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
Of course, any artist MIGHT have used the camera lucida or any other device. I don't see any valid objection to their doing so, either. That didn't justify the term "secret knowledge" though: there was nothing secret about it, in general - only insofar as the claim addresses individual artists. What evidence exists - and there's not much - suggests that Vermeer did not use this particular aid, but it just doesn't matter either way. What does matter is any suggestion that the results achieved by artists of the past could not have been achieved without the use of these devices: that is manifest nonsense, though I don't now remember whether Hockney specifically asserts it.
What I suspect Hockney did not do was come up with the title of the book, in which much of the problem (so far as I'm concerned) resides. It looks like a marketing person's decision, and it's led to a book that could have been - and for many is - an interesting and non-judgemental analysis of possibilities. Taking it to be any more than that - as many did - has sparked an understandable reaction.
And that's all - I don't think anyone here or elsewhere has taken artists' possible use of aids to perception as any kind of slight on their abilities. To do so would, after all, exclude the use of spectacles, plumb-lines, view-finders, Claude mirrors, cameras, Ipads..... just about anything that didn't derive from one person sitting in front of an object and trying to represent it by just looking at it. That would be absurd.
I shouldn't have called the book "a bad book", which I remember doing; it's the argument which derived from it, or parts of it and from some people, that I think presents a misleading account of what might have been common practice at the time, or conversely extremely rare practice: in most circumstances, after all, most painters wouldn't have needed the camera-obscura - it wouldn't have helped them, and even if it did it would have been an aid, not some kind of derogation from their individual skills.
Posted
I bought Hockney's book shortly after it came out and found it quite an eye opener. But at the end of the day, all he is doing is presenting evidence for something he believes. I found the evidence quite strong, and it is for each of us to make up our own minds. The reality is we shall never know for sure.
Posted
Lovely to see someone mention Canaletto's nephew Bellotto. I was lucky enough to see the NG exhibition of his Konigstein views a few years ago. Huge canvases which told a story about the place, soldiers and gardeners, rich and poor. An underestimated artist in my view.
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/exhibitions/past/bellotto-the-konigstein-views-reunited
Theres a video on youtube of the curators 30 min talk on the exhibition as well
Edited
by Norrette Moore
Posted
Things got stirred-up quite nicely there for awhile. Almost like WetCanvas(!)
Bringing Bellotto into the discussion reminds me of this:
Architectural Capriccio with Self-Portrait in the Costume of a Venetian Nobleman.
The bill posted to the column reads:
Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa libertas
(Painters and poets have always had equal liberty to do the daring)
Posted
This was my favourite in the exhibition. When you enlarge (or see it lifesize) you notice the man in the loft window of the right hand house, the ill woman in front of the wall, the weak beggar being ignored by the soldiers etc etc. I'd love a large copy of it.
[url=The https://collections.manchesterartgallery.org/collections/item/a319bfd1-7e2a-3a5c-b62c-6732a78f93ed/]The Fortress of Königstein: Courtyard with the Brunnenhaus (painting)[/url]
At the Manchester gallery
edit. Very odd. Today I cannot add an active link. grrr.
Edited
by Norrette Moore
