Smithsonian Mag falls victim...
Frida Wails
Oh my! I haven't read the entire article yet
but the latest issue of Smithsonian I received
today has a multi-page article on Hockney's
"revelations" concerning the old masters who
he has "revealed" cheated by using various
optical devices. Why Smithsonian would be duped
into believing this is new thinking is puzzling,
considering the magazine's prestige in its field.
Speaking of which, anyone ever heard of Bernardo
Bellotto (1722-1780)? He was the nephew of, and
studied under Antonio Canaletto. An article in a recent
issue of Art in America by Max Kozloff says that
both artists utilized the camera obscura in
laying out their paintings. Kozloff goes on to
compare the works of the two, pointing out why
he believes Bellotto to be superior to Canaletto.
Those who love realismo in painting will love
this article. Pointed out is the clarity of the
views - or lack of aerial perspective in spite of
the precision of linear perspective achieved with
the use of the camera obscura.
Incidentally, the article does not dwell on the
issue but does mention that the device used
was "portable" - as it would have to be for an
artist to use it in multiple outdoor locations.
Now my curiosity is piqued - I want to know what
these portable devices looked like, were built
from - if anyone knows for sure.
mdeli
Like so many artzy fartzies Hockney can't help being awed by artistic
ability, which I suspect deep down he knows he lacks. So he mindlessly
repeats the Modern Academic school mantra namely that great artwork is
really just a combination of gimmicks which any failure student can
pick up if he so desires.
Hockney is a jaded, bored and rather stupid old cackle hen (peruse his
other gossipy books) who is well on his way to being a member of the
avant-gone. He knows that a whole new tribe of schmucks is out there
ready to replace him in the intellectual kitsch competition.
Having major connections in the international daisy chain has allowed
Hockney to get his tome of utter bullshit published to the exclusion
of lots of lesser cranks who have been saying the same nonsense for
years. It impresses all who have never looked up anything to do with
technique and learned to draw from idiotic authors like Nicolaides and
his offshoots.
Hockney best refutes his own thesis by showing the miserable results
of his dependence on optical aids and paste up schmier and his utter
lack of skill. He's nothing more than the usual load of PR.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Frida Wails
allspam...@bak.rr.comHelenWaite says...
>The art world was rife back then, as it surely is now, with sniping and
>bitchiness, egomaniacs and upstarts, so "cheating" such that "so-and-so
>cheats by using lenses to draw" should have been common currency among
>the has-beens envious of a higher-up's success.
All of your points are very well put. Hockney though
is making a BIG splash with all of this while his
would-be debunkers seem woefully silent. Wonder why?
Maybe it's that the "experts" simply don't want to
lower their standards while giving any more attention
to Hockney than he's already garnering.
What amuses me is the claim that one need all the
high-tech studio lighting currently available to
us in order for Hockney to demonstrate "how it was
done" back then. He claims all those scenes were
created by having the subjects in bright sunlight!
If you think using smoke and mirrors will recreate
a scene in such detail as someone like Van Dyke
painted, just try it yourself using the wonderful
mirrors and lenses ground to perfection that are
available to us today. It's simply an impossible
task. UNLESS you use a modern-day projector and
lighting!! Artists do that openly today.
The article in Smithsonian points out that
aside from optical devices being thought of as
"cheating" in old-master art circles, religious beliefs of
the time could get an artist executed for using
mirrors or lenses - the tools of the devil, etc.
mdeli
>Speaking of which, anyone ever heard of Bernardo
>Bellotto (1722-1780)?
Sure have. his originals are hard to see because they are widely
dispersed. A great artist technically very different from Canaletto.
> He was the nephew of, and
>studied under Antonio Canaletto. An article in a recent
>issue of Art in America by Max Kozloff says that
>both artists utilized the camera obscura in
>laying out their paintings. Kozloff goes on to
>compare the works of the two, pointing out why
>he believes Bellotto to be superior to Canaletto.
>Those who love realismo in painting will love
>this article. Pointed out is the clarity of the
>views - or lack of aerial perspective in spite of
>the precision of linear perspective achieved with
>the use of the camera obscura.
Kosloff who I suspect doesn't paint aught to look at a scene on a
clear day. I suspect he is into impressionist fuzz.
>
>Incidentally, the article does not dwell on the
>issue but does mention that the device used
>was "portable" - as it would have to be for an
>artist to use it in multiple outdoor locations.
>Now my curiosity is piqued - I want to know what
>these portable devices looked like, were built
>from - if anyone knows for sure.
>
I believe there is a drawing of an artist using the device in Phaidon
- Canaletto drawings at Windsor Castle. Not positive though. In the
same volume one can see the pinholes in some of Canaletto's reference
sketches. These give the key information of what on can get from an
optical aid and show very clearly how useless that device would be to
someone who can't draw.
Since most here are ecstatic about impressionism I might add:
Canaletto is the greatest of all impressionist he painted daily life
in impressionist technique. Look at the detail. He makes over-rated
impressionism look childish. In my book he is the greatest landscape
painter I know of.
mdeli
>All of your points are very well put. Hockney though
>is making a BIG splash with all of this while his
>would-be debunkers seem woefully silent. Wonder why?
He's not making a big splash. I quoted lot of critics who take him to
task. I wrote many messages about it here check them out if it
interests you.
>If you think using smoke and mirrors will recreate
>a scene in such detail as someone like Van Dyke
>painted, just try it yourself using the wonderful
>mirrors and lenses ground to perfection that are
>available to us today. It's simply an impossible
>task. UNLESS you use a modern-day projector and
>lighting!! Artists do that openly today.
>
Well said, and all the aids you mention are readily available to
anyone.
Now try to convince Marilyn that you are right.
discussion
'cheated' in the context of your statement?
I have not read my book from cover to cover yet, but have
browsed on it often. I got the strong impression that he was at
pains to say that Vermeer and the many others were great painters,
rather than any revelation making their works less in value.
This to me seemed obvious anyway. It is an interesting book,
providing new ways of looking at old paintings.
It is a worthy effort to try to establish how and when the use of
optical devices occurred, and whether this was the cause of the
sudden awareness of optics in painters and their works.
As to whether he is simply restating old theories, you might wish
to check out when he proposes the camera obscura was first used.
About AD 1430 ! Further, he states that the first ones must have used
a curved mirror rather than the lens of later versions.
Half of his book quotes texts which he uses to support his ideas.
N.H
"Frida Wails" <fre...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3c51f...@oracle.zianet.com...
>
> Oh my! I haven't read the entire article yet
> but the latest issue of Smithsonian I received
> today has a multi-page article on Hockney's
> "revelations" concerning the old masters who
> he has "revealed" cheated by using various
> optical devices.
>Snipped<
Frida Wails
says...
>
>Excuse me Frida, but where in his book does Hockney say
>'cheated' in the context of your statement?
I never mentioned anything about Hockney's book.
I didn't even know he'd written a book on the subject.
And I wouldn't buy it, much less read it, even if
he has. Go back and read the opening post of this
thread and quit jumping to erroneous conclusions.
mdeli
>As to whether he is simply restating old theories, you might wish
>to check out when he proposes the camera obscura was first used.
>About AD 1430 ! Further, he states that the first ones must have used
>a curved mirror rather than the lens of later versions.
Curved mirriors are useless and were never used.
>Half of his book quotes texts which he uses to support his ideas.
As I said the idea is nothing new and there are lots of cranks who
claim that the reason master works are so good is because of aids.
I repeat- all the aids are presently available. Go get some and see
how far you get with them. Try drawing a chair for starters.
Andy Dingley
>The article in Smithsonian points out that
>aside from optical devices being thought of as
>"cheating" in old-master art circles, religious beliefs of
>the time could get an artist executed for using
>mirrors or lenses - the tools of the devil, etc.
In Canalletto's day ? You need a better sense of European history.
Besides which, Hockney can draw perfectly well, and is a master of
perspective draughtsmanship. Look at his set design work (Rake's
Progress is the obvious example) which shows an Escher-like
understanding.
Frida Wails
says...
>>The article in Smithsonian points out that
>>aside from optical devices being thought of as
>>"cheating" in old-master art circles, religious beliefs of
>>the time could get an artist executed for using
>>mirrors or lenses - the tools of the devil, etc.
>
>In Canalletto's day ? You need a better sense of European history.
And you need a lesson in reading comprehension.
I didn't write the article - I was merely repeating
(paraphrasing) what it was about. Go and get the
magazine and read it yourself. That's why I posted
this thread - to let people know about the article.