1 0f 3 David Hockney, The Lost Secrets of the Old Masters: camera lucida obscura

http://AncientMagicArtTools.com
This is a very interesting interview with David Hockney, where he explains and demonstrates the use of camera obscuras and camera lucidas in the artwork of the Old Masters chronicled in his book Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• camera lucida
• camera obscura
• David Hockney
• Secret Knowledge
• old masters
• drawing
• painting

[milesmathis]

To hear the other side of this, go to mileswmathis dot and see the 2009 paper "The Hockney/Falco Thesis."

[AncientOptics]

@milesmathis to see both side people should take a look at this too: youtube (dot com) /watch?v=450pvHhH3Zg

[BeaDylan]

when was this interview taken?

[AncientOptics]

@BeaDylan November 30, 2001

[TheHappyPeanut8D]

My mom paints better than Leonardo. >.<

[Lottechoco]

ignorant man. There is a method to producing realist art without camera or projection, it's better than camera infact. Camera is an idiot. The method takes a lot of hard work and study. Architects, industrial designers know some of this technique. How do hockney explain the painting and drawing of moving animals, moving people in a imagined scene?

[iluvijah123]

Respond to this video...  Merely copying from a device. That's absurd.

[iluvijah123]

Respond to this video... One thing i would like to add is Ingres and Holbein even from working in life. They still did not resort to "copying the model" but analyzing the model to create an "ideal" figure. Which means the exaggerated pretty much everything you see in their work. All These mechanical devices were just tools to see the design a little better not necessarily meaning the design would already be there to map out. No way in hell could anyone produce a painting of theirs by

[iluvijah123]

@sclapione Agree with you completely. Love his work but his theory is what i along with actually every single artist working from life (not necessarily academic,or traditional)believe to be completely false.

[iluvijah123]

@MrMousket He hardly even massed in anything. That shows he has some serious knowledge of anatomy and PATIENCE to see harmony in line through out his entire subject. Look at a photo realist for example. Some of the best out there copy photos obsessively and what do they create? A painting or drawing that looks like it was done from a photo. That is because photography just does not give you enough information. The only way to do these things is from life. Some people go farther and some don't

[iluvijah123]

@MrMousket Haha. The problem my friend is that you WANT to believe that he traced. It is a depressing thing to see something so damn accurate and realize you are miles and miles away from it. The reason why Holbein would not "copy" using a device is because mechanical device distorts the image just as much as flattens it. That's actually a big no no for a realist artist.... We want to study form and any kind of photography actually reduces that to the fullest. Holbein created form with line!

[iluvijah123]

@sclapione I actually agree with you. I love Hockney's work. It is refreshing to see his inventive designs and color. This of course still does not prove his theory to be at all correct. I don't reduce him as an artist just because he dug way too far into this ridiculous theory because he lacked the skill in his own work. He does in fact lack skill in working from life and it is the artists job to work with what he has and he does just fine.

[sclapione]

@iluvijah123 They have a completely different background, Hockney has an actual refreshing take on form and colour, space, light, disecting, overlapping etc, a great Original for opening up to different ways of viewing those things. The oldschool and the (fairly) newchool Masters are all brilliant, limiting oneself there is uncreative and uninteresting .... Hockney also goes more into Design and Illustration, quite the different structure ......

[sclapione]

@iluvijah123 Hockney pushed art in a more open dimension . . . . and plenty of his work is brilliant. Just because it doesn't follow the traditional, doesn't make it less interesting.