Talk:David Hockney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.


{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

To-do list for David Hockney: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Info on Peter Schlesinger; influence on 20th century art
  • Expand: Film section
  • Other: Start developing references and citations in all sections
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

it is 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)
The irony of this trollish post, of course, is that David Hockney himself has often questioned his relationship to Modernism and modern art. I read the website s/he recommended, and I must say it's kind of disturbing how anti-modern an intolerant some people can be. Ghamming 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add to questioning the validity of quoting artrenewal.com as the article in question makes out that Hockney is jealous because he can't draw, which invalidates the argument almost straight away. Sfgreenwood 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Contents

[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

Yep, that's right. Julia Rossi 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[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.

[edit] This article is not up to wiki standards, it reads like an essay written by a schoolkid and furthermore seems to be signed in such a manner

Also, I am not sure if individual paintings should get entire articles. Flying Hamster 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends, I think, on the painting. See Guernica as opposed to The Matador. Amphytrite 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig of RA

Can anyone find a definition for the RA mentioned after Hockney's name? The placing leads me to believe it's short for that Royal Artillery, but I can't be certain. Amphytrite 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be Royal Academician, a member of the Royal Academy, also known as the Royal Academy of Arts because military service doesn't seem to be in Hockney's history. Julia Rossi 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Amphytrite 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
He was a conscientious objector to mandatory military service in England. He spent two years between his Bradford Art School days and his Royal College art school days working in healthcare. This might have been resolved already, I dunno. Ghamming 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki cleanup

Yes, I did it. It's a good project and I wanted to clean it up to save its little hide. I also removed some of the weasel-ish words and some sweeping statements though I could see it was written with love and enthusiasm which is greattttttt, so didn't wanna be too heavy handed there. You might like to expand about the Pools which was a californianising of Hockney or Hockney's song of praise to Cal - I guess it applies either way. The context is that he was freer to express his lifestyle in LA and he came from cloudy ole England. His experimentation in art history circles is considered a post-modern exercise in working across disciplines and he championed printmaking, simply by churning them out and using whatever, which is normally seen (in an elitist way) as poor cousin to painting. He's quite egalitarian really. Continue having fun, Julia Rossi 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oils?

a PS - about oils being his preferred medium, I saw a documentary showing Hockney's assistant madly spraying water across a huge canvas to prevent the acrylic paint from drying out. These paintings were large and very flat in rendering. Did he switch to acrylics, and if so, when? Julia Rossi 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ThanksStokes.thomas 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He switched to acrylic when he moved to LA in 1964, I know that much. He liked the quality and range of colors of American acrylics much better than he did English acrylic. I don't know as much about his work post-1974 or so, though I'd be happy to research it once the copyright issues are resolved. I can cite sources on the acrylic thing, too. Ghamming 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violations

Most of this article is taken from the David Hockney biography at http://www.davidhockney.com/bio.shtml -- it is paraphrased to some extend, but very clearly plagiarized. I don't know what steps to take to mark this article as a copyvio; will someone with more knowledge on the matter help me out? CDrecche 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks as though the copyright violation was added around 21 January 2007 by an anonymous editor. Reverting to versions prior to that would seem to be safe. DCB4W 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Done, nice detective work DCB :) --Cactus.man ✍ 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought versions prior (as in closer to the pinched original) would be more likely copy vio. Turned out that's what the article starter did before running out of time to mutate it. That's why when I tackled it, I tried to paraphrase. Since then it's looking quite different.Julia Rossi 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citations

where is the proof that the clark/percy painting is one of the most popular at the tate? that statement is kind of out of place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.231.144 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Hockney?

Can anyone find an appropriate picture of David Hockney for this article? It seems necessary, especially because of his distinctive appearance (blonde hair, thick black glasses), i.e. the Hockney look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graymornings (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's done with (concave) mirrors

Hockney did not provide a clear explanation of the use of mirrors. He didn't sufficiently emphasize that the mirrors that were used were concave mirrors, not flat mirrors. If you stand in front of a window and point a concave mirror at the window, the image of the objects that are outside the window will be projected onto the wall in front of you. This projection is upside down, but otherwise it is a true image of the objects. The artists duplicated this phenomenon by placing objects inside of a windowed space and projecting them onto a canvas for tracing by using a concave mirror.Lestrade (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I have to laugh at humanity. Here's a man who hands everyone an obviously true explanation of a phenomenon and many people reject it because they don't understand. People would rather have mysteries and paradoxes than clear explanations.Lestrade (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] vandalism

someone thought funny to add "this website sucks!" in the early years part. I removed it.Gigakight (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"He also had the audacity to say he hoped this was the end for new labour, therefore showing public support for the Conservatives even though not voting makes his political opinion less valid." Removed for want of NPOV. 71.233.245.97 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)