Camera Obscura and Camera Lucida

[Robert Garrett]

http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/

articles.htmlhttp://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/articles.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/boo...ra-obscurities

Three more papers and articles on this subject.

[Robert Garrett]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/Ar...rspective6.pdf

This set of slides talks about the improvements in understanding perspective, something that happened during the same time frame.

it also shows a device that was used by artists including Leonardo, with which it would of been possible to draw the image you pointed out. The distortions could just as easily come from imperfection in a sheet of glass, that was used to draw the image, as from lens distortion.

again not trying to be argumentive here just demonstrate that there where other options, rather than a camera obscura.

This is not to say that perhaps use of a camera obscura did not assist in the huge leaps of knowledge concerning the art of perspective that occurred over the next hundred or so years from Giotto.

RG

[James McDonald]

"Who can draw better: Ted Seth Jacobs or David Hockney is simply a matter of aesthetic prejudice--nothing more than a value judgement."

Bart,

Not just aesthetic, but also craftsmanship. Throwing a tarp over a tree branch will keep the rain off of you, but you really can't call it a house. Of course you can call it a house, but we all know better.

[bart johnson]

Originally posted by robgar:


again not trying to be argumentive here just demonstrate that there where other options, rather than a camera obscura.

Rob, no you're not being argumentative. That's exactly what Hockney is saying. He's not talking solely about the camera obscura, he's referring to all the optical inventions available. His reflection began when he himself was using a camera lucida. I've experimented with a camera lucida as well, which is why his observations make so much sense to me. I've observed empirically that what he's describing makes sense. You're looking at a faint projected on the sheet of drawing paper you're working on. The model is projected onto the paper by natural light. Google it online. You can buy one cheap if you want to experiment. I've seen a couple different people using them in figure drawing groups. Although I'm not interested in using one myself for figure drawing, I notice that the people who employ them have similar kinds of perfected figures.

Hockney is suggesting that the device was used by an artist like Ingres whose perfectionist pencil portraits look like he's using a camera lucida. The argument makes perfect sense. As I noted Ingres' rougher figure studies have a completely different line quality than do his "camera lucida" drawings.

Look at these pencil drawings and notice the certainty of the line quality:

http://looky.wordpress.com/2008/03/0...ncil-drawings/

Hockney is all the more aware of that certainty of line because he's probably one of the best living linear draftsmen. In his pen and ink drawings of a certain period he's capturing a portrait with a simple pen and ink line--
http://cs.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=161372

This has nothing to do with academic drawing. Apples and Oranges. The Apples are saying the Orange doesn't know how to draw, that's all. The two are employing entirely different methods. It's as if the Apples are saying Hokusai didn't know how to draw.

It's a zen thing. You're not using a plumb bob and masstones and describing form through subtle tonal changes. Ingres uses slight tonal changes, but he's primarily describing form through the use of the most exquisitely sensitive line.

Darren, if you want to point out one of your academic friends drawing like Ingres in these pencil drawings, I'd be interested in taking a look.


Again, I'm not stating some kind of gospel. I'm genuinely trying to understand this. I don't know of any contemporary academic draftsmen, or any draftsmen working like this. Picasso is the only one I can recall doing it. De Kooning has some early drawings of depression era men that have some of that quality.

It's line. .... LINE. Line quality--tapering, bending, curving sinuously. Academics by and large avoid line, with notable exceptions like Nikolai Fechin, the great Russian draftsman. And Fechin has passages in his work that resemble abstract expressionist painting if blown up.

Again, it's the acquired skill of an artist like Ingres that makes them Ingres. One can't simply emply a camera lucida and make an Ingres or anything remotely close.

I hope at least some of this makes sense.

[bart johnson]

Please note. Whatever I've said above is all speculative. Rather than throwing in IMHO please assume that it's after most sentences.

Also, none of this will ever be solved, surely not on NP forum. It's just an excuse for looking at art.

I'm most interested in what kind of artists Darren might supply who I'm unaware of.

Last note, Hockney has been ridiculed by both Modern artists and critics, as well as Traditionalists. It's clear to me at least that he's just playing with ideas to provoke interest in people looking as closely as they can, not to get into fistfights or name calling. It was interesting in some of that material you provided, Rob, how Susan Sontag and art critic/historians were condemning him, while Chuck Close winked slyly.

Hockney's just amusing himself with all his theories and visual recreations, but in a way to expand his own work. Just like we do here. He's probing into the Old Masters. It's not meant to damage the mystery of the Old Masters at all. He's obsessed with the whole proccess. That's how I see it. I've heard Hockney lecture. He's like an Oxford don. His cigar smoking silly persona is largely just that -- a social persona. Note the 1000 faxes between him and Falco. Hockney is no silly goose. He's looked long and hard at visual phenomena and deserves a lot of credit for coming up with such an interesting hypothesis. I think the art historians are mostly pissed off because they never thought of it themselves.

[ 14. January 2010, 20:39: Message edited by: bart johnson ]

[Darren]

Originally posted by bart johnson:
Hockney is all the more aware of that certainty of line because he's probably one of the best living linear draftsmen. In his pen and ink drawings of a certain period he's capturing a portrait with a simple pen and ink line-- http://cs.nga.gov.au/Detail-LRG.cfm?View=LRG&IRN=161372

I'm not entirely sure what to say here. More aware of that certainty of line? One of the best living linear draftsmen? He's only got four areas where he attempts a thin to thick line for starters. But even though I disagree with you perhaps it's as you said, "Who can draw better ... is simply a matter of aesthetic prejudice--nothing more than a value judgement."

If the issue at hand (Hockney's theory) were Zen, feeling or impression then I'd offer no comments at all. But the issue is an accuracy that he claims is not achievable without mechanical means.

Originally posted by bart johnson:
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.

See my answer above. I consider the level of his skill to be of upmost importance in order to properly evaluate his thesis. I also need to understand the author's motives in order to take him or her seriously.

Originally posted by bart johnson:
Originally posted by Darren:
-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...

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.

I'll grant you that I may have overreached a bit with the words 'all artists.' I concede this point based upon that.
Get passed it and into what I obviously meant and my comment stands.

Originally posted by bart johnson:
Originally posted by Darren:
-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.

Recall that I am only giving my impressions which were gained when I read the book in sections just after it came out. What was that, 10 years ago? But since then I have read all I can find on the internet and as the links in this thread prove there's no lack of info available.

And yet I now read from the Art & Optics site cited earlier.
It begins like this: "Hockney's first inklings regaring his theory occured as he was attending the great Ingres retrospective in London in January 1999. He was dumstruck by the clarity and precision of the quick pencil portraits Ingres had produced in Rome during the early 1800's."
I might buy this perhaps. Some of Ingres drawings do look like they are traced. Traced as in traced, not necessarily through a Camera Lucida. Still, it's a good idea to run down.

But then he throws a hail mary: "...And come to think of it, Hockney now surmised, couldn't one make out a similar optically derived look in Carravagio, Holbein, Vermeer, and Velazquez?"
I have only minor trouble seeing Holbein and Vermeer although now he's switched to a Camera Obscura from a Camera Lucdia which are two different technologies entirely. And why throw in Caravaggio and Velazquez? The works of these four artists alone are completely different from each other except that in their own ways they are striving to record a representation of life.

And then this: "...Were van Dyke's Genovese matron to stand up, she'd likely prove at least 12 feet tall!"
I'll comment on this with a written fact. We know that Titian made the disciples taller than normal in the Assumption because of the position of the painting when it was hung. Is it a stretch to see the obvious? Where was van Dyck's painting to be hung? What about Sargent's elongated, well, everything? I think we've enough written evidence to conclude that he painted from life directly. As far as I know, he's not thrown in Sargent (yet).

Originally posted by bart johnson:
Originally posted by Darren:
-Fourth, and this relates to the third, is that a lack of preparatory drawings is seen as evidence of mechanical use...

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.

Of the difficulties I have with his theory, this one is perhaps the biggest one for me. As I recall, that person who suggested that Caravaggio used a firefly/lead concoction so that he could paint in the dark also stated that the lack of prep drawings helped lead her to her theory.

Perspective proof I can agree with. Lens distortion I can agree with. Why does he need to buttress his argument with sophomoric speculation? It's so easily rebutted that it makes me question his motives.

Originally posted by bart johnson:
Originally posted by Darren:
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?

I don't but that completely misses my point. Plus, you've taken my comment out of context to give it a meaning I did not intend.

Originally posted by bart johnson:

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.

In the context of this discussion regarding Hockney's theory, then yes. But remember, as far as I recall he brought it up as proof.
And yes, for the student who plans on choosing what to draw rather than accepting what happens to come out. As you said, "Again, it's the acquired skill of an artist like Ingres that makes them Ingres."
No, for the trained artist who because of their training has the ability to intelligently choose to be accurate or to deviate.

Originally posted by bart johnson:

Darren, if you want to point out one of your academic friends drawing like Ingres in these pencil drawings, I'd be interested in taking a look.

Personally I tire of the academic vs. everyone else arguments. Not all academics are the same. Ted's circle sails in a completely different pond than Lack's to name merely two. If there's anything about that argument that's tied to the current issue it's that Hockney is definitely not an academic. Only Ingres is Ingres and only Hockney is Hockney. My exact words were, "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." The context is clearly, "none of these use mechanical aids." I cannot point you to a modern day Ingres, nor can anyone else. That said, take a look at Jeffrey Mims. But that is really a side issue is it not?

Given all this questioning I find that I need to restate that I do not disagree that some artists in the past used these items, just as some artists use photos or projectors today. The Science of Art is a great book that discusses many of those means in detail. My problems with Hockney's theory are outlined in the first post in this thread. No agreement is necessary.

This issue could go on forever and between here and RP I think I've explained my position clearly. At this point others have done a far better job than I of explaining a similar position. Therefore I defer to some of the links I've already posted.

[George O'Hanlon]

Thank you for the viewpoints on this matter. I find this all very interesting and something I have wrestled with when studying medieval art, and especially considering the drawing in late antique and early medieval art of the Byzantine Empire.

I also believe the any thesis regarding the technique of the old masters, much less those of medieval artists, will be impossible to determine with any certainty, because we will always view their work and interpret them through modernists eyes. This is an important point that I discuss in the icon-painting workshops sponsored by the nonprofit Iconofile, which I serve as the Executive Director.

I hope we can consider each other views respectfully without giving up passion for our personal view.

[bart johnson]

Darren, I'm not sure why you want to run off all of a sudden. I won't detain you. I had the idea that you'd opened up the thread to look into the use of optical devices in old master painting. I didn't realize that your mind was already made up and you just wanted to attack Hockney's art. OK with me if it makes you feel any better. I don't care if you like his work or not.

You haven't remotely addressed his observations. You're using him as a kind of punching bag, as do most of the other academics I've encountered it seems to me in an effort to avoid his main points.

We can leave Hockney out of it. I'll just keep after some of his observations as I find the chance.

[Darren]

I was neither running off nor attacking Hockney's art. As I said, others have done a better job of explaining these reservations. Why go around and around? Is there something you wish to add?

You showed an example of Hockney's art, I countered your opinion of it. I also addressed every point you made, as far as I followed them. As far as using Hockney as a punching bag, it his version of events that I have problems with. My initial four points began and remain the same. Where was the talk of a punching bag after my first post?

And again with the Academic gambit.

[bart johnson]

[quote]Originally posted by Darren:

This issue could go on forever and between here and RP I think I've explained my position clearly. At this point others have done a far better job than I of explaining a similar position. Therefore I defer to some of the links I've already posted.

Darren, I must be misreading this part. I interpreted this to mean that you've explained your position clearly here and on RP (where I've never read your position. I don't read there anymore due to the narrow repetitiveness). And therefore would rather have me or others read your opinions through the links than to continue here.

My fault. You can see how easily I misinterpret things on other posts, but that, I believe, is mainly due to the fact that this is such unfamiliar territory. It goes so far against my temperament I can't tell you.

It's absolutely extraordinary how different our way of seeing is. I don't see Mims as at all close to Ingres. I'll have to come back to that in more detail. I think I have to just take one point at a time. Trying to hit everything at once just leads to mushrooming confusing. (at least to me)

I'd like to continue by going back to that part where you say I've taken your remark out of context. The whole notion of art/business is something that's at the heart of my interests. Hockney's argument is neither here nor there. Just something to bounce off of initially.

You're missing my points, for which I'm emphatically not blaming you. I just need to put them more clearly. I'll try to take one thing at a time, if possible.

I'd also like to leave Hockney aside for a bit, because I don't want to make him a bone of contention. It really doesn't matter what his theory is. I have no interest at all in whether he's right or wrong. I'm much more interested, since you're here and others, in perhaps examining the particulars of Caravaggio and why you think no optics.

We agree on Vermeer/Holbein/Lotto optics, Velazquez/Hals/Rembrandt, Rubens no... just as broad generalization. I'd already stated that which is why I was confused by your remarks vis a vis Hockney's arguing backwards from the CL to CO. That's what I mean by mushrooming confusion. I'm writing too much on diverse points and it's all getting lost.

Sorry,

A lot on my plate today. I can't address all your points, nor do I expect you to address all of mine. You'd be spending all your waking hours posting!! So let me just get to that art/business thing .

Meanwhile, I encourage others in the spirit of what George has posted to add their thoughts. I am also very interested in Byzantine conception of space and its projection forward, of which I understand very little. I think intuitively not logically in the manner of Greek logic. I tend to connect patterns and disparate pieces of information that I try to weave together.

If I was writing an article it would be far different. But this is more like a conversation and much of what I say is far more tentative than I imagine it reads.