Camera Obscura and Camera Lucida

[Darren]

Lately many of the threads here have subtexts that imply or directly comment on the possible use of Camera Obscura or Camera Lucida by the old masters. So far I've avoided comments on this due to the emotions involved but today I did respond to one. George asked me to start a thread on this topic and so I have and moved my post here.

I have few if any problems believing that Vermeer used a camera obscura but Caravaggio is another story. Although I have yet to make up my mind I am quite skeptical. This book here looks to be of some interest but I have not bought it yet (search for 'Painted Optics Symposium').

From my long ago reading of Hockney I came away with a few thoughts.

-The first was that I was left wanting by looking at Hockney's own drawings. I see little evidence of his having had much representational training. Should this automatically negate his ideas? No, but I'd be far more open minded if an accomplished draughtsman came up with all of this. One must acknowledge that Hockney’s own goals as an artist are clearly not the same as those of the artists he discusses so my comment is not meant to denigrate him or his work. It’s merely and dispassionately calling a spade a spade. Still, in the back of my mind I have a nagging sense that at least some of this is not unlike the emperor’s new cloths.

-Second, I felt that he overreached. The impression I got was that he believes all artists from the dawn of the optical-lens age to the invention of the modern camera used either an obscura or lucida. I find that very hard to believe.

-Third, I came away thinking that his unwritten premise was that no one could draw realistically without mechanical aids. Perhaps I ‘read into’ his statements but if they are true then they are also bogus. I personally know dozens of professional artists who can draw up to Old Master levels and none of these use mechanical aids or even photo reference.

-Fourth, and this relates to the third, is that a lack of preparatory drawings is seen as evidence of mechanical use. Again, I know artists (myself included) who do not make preparatory drawings but go straight to the canvas in paint, and with multi-figure compositions as well. Of course I am no Caravaggio but I hold my own. My point is not to laud myself but to confirm that it is not only possible but is currently being successfully done.

With all that said I should add that I too agree with something Kenneth shared awhile ago. Proof of the use of mechanics would not taint my opinion of these artists and this includes those who use photo reference today. Art viewed as solely a means of self expression is a relatively new thing IMO and prior to that it was a business. If something could speed up or ease production then what business would turn it down? I know I’d get more commissions if I used photos. In my case though it’s an aesthetic decision because I find that my from-life work surpasses my efforts using a photo and back when I was trying it I found that I really hated the process. I can connect with a model but not with a photo. That’s just me.

I should probably buy Hockney's updated book but I generally have problems with books that have the word 'secret' in their titles.

Bart, as to your last comment, I agree. The photo, whether print, TV, cinema or computer has tainted society's vision. Some of the degradation is likely unrecoverable but I believe that other aspects are not lost forever but are capable of being accessed through the proper training.

[ 14. January 2010, 13:35: Message edited by: Darren ]

[Darren]

Two articles worth reading, at least as it relates to Caravaggio and the Camera Obscura are:

Tracing in Some Works by Caravaggio
by Linda Bauer and Steve Colton
The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 142, No. 1168 (Jul., 2000) pp. 434-436

Art, Optics and History: New Light on the Hockney Thesis
by Michael John Gorman
Leonardo, Vol. 36, No. 4 (2003), pp. 295-301

[bart johnson]

Thanks for taking all the time to put this down, Darren. I disagree with much of what you've written. But that doesn't mean I find it the least bit invalid. It actually affords me the chance to explore this Hockney thing, which I really appreciate. As with everyone else here, I respect your opinion without qualification and have no interest in trying to change it. I don't consider these kind of exchanges debates. I see them as mutual explorations of each other's thinking. Letting us bounce our ideas off each other and see myriad other points of view if possible.

I don't have time at the minute to respond to what you've written but would like to come back to it if I have a chance in the evening.

And I think what you've stated is admirably clear and well stated. Thanks for that.

[Darren]

Likewise Bart and I appreciate the tone.

My purpose is not to get agreement but rather to offset some of the conclusions being drawn. The matter is not settled and to be honest, pending some compelling contemporary written evidence it may never fully be.

And just to be clear, I give due credence to perspective recreations. When these types of things are shown they help prove the pro-mechanics case very well.

Cleaning up from the other threads-
Some of Rogbar’s links:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1576575 (this goes to the article from Leonardo magazine I listed in my last post)
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/p043.htm
http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/pap...oto-ieee06.pdf

The site for the book Vermeer’s Camera:
http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk/home.htm

The Hockney-Falco-Stork controversy in detail:
http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/

[bart johnson]

Darren,,

That Hockney Falco link is immensely helpful. Like you, I never bought the book and read it, as is often the case, up at Borders years ago over a series of days and in bits and pieces. I never saw it as more than a provocative effort on Hockney's part to stimulate discussion. I also never purchased it, so I clearly don't see it as a must have for any art library.

[Robert Garrett]

Well, I see we have a new thread for this discussion. Thanks Darren. I havent read Hockney's book in detail as of yet either. Though I have read bits and pieces of what he has to say. Again it seems to me that he came to the conclusion that without aids nobody could draw.

To me and this is once again my simple uniformed and uneducated musing on the subject, It seems more to me like he was looking for an excuse to cover his own talents.

I had no intention of giving the impression that I think that perspective recreations are useless. I believe they are very valuable in understanding what the artist was thinking. As well as in understanding there process. If everything else in a room is perspectively in agreement, and one thing such as a window is off. That does not necessarily mean that whoever created the image use a device to create the image. As I pointed out it could very well mean he didnt get his chair in the right place when he was drawing.

The other thing in the reconstruction that bothered me was if i was reconstructing it, I would of started with the window not finished with it. Again as far as the reconstruction goes He based the size of the room off of a map hanging on the wall. O.k. The map was on the back wall no perspective distortion would of occur ed. Yet he uses the measurement of that wall to place his station point. I found this to be interesting.

Back to the camera obscura, in modern science they do nothing to prove a statement is true, just prove it is false. With the understanding that if they cant prove it wrong it must be correct.

Darren says he knows people who can draw very well without a camera obscura. We know the drawing of Vermeer can be duplicated by reconstructing the rooms in which he drew. The only evidence that is missing are drawings from the artists he claims used the camera obscura.

I can prove there are techniques that Vermeer or anyone else could of used to achieve the same results without using the camera obscura.

The Sight-Size method combine with a good understanding of perspective gets you a long way towards this goal. It just seems to me that a lot of people today really wish there where some secret they could find, so they would have excuses for not doing the work necessary to get to this level of skill.

RG

[bart johnson]

Originally posted by robgar:
Again it seems to me that he came to the conclusion that without aids nobody could draw.

Rob, No, This is absolutely not what Hockney concluded nor was it his premise. Nor did it ever appear anywhere in the text.

Click on the link Darren provided for Hockney Falco and you can read summaries and different perspectives from different artists and historians to see the various views that his hypothesis stimulated.

[bart johnson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darren:

-The first was that I was left wanting by looking at Hockney's own drawings. I see little evidence of his having had much representational training. Should this automatically negate his ideas? No.

Darren, Why not leave it at that? Anything else will just contaminate trying to evaluate his arguments. Who can draw better: Ted Seth Jacobs or David Hockney is simply a matter of aesthetic prejudice--nothing more than a value judgement.


-Second, I felt that he overreached. The impression I got was that he believes all artists from the dawn of the optical-lens age to the invention of the modern camera used either an obscura or lucida. I fin.d that very hard to believe.


Darren, that is absolutely not what he is arguing. He's only pointing to certain artists--the artists whose work looks like it's photo derived--Goya, Turner, ad infinitum all since the dawn of the optical lens are not included in his hypothesis.


-Third, I came away thinking that his unwritten premise was that no one could draw realistically without mechanical aids. Perhaps I ‘read into’ his statements but if they are true then they are also bogus. I personally know dozens of professional artists who can draw up to Old Master levels and none of these use mechanical aids or even photo reference.

Darren, not in the least correct. He's talking about an artist like Holbein where there are the most complex patterns going around a figure that are drawn with absolute precision. This is different than from how Velazquez or Rembrandt or Frans Hals indicate patterning. And I think that it is an absolutely essential point. Look at a Canaletto view of Venice and compare it to a Corot, Canaletto is dead on with ruled lines. Corot is painting from life.

-Fourth, and this relates to the third, is that a lack of preparatory drawings is seen as evidence of mechanical use. Again, I know artists (myself included) who do not make preparatory drawings but go straight to the canvas in paint, and with multi-figure compositions as well. Of course I am no Caravaggio but I hold my own. My point is not to laud myself but to confirm that it is not only possible but is currently being successfully done.

Darren, Hockney doesn't argue, from my recollection, that lack of preparatory drawings are FIRM evidence of mechanical use. He's simply pointing to different forms of "circumstantial evidence" to buttress his argument.

With all that said I should add that I too agree with something Kenneth shared awhile ago. Proof of the use of mechanics would not taint my opinion of these artists and this includes those who use photo reference today.

D, the closer that artists adhere to photomechanical devices, the less interested I am in the work. I have no problem with your biases.

Art viewed as solely a means of self expression is a relatively new thing IMO and prior to that it was a business..

D, this is to me critical and is what separates my opinion from others. Why would you think that Rembrandt's self portraits are different from Lucian Freud's? They both exemplify self-expression and a business. If you choose to see it that way. I don't see that late Rembrandt or Freud have anything whatsoever to do with business. Rembrandt couldn't sell the late portraits, that's why he was bankrupt. He was painting them in dark isolation. Freud has more money than the King of Sweden. He has no use for money. I don't see how you could consider him spending countless days if not months painting himself a business decision, or having the slightest thing to do with commercial interests.

I see self expression as the vital component. I don't see why others see realistic accuracy as the paramount value. If that's a correct summation of your views.

Why don't we just start with your response to that last point if we could?

Sorry for the clunky form. I still can't work a computer.

[Robert Garrett]

Originally posted by bart johnson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robgar:
Again it seems to me that he came to the conclusion that without aids nobody could draw.

Rob, No, This is absolutely not what Hockney concluded nor was it his premise. Nor did it ever appear anywhere in the text.

Click on the link Darren provided for Hockney Falco and you can read summaries and different perspectives from different artists and historians to see the various views that his hypothesis stimulated. </font>[/QUOTE]I will do so, as well as check the local libraries and see what I can find there. I truly hate discussing something without having good information, or at least what I perceive to be good information. One must test ones sources, and understanding of anything to learn anything.

RG

[bart johnson]

Rob, Just click on this and note the intricate patterning of the carpet going back in perfectly accurate perspective. No one is doing that with the sight-see method. It's unimaginable any artist, and I don't care how good those guys were, could paint that kind of absolutely accurate detail, not just facing it frontally but having it curve perfectly over folds. Do you believe this is something any artist could achieve with simple appication of proper academic methods. Charles Bargue? Darren, Do you know artists who can go straight to the canvas and paint anything remotely close to the Lotto patterning?

http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyop...ypothesis.html

That's all that Hockney is saying. That at the point that optical devices were discovered, Western painting coincidentally took a quantum leap forward. One goes from Giotto, Massacio, and on up to suddenly find intricate patterning perfectly following folds in clothing and head pieces, etc, etc. Plus the Holbein with the anamorphic skull? Where would that come from if not using optical means?

Vermeer is conceded as using Optics. But as Wheelock (who was early in pointing out the similarity to how light is seen as droplet shapes when projected) eventually came to see there's far more invention to Vermeer than anything else. He's not simply tracing, but there is something else going on. That's why Vermeer is Vermeer. And John Clem Clarke is John Clem Clarke.
And also why Dali was so fascinated with Vermeer, Picking up on all the eccentric patterning Vermeer employed creating the illusion of a loaf of bread. Integrated with Dali's hallucinatory imaginings.