160 likes | 289 Views
Rebuttal: Both hands are often occupied Counter-examples with right hands used. Annibale Caracci , the Bean Eater, 1580-90. Frans Hals, Jester with a Lute, 1620-25. Hans Memling, Flower Still Life , ca. 1490.
E N D
Rebuttal: Both hands are often occupiedCounter-examples with right hands used AnnibaleCaracci, the Bean Eater, 1580-90 Frans Hals, Jester with a Lute, 1620-25
Hans Memling, Flower Still Life, ca. 1490 Hockney claims there are at least two vanishing points, which would happen if the projection device was refocused. Rebuttal: actually, in examples like this there are often many vanishing points in the pattern – it’s very inconsistent, showing the artist “eyeballed” it.
Optical “errors” that get included: body distortions (projecting the head, doing the body separately) Van Dyck, A Genoese Nobelwoman and her Son, 1626 Parmigianino, Portrait of a Young Lady, 1524-7
Optical errors that get included: stretchingJan van Bijlert, Man in Armor Holding a Pike, ca. 1630 Real painting is on the left, stretched out image on the right. Does the right look more natural? Could the “smushing” seen in the real painting be due to optics?
Visual evidence for optical technologyJan van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait, 1434 Just reverse the silvering on a convex mirror like this one, and you can make a concave mirror projection system! • Rebuttal (David G. Stork, published in Scientific American, Dec 2004): • No historical documentation of such mirrors. Not as simple as reversing a convex mirror. • Calculated focal length of 61 cm for a portrait like this – would require a sphere of 2.4 meters! • Concave mirrors have poor light-gathering powers, but this is dim indoor lighting.
Visual evidence for optical technologyJan van Eyck, Virgin with the Canon Van derPaele, 1434 • Lenses, mirrors, camera obscura, camera lucida – all known and written about at the time. • Hockney and supporters claim their historical evidence proves artists had access to these instruments and used them. • Still, many claim the documentation doesn’t exist (or isn’t strong enough) that artists used these instruments. • Why wouldn’t it be written about? • Why would people sitting for portraits not write about the artist using optical devices? • Does the technology existing prove it was used in this way?
Photographs of artists studios that don’t show any optical devices
Contemporary artists achieve similar results without the use of optical devices Timothy Tyler, Persimmons and Figs, 2002 Anthony J. Ryder, Twilight, 1998
What about sculpture?Can’t use optical projections, but see same trend in realism Anonymous French artist, Virgin and Child, c. 1250 Bernini, Apollo and Daphne, 1622-1625 Donatello, David, ca. 1440
What about self-portraits?(Brian K. Yoder argues you can’t project yourself to trace) Van Dyck, self portrait, after 1633 Artemisia Gentileschi, Self Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, 1630s
Are other advances (anatomy, perspective, mathematics) enough to explain the leap in realism that occurred from the Renaissance on? Da Vinci, Studies of a Human Shoulder and Arm, c. 1510 (left) and linear perspective study for Adoration of the Magi, c. 1481
Does every artist that paints “optically” have to use optical devices?Did seeing projected images cause a “paradigm shift” in the way 3D objects were translated to 2D? Did the way optical projections look lead to a style change, without using the optics at every instance? Caravaggio, The Cardsharps, ca. 1594
Joseph Wright of Derby, Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump, 1769