Talk:Hockney–Falco thesis

Validity of the thesis

The thesis can never be proven absolutely. However, a working artist will immediately know that its truth is highly probable, if the artist understands the thesis. Hockney's book does not explain the thesis well. Also, his book employs crude illustrative drawings that roughly indicate the use of concave mirrors. This results in a failure to communicate the thesis clearly and simply. Tracing an image that has been projected from a concave mirror would be an enormously efficient aid to an artist. Those who have never created art, such as art historians or art critics, would not know this from experience. They would merely use their own abstract knowledge from concepts in order to criticize the thesis.Lestrade 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm sure everyone, historians included, does realise that tracing can be of benefit. To say that non-artists somehow can't comprehend the use of tracing is plainly nonsensical. The question, the reply of historians and whatnot, isn't whether the 'old masters' would've found it useful but whether they did, in large numbers, use this method.

As a working artist, I can tell you not all agree with you, also. Personally, I find this theory infuriatingly moronic. It seems to just assumes that because of accuracy/realism a camera obscura must've been employed, it's an immediate 'did it this way!' each time. How does this account for the high quality in statues by the same questioned artists, such as Michelangelo, however? How can you deny the personal peculiarities in Ingres' portaits, such as the eyes, and the often highly distorted bodies and limbs (beyond the distortion you might find through a mirror)? Why does illogical perspective automatically suggest a camera obscura used at different angles and not simply drawings done at different angles? There are many such debatable 'proofs' like this.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that some or even all used this method, much of it is open to debate, but I don't think anyone sensible can read the evidence Hockney puts forth and say the theory is 'highly probable.' --Breshkovsky (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem with the theory is that it should actually be very easy to prove. We have a lot of information about how artists painted, be it self-portraits, paintings of their studios, descriptions, instruction manuals, contemporary biographies, and of course bills and inventories (when their household was confiscated because they went bankrupt). If they used complicated, expensive tools, there should be ample evidence once you know what to look for. And of course, there should be some surviving tools, because that is not the sort of item you throw away. 62.12.144.46 (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Vermeer contraption might not have weighed more than a dozen kilogrammes or so, if that. A weakness of the argument of what contemporary artists can accomplish by eye is that moderns are familiar with the way photographs and video depict objects and scenes, and this familiarity cannot but inform how they study and represent their subjects.137.205.183.109 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Art Renewal Center

The Art Renewal Center is a significant organization, and it is a non-profit. I'm going to re-add the bit about it that was deleted, as the ARC has been among the most vocal critics of the Hockney-Falco thesis and the idea that things have gone downhill in art since the Old Masters.--ragesoss 17:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is essentially a poster sales website, behind all the guff, although it may, as it claims, have a non-profit component (but what salaries do the promoters pull down?). It has zero status in academic art historical debate, and should not be included here. What it does have is very high Google page-rank, so its articles and comments come high on Google searches. But you won't find them cited in the academic debate. Its WP article rightly has a notability tag, although I think myself it might be borderline notable. Johnbod 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I think it's unfair to say it's simply a poster sales website, as it has a sizable gallery (the largest online, if its website it to be believed, though Wikimedia Commons is no doubt larger in terms of number of images) with paintings that are generally available at the highest resolution of anywhere online. But I'll defer to your judgment about not mentioning it here.--ragesoss 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it has "…zero status in academic art historical debate…," then it has high, elevated, and lofty status among people who appreciate art. A look at today's artworld will indicate the effect that academics have had on art. As for its articles, "…you won't find them cited in the academic debate." This gives the articles greater value. To say that "…It is essentially a poster sales website…" is subjective, condescending, snobbish, dismissive, exclusive, and patronizing. As much as I disagree with the Art Renewal Center, I believe that they have a right to be mentioned in the article.Lestrade 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

(edit conflict) I think refs are ok, but I just don't think it should be singled out in the text. Nice article, btw. I've linked to it a few times.Johnbod 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Art Renewal Center expresses opinions very similar to those of Adolph Hitler cs about "real art" and "Entartete Kunst". see http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/ASOPA/bad_art_good_art1.asp and other publications Brian K Yoder puts "19th century and realistic art" in his resumé under "hobbies and interests" see http://www.goodart.org/resume.htm Does that make him an "art historian" (see this wikipedia article) His entire article is built around the wrong impression that Hockney should have claimed that all realistic painters from the Renaissance onward were only capable of creating their masterpieces by the use of optical instruments. The Hockney Falco thesis only claims that the aid of optical instruments (might have) dramatically changed the way we look at the 3D world and depict it in 2D. My two cents: remove this reference as well as Mr Yoder's opinion. Try to find references to debates on scientific facts instead. Maggy Rond (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum... --86.135.176.173 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

the skull in The Ambassadors

I'm surprised to see no mention of the weird anamorphic skull in The Ambassadors in this article. When I first saw the painting, I thought it one of the most bizarre works of art I've ever seen, considering the context. It's like something out of surrealism, except it was painted in the 16th century (quite apart from *how* it was produced, the entire idea that this warped and stretched image of a skull could just be inserted into a portrait and the artist not be lynched as a madman is confusing to me, but that's kinda besides the point).

Now I see this Camera Obscura theory as being pretty much nonsense, but the skull in that painting definitely gives me pause for thought as to whether or not optical devices were used by artists in the past... I see another editor mentions the painting above, but not the skull. Has Hockney not ever talked about the skull in the painting at all? --86.135.176.173 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

I would sort out the following sentence, but I can't work out what it should say: "Critics of the Hockney-Falco theory claim that the quality of mirrors, optical glass and for the period before 1550 and a lack of textual evidence (excluding paintings themselves as "documentary evidence") of their use for image projection during this period casts doubt on the theory." Thehalfone (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That got garbled in the recent reorganization of the Criticism section. I think I've straightened it out.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

further explanation

In this article it says that Hockney points to three paintings as evidence to his theory. Could someone with knowledge on the subject clarify if this is just him saying that the pictures are too good, or if there is other evidence that suggests that these paintings are the result of lens' etc? Quoth 31 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Art Historians

Many art historians rebut this theory, but notably the ones that use diagnostic as a tool of identification are prone to agree to this since it's neither anachronistic nor out of character for the named artists. I think another person worth mentioning is Dr.Lapucci for her work on Caravaggio and how she made her publications available on her website http://robertalapucci.com

Her ideas are briefly explained in this article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/4968509/Caravaggio-used-photography-to-create-dramatic-masterpieces.html

In my opinion one of the strongest points in favor of these claims is the multiple direction of the shadows of the objects sitting on the table due in theory to refocusing during different times of the day.

I think it is absolutely worth mentioning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.30.22 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to use the torygraph, but the thesis is neither new nor really revolutionary. Serten II (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Downsizing / Tags

I have cut down the entry to the essentials. The whole dicussion section is a mere hype and pure fringe and as needed as a micro probe analysis of pigments on the Shroud of Turin. You dont need a Walter McCrone to reject it, just have a look in the 1929 Encyclopedia britannica. Serten II (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that this is just "hype", and the cutting down of the article and making the first section "Rejection", looks like pure personal opinion; I've undone it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The theory is widely rebutted http://www.diatrope.com/stork/HockneyTheory.html This needs to be in the lede but lets keep it encyclopedic J8079s (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The hypothesis itself has never been sound, since Hockney didnt invent anything new. Don Ihde is far from being a art historian and as well far from being an amateur, he deaks with early technology and its epistemic background. WMC: You never seem not to read the sources that you delete. The ridicule and as well the characterization as a "hype" is direct from Ihde. J8079s The diatrope link is a private website, no reliable source. Serten II (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) PS.: No place for IPs to threaten anyone. PPS.: The current versions is far from being accurate. Therefore the tags and a section propasal.

The Hockney thesis is that the renaissance advances in art were "primarily the result of optical aids" as is currently written in the lead. No one claims that Hockney discovered the camera obscura. The crucial thing is that it was necessary for the advances, and to my knowledge no one had claimed that before. I do not see any reason for your proposed and reverted changes. Mlewan (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to Schramm, Helmar; Schwarte, Ludger; Lazardzig, Jan (2008). Instruments in Art and Science: On the Architectonics of Cultural Boundaries in the 17th Century. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 383–. ISBN 9783110202403. Retrieved 8 January 2015. I agree that there is hype but we need to present it in an encyclopedic manner J8079s (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, then its about presentation of an important fact. Point is, I dont care much about the science of the hypers and I don't have to. both sides ignored existing studies and old encyclopedic wisdom. The way sourced content is being deleted (instead of improved) in obusive manner ays something about WP as well. Serten II (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Unmove

Moves like this need to be discussed and agreed first. I've undone it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

MOves can be done. If you revert it, it may be discussed. Done and dusted. Serten II (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

New Section

Detail of the Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington) with three crown glass windows behind Mary

Don Ihde ridiculed the "hype" around the hypothesis with reference to Albrecht Dürer, Leonardo da Vinci and his personal copy of the 1929 Encyclopedia Britannica. The latter contains an extensive article on the Camera obscura and mentions Leon Battista Alberti's as first (documented) user of the device as early as 1437. A pinhole camera doesnt need a lense or mirror to fonction and to allow for imaging. There is abundant evidence for widespread use of various technical devices at least in the Renaissance and e.g. in Early Netherlandish painting.

In Jan van Eyck's 1434 painting Arnolfini Portrait a convex mirror of suitable quality is clearly visible in the centre of the painting. Van Eyck also left his signature above this mirror, showing the importance of the tool. The painting as such shows a Crown glass window in the upper left side, a rather expensive luxury at the time. Van Eyck was rather fascinated by glass and its qualities, which was as well of high symbolic importance for his contemporaries.

The foundation for optical instruments in Europe were laid in the Medieveal age. It took till the Renaissance and the early modern time to improve quality and availability of mirrors, lenses and glasses to allow for broader use in art.

But there is and was no much doubt among actual experts in the field that Renaissance in both art and science was embodied through technologies, with the camera obscura being one favorite optical toy.

There are also the glass beads to the left of the mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.205.246 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Critisism

Critisism sections are always signs of bad articles. We have to differentiate between the controversies on the conferences e.g., which take the thesis for serious (and new) and the statements and studies that show that the thesis was neither new no controversial till the ealry 20th century. The current section is not useable. Serten II (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hockney–Falco thesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070220210253/http://www.optics.arizona.edu:80/SSD/FAQ.html to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/FAQ.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090625201014/http://www.optics.arizona.edu:80/SSD/FAQ.html to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/faq.html#Objections

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hockney–Falco thesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625201014/http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/faq.html#Objections to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/faq.html#Objections
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625201014/http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/faq.html#Objections to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/faq.html#Objections

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Update

I have included some information that involve scholarly research, which appears to confirm the theory. I have also added some citations. Let me know if you have questions about the edit. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Differences between editions?

From this article and some of the reviews I've read, I got the impression that the first edition of Secret Knowledge may have been less convincing than the second edition. Many of the more convincing arguments seem to have been ignored by reviewers and by the editors of this page. If they are simply not in the 1st edition, or less strongly expressed.

Just a few elements that seem to be missing or to be expressed rather weakly in our article:

-rather than "elements of realism became increasingly prominent", Hockney stresses how the shift towards naturalism seems too sudden and complete to be the result of artists just starting to pay more attention to how their subjects really look

-"Hockney was largely unable to determine when and how optical aids were used by textual or direct evidence" contradicts the parts of the book about The textual Evidence, including annotated quotes of relevant figures like Roger Bacon and Brunelleschi writing about the need for secrecy, specifically in relation to knowledge of optics, as well as early descriptions of projections (even predating the sudden shift towards the "optical look" around 1430).

-the abundance of left-handed drinkers in paintings that also happen to look more natural when mirrored

-the strong lighting necessary for useful projection corresponds with the "chiaroscura favorited by nauralistic painters

-drawings by Ingres, Holbein and others are chracterised by confident and accurate lines that don't really follow the shapes in the same way that artists sketch when eyeballing their subject, but do resemble the lines of drawings by Andy Warhol known to have been traced from photographic pictures.

Apart from different page numbers in citations, adding such info to the article requires a different approach (perhaps a separate section?) if it wasn't in the 1st edition.

Maybe I'll be able to check the 1st edition sometime, but it'll help if somebody can confirm if the differences between editions really explain why these arguments are missing? Joortje1 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)