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

[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.

[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".

[anikinippon]

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

[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.

[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 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?

[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 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.