Talk:David Hockney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
it is impossible that old master used mirror or lenses to produce their art works it is also a great insult....artists like ingre were tought by david they produced realistic images because they are artists and they have artist eyes.....anyway how the hell can u trace of a mirror when youd have to stand infront of it therefore you would be seeing your own reflection --User:219.88.118.254 06:27, May 31, 2004
- I can only suggest you try to get a copy of Hockney's book and/or the TV programme. He shows that projecting and tracing like this is possible, though whether it was actually done is a different matter, of course. --Camembert
- Hockney's deductive theory satisfies the precept of Occam's Razor much more than pure artistic skill. Furthermore, as Hockney himself asserts, the use of a lens as a tool no more invalidates the role of the artist than does the use of a paintbrush as a tool. "Optics don't make marks." 139.84.48.249 14:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Listen to me you fucking modernist, go to artrenewal.com and read the rebuttal of Hockney's outlandish claims. Hockney is jealous that the old masters could paint so well and he is stuck painting filthy Modernist shit.
-
- "Anyone who paints a blue sky green ought to be sterilyzed." - Adolf Hitler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.172.220 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2006.
- Time to invoke Godwin's Law I think... -- Solipsist 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Anyone who paints a blue sky green ought to be sterilyzed." - Adolf Hitler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.172.220 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2006.
I think a more NPOV about this would be good. It is interesting as an idea regardless of whether it happened (and there are some engravings suggesting that some people did this), and as an issue in the history of technology and art. It probably deserves a seperate article. Justinc 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A good description of the technical side you will find in the article Camera lucida Xauxa 4 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
[edit] Paper Pools?
Would I be right in thinking that David Hockeny was involved in a series of artwroks known as the paper pools?
These were IIRC pictures constructed using colored paper pulp?
See Also : http://www.nga.gov.au/BigAmericans/Detail/Diver.htm
[edit] old masters' techniques
i believe that the statement about the hockney theory satisfying the principle of Occum's razor, that the use of optical devices was commonplace among so called old masters to be a fallacious one. anyone who has experience with academic drawing and painting will realize that such devices aren't necessary, or would be auxiliary. however whether they were used extensively as an aid is really a matter which should rest on historical evidence of an empirical nature. furthermore i propose that the idea that using them is a way of cheating is also fallacious, since the production of realistic painting techniques isn't a proof of an absolutely valued artist's skill. such language ascribes literal measurements of skill through objective comparisons. the purpose and function of the vast majority of art pieces produced within human history was not to simulate visual reality, but rather to fulfill certain aesthetic or philosophic/religious/cultural needs. by and large realism was the focus of oil painting during a certain development of european painting, and was later adopted by academic or ecclectic painters who sought to combine techniques in previous painting instead of exploring new aesthetic territory. most art has been about producing an artifact which performs and reflects a social function and that culture's concepts of what the symbolic artifact means. realism in oil painting began when a particular culture decided the valued quality in art was in how well it imitated visual reality. for most of oil painting this was actually considered genre painting, and the highest value was accorded to grand manner painting of mythological and historical subjects. these were no less detailed but involved often a monumentality or sense of composition that is absent in the more photograph-like rendered still lives or portraits of tromp l'oeil. my inclination would be to point out that perhaps there is a congruency between photography and realistic painting, however if there isn't a lot of evidence for his historical claims, and i'm not a historical literatus in this particular field, he may be dreaming.
perhaps, David could explain how Johan Sebastian Bach achieved the intricate sound textures in his works. Or how Michelangelo worked his statues. Yes, not painting, but related anyway: barroque style is highly intricate and detailed, regardless of the artistic expression. Compare that to the simplicity of classic or the gritty and minimalist modernist approach. What Bach used? mirrors too? They could've used mirrors, yes, but highly skilled artists, even today, have not much trouble looking at a scene and reproducing it to perfection, without extra devices other than eye and hand.
