Hockney's profanation
Edward
<<< --- repost ---
Here are some refutations from an article in the NY Times. Except for
Sontags rather stupid comments, they are OK but fail to point out the
most obvious fact, namely that all any optical devices will get you
is lines. It won't do much for all that lies between. And that's about
98% of any old master that Hockney mentions.
------------->>>
:
"Even if Van Eyck had a camera it would have done little to help him
achieve the Aronolfini portrait. I presume that Hockney imagines that
the dog in the portrait had rigor mortise
Art historians did not take this lying down. Keith Christiansen, a
curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, read an open letter to Mr.
Hockney testifying that he had gone out and bought
a concave mirror at Duane Reade. His verdict? The projection the
mirror threw onto his paper wasn't clear enough for him to make a
decent drawing. Besides, he added, there is plenty of
evidence that artists like Michelangelo, Raphael and Caravaggio had
"no need for fuzzy, upside-down images." They made freehand
preparatory sketches instead.
Susan Sontag went after Mr. Hockney's ideology of picture making. To
say that there were no great painters before optical devices, she
said, is like saying there were no great lovers
before Viagra. It is a "very American" kind of argument. Although Mr.
Hockney was born British, she said, in his thinking "he is one of us."
To argue that there is a "direct line from van
Eyck to television," she said, is to use present-day mass visual
culture as the lens through which the past is examined. It represents
the "Warholization of art."
Linda Nochlin, the Lila Acheson Wallace Professor of Modern Art at the
Institute of Fine Arts, was as dramatic as Mr. Hockney. At her signal
an audience member brought Ms.
Nochlin's wedding dress onstage, a white shift with blue doughnut
shapes on it. As evidence that artists can draw patterned cloth
without the aid of optics, she compared the dress to a
wedding portrait that Philip Pearlstein, "an eyeballer par
excellence," had made of her sitting in that dress while her husband
slouched next to her in white pants. "This is what I call
scientific evidence," she said.
Then the gloves really came off. David Stork, an associate professor
of computer science at Stanford University, considered the little
convex mirror in van Eyck's Arnolfini wedding
picture, the mirror that, Mr. Hockney suggests, van Eyck could have
flipped over and used as an optical device. First off, Mr. Stork said,
a mirror of that size would never have worked. To
get a lens that would "hold Arnolfini, his wife and dog," he would
have needed a huge mirror, sliced from a sphere seven feet in
diameter.
And that is just the beginning of the trouble. If van Eyck had used
the lens in a camera obscura, he would have had to paint upside-down,
Mr. Stork said. Then there is the lighting problem:
the projected image in a camera obscura would have been too dim. "To
mimic the conditions indoors on a gray day in Bruges," he said, would
require hundreds of candles, and then, even if
the artist were to survive the fire hazard, "the color looks wrong."
Ellen Winner, a professor of psychology at Boston College, kept Mr.
Hockney on the ropes by showing some excellent, optically exact
drawings of rearing horses. They were made by a
5-year-old autistic child named Nadia, who had seen only pictures of
horses standing still. If an autistic 5-year- old can do this, Ms.
Winner said, then "I would argue that a Renaissance
artist could do it, too."
Eventually things started looking up for Mr. Hockney's theory. Gary
Tinterow, a curator at the Metropolitan Museum, suggested that Ingres
might have done some tracing. John Spike, a
Caravaggio scholar, noted that in 1672 a critic described something in
Caravaggio's studio that sounded a lot like a camera obscura. And, Mr.
Spike said, an additional bit of confirmation
came when he was looking at a Caravaggio in London with Mr. Hockney.
An old Frenchman came by cursing at the work. He shook his cane at the
painting and denounced it for being
too much like a photograph. It turned out that nut was Henri
Cartier-Bresson.
Next came the battle of the Vermeer scholars. Philip Steadman, an
architect and the author of "Vermeer's Camera," which argues that
Vermeer had photographic aims, said that
Vermeer's paintings contain perfect renditions of things found in
Dutch houses: chairs with lion backs, globes, paintings, Delft tiles,
virginals, even the ceiling beams. What's more, six
Vermeer paintings are different viewpoints of the same room, and all
have been done on the same size canvas. Why? "Because he has traced
them" from "images created in a camera
obscura," Mr. Steadman said.
Walter Liedtke, a curator at the Metropolitan Museum who was one of
the organizers of "Vermeer and the Delft School," fought back.
Although he did not oppose the idea that Vermeer
was interested in the effects of the camera obscura, he said, he had
evidence that Vermeer's rooms were "pure invention." Vermeer's
attitude, he said, was, "To hell with physics."
Mr. Steadman accused Mr. Liedtke of "mimesophobia, the morbid fear of
slavish imitation."
But what is to fear? Plenty, said Nica Gutman, a conservator of
paintings who worked on the current Eakins show at the Philadelphia
Museum of Art. Many artists find it shameful to be
caught using photographs. Take Eakins and his painting "Mending the
Net." All the figures and the tree, she said, are "precisely the same
as those in the photographs." That is, Eakins
projected them from a photograph onto the canvas and traced them.
Eakins did his best to hide the evidence. And after he died his widow
lied about it, too, Ms. Gutman said.
Do artists still conceal their optical tricks? Some do, but others
simply cannot. Chuck Close is one. He makes paintings that are
undeniably based on photographs. When a class of third
graders came to visit him recently, one of them asked, "Can you really
draw or do you just copy photographs?" He said he finally drew a
freehand Mickey Mouse, "and the kids were, like,
Ooh!"
Mr. Pearlstein, the painter who made Ms. Nochlin's wedding portrait,
said, "I paint people and landscapes from direct observation," but
added that he had sometimes been mistaken for a
photo-realist. It does not sting. "There is no moral issue" with using
optical tools, he said, "only stylistic issues."
Moral issue or not, Svetlana Alpers, a professor emerita at the
University of California at Berkeley, suggested that Mr. Hockney, who
has often used photographs in his work, secretly
wanted to "kick free of the lens habit."
"Why not just go for it, David?" she said. "The old masters did."
Rosalind Krauss, the Meyer Shapiro Professor of Modern Art and Theory
at Columbia University, questioned the epiphany that started it all
for Mr. Hockney. To say there is no difference
between the lines of Ingres and Warhol, she suggested, is wrong.
Ingres's drawn line "swells and narrows." Warhol's traced line is
"flaccid, inert and everywhere equally broad," the
essence of technology.
In the end Mr. Close, who joked that the symposium should have been
called "Look Back in Ingres," said he had learned that "some
scientists are just as annoying as some art historians."
Mr. Weschler tossed away his crutch, crying, "I'm cured!"
And Mr. Hockney said: "I enjoyed it. I learned some things." Then he
added, "I will now go back to my studio.""
discussion
What do you think?
When a new idea emerges there is always a layer of people who have
an interest in suppressing it. One of the ways is to try to discredit
the originator of the idea. "Hockney can't draw!" for example.
Suppose you are someone in the fine arts area where you have a high
paid job such as the curator at the Met. The all you may have said and
published might be trashed by such a new idea. For example you might
have noticed the odd still lives that show articles in the foreground which
are clearly in the wrong perspective. You might have lectured, giving the
reasons for this as artistic experimentation, or that it enhanced the
subject
in some way. In that case you may well NEED to suppress these ideas.
The Religious authorities had the same ideas when they made Gallileo
"abjure curse and detest" his propagation of the Copernican Doctrine.
What we have below is a list of those threatened by original thought.
Best Wishes to all, and sincere hopes for a better world,
N.H
"Edward" <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C298BD9...@yahoo.com...
mdeli
>I wonder where this list of likes and dislikes goes, if anywhere.
>What do you think?
>When a new idea emerges there is always a layer of people who have
>an interest in suppressing it.
Hockney's idea isn't new and is incorrect on the basis of evidence. If
you don't agree with the evidence refute it.
>One of the ways is to try to discredit
>the originator of the idea. "Hockney can't draw!" for example.
I mention it because even he can't draw using the very optical
instruments he believes are responsible for the success of other
artists.
>Suppose you are someone in the fine arts area where you have a high
>paid job such as the curator at the Met. The all you may have said and
>published might be trashed by such a new idea. For example you might
>have noticed the odd still lives that show articles in the foreground which
>are clearly in the wrong perspective.
Whether or not the perspective is correct is irreverent. Most art
students' perspective is off. So what?
>You might have lectured, giving the
>reasons for this as artistic experimentation, or that it enhanced the
>subject in some way. In that case you may well NEED to suppress these ideas.
AM I to assume that all the artists whot supposedly used aids kept it
a secret for some reason? Why? Go to a big art store and buy some of
these aids and see how far you get. The result if you have little more
to add, will look as bad as Hockney if not worse.
>The Religious authorities had the same ideas when they made Gallileo
>"abjure curse and detest" his propagation of the Copernican Doctrine.
>What we have below is a list of those threatened by original thought.
>Best Wishes to all, and sincere hopes for a better world,
>N.H
Hockney isn't in the least original nor is he correct.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
Howard Haigh
"mdeli" <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3c2baa6f...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> "discussion" wrote:
>
> >I wonder where this list of likes and dislikes goes, if anywhere.
> >What do you think?
> >When a new idea emerges there is always a layer of people who have
> >an interest in suppressing it.
>
> Hockney's idea isn't new and is incorrect on the basis of evidence. If
> you don't agree with the evidence refute it.
>
Please explain what you mean by "is incorrect on the basis of evidence" -
can you give examples and reasons?
> >One of the ways is to try to discredit
> >the originator of the idea. "Hockney can't draw!" for example.
>
> I mention it because even he can't draw using the very optical
> instruments he believes are responsible for the success of other
> artists.
>
It's your opinion that Hockney "can't draw" - others will disagree with you.
> >Suppose you are someone in the fine arts area where you have a high
> >paid job such as the curator at the Met. The all you may have said and
> >published might be trashed by such a new idea. For example you might
> >have noticed the odd still lives that show articles in the foreground
which
> >are clearly in the wrong perspective.
>
> Whether or not the perspective is correct is irreverent. Most art
> students' perspective is off. So what?
>
What is irreverent (sic) about this? Do you mean irrelevant? When you
state that "Most art students' perspective is off" what percentage are you
referring to? Any evidence to back this assertion up?
> >You might have lectured, giving the
> >reasons for this as artistic experimentation, or that it enhanced the
> >subject in some way. In that case you may well NEED to suppress these
ideas.
>
> AM I to assume that all the artists whot supposedly used aids kept it
> a secret for some reason? Why? Go to a big art store and buy some of
> these aids and see how far you get. The result if you have little more
> to add, will look as bad as Hockney if not worse.
>
>
I suppose that the usefulness of any tool is governed by the ability of the
person who uses it. I don't believe that Hockney is trying to say that the
optical aids (camera obscura and camera lucida) were responsible for great
art - merely that they were clearly involved in the creation of a number of
realistic paintings and drawings.
> >The Religious authorities had the same ideas when they made Gallileo
> >"abjure curse and detest" his propagation of the Copernican Doctrine.
> >What we have below is a list of those threatened by original thought.
> >Best Wishes to all, and sincere hopes for a better world,
> >N.H
>
> Hockney isn't in the least original nor is he correct.
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
>
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Nice of you to employ all of your comments (above) as a lead in to your
personal website which publicises your personal manifesto (your e-book "A
SKEPTICAL VIEW OF MODERN ART").
I have some comments on the aforementioned website.
You suggest that Artspeak will "use obscure terms especially when writing
esoteric theory." and then go on to use the word "schmiers". I've had a
look in a few dictionaries and I just can't seem to find what the hell this
is. Educate me please - it's a bit obscure.
You introduce your concept of "Artspeak" and include the following
criterion: "when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth." and then elsewhere state
"Most critics can't paint at all." - let's have some evidence and statistics
please.
You also state that "Drawing is the foundation necessary to all artwork that
possesses merit." - so according to your theory a sculptor who works
directly with their 3 dimensional medium and chooses not make a preparatory
drawing is engaged in creating artwork that (by your definition) possesses
no merit?
Comments?
mdeli
> Hockney's idea isn't new and is incorrect on the basis of evidence. If
> you don't agree with the evidence refute it.
>
dicussion wrote:
Please explain what you mean by "is incorrect on the basis of
evidence" -
can you give examples and reasons?
--I sited evidence in previous discussions along with what some
experts say. Go buy some aids and see how far they get you. When you
get something close to Ingres post it.
> >One of the ways is to try to discredit
> >the originator of the idea. "Hockney can't draw!" for example.
>
> I mention it because even he can't draw using the very optical
> instruments he believes are responsible for the success of other
> artists.
>
It's your opinion that Hockney "can't draw" - others will disagree
with you.
--Why not?
> >Suppose you are someone in the fine arts area where you have a high
> >paid job such as the curator at the Met. The all you may have said and
> >published might be trashed by such a new idea. For example you might
> >have noticed the odd still lives that show articles in the foreground
which
> >are clearly in the wrong perspective.
>
> Whether or not the perspective is correct is irreverent. Most art
> students' perspective is off. So what?
>
What is irreverent (sic) about this? Do you mean irrelevant?
--Yes- spell checker.
When you
state that "Most art students' perspective is off" what percentage are
you
referring to? Any evidence to back this assertion up?
--Go to a college student art showing and do a survey.
I suppose that the usefulness of any tool is governed by the ability
of the
person who uses it. I don't believe that Hockney is trying to say
that the
optical aids (camera obscura and camera lucida) were responsible for
great
art - merely that they were clearly involved in the creation of a
number of
realistic paintings and drawings.
---I don't have that impression.
Nice of you to employ all of your comments (above) as a lead in to
your
personal website which publicises your personal manifesto (your e-book
"A
SKEPTICAL VIEW OF MODERN ART").
-Never wrote a manifesto.
You suggest that Artspeak will "use obscure terms especially when
writing
esoteric theory." and then go on to use the word "schmiers". I've had
a
look in a few dictionaries and I just can't seem to find what the hell
this
is. Educate me please - it's a bit obscure.
---It's the German word for smiering around. I use counter jargon.
You introduce your concept of "Artspeak" and include the following
criterion: "when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it
is universally accepted as unquestionable truth."
It sounds that way to you because it offends your beliefs.
and then elsewhere state "Most critics can't paint at all." - let's
have some evidence and statisticsplease.
---Find it yourself and then name three professional critics who can
paint.
You also state that "Drawing is the foundation necessary to all
artwork that possesses merit." - so according to your theory a
sculptor who works directly with their 3 dimensional medium and
chooses not make a preparatory drawing is engaged in creating artwork
that (by your definition) possesses
no merit?
I'm referring to drawing and painting.
Please post here and don't send me email as I like to keep these
discussions public.
Howard Haigh
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c2d3bf0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>
>
> > Hockney's idea isn't new and is incorrect on the basis of evidence. If
> > you don't agree with the evidence refute it.
> >
>
> dicussion wrote:
> Please explain what you mean by "is incorrect on the basis of
> evidence" -
> can you give examples and reasons?
>
> --I sited evidence in previous discussions along with what some
> experts say. Go buy some aids and see how far they get you. When you
> get something close to Ingres post it.
>
Mani, as I suggested to you previously, these drawing aids won't turn me (or
you, or maybe even Hockney for that matter) into another Ingres - these
devices have been used as just an aid and won't turn a person who cannot
draw well into somebody who can. Oh and by the way, you mean 'cited' not
'sited'.
> > >One of the ways is to try to discredit
> > >the originator of the idea. "Hockney can't draw!" for example.
> >
> > I mention it because even he can't draw using the very optical
> > instruments he believes are responsible for the success of other
> > artists.
> >
>
> It's your opinion that Hockney "can't draw" - others will disagree
> with you.
>
> --Why not?
>
"Why not" what? If you're asking why other people will disagree with your
assertion that Hockney can't draw then I suggest you have a think about his
popularity and note that a Hockney retrospective at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art had "crowds that jammed in" to see his artwork (see
http://www.msnbc.com/news/330053.asp?cpl=1 for details).
> > >Suppose you are someone in the fine arts area where you have a high
> > >paid job such as the curator at the Met. The all you may have said and
> > >published might be trashed by such a new idea. For example you might
> > >have noticed the odd still lives that show articles in the foreground
> which
> > >are clearly in the wrong perspective.
> >
> > Whether or not the perspective is correct is irreverent. Most art
> > students' perspective is off. So what?
> >
>
> What is irreverent (sic) about this? Do you mean irrelevant?
>
> --Yes- spell checker.
>
> When you
> state that "Most art students' perspective is off" what percentage are
> you
> referring to? Any evidence to back this assertion up?
>
> --Go to a college student art showing and do a survey.
>
But Mani, you are the one who's made this assertion (that "Most art
students' perspective is off"). If it's based on evidence then surely it's
up to you to present that evidence, not me. If however it's conjecture, you
should say so (e.g. "it's my conjecture that..."). Don't expect me to go
off and do your research work.
>
> I suppose that the usefulness of any tool is governed by the ability
> of the
> person who uses it. I don't believe that Hockney is trying to say
> that the
> optical aids (camera obscura and camera lucida) were responsible for
> great
> art - merely that they were clearly involved in the creation of a
> number of
> realistic paintings and drawings.
>
> ---I don't have that impression.
>
> Nice of you to employ all of your comments (above) as a lead in to
> your
> personal website which publicises your personal manifesto (your e-book
> "A
> SKEPTICAL VIEW OF MODERN ART").
>
> -Never wrote a manifesto.
>
What is a book where the author states his opinion on some topic? A
manifesto is (and I quote) "a written statement declaring publicly the
intentions, motives, or views of its issuer ". It's my view that your
written work is a statement that publicly declares your views - hence it's a
manifesto. Refer to the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary (see
http://www.m-w.com for details).
> You suggest that Artspeak will "use obscure terms especially when
> writing
> esoteric theory." and then go on to use the word "schmiers". I've had
> a
> look in a few dictionaries and I just can't seem to find what the hell
> this
> is. Educate me please - it's a bit obscure.
>
> ---It's the German word for smiering around. I use counter jargon.
>
So, this "counter jargon" of yours is a response to the jargon of Artspeak
is it? You are criticising Artspeak for it's lack of clarity but then
choose to introduce your own obscure term as part of your critical
argument - yes? Have you heard of the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a
right"? You state that "schmier" is the German word for "smier" which I
assume you claim is an English word. I had a look in Merriam-Webster and it
isn't there. Can you just 'cut the crap' and tell me what you mean by
"smier"?
> You introduce your concept of "Artspeak" and include the following
> criterion: "when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it
> is universally accepted as unquestionable truth."
>
> It sounds that way to you because it offends your beliefs.
>
How do you know what my beliefs are? How do you know what does and does not
offend my beliefs Mani? I think you make too many assumptions about my
beliefs Mani.
>
> and then elsewhere state "Most critics can't paint at all." - let's
> have some evidence and statisticsplease.
>
> ---Find it yourself and then name three professional critics who can
> paint.
>
Again you've made an assertion without backing it up. If it's conjecture
then say so. I'm not saying anything here about the ability of professional
art critics as painters - you're the one doing that. What I'm trying to
draw attention to is your approach in your criticism of what you call
Artspeak, where one of your criticisms is that Artspeak uses the following
rule "when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth". I wholeheartedly agree that
this is a problem with the writings of many individuals. What I'm saying is
that you're guilty of having used this rule (where on your website you said
that "Most critics can't paint at all"). I'm not saying whether they can or
can't - you're the one doing that (in other words stating your subjective
opinion and making it sound like it is universally accepted as
unquestionable truth). To use another popular saying, what you're doing is
"shooting yourself in the foot".
> You also state that "Drawing is the foundation necessary to all
> artwork that possesses merit." - so according to your theory a
> sculptor who works directly with their 3 dimensional medium and
> chooses not make a preparatory drawing is engaged in creating artwork
> that (by your definition) possesses
> no merit?
>
> I'm referring to drawing and painting.
>
So please modify your statement (in the section of your website where you
offer advice to students) so that it reads "I believe that drawing is the
foundation necessary to all painting that possesses merit").
> Please post here and don't send me email as I like to keep these
> discussions public.
> ...no skill no art
>
Here's a new saying for you "overused maxim, small mind".