David Hockney, The Lost Secrets of the Old Masters: camera lucida obscura 

I remember my art teacher told me that it doesn't matter how you make art so long as you make it.

I come from a family of artists. I was taught to use one, when I was perhaps 5 or 6ish. But it was used as a tool to teach me true perspective. The device I was taught with was 100s of years old. I think u can become reliant on such tools, but the muscle and eye memory, and hand eye coordination that can be attained is incredible. It is through simple repetition, or the action of transferring a real image, that certain skills can be developed. I was not permitted to use it after a few years and many lessons. I can draw anything in front of me, as a result of using a camera lucida when I was a child. Don't knock it til u try it.

I'll give him this, I never noticed how many 'left-handed' people feature in old master paintings before.

A lightbulb went off for me after reading DH's book. At the center of his thesis is a great observation. It is so obvious it can't be unseen. Its obscurity is no doubt due to it being treated as a trade secret.

excellent point made by mr. hockney, everyone wants to believe there was magic. illustrators have used these methods all along.

The word left out of this conversation is "ego." Artists don't usually like to admit they had help. It diminishes their reputation or their "genius." When European artists went back to using their eye only - in the late 19th Century - Impressionism and Expressionism were born. Photographically real paintings came back in vogue in the 1970s when artists like Chuck Close embraced the use of photography in their paintings.

with the advent of Tim 's Vermeer who has absolutely proved the use of mirrors and lens to create Vermeers master works

He's a tad awkward, but hugely intelligent and keen to enlighten others to what he can understand as being fairly simple ideas. A modern day genius.

In Van Eyks painting, has anyone noticed that the Dog is not reflected, obviously added at a later date. I'd welcome comments on this.

Hockney is very likeable. Some of his paintings are fantastic.

Просто потрясающе. Гениальное открытие доктора Хокни!!! Где взять этот прибор?????

thank you so much for this video

Even Vonnegut eluded to the classical painting style of having mirrors in paintings, ref. Bluebeard

An interesting theory. I find it fascinating, especially the evolution of two dimensional to three dimensional imagery. I can understand Hockney's premise, as the leap from 11th century art to that of the 16th century is profound. The use of optics and mirrors?

Cant believe how angry some of you are. Given the tools available today for touch ups, photos being enhanced, projectors etc.. Nothing is that real at any stage... Let alone the sketch stage... And sketch is the easy bit... Its harder to put the paints on the canvas realistically.

Charlie rose looked so bored in this interview LOL! He just wanted to make a debate and couldn't get any satisfaction as Hockney is so decent and likeable. The conversation should've expanded on his works and other topics. Rose made it look so dull which was not fair for David

to pick up a brush and cover that brush with color oil, and brush a canvas is frightning and joy, how can that be any more like life.

For all you people dissing Hockney as some terrible artist, his drawing skills are astonishing. Plus, his output is also the same. I recommend you see his traveling show, which as of jan 2014 is in San Francisco. It's unreal, and none of it is L.A. imagery. Ok. When I look at Jan Van Eyck's astonishing work, and Hockney's examples, I have no doubt that the camera obscura was used to facilitate the work. What I want the discussion to delve into, is when did the technique stop being used in a painting, for instance,when one is working on highlights or silk or armor, after the sketching is finished, show how they were able to get correct colors and chroma while working in the obscura, or when they would periodically light a candle in the box to see how their work was coming along. It wasn't just for sketching the figures, the obscura showed everything on the canvas. Then what happens when you start painting over the image, especially in those conditions? But please...look at Hockneys portraits and landscape drawing. He's extremely skilled.

Lightening strikes on beachs were the first raw examples of glass, check it out on where did glass come from which was eventually developed into eyeglasses....👍

As well, i believe the camera lucida is older than we think

In terms of the blurred or out of focus areas that were painted as such, you have to wonder...well, at some point the painting is worked on outside the camera obscura. Then if something was out of focus in the sketch on the canvas, of even some painted areas, it would be very simple to touch it up, especially with the skillsets of the artist and assistants of that time.

wow I can not believe how acidic some comments are.. If you watched the whole doc he says the artits technique is there his hand is the camera is in it,,.. and also that he prefers the realness of 2 eyes in a drawing or painting..He notes that people started to rebel against the photo look by not using optic techniques ...makes sense if you dont have an ego about HOW it was achieved.. He isnt shitting on anyone but simply making an obserrvation..which may or may not be correct..personally i think it a waste of time for ME to labor over measurements I KNOW i can make when I could just trace them and flourish the painting in my own style w 2 eyes..NOW in the present state of technology its a tool IF you want to create realistic proportions...Or for the sake of genuine perspective..Photoshop does thast shit for u.. In my opinion its all art if passion is applied to it..and the negative thinkers are just cunts. and not worth a fart

Hockney is 100 per cent correct. Artists did use lens and mirrors. Still do.

The most interesting and provocative thing David Hockney said was at the end with regard to how works are being made today, but unfortunately, Charlie let that hang.

Enlightening

Why is the audio so low?

Did he lose his train of thought at 14:08? The interviewer looked utterly depressed for a few seconds... Almost like he was rethinking his life choices.

Ah so nice to see someone casually smoking a cigarette during an interview. And the interviewer is sooo hungover.. Makes me all nostalgic.

What's the name of the interviewer?

I strongly believe Piranese used this technique for his graphics.

Why should the technical aspects of how art is created diminish the actual art itself? So what if some of these masters used these techniques, does it make their art any less beautiful or worthwhile?

Is there also chromatic abberation noticeable in Vermeer? Because lenses were not perfect like now and should have produced for instance blue fringes around white objects?

Old masters' students helped by preparing the very large canvases & an artist like RUBENS FINISH THE PAINTINGS WITH LAST TOUCHES. The old masters used projectors also.

he is so right so before time.....if you see the documentary Tims Vermeer.

Lol when the interviewer said ahh there you come

"David Hockney: Author" Did the production crew not know who David Hockey is??

Mr. Hockney

It is often said that there are no stupid questions, but there are exceptions.

Charlie, cigarettes, good old days

NO usable Volume on iPad!

C. Rose is such a lightweight...no wonder he got sacked, This is a major revelation of technique preceding the film camera (oscura). And we get fake 'controversy' so-called questions!

craftsmen were secretive. and still are.

Lots more about David Hockney here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y3tEkZPqMTA.html

1609 Galileo first used his telescope could lens technology have been used for camera lucida...

Of course it lessens the master’s skills. But that's like saying taking a drop of water from the ocean lessens the ocean. I think a lot of the debate around this is from ‘experts’ who have been caught out without knowing how some paintings were done. Imagine finding out that what you thought was truth all along was wrong…

Charlie Rose is too dense for this conversation.

The interviewer did not ask deep questions about this magician's life work.

Wow. So people have been using these things for years. I knew Van Leeuwenhoek was a friend and Vermeers executor to his will but not that he was his neighbor!

I don't believe Michelangelo constructed a camera obscura in the Sistine Chapel when he painted the ceiling. lol It's obvious that Vermeer used one but to theorize that as many did as Hockney does, is a bit of a reach in my opinion.

Probabaly possible camera lucida obscura came from discovery of the telescope ?😃

David Hockney's own artistry is totally irrelevant to to the scientific reasoning here and in his excellent BBC programme The Lost Secretes of the Old Masters. So there is no need to comment on his merits in that department. It's just blatantly obvious that he is 100% correct, even when it comes to details such as the transition from concave mirrors, to glass lenses, to combining a glass sense with a flat mirror to correct for mirror imaging. The fact that optical imaging today is a commodity that would be seen as taking away from artistry has no bearing on how the technology would have been used in the pre-photographic era. The secrecy surrounding it, at the time, would have been a matter of guarding a treasure trove (exactly like guarding any corporate secrets today), not due to embarrassment due to using optics. It would just have been another tool used in their profession.

Its obvious if yoi cant draw free hand you use some device to help you copy your subject. Look at photo shop today.

x

I don't believe it does. Comic book artists know how to draw. They've mastered the art of illustration, and they've learned anatomy and gesture, but they still use tons of references and digital tools to help speed up their work process. I believe it's important to learn the rules first, then you can break them, twist them, or do whatever you need to get the desired result.

:-D of course it changes how we evaluate the talent of some of those old masters. come on let us be honest.

This went on for 400 years and nobody wrote it down or talked about it? Very clever conspiracy.

Optics is the secret knowledge of Freemasonry.

I kind of believe this guy if all the scientific points are fact... But it doesn't mean the masters aren't masters...They still lay that paint down. Also I wonder how they are able to paint those upside down projections? lol

There are quite a few holes in Hockney’s theory but that wouldn’t stop him from being so enamored with himself.

As a drawing instructor with over 30 years experience, I'd like to make a few observations, minus the rancor of some of the other comments.1. If, as the Wikipedia article states, Hockney's claim is that the " level of accuracy represented in their work is impossible to create by 'eyeballing it' ", I couldn't disagree more. Plenty of the students at the school where I taught could produce "master quality" drawing using simple measuring techniques.2. Much of this theory is not new. My 1969 Time-Life Vermeer book includes a whole section on his use of the Camera Obscura. It shows how the out-of-focus nature of the highlights in many of Vermeer's paintings are evidence of this. 3. I believe there may be some truth to the claim that Caravaggio used it, due to the "snapshot" quality of his compositions. It has always struck me that the cropping of figures in Caravaggio's paintings seemed to be a new development compared to contemporary and earlier works.4. It is clear that Hockney loves these master works. Sadly, it is also clear from a survey of his drawings, that Hockney's own drawing ability is severely stunted. The drawings I have seen would have been lucky to have earned a D grade in my Freshman drawing classes. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that his theory would be a boost to Hockney's own self-esteem.5. People have cited Ingres' drawings as evidence to his use of the device, because of the economy of line. The sketch for his painting of the Comtesse d'Haussonville clearly shows a gestural approach that belies tracing a projected image.6. As a student in my Art History class recently asked, "what about sculpture"? It seems silly to me to think that artists need a tracing machine to draw "realistically", but that sculptors could make a convincing, lifelike image with a chisel.7. I have used photo references in my own work as a matter of convenience, eg. painting a bird in flight. But I always prefer drawing from life when possible. You can see and understand so much more than when using a photo. And the convenience of the sitter argument doesn't hold up. A trained artist can produce a detailed portrait drawing in less than an hour.8. Setting up or lugging around this device would be inconvenient when it would be so much easier just to grab a piece of charcoal and draw the subject.Just a few thoughts

19:00 Caravaggio was his neighboor??? Lol

Isn't it tedious when what is patently obvious is coerced into a contradictory discussion just to use up the time allocated for the interview ? It is not clever is it ? It is just boring and irritating, frankly.

The only secret is that hockney was ignorant of the history of camera obscura. Academics werent but of course hes not an academic just an overrated hack.

Sorry but... I disagree! This is copy and color! Cheaters!!!

Just because Hockney uses photographic devices himself, he tries to exlain away (and thus belittle) the skills of the great masters, which depended upon years of training, knowledge of anatomy and considerble natural aptitude. He cites the candelabra in Arnolfini's wedding - geometrical forms are the easiest things to draw, humans the hardest. Look at the figures, where Van eyck could have done with a bit of help. The curious proportions, stylisation of the hands etc depend upon fashion of the time rather than any posible mechanical aid. The only artist who might fit his case is Vermeer. Look at any other painter before the invention of photography and one sees the factor of distortion. The Italian Renaissance was lead by sculptors reviving Greek ideals. Even models were disdained. How could Tintoretto paint a plunging angel - hang a model from the ceiling? And the flying draperies? El Greco extracted images from another world. In the perspective of lanscapes, roof-lines remained strictly horizontal until photographs told us (very obviously) otherwise. The literal mind set that had to depend on a lens to draw a landscape would be totally confused in trying to remove some of the perspective, nor could he cope with the shadows following the movement of the sun. With a single photo we dont have this problem, but one does see wierd things, like a meticulous portrait with the grey halo that resulted from a flash.

Hockney is an amazing colorist and great set designer, however a mediocre illustrator and a less than competent painter. His camera obscure obsession has been disproven time and time again by real art scholars globally. Yes I've seen his SF show and it reaffirmed my opinion of his work.

hahahahaha....Have to laugh at Hockney. Just cos you can't draw like the old masters then of course they THEY must have used mirrors and magic tools....hahahahaha.

this clown is the worst person on the planet to talk about this complex subject, we need someone who knows the craft of drawing asa minimum requirement to make a serious investigation. Was the camera used for drawing only, just for general composition or also for painting or not at all ?

His art is awful. The reason he insists that there's a trick is because he can't admit to himself that he lacks talent.

They are secretative because they know it's cheating. One either knows how to draw or one does not know how to draw. If one does not know how to draw one is not an artist.

Try and drag all the real painters down to your student level hock the hack