not all draperies back then we flawless and even then he only point out small areas.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon You clearly don't understand what we (as photographers) mean when we talk bout angles... We are talking about the fundamental compositioning of the images. They appear as they would when looking through a camera lens... not the human eye.
DemonicGenocide 1 year ago
@DemonicGenocide Again, where is the proof?
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon Proof? My eyes and knowledge of photographic optics and art are the proof. Look into the fundamentals of photography and you may begin to understand. Various compositions within some of those paintings would not exist as such to the human eye. Only through a lens or compacted reflection. Geometric distortions and composition are the proof. You're welcome to your opinion but your way of thinking is also just a theory. Niether have physical proof.
Is it bad if Hockney is correct?
DemonicGenocide 1 year ago
@DemonicGenocide Well sure I've seen fairies and elves before too with my own eyes, if other people can't see it it's their own fault right? It's not about weather or not I wish it was true or not, it's about the supporting evidence and it's just not there. Absence of evidence is not evidence, I say with what I know about art history, technique, how masters passed on their craft, how a painting was made, the technology @ the time, and so on, it just doesn't seem likely.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon Look, take a camera with say a 28mm lens or any lens actually look at something you may want to paint and then look at it through the camera. The composition is completely different. Things take on a certain chang when looked at through a lens. They start to look like certain paintings...
DemonicGenocide 1 year ago
@anikinippon - I can see your point but the evidence is there throughout in many paintings. I spent many years studying Caravaggio among many others, some of his works are completely distorted consistently around the edges of the picture - the distortion is a perfect radial enlargement, the type you would only get from a curved lens. Caravaggio is still the genius I thought he was. There is a famous drawing of Leonardo Da Vinci using a gridded window to accurately draw a figure.
vincentmichaelbrown 1 year ago
@vincentmichaelbrown I disagree, I looked at the evidence and it's not "consistently around the edges", the author or Dr. Falco don't even claim that. I encourage you to watch the better videos "Debunking Hockney 1-3" that I have posted after I made this one where I find the fallacies in the Hockney-Falco thesis that were, in my opinion, gaping holes in their theories. Of course, it's not to say that it never happened, but it's unlikely that the masters really did use these tools.
anikinippon 1 year ago
Comment removed
vlxznd 1 year ago
The evidence that lenses were used in many great paintings is incontrovertible. There are distortions that could ONLY come from a lens. It doesn't lessen the greatness of the work and any of the great painters were perfectly capable of painting without these devices, it was simply a labour saving method.
It is important to understand the working methods of the masters if we are to fully understand and learn from them.
Hockney can paint as well as anyone, he just choses to be himself.
vincentmichaelbrown 1 year ago
@vincentmichaelbrown I disagree, for example the table cloth that is not perfectly symmetrical or proper linear perspective could happen for a number of reasons. And the question I have to ask is, why isn't the entire painting not considered when presenting the evidence? It's only small parts of paintings randomly selected, I am not suggesting there should be consistency but why not if it was such a good way to paint? You would imagine the evidence would be rampant but there isn't.
anikinippon 1 year ago
Hockney is considered a Modern Artist. A modern artist is only great or Creative if they are doing the "UnKnown". To birth New Visions, the real artist is Challenged by the difficulty of working with only hand and eye. These great Creators wouldn't even be painters if they had to be "copiers". They wouldn't even begin, because there was no challenge or opportunity to discover something that wasn't Visible..either in shape or color. Hockney is trying to excuse his own lack of talent.
xwaystranger 1 year ago
@xwaystranger You only have to see his portraits to see he has talent, and his use of space and light in his modern art paintings are great, too.
Many use
sclapione 6 months ago
Hockney is famous, Graydon Parrish is not...life is not fair and talent has NOTHING to do with appreciation, fame or wealth. Just ask Paris Hilton.
Jcsharitz 1 year ago
the only question i have for david hockney is "So what if any optical device was used to make a painting?" Maybe they did, maybe not. It's not a big deal. Perhaps he's only interested in finding out how those paintings were made because it bothered him that he couldn't draw or paint like the masters or that his powers of observation are very limited. really stupid book by david hockney, the father of lifeless painting.
vlxznd 1 year ago
@vlxznd Agreed, my whole point is that it's not likely.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@vlxznd What a crock of SHIT ..... lol
sclapione 6 months ago
Vermeer used lenses though I think in a different way than you are suggesting here.
STEVEFINNERTY 1 year ago
@STEVEFINNERTY It's not my suggestion, it's the Hockney-Falco thesis
anikinippon 1 year ago
I tried using lenses and projections for drawing/painting but have found it to be totally impractical. The only thing you can get out of it is a very crude (but quick) line drawing, which is almost trivial. But sophisticated drawing or even painting.. forget it. You just can't see what you are doing. I think they might have used it, to make a quick crude drawing, or to get inspiration, but to atcually mechanically produce a painting (with tone/color) like H. suggests. It just doesn't work
josvanr 1 year ago
@josvanr Tell that to oxpal, that was the point I was getting at. The presentations that I uploaded without video of me talking go into more depth into the subject with side by side comparisons.
anikinippon 1 year ago
then how do you explain the vast differences in art from 1420 onward, or from beforehand, clearly something happened
bananaphone83 1 year ago
@bananaphone83 Increase of skill by practice and persistence alone can explain the realism artists strived for in the renaissance. But they did use tools like grids to be "accurate" in their proportions and so on. All the great accomplishments artistically speaking during the renaissance do not require the use of lenses and/or mirrors and it doesn't seem likely that they did. I encourage you to see the videos where there are side by side comparisons that I did directly from the book.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@bananaphone83 ... The quality of oil techniques. Period.
Jcsharitz 1 year ago
@bananaphone83
This especially annoys me about Hockneys crap, 1400 wasn't just is the beginning of the renasissance it was also the end of the dark ages.
The dark ages were a time where there was one philosophy in europe and that was "if it repeats what's in the bible, it's redundant. If it says things that aren't in the bible, it's heresy." this stopped progress dead.
Whilst we were burning books Isamic nations were translating them...
(cont)
MrWarrenLO 1 year ago
@MrWarrenLO
So when europeans visited Al Andalus (modern day Spain/Portugal) they were able to visit the libraries where they were free to read and learn without fear of being called a heretic.
Eventaully these works some of which would be about engineering, agriculture, medicine, algebra, philosophy, logic found themselves being moved across Europe from 1100 onwards.
This allowed us to rediscover the knowledge of the Greeks and once these ideas had taken root they birthed the renaissance.
MrWarrenLO 1 year ago
@MrWarrenLO
With the 500 character limit I can only manage a brief outline but the point should be clear.
If I know this how many people could Hockney have really questioned? This "thesis" is now dead, it's been discredited by experts in every field that matters including maths professors from MIT and university of Cambridge.
Even Hockney himself has stopped talking about it, when pushed he'll still claim that he "thinks" some artists use it but he's no longer making direct claims.
2)
MrWarrenLO 1 year ago
You say many things a figurative painter would never say. Like "you don't have to be a good drawer to be a good painter".
As painter most you do is drawing. Drawing means putting things in the right spot - if with pencil or oil doesn't matter.
The fact that painters today can do these things without a camera doesn't prove he is wrong. It is education about perspective and light and shadow that enables us to paint much more realistic today. And much of that knowledge comes from photographs.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal I actually say that because they are completely different skills, mixing color and drawing require similar but different talents. You should look at my videos with the side by side comparisons where I go into detail of why I think David Hockney is incorrect. Most art historians dismiss David Hockney's claims, it's not like I'm the first one to do so. Even with Charles Falco's expertise, it's still a weak claim because he assumes that only portions of the paintings "used optics".
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon
I don't think you address what I'm saying. Mixing color is not drawing - it doesn't need that skill. But putting color on the canvas does. So Caravaggio had excellent drawing skills.
Also your other examples are weird. Like that color mediums are to blame for the differences. But isn't it super obvious: The color affects the color, not the perspective.
And if you say "most historians say x" - then please give some proof. Else I assume its just your feeling or wish, but not a fact.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal I was agreeing with you, if Caravaggio was an excellent draughtsman doesn't mean he's going to be a great painter in his career. Color x = color x is a weak example because depending on the medium, the visual texture of the color does change. Gouache is not going to look exactly the same as an oil painting. The visual texture is much different and a wall painting usually doesn't contain as much detail as an intimate portrait. So comparing the two in the book is pointless.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@oxpal For more information, make sure to check out "Hockney–Falco thesis" on wikipedia. It has a good explanation of the gaps in the theories, even on a very basic level of understanding the development of western art. There might be few examples that might have elements here and there of "use of optics" but the evidence is few and far between. Besides, if it's such a good method to make "accurate" or "life like" art, why do most experts not use the technique today? It just doesn't add up.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon
As for why todays artists don't use the tech: they do all the time! Projection and photo reference is an everyday thing in todays art. How you could think otherwise?
And we learned from photos, and can use that. Try to draw perspectives and you'll know how hard it is from life, without years of studying.
Then you'll also understand why mixing color has nothing to do with painting correct perspectives - and does not require similar talents than drawing. It's totally different tasks.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal The question is not necessarily weather we use it today or not, we do but you don't see Boris Vallejo or Julie Bell using projections for outlines or correcting their art. They use what Hockney calls "eyeballing" which assumes that the masters used no visual aids whatsoever, which is incorrect. I mean, daVinci used a grid and that was well recorded, it's a stretch to think he ever used, or even needed, mirrors or lenses as aids for his works.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon
To use Vallejo as example - of all people. He heavily uses photos - and doesn't even hide it. Does he project? Not sure, but very very likely, as this is common in his scene. They certainly don't eyeball.
If you want excellent examples of artists that eyeball, then look for Richard Schmid and Scott Burdick.
DaVinci is another odd example - he's a rather likely candidate for using tech. We know he had the knowledge and was not scared to use it - the rest is just guessing.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal Of course when I talk about "life like" art, I mean painting. It might be the case that you can do better sketches with an "optical device" but it's a stretch to convince anyone that you can paint on an unsketched surface (like Caravaggio) even with an ability to paint and say it's "easier" for the artist or "better". If you watch the rest of my videos, it might help you to understand these gaps that just don't really add up.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon
I've read the Wiki-article. And I see no major argument.
And I checked more of your videos. Do you do any art? Because none of it sounds like coming from someone with a basic experience with painting.
To say that the Limbourgs art is anything similar to Durer - or that they look lifelike... gosh. Their art is the best proof of the shortcomings of working without optics.
And I dont think you get what I'm saying about Caravaggio. Either way: What you said was wrong. Plain and simple.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal I don't know how what I said is wrong but I'll say it again, watch the other videos I posted. I was saying the talent of the Limbourg brothers are excellent and supposedly used no optics but Durer might have according to the book because of the "realism". Again, there is no strong evidence to support it with Hockney's historical research and Falco's optic research, they don't match up. Even more, it's unlikely by most art historian accounts.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon
Just look at the Limbourg art: totally whack perspectives - nearly insane. People only in 3/4 views. No sunlight - absolutely no shadows. These are all typical mistakes when not having reference. Just look at Caravaggio as counter example - and his lavish play with light. Do you not see the difference?
And as said before: please stop using "most historians" unless you prove it. Its a fake argument.
oxpal 1 year ago
@oxpal I made no mention of perspectives, the reason is it's fairly irrelevant. The example in the book of Durer's watercolor of "Large Turf" from 1513 had no shadows either but was "realistic" when compared to a 12th century book, where books at that time didn't really have alot of detail and usually not done by skillful artists like the Limbourg Bros. You don't need a realistic background to have a realistic looking human figure and that's what I was referring to, that's what Hockney was...
anikinippon 1 year ago
@oxpal ..getting at. Most art historians don't submit to the Hockney-Falco thesis and that's why I say it, it's true, they don't. Go to any museum and talk to an expert on the subject of art history or technique, they will agree that it's not likely that the Hockney-Falco thesis is correct.
anikinippon 1 year ago
One mistake you're making here is equating a higher level of facility for drawing to producing a more realistic image. Hockney would never presuppose this, nor would any competent artist or art historian. For example, Picasso possessed both the talent and the trained facility to draw and paint like Raphael, but chose to execute his expert draughtsmanship in other ways. Producing a realistic image requires only the ability to copy; art comes over and on top of that.
borgnine 1 year ago
picasso never possessed the skill of raphael
gordondragonninja76 1 year ago
@gordondragonninja76 Have you ever seen early paintings by Picasso like "The First Communion"? It's good, but I agree, he wasn't a Raphael by any means.
anikinippon 1 year ago
something else that needs to be borne in mind is that fresco painting must be very fast whereas oil painting can take forever. that obviously matters hugely to how a painter works and what the final product looks like. so, regardless of anything else i'd expect a fresco and an oil painting to look quite different. plus the fresco is going to be viewed from a greater distance, etc.
pablo4115 1 year ago
'Draghtsman' was the word you were looking for. The thing that convinces me about the theory is that there are paintings with foregrounds that are out of focus. When the eye is not focussing we can't see anything. So how can you paint something that is out of focus without a projection?
spectralmusic 1 year ago
@spectralmusic Easy, paint it later. That's not unknown and requires no "optical device".
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon But it's only through photography that we know what something 'out of focus' looks like. Peripheral vision isn't out of focus. As soon as you look at something it becomes in focus. Poor eyesight wouldn't teach someone to paint the foreground in or out of focus. The table cloth Vermeer painting with complex patterns seemlessly moving in focus to out of focus, in the way a photograph would (not just randomly) proves at least some use or experience of lenses or mirrors.
spectralmusic 1 year ago
@anikinippon
but why would painting it later entail painting it out of focus? the strange 'unfocused' part of the lotto painting (page 60) needs to be explained.
pablo4115 1 year ago
@pablo4115 I actually did the videos with the picture presentation on why certain theories I think are wrong in greater detail. I also in there do mention the problem of comparing a fresco, which is essentially watercolor, to an oil painting. These comparisons are rampant throughout the book. Without looking to the back of the book and comparing the media types, I can see how people can easily be tricked into thinking that there must be some "optics" but it seems highly unlikely.
anikinippon 1 year ago
you just devour these kinds of books! time to shave!
TheLizzylizzy 1 year ago