Old Masters cheated

[fugitive]

Anyone see 60 minutes last Sunday? They had a guy, with a theory that a lot of the old masters used optical devices to project images on canvas, so they could trace it. Here is an url
The earliest evidence of the use of optics that Hockney and Falco have discovered is in a 1431 sketch and portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati by the Flemish artist Jan van Eyck. The subject's facial features are perfectly rendered. And although the finished painting is 41 percent larger than the sketch, when the latter is enlarged and laid over the painting, many key features line up exactly: forehead, right cheek, nose, mouth, eyes, and even laughter lines. Falco insists that to have scaled up the sketch so precisely, Van Eyck must have used an optical aid.

I did some personel research on this, and indeed, it looks like mirrors and lenes were used. That's ok, I use devices in my digital work.
Greg







http://www.discover.com/dec_01/featreviews.html

[G.L. Hoff]

I know you wrote this to provoke discussion, but really, "cheating?" I do it all the time...

I prefer to say, as you did, that using all means at one's disposal to produce art is hardly cheating.

David Hockney, a very well-known British painter whose book about the subject, provoked a lot of people to state just that, that past masters "cheated." These uninformed folks somehow believe that because some masters (Vermeer, eg) used optical equipment, they weren't the masters they've been held to be. Seems to me that many people miss the boat here and forget that art is more than reproducing an image--color choices, lighting choices, choice of the landscape or objects in the still life, among dozens more are what make a painting "art."

Painters in the past have used camera obscura and camera lucida to capture images for reproduction. Some may have used projection mirrors. Illustration books exist that contain all kinds of poses and subjects for use in producing commercial illustrations. Even squaring up a small drawing to magnify on canvas could be construed as cheating.

I can hear the middlebrow art lovers now: "What? You didn't draw everything 'freehand?' You used a camera to record the sitter rather than painting the portrait from life?? The horror, the horror!" (Better to call it "the nonsense, the nonsense!")

Sorry for ranting.

[fugitive]

I still see folks saying that from a photo isn't as good as from life, or digital layer tracing, which I do, is not art. I sometimes feel guilty for taking advantage of all my digital tools, but how can one not? They are there, I don't have to mix colors, or worry about which canvas to use, but it doesn't mean that I care any less about what I create.
Re: Cheat, I only used that word to get the readers attention.
But, no matter what you and I think, I do think it will/can change the way people think about classic art, and since this is my first start in this forum, I hope it spawns a lively discussion.
Greg

[DanaT]

Hockney's book is very interesting. Were optical devices used? Probably. Do they account for the accuracy of all the great art of the Old Masters? Not a chance.

Raphael used the rearing horse a lot in his work; one drawing was reprinted in Hale's "Drawing Lessons from the Old Masters".

Hale writes a saucy caption under the drawing, "Now do you really believe, Raphael convinced a man to mount this horse, make it rear, AND make it hold its stance for 30 minutes or so? Hardly."

Before the camera, the artist still had the technical problem of keeping the subject still. Even the presence of optical devices wouldn't have solved that problem for some subject matter.

[anthony mauve]

Only a dummy would tie one hand behind the back when working-- but they're out there, we've all met them. What these folks never seen to get is that nearly every artist in old Janson's history of art was a radical! Ahead of his/her time, using every means of production at their disposal--and ho hummed and worse by the academy for doing it. The names change but the story's the same.

Now for a little name-dropping on my part. Back in the late 70's I studied drawing at the Art Student's League with none other than Robert Beverly Hale--he was great. Very alive and filled with insight. Here's one of his tips--but maybe you can help me out--I don't know if I have it the right way or backwards. His tip for drawing an animal, for example a horse, was; "think horse but drawn a man"--OR--"think man but draw a horse". Either way it works, I think.

regards,
anthony

[DanaT]

Anthony,

I've heard stories about Hale. My drawing teacher, Michael Burban, was one of his students. My favorite expression Mr. Burban quoted was, "A badly drawn eye in the RIGHT place is ALWAYS superior to a perfectly drawn eye in the WRONG place."

The horse story I haven't heard but it probably has to do with comparative anatomy. There's an impressive photo by Anne Lebowitz of Arnold Schwarzenegger on a horse. During a TV special, she gave an impromptu comparative anatomy speech. "Here is Arnold's thigh, and here is the horse's thigh." It had me rolling on the floor.

[fugitive]

I went searcing for Anne and Google doesn't have jack.
Something must be wrong here, the spelling or name.

[WI_plain_aire_paintr]

Her name is Anne Liebowitz.
She is a well known photographer.

Dennis

[Keith Russell]

Greetings:

This discussion has taken place at Wet Canvas before.

Hockney is saying nothing new. (Some people, perhaps including Hockney himself, are simply--recently--hearing it for the first time.)

I first heard about the use of optics in 'Old Master' paintings in the early 80s in college, when I was taking commercial art classes, and we were discussing methods for reproducing artworks.

Hockney's name was never mentioned.

Keith.

[artcreator]

I am a purist by no means, if something can contribute to your creative process, that's fine by me as long as the work rings true and resonates within the viewer. I personally have never used drawing aids but I wouldn't scoff at the idea of it. I would love to be able to blow up some of my drawings that I do freehand and have the projected to a canvas. I wouldn't even think of taking something someone else produced (i.e a magazine photo), project it, color in the lines and call it mine though. I recently began importing images that I have drawn into my computer and placing the elements together on a larger scale to mimic what I want a piece to look like, but there is no gaurantee that anything will turn out just the way I picture it...lol.

[Keith Russell]

artcreator said:
"I would love to be able to blow up some of my drawings that I do freehand and have the(m) projected to a canvas."

This is the way I worked for years, and I occasionally still do this.

But, more and more, I'm doing freehand drawings directly onto the illustration board surface.

But, you ought to get an Art-O-Graph, and start enlarging your own drawings. Saves time, helps with proportion, etc.

Keith.

[Cap-G]

Hi,
Art, like language, is progressive. It evolves. If it didn't, we would still be spitting yellow ochre onto hands placed against cave walls. So each generation finds new ways of expressing itself artistically. We use computers, our grandparents used cameras and their grandparents used whatever was on hand at that time. If Titians apprentices made thousands of pin pricks around the sketched lines of his up-coming painting, then rubbed chalk dust into the holes for an outline he could work from...does that make him any less the master he was? Jan van Eyck probably used whatever helped him achieve his goal, as most artists still do.
I used projected images for portrait work in college and the results were still quite lame. So as G.L.Hoff mentioned previously, "art is more than reproducing an image...."

[Jetsam]

Cap-G, I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Keith Russell]

Cap G said:
"Art, like language, is progressive. It evolves. If it didn't, we would still be spitting yellow ochre onto hands placed against cave walls. So each generation finds new ways of expressing itself artistically. We use computers, our grandparents used cameras and their grandparents used whatever was on hand at that time."

We use computers?

Not for my art, I don't.

Keith.

[vklum]

Keith, you have quite the way of turning a thread into an online version of a Panto :)

As to the use of photos, projectors, etc. as aids, I'm just starting out in oil painting. It's something I had always wanted to try, but didn't feel like I was worthy enough to enter this part of the art world because my drawing skills are sorely lacking. My first paintings have been done using photos (mine...I'm also a photographer) and I'm using a projector for now, until I've got a bit more experience and confidence in my drawing ability (I'm just getting started in "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain").

I've seen a couple of threads where some WC'ers imply that paintings done from photographs or using projectors, somehow aren't "real," which I thought was a rather snotty attitude (and I wondered if those people would actually dare to say that to an artist if they were standing next to them, instead of tucked away in cyber-space). There were other, slightly more tolerant people who said that it's okay to use such devices/photos, but the artist should admit to having used them.

I guess I just can't wrap my mind around why that is so important. I mean, I look at a painting, and either I like it or I don't. I don't give a monkey's whether someone painted from a photograph (as long as they did it legally, of course) or projected the image onto their canvas. Maybe I'm just too green and once I have a more "sophisticated" appreciation for art, those things will matter. Though I have friends whom I consider to be very art-savvy and they feel the same way I do. None of us are going to snort at a painting just because someone "cheated," any more than we'd appreciate a Master's work because s/he painted from Real Life.

OTOH, I could be overly-sensitive because it's 4:15am and I haven't been able to get to sleep yet. Think I'll change out of my PJ's and into my Cranky Pants...

[fugitive]

In my art, I try to make digital look like easel painting, because that's my roots. I feel guilty using photos to trace outlines, but I do it because the screen is too small to do it side by side. I suppose this is cheating too. But I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't mean the work comes easy because of it. Some pieces take weeks, and some a few hours. I was taken aback when I first discovered this about the masters, and I'm sure we don't know the half of it, but I also think, the proof is in the pudding.

[Keith Russell]

vklum:

What's a Panto?

Keith.

[JeffG]

Panto = Pantograph = a drawing device that makes a larger copy of an original.

Wheee, give this one a try! (http://www.ies.co.jp/math/java/geo/panta/panta.html)

Not that I want to get into this argument, but I have to say, Vklum, that was a witty metaphor :D

[vklum]

Actually, I was going for panto=='pantomime' but the British definition of it (as opposed to the 'mimes' we see performing on street corners). Basically, it's a staged show with, how should I put this...sanctioned heckling from the audience. It's all done in the name of fun, mostly. ;) Basically, whatever the actors on stage say, the audience has a retort (or 'useful' information for the stage actors).

That's all I meant...

[JeffG]

LOL: here I thought it was a clever reference to "making a topic larger than it should be", or "blowing something out of proportion" but replacing "mountain out of a molehill" with something more fitting the drawing aids topic.

I crack me up. :D:p :clap:

[vklum]

Hey Jeff, your interpretation works too... :)

[Keith Russell]

Greetings:

That's me; forcing a change of perspective...

Keith.

[coolartsybabe]

I think David Hockney went through the trouble of writing his book to justify his tracing images before painting them. And if Da Vinci and David Hockeny both just traced their images onto the canvas, why is Da Vinci's tracing so much better than Hockney's? In my opinion, David Hockney needs a new hat.

[Keith Russell]

cool:

I agree.

Keith.

[NHyde]

What's all the fuss? There have been many techniques used to transfer designs from one place to another over the centuries: camera obscura, spolvero (or pouncing), etc. What of it?

[fugitive]

So you have no problem with tracing?

[Keith Russell]

Fugitive:

Doesn't that depend on what one is tracing?

If I trace (or enlarge) one of my own small drawings, in order to properly place it on a larger surface for painting--

--where's the problem?

Keith.

[ksfarmer]

A perenially interesting discussion ...

Of course, artists have always used whatever tools are readily available to accomplish what is necessary. Projecting an image you've drawn in order to enlarge it accurately is old hat. And there are classic illustrations of the camera lucida or camera obscura being used.

On a really large scale, does anybody want to paint a huge mural on the side of a building without gridding it out first?
:)

[Van Rijssel]

In his early years of painting and drawing, van Gogh used a perspective frame to assist his work. It was a rectangular metal frame, attactched to a long, sharp pole that he would stick in the ground. The frame had 4 'wires' on it, one that ran lengthwise, one vertical, and 2 diagonal. I am pretty sure that he abandoned using it in his later, more productive years (1886/7-1890), once he got a feel for perpective by his own means and not needing a tool anymore to assist him.

[CT]

I don't think that the means of applying an image matter a whit, unless one is still in the "schoolboy stage" of worry about who can draw and who can't. The only thing that matters in any art medium is whether one is making a meaningful, unique and effective statement.

Whether an artist using some sort of a mechanical device, from the camera obscura to the modern digital computer program is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the end result. I have seen work by many fine draftsmen and designers that left everyone cold and unimpressed. Technical virtuosity in drawing is not a prerequisite to achieving a good painting.

Frankly, I love to draw, so I suppose I am tooting the other guy's horn here, but in all honesty, I have seen countless works where the "art" surpasses the "technique" and the result was a fine painting.

[skr]

Hi to all who are thinking this topic through.

I disagree with Hockney's thesis. It is, however, a topic that requires more than a friendly note here to discuss. I wrote an article responding to Hockney's book and posted it at my website. You can find it and another article that disagrees with Hockney here:

www.kirkrichards.com/articles.htm

Best to you all.

Kirk

[artmom]

Kirk, thanks for the link! Very interesting article.

BTW, your art is outstanding! It has the richness of an old Master, but a crisp, contemporary fee. I don't believe I really have a sufficient art vocabulary to state my delight when viewing even these small images of your work--it must be awe-some (and I use an oldfashioned definition of this word) to view the works in real life.

I expect I will visit your site over and over again for joy and inspiration. I used to work in oil, but am now just beginning to work in watercolor, due to various and sundry physical phenomena.

Lyn

[skr]

Thanks Lyn,

I greatle appreciate your note. Please visit often.

Kirk

[fugitive]

I'm still interested in this subject, and tonite found something else on it.

Traces of Genius
Is art sullied by technology?
By Charles Paul Freund


Thomas Eakins (1844-1916) has long been regarded as the outstanding American painter of the 19th century; his dramatically lit portraits have even given him a reputation as the American Rembrandt. So in the 1990s, when researchers started surmising that Eakins had sometimes made use of photographic images, there was a sense of foreboding among art historians. Two years ago, when ever-closer examination of Eakins’ paintings made it undeniable that he actually "traced" photographic images projected onto his canvases, there was disbelief. One Eakins scholar, on hearing the evidence, literally put his hands over his ears. Our Rembrandt...a tracer?
But wait: Rembrandt -- the Dutch one -- may have done some tracing himself. The true link between technology and art, regarded in modern times as something shameful, is becoming increasingly apparent, and the evidence suggests that artists’ dependence on machines has been not only extensive but long-lived, going back centuries.
A major Eakins show -- the first in two decades -- is spending the summer at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (it moved there from Philadelphia), and scores of the recently discovered photographs that Eakins used in creating his paintings are on display with the canvases. Eakins would not have liked this; he was reticent about his use of photography, and his wife was downright misleading when she spoke of her husband’s attitude toward photos. In the end, however, what Eakins did with the photos was a laborious version of what many digital artists are doing today. Eakins didn’t merely create painted versions of photographs. Using a "magic lantern" to project a series of disparate images on a single canvas, he made composites. The final painterly conception is entirely his own, and is apparently what drove his creation of the photos in the first place.
For example, Eakins’ 1880 work, The Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand (view here), was famous for its accurate portrayal of horses in motion, based on Eakins’ photo studies; now it turns out that the coach’s passengers are based on a photo, too.
Until the Eakins story broke, most of the controversy over the use of technology in painting centered around the 17th-century Dutch artist Jan Vermeer. There has long been speculation that Vermeer made use of a camera obscura, an enclosed device that allowed a detailed image of the world to be projected through a lens onto an inner wall.
Vermeer is today a blockbuster artist, inspiring not merely big shows but even popular novels (e.g., Girl With a Pearl Earring). Yet for long after his death he remained obscure. In fact, his "rediscovery" coincides with the rise of photography. As the British art academic Philip Steadman argues in last year’s elegant study Vermeer’s Camera, that was no accident. Steadman demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Vermeer’s world is not one we see with our eyes but one we see through a lens. Indeed, a major Vermeer show last year in New York devoted a room to the optical devices to which Vermeer and other 17th-century painters had recourse.
When might painters have started using optical devices to aid them in their work? Leonardo Da Vinci was familiar with the camera obscura; in the 15th century, the architect Filipo Brunelleschi pioneered vanishing-point perspective, while Jan van Eyck clearly understood mirrors and lenses and almost certainly used them.
I left off the part about Hockney as everyone has no doubt heard that.
Here's the url for this
http://reason.com/0208/cr.cf.traces.shtml

[Luis Guerreiro]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Greetings:
This discussion has taken place at Wet Canvas before.
Hockney is saying nothing new. (Some people, perhaps including Hockney himself, are simply--recently--hearing it for the first time.)
I first heard about the use of optics in 'Old Master' paintings in the early 80s in college, when I was taking commercial art classes, and we were discussing methods for reproducing artworks.
Hockney's name was never mentioned.
Keith.

Keith,

Have you read Hockney's book?

Hockney's achievement is to put together 500 years of paintings and do "COMPARED ANALYSIS" across the range.

Now... That is bloody new! The comments you mentioned from the 80's at College are nothing but "hear-say". Your teachers did not sit down and analyse 500 years of painting. Hockney did.

The funny thing is that we take optics today as granted, so people believe that using thenm in painting is "cheating". Well, 500 years ago, optics were CUTTING EDGE, so artists using them were bloody ROCKET SCIENTISTS and seen as such.

There is little one can do about common stupidity and ignorance. Let those talk about cheating alone. They won't go down in History for that surely.

Luis

[Luis Guerreiro]

Originally posted by coolartsybabe
I think David Hockney went through the trouble of writing his book to justify his tracing images before painting them. And if Da Vinci and David Hockeny both just traced their images onto the canvas, why is Da Vinci's tracing so much better than Hockney's? In my opinion, David Hockney needs a new hat.

Really?!

Let me tell you something! Hockney is well beyond the little thinking of which you have just produced a fine example. Hockney doesn't need to prove anything. Is this clear enough to you?

Hockney produce excellent paintings, regardless of tracing or not. Spare me the sillyness of your comment please. Your comment shows you do not know Hockney at all. Don't comment on what you do not know. Thanks

Luis

PS: Also comparing Da Vinci with Hockney is blatantly idiotic. It is not possible to do such thing. Hockney doesn't trace in view to obtain photo-realistic pictures. He does it in his book to illustrate the process. Any tracing procedure in comtemporary painting has to do more with a rough approach, a modern look, etc... Not exactly a perfect match. You should know this by now mate, sorry for being harsh, don't take it personally.

Peace

Luis

[artmom]

This is such an interesting thread. I have 2 cents to put in, for what it's worth!

Two of my grandchildren are homeschooled, and last autumn I was their art history-art appreciation-hands-on-art teacher. We discussed the use of camera obscura, studio helpers painting some of the Masters' works, etc. They had no problem with any of that, but what bothered them the most was artists like Bierstadt who claimed their paintings were of a particular place, but inserted European style mountains in instead of the true Sierra Madres. (BTW, I am NOT comparing Bierstadt to the old Masters! LOL)

As part of the curriculum for their home schooling, ethics and values are part of every course. They believed that what Bierstadt did was ethically wrong. In other words, he lied. To them that was much more immoral than the use of the camera obscura and other aids to painting. Even when we discussed
"artistic license," they felt he lied when he named the paintings after particular places.

To them, camera obscura and other aids did not diminish a painting or an artist, but "lying" did!

[Termini.]

I have painted paintings similar to many old masters works. I have learned more from doing this, than I ever did in class. I don't normally paint like Van Gogh, but doing this, on occasion has helped me to understand values. This is to this, as this is to that. Many have helped me to better understand form, and composition, etc. etc. I never reproduce anything exact. I am interested in technique, rather than reproduction. Didn't Degas work from photos a great deal? Didn't he take photos of ballerinas, and place them in different settings of his own choosing. Who was it who said "Good artists borrow, great artists steal"? (Picasso?). I don't make a practice of stealing painting images, or anything else for that matter, but understanding the techniques of another, can help me with my own.I have also used a projector to enlarge images, onto a canvas. Depending on the type of painting, and the needed accuracy, I would much rather use a projector, than do the math/measurments, for paintings that must be completely accurate. Don't do much of this, however, involves to much of the left brain. I recently finished a painting of a woman on a beach, looking at a sunset. I didn't use anyone's image for this, but she looks very real. Real enough I suppose for my wife to want her out of my studio house. I had to explain to my wife, that she is not a she. She is nothing more than various colors, placed in a pattern to make an image that represents a woman. She is paint. A 2 dimention deception. I didn't make matters any better, however, when kiddingly, I told my wife that the other night while I was in my studio, "she" began talking to me, and asked me to come into the canvas, with her. Why do I do stuff like this, you would think that I would learn. Well, needless to say, "she" went to the gallery. I am still trying to explain to my wife that you can't "cheat" with paint.

Jim T.:D

[fugitive]

Louis, and TRANKINA; I much enjoyed the words of wisdom from you both.
greg

[Luis Guerreiro]

Originally posted by fugitive
Louis, and TRANKINA; I much enjoyed the words of wisdom from you both.
greg

Cheers Greg.

The bottom line is artists use whatever means they find appropriate to carry out their art. There is nothing wrong with developing new methods, whathever they may be. Photos, cameras, etc... The truth is such methods provided Art History with great masterpieces and they still do.

The rest is just critiques snobery.

Luis

[SanDL]

Originally posted by Luis Guerreiro


Cheers Greg.

The bottom line is artists use whatever means they find appropriate to carry out their art. There is nothing wrong with developing new methods, whathever they may be. Photos, cameras, etc... The truth is such methods provided Art History with great masterpieces and they still do.

The rest is just critiques snobery.

Luis

Hear, hear.:)

[Danny]

I disagree that Van Eyck or any of the old masters may have used an optical device just because a painting or drawing was so precise. one example supporting the use of any devices is the frames some used a checkerboard crisscross of strings to look through for proportions. Some I know did this, because of drawings we have been blessed with of some of these devices, but a lot more didn't .The thing that I back up this statement with against is, the example of the master sculpture Rodin. He did a lot of commissioned works for the French government. He was accused of making body cast for his sculptures. To defend his honer a panel was selected to observe him doing a sculpture live throughout the whole process. When he was finished he had proven to the panel the Government and the world once and for all that his work was done using nothing more than a keen eye and experience because the proportions were perfect. Some of the Old Masters were Masters. Like Leonardo for example. He used proportions and devoted 1000's of hours studying them, into a science.He believed in using his mind. Please don't sell all the old masters short. I myself devote 100s of hours working on proportions and will continue to 1000s more until I get it right.

[Termini.]

Hi everyone, I just posted a picture of my take on an Old Masters work, in the Open Crtique Forum, here at Wetcanvas. I Used a projector for one panel in the triptych, and my eye, and math for the others, due to difficulty with my projector. Could someone please tell me which one I used the projector on, and which ones I used math? Hope that I didn't cheat on the one that I used the projector on.

Jim T:)

[fugitive]

You must be some kind of Old Master yourself, as I saw your piece, and it looks magnificent. I pride myself on detail, but must take my hat off to you sir.:cat:

[Termini.]

Thanks Fugitive

Jim T

[Termini.]

I'm too young too be an old master fugitive.:D Talk about magnificent, I viewed your home page; everything on there is magnificent.

[fugitive]

Glad you liked them. Now if I had enough sense to make a decent web page, I'd be stylin'.

[Noble]

Originally posted by DanaT
Before the camera, the artist still had the technical problem of keeping the subject still. Even the presence of optical devices wouldn't have solved that problem for some subject matter. [/B]
How about Taxidermy. For example, birds sit still really well when they are dead.

[loop]

I didn't know art was a test...And I may have cheated :( sorry, from now on no sketches, studies, underdrawings, underpaintings or layers, no more models or referances (please don't even mention PHOTOS) if it ain't alla prima straight from your head it's cheating, I mean would you really admit that you COPY...even if it is from life. while we are at it let's ban blending and mixing on the pallett, oh ya and if you don't make your own paint you are sort of cheating, we will call that a CON.

besides a REAL artist would paint blindfolded :p

[jocelynsart]

Basically, it is possible to still mess up a painting even if one enlarges right from the photo. The tracing onto canvass is so minimal in some cases, more like a blocking in, and a likeness, in my case, can be lost in the painting process so easily. Even on the tracing, drawing in by hand still needs to be done I find. There is no cheating, you need good drawing and painting skills even working from a tracing onto the good surface.
Joss

[Andrew]

I know this debate will rage on and on ad infinitum. But reality has to raise it's head eventually. Did some of the old masters use camera obscura or other optics. Sure they did. Was it for precision? NO. Remember, that really until the late 19th century and basically the 20th, optical technology wasn't that good. The image cast onto the support wouldn't have been that good. Sufficient to place benchmarks and to varify scale.

I have seen demonstrations using a camera obscura and the image was fabulous. But these devices were made with modern optics, and not lenses from 16th and 17th centuries.

Did they use these devices with live models? Possibly. This would be purely conjecture. Mechanically it would be easier to use such optics with an existing drawing or painted sketch, that remained still and was in a parallel or perpendicular (depending on the device) plane with the new support.

Did some early artists use photo references? Possibly, but not likely. Early photography might as well have been the little bird with a chisel from the Flintstones. Plates to forever to expose, leaving the subject to remain still for long periods of time. Even then the resolution wasn't the greatest.

Grids? Sure. They were nothing new. Architectural artisians and engineers had used that tool at least as far back as ancient egypt. Though it was re-discovered in the Christian world not long before the Italian Renaissance. As a tool of study it is terrific. For artists it's primary use was and still is, a means to scale up or down a work on a different support. Degas used then almost exclusivel to transfer his sketches of dancers to the final work. Michalangelo used grids and cartooning to transfer even his largest works. As did Titian, Renoir, Rembrandt, etc.

Hockney makes some valid points, but he does go out on a technological limb. There are aspects that he takes for granted due to the century we live in.

Nuff said.

Andrew

[fugitive]

Some things, like Degas use of photography, and being a painter at the same time, are a little sticky, who knows but him.
The camera obscura, if I'm not mistaken can be made without any lenes, just like a pinhole camera. Lenes............they had eye glasses. Newton had a reflector telescope, which won't work unless it is ground properly. I think they used what ever was available, just like moderns do.

[Andrew]

Somewhere in my mounds of books. It is real simple, it requires two concave mirrors, a light source and view holes for image in and image out.

It works. You can blow a postcard or a bit of sheet music onto a wall or stretched sheet about 1.5x and maintain adequate resolution. No fine detail, but words are still legible. Black and white images and text work a little better at about 2x, but that is a stretch. Any larger and all you can get is shapes and proportions. There is also some limitations to the size of the source image. With the box as the plans lay it out, I think the max source image is 5x8 inches.

Andrew

[Felica Keech-Smith]

You know, I sure wish that I had seen this thread years and years ago before I could actually use the term "artist" when refering to myself. (I thought that you had to be crowned, knighted, or anointed by someone or something to say you were one.) Anyway, very early on when I first gave myself a chance at painting (over 15 years ago) I painted on t-shirts as that was what was "in" at the time... (I know.. that's funny.. huh?).. anyway... these weren't the textured things that were in.. but.. looking back.. 'real' art on a shirt. I was asked by someone if I had freehanded that shirt covered in beautiful birds from memory. I said no.. I drew them.. them transfered and painted them. All she could say was "oh".. with a look of .."well.. that's not art".... anyway.. it did a good job of discouraging me a long time.

I'm glad I've come past those days. All that tracing I did back them taught me ALOT about drawing and "seeing" things as they are.

Anyway, thanks again folks for the encouragement.

Felica

(I don't paint on shirts now though :)

[Termini.]

Hi Felica,
Didn't you know that to call yourself an artist, you need to complete an undergraduate degree in Fine Art, and then go to graduate school, and get your Master of Fine Arts degree? Just kidding. You know Van Gogh took several classes, but quit art school, and copied old masters, hung out in museums, and with other painters, and absorbed things. Rembrandt, quit formal art school, of the time, after only six months of training. Did you know that Andrew Wyeth never finished High school? Frieda Kahlo has no degree in art. For those that have them, art degrees are not bad, if they are applied properly. However, I know several people who have art degrees, and couldn't paint to save their lives. I remember a conversation with a BFA grad, and I asked her what she paints. She stated that ahe expresses herself in color, and stated that she whips paint on a canvas in broad strokes with vivid colors, to convey emotions. I then asked her, if she had been taught to paint like the old masters, and she said "why would anybody want to paint like them, they are the past" She then stated that she had been taught to break the rules. I simply expressed that it seemed to me that a person should at least know the rules, before they start breaking them. With this, she started crying. I wasn't even mean. To this day, I wonder if she was crying about what I said, or if it was about the $100,000 in student loans that she had to pay back. In my mind, an artist doesn't need to qualify to anyother person. If Van Gogh had to qualify, in order to keep painting, we wouldn't have all that wonderful work to view, and to be inspired by. Artists are sensitive people, and it is amazing what one wrong comment can do to us. I had an art teacher who made a spiteful comment about my work, one time. It hurt, and could have stopped me in my tracks. He made one mistake however. He asked me, how I came up with the shadow color, on the back of the Roman Soldiers leg. He wanted to know how I did something, because he didn't know how to do it himself. I saw his work, and he was horrible. He was a jealous sort, who spent more time trying to stiffle others, than he did with improving his work. I washed my hands of this "teacher", and moved on.

Jim T

[fugitive]

Felica, I felt your pain. I think, I have always been a purty good artist, starting at a very early age. When I started HS, I was looking forward to the more advanced classes I could take, as Jr. High, offered nothing. So, in the 10th grade, I took one, it wasn't just what I wanted, maybe some kinda design and compossition thing. Well, I was a little rebelious, and didn't always like the structure of the class, tho, I found out early on, that I could draw and paint better than the young teacher. Boy was I surrprised, when I got an F in the class, my first ever, in a short carrer of all A's. Well, I was so upset, that I never took another art class in high school again, and didn't go to Jr. College, as I had planned. I'm still mad at that teacher.

[ksfarmer]

Isn't it amazing how one person saying the wrong thing at the wrong time -- be it in ignorance or jealousy -- can "turn us off."

As a little kid, I loved following my uncle around and watching him draw and paint (he became an college art teacher). Then, in grade school, I encountered one of the "know-it-all" types who insisted that I was holding my pencil wrong while drawing and that when painting the strokes should all be smooth and even. Put me off "doing art" for years.

I -- to this day -- avoid taking classes with an almost religious fervour. I'd much rather watch, observe, listen and study on my own than deal with some of the self-important twits I've encountered over the years.

And, my studies include reverent admiration for the techniques and abilities of the old masters. Right on, Rembrant van Rijn!

[Felica Keech-Smith]

Thank you so much Jim, Greg, and kp for you incouraging words! I do want to apologize for taking so long to send this thank you as somehow I had "lost" this thread temporarily. It had never been added to my list of threads and I simply couldn't find it after posting. I have looked for it every day since. (Whew! I finally found it!) :)

I haven't taken classes myself much (only studied books and the like) for the same reasons as you ksfarmer. I have been working up the courage though with all the help from fellow WC folks. Of course, this place seems to be like a big school of fellow students and teachers doesn't it? (I've actually noticed some of the same "know-it-alls" in here too.. have you?)

Anyway, I am learning SO much that I just can't get enough of this place. Always so much to read and learn about.

Thanks again everyone.

[fugitive]

Yes, it is easy to get lost in here, the largest one, I've spent much time on. Glad you came back. The know it all, you mean the one on page 1?

[Danny]

TRANKINA

I'm too young too be an old master fugitive. Talk about magnificent, I viewed your home page; everything on there is magnificent.

I don't know your age but, I have a couple painter friends who are both masters. One is not only a master artist but has a degree in physics as well. The other is in my opinion one of the greatest artist of all times, living are dead. At 32 years old his paintings and drawings start at one million dollars. He sells all he can paint. He traveled to New York and was accepted in the atelier of Michael Aviano then enrolled at Amherst University in 1994 as a 24-year-old first year student. He graduated with summa honors.He then attended the Richard Lack Atelier in Minneapolis. Also I know for a fact neither one of these artist uses any devices except their eyes to paint with.Don't sell yourself short.:)
Danny

[MikLNjLo]

Originally posted by artmom
...As part of the curriculum for their home schooling, ethics and values are part of every course. They believed that what Bierstadt did was ethically wrong. In other words, he lied. To them that was much more immoral than the use of the camera obscura and other aids to painting. Even when we discussed
"artistic license," they felt he lied when he named the paintings after particular places.

To them, camera obscura and other aids did not diminish a painting or an artist, but "lying" did! Sorry Grandma,

This may be a matter of poor presentation of the topic "artistic license." If an artist decides to paint a purple fire hydrant and title the painting "Banana" it is not nonethical, immoral or lying. At least they were mountains. ;)

[Andrew]

Originally posted by fugitive
Some things, like Degas use of photography, and being a painter at the same time, are a little sticky, who knows but him.
The camera obscura, if I'm not mistaken can be made without any lenes, just like a pinhole camera. Lenes............they had eye glasses. Newton had a reflector telescope, which won't work unless it is ground properly. I think they used what ever was available, just like moderns do.

Camera Obscura's varied greatly from one design to the next. From the most basic (like a pinhole camera) that projected an image a that was a few inches square, to pinhole styles that used combinations of concave mirrors to further enlarge and to revert the image back 180 degrees. Some real complicated ones used lenses so adjustments to the focal length could be made without moving the camera and the support.

Andrew

[circular]

In the end does it really matter what course of action the artist took whether it be digital ,looking at a picture or standing outside with an easel.
For some reason takin a picture especially in a Carolina summer and letting my imagination have fun with that on the old sketch pad in my air conditioned house that standing outside becoming mosquito bait.
If the masters did say "cut some corners" the end result is some of the most incredible pieces of artwork known to man.

Circular

[luvgauguin]

The "camera oscura" was used by many Vermeer the most reknowned. I wouldnt consider it cheating because the greatest underdrawing won't be worth 2 cents if the painting technique is not good!! Would anyone claim Durer could not draw because he used a perspective tool? or Holbein..course not...a tool is just that a tool. Talent will show through regardless..........:evil:

[fugitive]

a tool is just that a tool. Talent will show through regardless....
A men brother, as I use digital and it's a powerful tool. Having done both kinds of painting and art, I know it's easier to do with digital.

[Bendaini]

Hmm... how many of us cheet?

I don't really think it should be called cheeting, not unless you actually trace the whole thing, or steal someone elses work. The word Cheet implies that you've done something wrong, and I don't really think tracing from your own sketches is wrong... or even tracing from real life, or using optical devices to get proportions right. No one can draw a strait line after all, so is using a ruler cheeting too?

[andyvry]

In my view,

Charles Falco, the optical scientist who worked with David Hockney and who admitted on the program that he knew next to nothing about "art" gets very little mention [and completeley overlooked by some commentators - cum critics who reviewed the prog and the book] for his brilliant contribution to the revelations regarding the use of lenses in drawing etc. by the so - called, great masters.

This whole investigation was not meant to be some kind of 'kiss and tell' expose' to show the old masters up in a way that might taint their image, but rather to try and discover some of the 'secrets' which they all must have been privy to, to some degree, in overcoming the difficulties of "drawing and perspective." We should remember, that just because we live in an age of "knowing just about anything and everything" - it hasn't always been so, for no other reason than it not being thought necessary to reveal details of the hows and whys of every mortal thing.

David Hockney, as far as I can recall, did not make any wild claims about cheating, or rub his hands with glee as they began to make a number of "discoveries" about obvious 'alignment errors' in certain paintings. At the end of the program, he did say that this whole thing wouldn't go down well with everyone, but in the end, what did it matter what means an artist used to produce a work of art? After all, they just used the tools that were available, and using these "tools" in no way made them better artists. [Well it's one thing to have the tools........It's something else entirely to be able to use them, and skilfully too].

BTW I once had the privilege [?] at an exhib/workshop of trying to paint with hand made oil paint and of the quality like wot the old masters had to use........I am soooooo happy that manufacturers have made enormous progress in making life easier for us, cos I think if I was using what they had to use in the old days.........I'd have given up before I'd even started to paint. :p

andy.

[vklum]

Originally posted by fugitive
Felica, I felt your pain. I think, I have always been a purty good artist, starting at a very early age. When I started HS, I was looking forward to the more advanced classes I could take, as Jr. High, offered nothing. So, in the 10th grade, I took one, it wasn't just what I wanted, maybe some kinda design and compossition thing. Well, I was a little rebelious, and didn't always like the structure of the class, tho, I found out early on, that I could draw and paint better than the young teacher. Boy was I surrprised, when I got an F in the class, my first ever, in a short carrer of all A's. Well, I was so upset, that I never took another art class in high school again, and didn't go to Jr. College, as I had planned. I'm still mad at that teacher.

Greg, we must have gone to the same high school (I'm an expatriat from Portland). Only in my case, it was my journalism teacher/advisor. I had planned to be a sports journalist...only she didn't think girls belonged "in the locker room" interviewing the boys--never mind that I interviewed them at courtside or on the sidelines. :rolleyes:

Even though I pulled straight A's in the class, and my stories were always in the top 3-5 for every issue, that pathetic old cow found other ways to destroy me. It took me a long time to put the pieces back together. And I'm just now going to college full-time--twenty years after graduating. :rolleyes: (And no, I'm not doing the HS reunion.) And I'm back to writing (and writing about sports when the spirit moves me :evil: ) and persuing a career in fine art and photojournalism.

[fugitive]

Originally posted by vklum


Greg, we must have gone to the same high school (I'm an expatriat from Portland). Only in my case, it was my journalism teacher/advisor. I had planned to be a sports journalist...only she didn't think girls belonged "in the locker room" interviewing the boys--never mind that I interviewed them at courtside or on the sidelines. :rolleyes:

Even though I pulled straight A's in the class, and my stories were always in the top 3-5 for every issue, that pathetic old cow found other ways to destroy me. It took me a long time to put the pieces back together. And I'm just now going to college full-time--twenty years after graduating. :rolleyes: (And no, I'm not doing the HS reunion.) And I'm back to writing (and writing about sports when the spirit moves me :evil: ) and persuing a career in fine art and photojournalism. Well, at least, 20 years, might be doable, my forty, is a really late start. This happened in San Diego, and we were the boomers with large classes, and who knows about the overall quality of the education. The female teacher in question, could have been a year out of college (young).

[Classical Vince]

My instructor is recognized as a living master and has been painting for 60years. He thinks David Hockney is trying to elevate his own work by saying..."see, they did it too". I understand that Mr.Hockney uses opaque projectors to produce a lot of his imagery.

Sounds like a career built on smoke and mirrors to me. Any thoughts?

[andyvry]

Hi CV......

As I recall, Hockney's introductory words were more to do with something that had occurred to him, and others too, apparently, and that was; at a particular point in history......"all of a sudden it was as if every artist could draw......" or something along those lines. Hockney praised their genius.......didn't knock what he went on to discover that which they 'supposedly' did. [Not as I can remember, anyhow].

I don't know who your instructor is or in whose view exactly he is a living master, as you put it......but he is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone.

Every one of us who produces "art work" employs different methods/mediums and personally, I can't see that it matters how results are achieved.

andy.

[Classical Vince]

Hi Andy,

I think it does matter how the results are achieved. A great deal of knowledge has been lost over the last century and if we continue using things like projectors, who's going to pass that kind of training on to the next generation?

Even now, this early in my training (9mos), I have a sense of obligation to learning the craft and passing it on to the next generation.

[Bendaini]

I do tend to agree... If we had not preserved the technique of making oil paints, or creating reliefs where would our art be now?

Learning that they used some sort of optical device may even make it seem more... apropriate.. for others to do so, and fewer would call it "cheeting"

[Classical Vince]

I didn't read his book. After seeing the tv show I wasn't interested but it did make me very interested in seeing hockneys work.

Well, I searched the internet and found some of his images and I wasnt impressed. I could see a failed realist who probably discovered a few tricks to cover it up.

I had a good laugh as well. A print of one of his paintings had been hanging above a co-workers cubicle for the last two years. I passed that ugly thing 20x a day and NEVER stopped to see who did it.

My instincts are strong. :clap:

[fugitive]

That was so funny, about your friend and the ugly painting. It's been a while since I started this, that was when I looked at his work. Saw a California picture of a swimming pool, didn't like it. Didn't see anything really.

[Classical Vince]

So how old is this thread anyways...I thought about that you know. These threads will be preserved for posterity one day. lol.

The thread was a little long so I skimmed through, did I miss anything noteworthy? I know, I am late here.

Didnt get a reply from Andy yet.

[fugitive]

It's printed on the first post 12-04-2002 08:57 AM

[andyvry]

Originally posted by Classical Vince
Hi Andy,

I think it does matter how the results are achieved. A great deal of knowledge has been lost over the last century and if we continue using things like projectors, who's going to pass that kind of training on to the next generation?

Even now, this early in my training (9mos), I have a sense of obligation to learning the craft and passing it on to the next generation.

Hi again CV...... :D

I concede..........that it will matter to some people how a certain piece of art is produced and if you are wanting to learn "techniques" then at the very least you should be made aware of the sort of things you can employ.

And I would go so far as to say, that it's more like a thousand years + that knowledge, skills etc. have been lost in all manner of disciplines, not just art.

I suppose in days gone by.....:p skills and stuff would have been passed down from master to scholar, verbally - and I wouldn't doubt for a moment, [OK! I'm guessin.. :o :D ] that certain aspects of painting/drawing would have had more than a little ;) ;) "What I'm about to tell you [show you] now............is a trade secret......." sort of thing about it. I mean, 'Guilds' were quite secretive about their work generally and it's more likely that we only know so much about the methods of the "old masters" through some astute modern detective work. Even now, revelations regarding certain paintings are surfacing quite regularly, same as techniques being developed to maintain and restore great works. As I said in an earlier post;

Qte" We should remember, that just because we live in an age of "knowing just about anything and everything" - it hasn't always been so, for no other reason than it not being thought necessary to reveal details of the hows and whys of every mortal thing."Uqte

andy. :)

[Classical Vince]

Andy - I have to disagree on some levels with knowledge being lost in disciplines other than art.

Did we lose all the scientific knowledge passed down for the last 400yrs? No, we built on it and we now live in a digital age.

By throwing out all the prior training methods we are now unable to teach art. Thats why we dont have anymore Michaelangelos or Leonardos.

You have a very modern view about "secrets" in art and I am curious to know if you study realism. There are no secrets when everything you need is right in front of you - these masters taught us how to SEE. Forget the secret recipies.

The quote seems like a crutch - similar to the projector. No more projectors and no more excuses. We are obligated as artists if we dare to call ourselves artists.

[andyvry]

Originally posted by Classical Vince

You have a very modern view about "secrets" in art and I am curious to know if you study realism. There are no secrets when everything you need is right in front of you - these masters taught us how to SEE. Forget the secret recipies.

The quote seems like a crutch - similar to the projector. No more projectors and no more excuses. We are obligated as artists if we dare to call ourselves artists.

Don't know as I have a modern view about secrets in art....[?] I mean that's what WC for the most part, is about - sharing "secrets".........or mysteries regarding technique, if you like. I was not making any reference to recipes.....And "realism" to me is probably as far removed from what you regard it as being, as your country is from mine.... ;)

Teaching how to SEE is one thing....Learning or being able to SEE is something else entirely, as is being able to interpret what you SEE and then getting it down onto paper or canvas.

Not sure as I understand you about the quote being a crutch....? I was just pointing out that nowadays, it's as if we need to know everything or mebees it's a case of somebody somewhere thinking we we need to know everything, [i.e. the media] but in yesteryear, this was not the case......hence so many "secrets" or mysteries.....

andy.

[bruin70]

if you were to give a very very very very very very detailed, page by page outline of a story to 100 of your best writers, they would all write something different, from bad to great, because every writer would have to use his own words, write his own sentences, and create his own dialogue.

every artist knows this. but there is an underlying UNDERAPPRECIATION for the work involved by those who don't paint and draw. and when they hear that POSSIBLY some artist long ago used optics, then they are inclined to think that creating art is even easier than they thought. and that's where this whole "optics" controversy roots itself. "oooooo, well wadda ya know,,,vermeer traced!!!!!"

here's two things i mentioned to a friend who coincidentally mentioned the same 60minute show.........

"1...if they used optics to project an image, and saw that it was
obviously reversed from reality, then they would also have been
smart enough to add another mirror to correct the image."

"2...there is one person who would know for a fact what the artist did,,,,,the sitter. even if the artist were
quiet about his technique(which i think would be impossible to keep a secret), the sitter/sitters would eventually tell.
there are countless countless diaries of sitters writing about their
experiences in sitting for a portrait. especially if the artist was famous.

[fugitive]

So, are you saying, they didn't use optics?

[andyvry]

Earliest revelations about a device which would be [much later] come to be known as a "camera obscura" were recorded in the 5th century BCE

Aristotle also wrote a deal on it.....apparently,

and Leonardo Da Vinci in 1490 also gave two accounts of the device in his notes.

From an article on the web.........

"Many of the first camera obscuras were large rooms like that illustrated by the Dutch scientist Reinerus Gemma-Frisius in 1544 for use in observing a solar eclipse.
The image quality was improved with the addition of a convex lens into the aperture in the 16th century and the later addition of a mirror to reflect the image down onto a viewing surface. Giovanni Battista Della Porta in his 1558 book Magiae Naturalis recommended the use of this device as an aid for drawing for artists.
The term "camera obscura" was first used by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler in the early 17th century. He used it for astronomical applications and had a portable tent camera for surveying in Upper Austria.
The development of the camera obscura took two tracks. One of these led to the portable box device that was a drawing tool. In the 17th and 18th century many artists were aided by the use of the camera obscura. Jan Vermeer, Canaletto, Guardi, and Paul Sandby are representative of this group."



I do not believe there was any intention of 'deceit' in using optical devices by these artists. They just used the tools that were available. I think it also needs to be taken into consideration, the actual quality of the "projected images" they had to work with. They would be nothing like what we take for granted, these days....

And I'm still looking for just one of the "countless" accounts of sitters who have apparently written about their experiences.... being painted by a "famous artist".......... The thing is, they [the sitters] would just accept the devices used by the artist as par for the course....so why should they mention them. They would not have the idea in their heads, that the artist was "cheating".............surely?

andy.

[fugitive]

Good stuff, the sitters, please update us if you find more on this interesting subject.

[bruin70]

Originally posted by fugitive
So, are you saying, they didn't use optics?

i'm saying who cares.... only those who don't appreciate the process of painting. i just threw the two points up as questions for clarfication.

[Keith Russell]

If artists have 'lost' anything over the last hundred years or so, it hasn't been because of the use of optics.

Optical devices have been used by artists for centuries, if not millennia.

K

[bruin70]

Originally posted by andyvry
Earliest revelations about a device which would be [much later] come to be known as a "camera obscura" were recorded in the 5th century BCE

,,, experiences.... being painted by a "famous artist".......... The thing is, they [the sitters] would just accept the devices used by the artist as par for the course....so why should they mention them. They would not have the idea in their heads, that the artist was "cheating".............surely?

andy.

simply a matter of course in talking about their experiences in sitting.

and before they all go crazy over this:):):),,,let's not forget this doesn't involve all the artists,,as i'm sure the general public might now assume. this 60 minutes thing was brought to my attention by my friends several times more than this one thread. vermeer was a great artist, but his "figures" were only passable. so as a draftsman i don't place an artist of his caliber anywhere near van dyke or velasquez. some artists, great as they may be, just need a little help.

and if i were ever to be commisioned to do tapestry or maps, i wouldn't hesitate to use optics.....{M}

[erik_satie_rolls]

In graduate school I did a paper on Delft, optics, and artists. In my research I found that technology shaped the arts much as it does today, and that artists have generally been very open to technological advances to further their ability to work creatively.

We see this today even in art school, where many of the drawing exercises are based upon modern knowledge about the way the brain processes information asymmetrically. More recently, technology has been used to create new forms of animation, realistic special effects in movies, and totally computer generated art that mimics traditional painting and drawing.

The comment that Vermeer's figures are not as expressive as Velazquez' is astute, but his paintings remain masterpieces because of the quality of luminousity he created with his use of color, paint handling, and composition.

Likewise, artists who rely heavily on photographs and/or overhead projectors, adobe photoshop, and other perfectly useful tools, run the risk of creating work that might be less expressive than others'.

But is it cheating? Only in a sense that all art is cheating.

"art is a lie that tells the truth" ~~~ Picasso

[fullcolorpalette]

Mechanical devices have always been used in art. A strait edge, a grid..... hell, how about your brush? If Hockney is absolutely correct it takes nothing away from the Greats. Trace a Vermeer or a Holbein and nail the drawing exactly, then show me a pefectly painted reproduced copy that is a Vermeer or Holbein! Impossible! You are not Vermeer or Holbein however close you might approach them! An actual work of art is beyond the means used to get there.

[fullcolorpalette]

The thing that has really struck me about the whole debate is how similar art is to religion! Seeing the gentlman at the Met on the 60 minutes piece just blew my mind! I feel like we are debating the earth being created in 7 days vs. evolution here. Interesting stuff! Dare and ask yourself, 'what if'....! It is possible to draw like a Master and still use optics..... really, its ok!

[Classical Vince]

Are you kidding? Art IS Religion to some of us!

My problem with Hockneys assumptions is it is down-right debilitating to an artist to rely on projectors and other light devices.

There is a mod on WC...I wont mention the name but she does beautiful work. I like the colors, the themes and her creativity in general is awesome. But I know she cant draw.

I read through her website and saw she uses lightboxes and tracing paper. I bet she has Hockneys book sitting on her studio shelf.

Isnt that a creatively restrictive way to produce imagery? I mean imagine what she could produce if she wasnt stuck to the limits of a camera or tracing?

Im not lowering her art here...I am merely pointing to the fact that damn...could it be better? Just imagine. Better.

[jeffreyd]

i must say that anything that creates art is art art is art.

[Classical Vince]

The very act of creation is art.

We are limiting our own ability to create when we stop using our own hands. Without our hands, our work sadly lacks our instinctive responses as human beings.

[bruin70]

if any of the comments are directed specifiaclly to me from "erik" on,,,,reread everything i've posted.

[feather]

Originally posted by Classical Vince
Are you kidding? Art IS Religion to some of us!

My problem with Hockneys assumptions is it is down-right debilitating to an artist to rely on projectors and other light devices.

There is a mod on WC...I wont mention the name but she does beautiful work. I like the colors, the themes and her creativity in general is awesome. But I know she cant draw.

I read through her website and saw she uses lightboxes and tracing paper. I bet she has Hockneys book sitting on her studio shelf.

Isnt that a creatively restrictive way to produce imagery? I mean imagine what she could produce if she wasnt stuck to the limits of a camera or tracing?

Im not lowering her art here...I am merely pointing to the fact that damn...could it be better? Just imagine. Better.

Again, we come to differences of opinions.

I know how to draw quite well, and use tracing paper to do most of my sketches on, as it stands up to erasing, and is easy to do multiple layers of drawings to see how I want to put my prelims together. To facilitate that process, I use a light box to pull all the different layers together for my final sketch.

I am not tracing anyone's work, except my own, and would give the next artist the benefit of the doubt about their ability to draw. But then again, so what if they use mechanical aids to short-cut their art?

[Classical Vince]

Hi Feather. I dont think we differ as much as you say. Your use of the light box enables you to do things like overlays. But not everyone uses the technology as creatively as you do.

Its awesome you use your own sketches - thats great because your drawing skills are being exercised.

But most people dont. They take a lightbox and throw up a photo to draw. I see it a lot on the drawing forum.

Your originality shines through in your work. But none of the people who are using photos are able to tap into the place that you do. Your heart.

[Classical Vince]

Bruin - no no no, I hope you didnt take my post personally. The mod isnt even here discussing any of this. Sorry if it seemed like an attack.

I have a passion for art as you have probably seen around the forums. To say the least...lol.

[bruin70]

Originally posted by Classical Vince
Bruin - no no no, I hope you didnt take my post personally. The mod isnt even here discussing any of this. Sorry if it seemed like an attack.

I have a passion for art as you have probably seen around the forums. To say the least...lol.


no, it didn't sound like an attack,,,only like some were reiterating something to me that i had already affirmed.

[Classical Vince]

guess I do need to reread the last few pages. Sounds like we probably agree on a lot of points.

Any thoughts Feather? I like your work and I think you are using the technology to help your creativity - not hinder it.

[scandia3815]

Vince,

I'm not 100% sure the 'mod' you are referring too, but I think I have an idea. You might want to double check her website, because if we are thinking of the same person your comments about not being able to draw are not supported by the explanation of her methods. THere is no mention of projection, only the transfering of a sketch from tracing paper to archival paper using a lightbox. Tracing paper is of course very thin, and so less pressure is needed to transfer the drawing, which prevents indentations on the paper surface of the final product. In a medium such as graphite or CP, these indentations can really cause problems as the media will not easily find its way down into those grooves, leaving sightly countours in the finished product. So sketching on tracing paper and then transfering the sketch to the actual support is a rather common practice, and has nothing to do with ones drawing skills. If I'm thinking of someone else, then ignore this post.

A

[Classical Vince]

I dont think we are speaking of the same mod. I probably shouldnt have said they were a mod to begin with. I thought about that after the post.

I completely agree with your reasoning, some artwork requires a lightbox just because of the medium. Understood and acceptable.

The "WC member" I mentioned however uses photographic references underneath. I can tell by the edges and the changes of plane...they lack the variety we find in nature. It is an obvious trace-job.

Thats where I have the problem. You may have read above, I am in agreement with the creative methods Feather uses. She still has her own unique interpretations...its only a tool for her.

For the member I mentioned however, its a sad crutch.

[scandia3815]

"She can't draw"

"It is a sad crutch"


Vince,

I say this honestly to try and help your time at WC be a little easier for you, so that you may 'learn' and enjoy the spirit of community here at WC that you have stated you would like to be a part of.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I would suggest you avoid making public accusations against other WC members-- such as the "she can't draw" comment. You want to toss your ideas regarding projectors and lightboxes up into the air against no one in particular, thats your freedom of opinion. You will get a lot of interesting feedback to say the least, but you will not have singled out just one individual.

The debate regarding photos vs. life drawing, projection & gridding, etc. has raged many times since I have been a member here. You want to have a really interesting discussion that gets closed or moved to "debates" lightning fast? Post that same "sad crutch" comment in the drawing & sketching forum (the same forum that has taken a liking to your work). My point would be this is a big community here at WC and there are a lot of different ideas, and we all need to more or less play together for WC to function, and not descend into the chaos and vulgarity that plagues USENET groups like rec.arts.fine

The one exception is the 'debate forum', where a little more room is given to more heated discussion (although even that forum has limits).

I'm not coming down on you, I like your work and subscribe to the same ideals regarding the true value of life drawing, just trying to help you out and make your experience here at WC a rewarding one.

A.

[Classical Vince]

Thanks scandia. Heard you loud and clear. I rethought the mod reference and I am rethinking the rest now too. No way to roll this thread back is there? lol.

[Classical Vince]

I need to relate all this passion about this to ME instead of everyone else!

<-----------slow

I explain why I have this passion in this thread. My art was almost unreachable for me and I could have NEVER discovered it. I am opening myself up here showing you all that I have weakness' too.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123447

see the 08/09 5:13 post, second half.

[fullcolorpalette]

Yes it is, one and the same.
You are absolutely correct. If you can't draw, learn- or forget it! There isn't anything that will help you in such dire straits. All of the Old Masters could draw(understatement) so optics, or any other tool for that matter, could be helpful , not a crutch. You have seen Hockney in his book make terrible drawings from a lens.......USING THIS EQUIPMENT IS NO GUARUNTEE! YOU STILL HAVE TO CREATE ART!!! Like I said before, optics takes NOTHING away from a Great Artist doing Great Work! It is just another tool. Another way of seeing.

[Keith Russell]

Good morning.

For those of you who feel that skill in drawing is essential for artists, the people you need to convince are not other artists. You're speaking to the wrong people.

As long as the art-buying public is willing to purchase work by artists who do not draw, or who are not able to draw, those artists will continue to create their art however they are able.

If you want to control the direction of what is, and what is not, considered 'art', you need to alter the mindset of those who buy art.

Period.

K

[fullcolorpalette]

Very good point. My thoughts however are directed to my colleagues who seem to be so conflicted and upset by the use of optics.

[sec]

many photorealists use projectors and all use photos...the work has barely begun even after you have drawn it on the canvas...their work is awe-inspiring.

i love working from a photos!

Sarah

[JamieWG]

Originally posted by sec
...the work has barely begun even after you have drawn it on the canvas...

IMO, this is not true. The way the initial drawing goes down determines whether the piece can sink or swim. It is the entire planning stage of the piece! That's not to say you can't screw it up after you trace/project it, but for me, once I've drawn the image, I'm halfway there artistically in terms of whether the piece can fly in the end. Composition, proportion, and placement of elements shouldn't be under-rated; after all, that's why people trace/project; they know it will give them the camera-perfect result in terms of those particular elements---composition, proportion, placement. Any beginner can trace a photo, color it to look like the photo, and produce a high quality drawing or painting their first time at bat. I've seen it done a hundred times by adults in their first-ever art classes by teachers who teach this way (which many/most colored pencil teachers do).

The way I see it, art is an interpretation of the subject. It is the connection between the artist and the subject, the object and the canvas. The farther away we are from that subject in terms of the steps in the process and intervening paraphenalia, the less connection there is. When I paint plein air or draw in open studio, the connection is the most direct. Using a camera already interferes with the connection because the camera makes the 3D--->2D interpretation instead of my eyes and hands. That is not to say I don't sometimes have to use photos. We can't always have beautiful scenery, ideal weather conditions, daylight, and models who stay still. Gridding is yet one more step removed. Tracing/projecting takes away the need for any artistic rendering ability.

Would I save time by tracing? You bet! And the accuracy would be greater too. After all, I'm not a machine like a camera is. But in the end, when I paint, it's all mine. Sure, it is lots of extra time, tons of extra effort, and for me there is a HUGE difference between those who do and those who don't..... I am not talking *result*, I'm talking *process*. Trace and Color art is, unfortunately, here to stay.

Jamie

[sec]

I was just talking about the photorealists...they project and draw the picture but then put months and months into the application of the paint...and that's a lot of work! All that sanding and scraping! Some of those artists dedicate themselves to one big painting per year!

Artist rendering means a number of things, including paint application, which is just as important as the initial drawing in painting. paint is what brings it to life and how the forms are created. it's amazing how they make it look exactly real at the SCALE that they do their paintings.

Just look at the work of Chuck Close, Estes or Ralph Goings and you'll see what i mean. I just admire their technical ability as far as the paint application goes...it's amazing! I've come to respect them very much after reading the book "Realists at Work" by John Arthur. It's an older book but has tons of great info in it about photorealists, their processes, etc. and has long interviews with the artists mentioned above and more.

personally in my work, though, i could never project or trace. In that way, Jamie, I have to agree with you!

sarah
:)

[Keith Russell]

Jamie, using photographs does not necessarily mean 'tracing and colouring'.

I am 2/3 of the way through drawing (more like 'constructing') a figure (free hand) that I am creating from four different photographic references so far. The original pose existed only in my head, until two days ago. (It's a female figure, too--yet two of the references I used were photographs of men. There is a great deal of anatomical knowledge that goes into designing this, making the various arms, shoulders, and midsections work together. Plus, this is a complicated pose, with foreshortening on both arms, and the upper and lower torso in two different planes.)

I am doing no tracing whatsoever.

I'm not using references for the clothing (drapery), the face, or the proportions of the figure, and I'm going to have to 'make up' most of the lighting and shadows--since the lighting across the various reference photos certainly isn't uniform.

Sure, it would be easier to hire a model, dress her, pose her, and take pictures--but I am not set up right now to photograph models (my camera equipment is in storage)--let alone pay them.

So, I do what I have to do, to get what I want.

I don't view this as 'cheating' in any sense, and I think it requires quite a bit of 'rendering ability'.

K

[mallory]

Originally posted by Keith Russell

Sure, it would be easier to hire a model, dress her, pose her, and take pictures--but I am not set up right now to photograph models (my camera equipment is in storage)--let alone pay them.


Or you could just get a.......

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Aug-2003/5199-Manikin1.JPG

:) mallory

Edit: PS. One of the skills I appreciate in an artist is their ability to exaggerate elements in a sketch for effect. And you can't get there from tracing, ect. For instance Michelangelo's David has hands that are proportionately too big for the body, but the sculpture was originally designed to be seen high up on a building from below and the exaggeration was designed to compensate for the distance and perspective. That is high art and high skill IMO.

[Keith Russell]

Mallory, I've got three of those things; two male, one female, of various sized.

But, I want to draw people, not wooden mannikins...lol. (Those things are quite helpful for proportion, but their range of motion is limited, and you still need to know quite a bit of anatomy to get a 'mannikin' drawing to look like a real, flesh and blood human body...)

K

[JamieWG]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Jamie, using photographs does not necessarily mean 'tracing and colouring'.

I am 2/3 of the way through drawing (more like 'constructing') a figure (free hand) that I am creating from four different photographic references so far. The original pose existed only in my head, until two days ago. (It's a female figure, too--yet two of the references I used were photographs of men. There is a great deal of anatomical knowledge that goes into designing this, making the various arms, shoulders, and midsections work together. Plus, this is a complicated pose, with foreshortening on both arms, and the upper and lower torso in two different planes.)

I am doing no tracing whatsoever.
.............
I don't view this as 'cheating' in any sense, and I think it requires quite a bit of 'rendering ability'.

K

Keith, I agree with you that this is a very creative and demanding use of photos, and is not of the Trace and Color ilk that I was referring to at all! :)

Jamie

[Keith Russell]

Jamie, fair enough.

K

[jeffreyd]

i have found that if you want to create art ,you can not take to maney people, serously . to keep the feeling, and joy,is so importent.most art that i enjoy,is positive,lets keep that direction ,if we can,but art is art,expression. :clap:

[Dorothea]

Maybe David Hockney cant draw. In an interview ,Picasso called himself a clown compared to the old masters. I doubt that they used optics, Leanardo's virgin of the rocks has a badly drawen childs foot, and one foot is too large. Optics? Give me a break. All you projectionists and tracers are optical imateter painters. I can
spot your art? a mile away. I teach drawing & oil painting and if one of my students come in with a projected image they are to do it over from scratch. Yes, it's tougher to draw but better than being a cookie cutter painter. Painter, NOT Artist. Its sad to hear what you do, sad for yourself, you are cheating on your creativity.

The Masters were masters and only they who cant produce it find an excuse.:crying: :crying: :crying:

..............................Dorothea............................
BOY ! am I going to hear it from you Projectionists

[fugitive]

Well, you've got some pretty strong opinions there, and as you haven't posted any art here, we'll have to wait. I'm expecting great things from you.

[Keith Russell]

Dorothea said:
"Its sad to hear what you do, sad for yourself, you are cheating on your creativity."

Dorothea, who is the 'you', in the above sentence?

Thanks,

K

[Dorothea]

Fugitive..... Cant manage cut & paste etc. Limited with computers. Now, now, I never said I was Great, I work my Butt off
to just get close to my goals. Great? it will never happen but I am happy when people like "MY" work.

Keith...... the "YOU " is ment for the projectionists.
the reason being, I admired an "Artist" work, tho it looked a little plastic and was so disapointed when i found out he did his painting from poser software and projected it on to canvas

If that doesn't rot your socks

........................................Dorothea.............................................

:crying:

[fugitive]

I don't manage cut and paste.

[Keith Russell]

Dorothea said:
"Keith...... the "YOU " is ment for the projectionists.
the reason being, I admired an "Artist" work, tho it looked a little plastic and was so disapointed when i found out he did his painting from poser software and projected it on to canvas."

Oh, well. It wouldn't 'rot my socks', it would just make me all the more grateful that I can draw...

K

[rd2ruin]

I just got done flipping through Hockney's book.

Look at Pannini insanely detailed "Gallery of Views of Ancient Rome" http://www.louvre.fr/img/photos/collec/peint/grande/rf1944.jpg .. Far more complex than anything Vermeer ever did. Optics used? I can't see it. Traced? I dont think so. Projected? Personally, I doubt it. I believe his theory underestimates the skill involved, which is surprising, being that he himself is a good artist. I think he really wanted to prove a point and tried too hard to squeeze evidence into it. Using his ends to explain his means.

A far more compelling case is made in another book I saw, "Vermeer's Camera" (abbreviated here http://www.grand-illusions.com/vermeer/vermeer3.htm ) which can be argued against this remarkable website http://www.vermeersriddlerevealed.com/music_lesson.shtml ... both excellent sites presenting sound evidence, but ultimately, I subscribe to the latter, you can judge for yourself.

Cheers!
- Greg

[Keith Russell]

Pannini's piece is a rather simple one-point perspective.

Although it is complex in its detail, it is nothing like a Vermeer. Vermeer's lighting, alone, is far more complex, let alone the realism of Vermeer's drapery, skin tones, etc.

And I learned about one-point perspective in juniour high...

K

[jocelynsart]

My question is, who said artists that add a projector as a tool cannot draw? Of course a good painter needs to and is more than able to draw. Often, there is hours of drawing involved long after a basic projection is on. I know I can draw and don't need to prove it over and over again with every large piece I do.
I draw my daughter a few times from her sitting, I personally have done a few good paintings from life or partially from life. Projecting gets my portraits on the move faster or keeps a large piece that I do not want to be correcting and mucking up the surface of clean. Major detail and corrections to the basic shape always need drawing. You cannot avoid it nor would want to, and work directly from any projection, not for me anyway. An artist cannot start with a projector. That needs to be reserved to being a tool after years and years of drawing. Or, it is of no use. My paintings could never be done from the loose sketchy image I end up starting with if I use my projector. Often, the projected image is already a rework of several references I need or want and alot of viewing in the mirror, getting a poor soul (often my husband, friend or kid) to let me pose them for needed added reference. I think that making general statements before seeing any artist working in person really seems a bit like jumping the gun to me. How does nayone truly know how another works unless they are privy to it personally? I have seen one "photo realist" in progress and I really would never devote the time and energy into anything I did as much as this person does. It is freaky. He is liek an old master in the 21st Century is all I can ever think of. Can he draw? You bet, better than most. Does he draw from life? All the time. But, he loves taking and working from photos. Won't stop and cares little waht anyone thinks, even when he was a teen in grade 11. Instructors tried to make him stop but it is hard to stop doing something you love and have passion for.
I think as people on this earth for a short time in some cases, we need to become less obssessed and let it bother us to extremes with what others Should be doing and concentrate our energies more towards what we ourselves are proud that we do and love to do. Sorry, sounds like venting! lol Just my outlook.
I love Vermeer. Saw a couple more of his pieces while on vacation in the last 3 weeks. He did very little and lived for very short a time. It is too bad.
Joss

[gogoha]

Guys, I am new in this forum. But I was shocked to learn that some people are still debating about using the optical aids for painting. Don't we all learn that the "Art are those designated by an artist". Somebody have designated an "urinal" as a piece of art, so can you, the artist, designate your work as an art. That is the end of debate. To use any tools to get the result you want would be better than no result. If the tool gives you better result, then use it. The guilty feeling only takes something away from your work. Your confidence of creating a great peice of work perhaps is the only energy reliable for creating such a work.

[Dorothea]

Greg,......i agree with you. Looked at both sites.A projected image could not have produced such detail and lighting, i agree.
We are happy we can draw

gogoha.......You are refering to the 6 urinals installed in a freaky
display in NYC. Installations are on the way out.(into the garbage heep) along with the marbles in the corner. Wannabes try anything for attention, so do children. We debate this issue because we are devoted to ART, Fine Art not passing fancies. To try to tear apart the old masters is injust, Thats the "wannabes"
method........................Dorothea.......................................:D

Picasso said, he was "A Clown" compared to the old masters

[gogoha]

Dorothea.........I mean Duchamp's "urinal" which he entitled The Fountain and signed R. Mutt. Thanks for your comments.

[rd2ruin]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Pannini's piece is a rather simple one-point perspective.

Although it is complex in its detail, it is nothing like a Vermeer. Vermeer's lighting, alone, is far more complex, let alone the realism of Vermeer's drapery, skin tones, etc.

And I learned about one-point perspective in juniour high...

K

If I remember correctly, most or all of Vermeer's internal paintings are rather simple one point perspectives as well ;)

Seeing several paintings of both artists in person (the komputer, as we all sadly know, does it a horrible injustice to every painters' detail), I would compare the level of realism equal.

The point was, I don't believe it would be possible that something this intricate could be done solely with optics, maybe the drapes were. Floors and fabric are one thing. But a realistic painting of realistic paintings, I imagine, would be remarkably difficult to pull off. Just as it's impossible optics are solely responsible for Vermeer's signature lighting.

And finally, on a different note.... being that painting was stuck in the baroque period for three hundred years, I believe we should celebrate, not bemoan, optical use for introducing an entirely new method to approach painting. If Hockney's statement is correct, it would place optics right at the cusp of the Renaissance, in the early 1400's. Was it a cause, or was the movement underway and optics coincided? Did it do anything but progress art to a new level? And if so, should we welcome the efforts of computer art the same way and give more credit to the impressionists and abstract artists who had a more superior technologies with photographs, but chose not to paint photographically?

Cheers!
- Greg

[Keith Russell]

rd2ruin, still, compare the complexity of the handling of Vermeer's lighting, and his one-point perspective paintings are fare more sophisticated and subtle than the posted Pannini.

K

[fugitive]

I was perusing some Vermeer's the other day, and all I can say is, my god, that guy could paint. The tapistries, the marble checked floor, you'd think, he had drafting tools, to do that.

[Miss Bonnie]

Have you read the article in the NYTimes and the on-line Art Renewal Center?

[luvgauguin]

I once believed that assistance was cheating, but since Renaissance assistants were used to finish works, aids were also commonplace. That is not to say these artists were not masters..Bernini pieced together works and had extensive assistants that did commissions in his name that he supervised. As did Rubens(he has received alot of criticism over the years for this, but there is no way a successful artist like he could fufill all his obligations without a large studio) this was a common and oft used part of art. Michelangelo also, but I do not know about his large works. Definitely on his frescos. Durer often used grids (He even did a print showing one) Holbein also. It was common that all artists could draw realistically. This was all of them. The idea was what was so important. The original concept. Now it is the technique. I did not know this until I started some Renaissance and Baroque research. We have a totally different way of thinking. And now the classical academic training is not required and commonplace as it was then.