|
Actually, I'm not totally opposed to the idea that SOME artists used devices SOMETIMES, but to imply that they couldn't create realism without them is crazy.
Centuries ago, craftsmen had trade secrets that they guarded fiercely. That's where the term "trade secret" comes from. You couldn't just go out and learn certain trades. The guilds trained a select few, who agreed not to divulge the techniques to anyone but their apprentices.
But artists were different. The artist had to draw and paint in the presence of the sitter. If optical devices were used by so many artists, there would have been ample documentation in the letters and papers of these people.
I'll even grant that Hockney may be right about 15th century art taking a leap forward due to optical devices. It is possible that optically aided drawing demonstrated the accuracy that was possible in art, and therefore raised the bar for all aritsts, who then learned to more carefully duplicate subjects from life, even without aids.
As someone here already pointed out, if classical realism was only possible with optical aids, why are there artists today who can paint high realism by eye?
I guess this will be debated for some time to come.
|
Threaded Mode
