Hockney–Falco thesis
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 13:22, 15 February 2013 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 13:25, 15 February 2013 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | [[Image:Félix Vallotton 001.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Self portrait]], [[1885]], oil on canvas, by [[Félix Vallotton]]]] | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| + | The '''Hockney–Falco thesis''' is a controversial theory of [[art history]], advanced by artist [[David Hockney]] and physicist [[Charles M. Falco]], suggesting that advances in [[realism (visual arts)|realism]] and accuracy in the history of Western art since the [[Renaissance]] were primarily the result of [[optical aids]] such as the [[camera obscura]], [[camera lucida]], and [[curved mirror]]s, rather than solely due the development of [[artist]]ic technique and skill. In a 2001 book, ''Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters'', Hockney analyzed the work of the [[Old Masters]] and argued that the level of accuracy represented in their work is impossible to create by "eyeballing it". Since then, Hockney and Falco have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids, and the historical plausibility of such methods. | ||
| - | '''Self-portraits''', many now unrecognised, have been made by artists since the earliest times, in a wide range of media. By the [[Early Renaissance]], during the mid 1400s, we can more frequently distinguish artists depicting themselves as either the main subject, or as important characters in their work. With better and cheaper [[mirror]]s, and the advent of the [[panel painting|panel]] portrait, many painters, sculptors and printmakers tried some form of '''self-portraiture'''. The [[Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)|probable example]] by [[Jan van Eyck]] of 1433 is the earliest known panel self-portrait. He painted a separate portrait of his wife, and he belonged to the social group that had begun to commission portraits, already more common among wealthy Netherlanders than south of the Alps. The genre is venerable, but not until the [[Renaissance]], with increased wealth and interest in the individual as a subject, did it become truly popular. | + | Part of Hockney's work involved collaboration with Charles Falco, a [[condensed matter physics|condensed matter physicist]] and an expert in [[optics]]. While the use of optical aids would generally enhance accuracy, Falco calculated the types of [[distortion]] that would result from specific optical devices; Hockney and Falco argued that such errors could in fact be found in the work of some of the Old Masters. |
| - | ==See also== | + | |
| - | *[[Hockney–Falco thesis]] | + | Hockney's book prompted intense and sustained debate among artists, art historians, and a wide variety of other scholars. In particular, it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and [[history of science|historians of science]], as well as general historians and [[art historian]]s. The latter have in general reacted unfavorably, interpreting the Hockney–Falco thesis as an accusation that the Old Masters "cheated" and intentionally obscured their methods. Physicist [[David G. Stork]] and several co-authors have argued against the Hockney–Falco thesis from a technical standpoint. |
| - | *[[Portrait]] | + | |
| - | *[[Portrait of a Young Man with a Golden Chain]] | + | |
| - | *[[Portrait painting]] | + | |
| - | *[[Self-portraits by Rembrandt]] | + | |
| - | *[[Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh]] | + | |
| - | *[[The Portrait Now]] | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 15 February 2013
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The Hockney–Falco thesis is a controversial theory of art history, advanced by artist David Hockney and physicist Charles M. Falco, suggesting that advances in realism and accuracy in the history of Western art since the Renaissance were primarily the result of optical aids such as the camera obscura, camera lucida, and curved mirrors, rather than solely due the development of artistic technique and skill. In a 2001 book, Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, Hockney analyzed the work of the Old Masters and argued that the level of accuracy represented in their work is impossible to create by "eyeballing it". Since then, Hockney and Falco have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids, and the historical plausibility of such methods.
Part of Hockney's work involved collaboration with Charles Falco, a condensed matter physicist and an expert in optics. While the use of optical aids would generally enhance accuracy, Falco calculated the types of distortion that would result from specific optical devices; Hockney and Falco argued that such errors could in fact be found in the work of some of the Old Masters.
Hockney's book prompted intense and sustained debate among artists, art historians, and a wide variety of other scholars. In particular, it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and historians of science, as well as general historians and art historians. The latter have in general reacted unfavorably, interpreting the Hockney–Falco thesis as an accusation that the Old Masters "cheated" and intentionally obscured their methods. Physicist David G. Stork and several co-authors have argued against the Hockney–Falco thesis from a technical standpoint.
