« WISHING IT WERE NOT SO | Main | CONVENTIONAL WISDOM »
August 26, 2004
DAVID HOCKNEY: DRAWING BY OTHER MEANS
Now that David Hockney's controversial theory about the use of lenses and optical devices by Renaissance painters is being disputed again -- this time by computer experts, as reported yesterday by the Sunday Herald in Scotland and today by The New York Times -- it may be worth revisiting a lecture he gave on the subject at both Columbia University and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1999, two years before the publication of his book, "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters."
The lecture reminds us that his theory has everything to do with a reverence for drawing and not, as his opponents tend to assert, with its devaluation. This report is reprinted from MSNBC.com © 1999.
ART AND TECH: AN INTIMATE, EARLY MIX
David Hockney
gives art history a closer look, and greater relevancy to the present
By Jan Herman
MSNBC
NEW YORK, Nov. 4, 1999 -- The idea
that European painters from the 1500s on commonly used lenses and optical devices as tools of
their trade has a special resonance for David Hockney, who believes that art must find its roots in
drawing again and that drawing-by-other-means -- digital imaging via computer, for example --
has already begun that rediscovery.
"What's interesting today," Hockney says, "is
what is happening to photography now that the computer has come along. Actually, the hand is
coming back into the camera. What is called manipulation of photographs, I call drawing. What's
really happening is that we are beginning to draw through the camera, through the
lens."
Hockney relishes the proposition that art and technology had an intimate
connection much earlier than generally asserted and that acknowledging the connection with the
proper emphasis gives the history of Western art greater relevancy to the present.
In a
recent lecture at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism co-sponsored by the
National Arts Journalism Program with The School of the Arts and the Department of Art
History, Hockney elaborated on these ideas, most of which he had outlined the previous week at
the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
"The whole point," he said, "is that we have moved into a period where the photograph has
lost its veracity. You don't necessarily have to believe anything that's happening in a photograph.
We did believe it for a certain length of time, or thought we did.
"Now there's no
need to believe it at all, meaning that photography is in a sense back with drawing and painting,
actually like drawing and painting. Nobody foresaw that happening. That's why it's interesting to
look back into the history of European painting and to see how the lens was used with the
hand."
Hockney contends that the use of lenses as an aid to draftsmanship -- helping
artists see the curvature of space, so to speak -- explains more than any other single reason why
"there is no awkward drawing, none," in almost 400 years of Western art until the late 19th
century.
When Cezanne came along in 1870 and rejected the lens, his influence
(especially on the French Impressionists), combined with the rise of chemical photography, altered
the way painters chose to look at the world and obscured the hand-lens
connection.
Moreover, the development of lenses and optical devices can be traced in
paintings themselves, without reference to historical documents, simply by observing the
increasingly sophisticated changes in painted or drawn perspective: They went from simple
mathematical and geometric foreshortening to the more complex, purposeful distortions of
telescopic and telephoto effects.
Here are some of Hockney's remarks from his
illustrated lecture at Columbia:
TWO MEN AND A LUTE
"In 1525 Dürer
makes an engraving of two men drawing a lute. The lute is very difficult to draw, he's telling you.
Supremely difficult. ... Holbein's 'The Ambassadors' is painted in 1533, only eight years after
Dürer made that engraving. ... Well, Holbein does a lute not bad. ... His painting is made with an
unbelievable accuracy for everything. ... The [fabric] patterns are amazingly accurate. They tilt
when [the cloth] folds. The pattern follows the folds. Geometry wouldn't do that. So I thought, 'It
was lenses.' ...
"Then in 1590 Caravaggio paints a picture in which he not only does a
lute in marvelous perspective, he throws in a violin, also in perfect perspective. You can even read
all the music. Now how did he do it? ... I suggest that lenses were used and that they were more
advanced lenses than previously.
THE POPE AND HIS LENS
"I went to
Caravaggio straight away, because people often thought Caravaggio did use lenses, did use
optics, because there are no drawings. He didn't make drawings. ... Going back further than
Caravaggio, I'm going to Raphael [who] painted [a] portrait of the pope in 1518. If you notice,
very, very accurate fabrics. Extremely accurate shadows. And in his hand the pope's got a lens the
size of the diameter of a can of beans. The size of Caravaggio's lens was two cans of beans. He
had a telephoto lens. ...
"Well, who, you might ask would have the best lenses, the
scientists or the pope? Well, I think the pope would have the best lenses then, and the image
makers would have the best lenses because images were considered more powerful at that time. ...
This is Raphael's pope, 1518, with a pretty good lens. This is Velazquez's pope, 1650, probably
with an even better lens. ...
PRE-RAPHAELITE, PRE-LENS?
"[Notice]
Raphael of different years. [In] 1505, not much pattern in his sleeves…. By the time he gets to
1518, there's a very elaborate pattern following the forms. … He's able to do it precisely. … Is it
just another skill he learned? Is it just that? I don't think so. I think it's use of optics. That's what
I'm saying. ...
Detail of Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres' "Comtesse Charles d'Agoult,
née Marie de Flavigny, and Her Daughter Claire d'Agoult," 1849, graphite with white highlights
on paper. The highly detailed rendering of the patterns and folds of fabric indicate the artist's
likely use of a lens.
"Historically ... after the invention of chemicals with the lens,
which meant photography, painting veers off and that was 1870 in France -- Cezanne and the
Impressionists. ... In England they had an odd movement, they called themselves pre-Raphaelites.
... Do you think they were just [pre-Raphaelite] in a literary way, not in a visual way? Getting at
something about pre-lens? I don't know ... I'm just pointing it out. ... "
"It would be
sad if anybody thought what I am saying [about the use of lenses] diminished anything. On the
contrary, it makes it far more interesting and far more interesting to us today. The great skills
took a long time. As I point out, look at Frans Hals and at his contemporaries. They had the same
tool. They just didn't have the same heart, or the hand. And that makes the difference."
Posted by at August 26, 2004 10:25 AM
