Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Camera obscura
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Some on PoL, and more elsewhere, have taken seriously the book Secret Knowledge, part-authored by David Hockney, suggesting that Vermeer must have used the camera obscura to achieve his perfection in perspective. Well, this link might interest them - I certainly can't say that Hockney was entirely wrong, since I wasn't there at the time (but then, neither was he): I can however say that it's extremely unlikely. Follow the link - I forget how to make it live, just highlight it and right-click - and see what you think.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4707
Posted
That'd be me, Robert. :-)
I will take a look at that site when I've got all my kit working*. But Hockney didn't just look at Vermeer. He analysed which optical equipment was available at the time, and worked with others on the project. Most of the discussion was less on portraits but on buildings, ephemera, even a rug bending over the end of a table and the strange focus that a mechanical lens would create as opposed to the human eye.
What's also illuminating, is the lengthy discussion between David and Martin Kemp, to name but one. Flicking through the pages, I lighted on this letter: Kemp said (whilst not abandoning some of his skepticism) "There is a marvellous drawing by Raphael of the head of the Pope. If any Raphael drawing was made with a lens, this would be a candidate"
I would recommend this book (Secret Knowledge) wholeheartedly...if only to make oneself feel better when scrutinising the Old Masters at a gallery. ;-)
*It's as well I have been without broadband for some days (since a car driver decided to write off our local broadband cabinet). As I happily avoided joining in a certain thread, which is now closed, thank goodness!
Edited
by Norrette Moore
Posted
The trouble with the assertion that a camera lucida was used - Canaletto was another thought (by some) to have used it - is the total lack of evidence; and in the case of Vermeer, the problem of light in interiors: not enough of it to make it work.
A detailed inventory of Vermeer's possessions was made on his death - he owed a lot of money to a lot of people, they had to make a valuation - not a camera lucida in sight.
None of any of that affects my opinion of Hockney as an artist; just not too convinced that he has much to say as an art historian - though I've heard him talk about the old masters, and found him quite illuminating when discussing such things as pigments, light, the artistic approach in general. It wouldn't limit my admiration of any old master who did use the camera lucida or other devices that were available, either. On the other hand, I don't think it's a conclusion with much evidence behind it - more likely, in my opinion (and opinion is all it is) that: they could just paint. They were good at it....
Posted
I have to go out soon, but I will take a long read of the article later, Tom. But I'm already skeptical because I can see (on a skim through) he states that Hockney "claims that the Old Masters didn't really know how to draw and paint" on more than one occasion. I can't recall seeing such a claim from Hockney in the book, so I wish he'd reference it properly.
Posted
You'll certainly need time to read it.... it's long. As I didn't read the book when it came out - because I thought (and still think) the proposition on which it was based is absurd - I don't know if Hockney alleged that the old masters couldn't draw well enough by "eyeballing" and thus had to use mechanical means, or whether he was rather more subtle. If he did make such a suggestion, he or his co-author was talking nonsense. The article is critical of Hockney's own work - but I think one of the problems with that is that Hockney has never been an academic painter, and the quality of those who are is highly respected in the United States, perhaps more so these days than it is here. If you're looking for the new Rembrandt, you won't find him in David Hockney. But that's to miss the point of his work; though not to miss the point of the argument made in that book, from which it needs to be separated. Hockney's work divides opinion still, but whether it's good, bad, idioscyncratic or even brilliant is irrelevant to the book's argument. I think it was intentionally provocative; and also totally misconceived - thought that when I first commented on it, and still think it. Yes, you could well argue that I haven't even read it - but I did read selected excerpts; and you don't need to read the full text of a specious argument to identify it as such.
Doesn't make any difference at all to my opinion of Hockney as an artist, mind you... and it's his reputation as an artist that will grant him the recognition he receives; not a book whose argument is badly flawed.
Posted
I haven't read the book myself. I did look at the articles mentioned here. I also read some articles with regards to Vermeer. Did Vermeer use such a device. I don't think so. Why would he, I ask myself. I'm an amateur, self taught and these are only my personal opinions. The Hockney- Falco Thesis is codswallop. The reasons I say this are because there is no shred of evidence that Vermeer used a camera obscura. There is evidence however, that was left behind to show how Vermeer created perspective. You have to remember he worked slowly producing two or three paintings a year. For me that equates to having acute attention and accuracy for detail. Also his palette and colour choice in his underpainting created sharp clarity of depth and colour. I admire Hockey's work. It's not classical it's innovative. He is a master artist no doubt. I don't agree with his views about painting realistic objects by eyeballing is impossible. This simply is not true. I paint by eyeballing or sight-size. If Hockey cannot paint by eyeballing it doesn't mean the rest of us are in the same boat. We all do it I should imagine. I might not have had the luxury of any academic training in art but I know I can draw and paint from life and make a fairly accurate job of it which improves as I go along. To suggest Vermeer used a camera obscura, is an insult to the extraordinary painting abilities of this great man.
Posted
The so-called "ghost hunter" of yesteryear, Harry Price, once remarked---in correspondence with a friend---that: "So many prefer the bunk to the debunk." I'm pleased to say that I must be unusual in that regard. Here's another good (brief) write up:
https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/2614_tims_notvermeer
And, an excellent sober assessment from 1998:
https://scispace.com/pdf/vermeer-and-the-camera-obscura-some-practical-considerations-3c94jz9ezn.pdf
Edited
by Tom Henshaw