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

Learn more about the Sunday at the Met lecture series: http://www.metmuseum.org/events/lectures

Part of the World Science Festival held in New York City from May 28--June 1, 2008, the afternoon program explores the fascinating relationship between science and art. World-renowned scientists, including researchers from the Met and from Harvard University, a Nobel Laureate chemist, and a physicist, give talks concerning the application of scientific research on works of art. Marco Leona, David H. Koch Scientist in Charge, Department of Scientific Research, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, introduces the program.

Learn more about the World Science Festival:
http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/

On the Use of Optical Devices by Renaissance Painters
Charles M. Falco, professor, College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Metropolitan
• Museum
• of
• Art
• metmuseum
• mma_education
• scientific
• research
• conservation
• world_science_festival
• world
• science
• festival
• renaissance
• paintings
• painters
• optical

[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.

[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.

[three0234]

optics. what is this davinci code? angels & demons lol?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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. :)

[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.