Customer Reviews

Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

Great book. Reads like the denouement of spell-binding mystery novel with the visual and textual evidence mounting piece by piece until the conclusion seems inevitable. As a working artist, Hockney teases out clues that may have eluded art historians. The book itself is a piece of artwork with excellent reproductions, skillful layout and beautiful typography.

There is one sore spot. Historical and scientific types will quickly notice that Hockney reached his conclusions BEFORE his two year search for evidence and that weaknesses in the argument and evidence are not fully considered. The examples appear selective and are possibly not representative. Looking at the sample artwork, you can see his point but would not be suprised to hear valid alternative explanations. Though not proof positive, the work is persuasive, enlightening and more than a little revolutionary.

Critics and reviewers who have rated Hockney's Secret Knowledge low seem to me to overlooks some major points. Some of these I find more persuasive than the the issue of alleged perspective misjudgment which seem to attract the greatest heat.

1. H points out that a huge majority of portraits in the period show the model as left handed--some 80%. This is consistent with use of lenses and inconsistent with the frequency of left-handedness in the population. Now, here is a verifiable fact. Are H's numbers right--or are they not?

2. H is not claiming that everyone 1400-1650 was a poor draftsman. At least in what I've seen so far, he doesn't claim e.g. that Rembrandt used optics. Part of his evidence is however that some artists who were great painters were not great draftsmen--their painting exceeds in accuracy their draftsmanship. Now this appears to me again something that is verifiable by a third party. (The question of H's own draftsmanship abilities is totally irrlevant. I don't like his art much myself).

3. In a highly competitive art market, where realism counted, what is the likelihood that artists would >not< use devices that helped them both with accuracy and speed? Even if the great Ren artists could paint and draw realistically without optics (and their education certainly was thorough), throughput and competitive concerns surely would have pushed them in that direction.

4. To my knowledge, no one has responded to H's claim that the change in light to very strong with dark shadows from about 1400 (light is flat) to 1500 is very consistent with use of optics. Yes, that is not the only possible explanation. But from a philosophy of science perspective, this phenomenon and the phenomenon of increased accuracy need to be explained. H at least offers an explanation. The burden of an alternative explanation is on the critics. H's hypothesis could be falsified by showing that in fact strong lighting was used before this period and flat lighting afterwards.

5. Another phenomenon for which H has an explanation but for which I haven't seen alternatives is the fact that in many realistic paintings, depth of field is evident. An example is the famous Vermeer milk pitcher painting. H has an explanation of why the foreground breadbasket is out of focus, while the background basket is (oddly) in focus. If a critic doesn't like H's explanation, he/she should provide an alternative.

6. H shows that in some cases extremely precise scaling is evident--scaling that would be very difficult to do by hand. Prof Falco, the optics and superconducting physicist who collaborated with H., has done the math and claimed that obtaining such accuracy by hand is very difficult since the error is (as I remember) under 2%). Doing anything by hand with under 2% error is quite a feat--including reconciling bank statements :)-- never mind drawing. Here is another phenomenon in which either the factual statements by H and Falco can be easily verified/falsified or need an alternative explanation should be provided.

On an ad hominem note, I think it is worth pointing out that art historians have a built-in motive for rejecting H's hypothesis: They didn't find it! I took an amateur to notice the discrepancies. Finally, personal experience suggests that some people have a lot more difficult time with accuracy/obtaining a likeness than others. For H to be correct, he does not need to support the claim that everyone who was accurate used optics, only that some did and these raised the bar for the art community as a whole.

Thanks for reading.

The premise is simple: Hockney believes that the Old Masters of European art used tools and techniques of which little record remains. This book presents his justification for that belief.

The first half of this book is visual. It shows the original paintings and drawings that led Hockney to this idea. Once it's pointed out, many signs are unmistakable: odd proportions in otherwise masterful works, inconsistent perspective drawn by people who really knew perspective, and a few other better-known oddities. Although I'm not a fan of Hockney's own work, I respect the training and sensitivity that picked out these features.

Hockney goes on to show how these artifacts could have come from use of a family of optical tools, including camera lucida and several variants on the camera obscura. This is where he brings the most to this book, in trying the tools himself, as an artist, and seeing what unique features each tool imposes on the resulting artworks. This is what has so many critics upset - the idea that the Old Masters might have used every tool possible to complete their commissions faster, and to give their patrons the most pleasing result for the ducat. Those critics know about the assembly-line work in some of the Old Masters' studios and who know about the other mechanical aids that are well documented, but squawk at the idea of adding another tool to their toolboxes. Huh?

Hockney's evidence is often circumstantial, since painting was (and often is) a secretive and competitive business. Still, he offers a good story, and the second half of the book adds a strong foundation of written records to the structure. This is the book's weakness, though. Hockney is an artist, not a historian or optical technologist. He chose a story-telling format for presenting his findings, the letters he exchanged with scholars and specialists in other fields. It has a friendly look, but lacks in density and in organization of the historical records.

Despite its many flaws, I find it a fascinating study. Hockney really brings history to life, with his own hands, dispelling the idea that historical study is a dry, dusty practice. His documentation lacks in formal rigor, and he addresses the Great Masters about whom people have strong sentiment. Some people see that as iconoclasm for its own sake - guys, get over it.
-- Address his facts with facts. Name-calling says more about you than him.
-- Picking one nit (and there are lots) doesn't pick apart the whole presentation.
-- Don't assume that Hockney's own art (of which I'm not a fan) decides the merit of his historical analysis.
-- Accept the idea that his eye may be better than the words he can put to his vision.

It's an honest and vivid account, with a good base in reason and fact. It deserves respect on that account, and works hard to earn the reader's enjoyment. I recommend this to anyone interest in the history and practice of visual art.

//wiredweird

I just received Hockney's book and have been eagerly pawing through the text and illustrations. I first became aware of Hockney's latest idea and project through an article in the New Yorker about a year or so ago, and at the time was quite intrigued. As a practicing artist myself, it's wonderful to have this theory of optical assistance put forward by another working artist rather than an art historian of limited mark-making experience, as it were.

While at times Mr. Hockney may overstate the possible use of optics where supreme draughtmanship might explain the mastery of the old masters, his ideas are certainly intriguing and merit further examination. It was especially interesting to me to watch Hockney's own mark-making 'improve' as he himself practised drawing portraits using an optical device invented in the early 19th century. I even found myself thinking, "Hey, where can I get my hands on a camera lucida and give this a whirl, too?"

Despite whatever academic faults one might find with Hockney's method of establishing his theory, the book itself is a joy. Hockney approaches this topic with unabashed enthusiasm, and rewards the reader with lavish and well-elucidated visual aids.

Reaction to David Hockney's original book SECRET KNOWLEDGE published in 2001 stirred a lot of controversy from artists, art historians, art collectors, and students: the responses ranged from resounding Bravos! to a clangorous 'Humbugs!' Now Hockney has produced a second expanded volume, partially in response to that outbreak of slander and partially to fill the voids left by his first set of observations. This newly expanded version retains the luxury of copious images of paintings from the early 15th century to the present and adds to that a fascinating series of historical quotations from across the centuries to support his theory. In other words, the book is still controversial - but now it is backed by researched documents from ancient and contemporary scholars.

His theory? Simply that artists from those following Giotto to the present used optics as a tool to create images. Hockney does not disparage this 'manipulation' as a foil to famous artists' integrity or talent: quite the opposite - he lauds the artists who had the intelligence to make use of yet another tool (like paint brushes, charcoal, paper, easels, etc) to hone their skills. Hockney gently and with respect explores the use of the camera obscura and camera lucida along with the use of concave and convex mirrors and lenses, offering the reader not only his ideas on the subject but also splendid examples of how the discovery of optics changed the quality of painting over a mere tow or three years of usage time with such luminaries as Velasquez and Caravaggio!

Whether or not the reader elects to accept Hockney's premise of the importance of optics in the development of art history will not prevent enjoying the fascinating excursion this well designed and produced book offers. Hockney intermingles his own portraits meticulously created with the use of the camera lucida to demonstrate how this technique was in no way a sign of laziness or 'copying' of a projected image on the part of the artists he discusses. Quite the contrary. By utilizing these techniques and sharing the inherent difficulties the use of optics creates in the technical aspects of painting and drawing he is able to speak with authority about his thesis.

Hockney's joy (which continues to this day) is exploring the 'How did they do that?' response to painting, not unlike the way most of us approach a canvas and as 'What does it mean?'. It is this kind of intellectual searching that makes this book such a treasure - that, and the fact that here is yet another superb art history book that the reader will actually READ instead of just perusing the pictures. Highly recommended on many levels. Grady Harp, December 06

For centuries, it seems that art history has taught us that the "Old Masters" had special divine powers and were given gifts from God to create such works of genius. It would also seem that most serious art critics, art teachers and artists alike agree that these old works of art are like miracles and the creators are to be worshipped.

David Hockney has wriiten a book that shines a new light on the Old Masters and their more scientific techniques, while not taking away any of their abilities as artists.

Secret Knowledge is a book detailing his theory that around 1430, some artists began using optics to project their subject onto the canvas, thus maing it easier to create stunning realism. Some people would hear this idea and say "Oh, he is saying that they were not geniuses... that they were cheating!"

Not so.

While making a rather persuasive argument through words and pictures that lenses and mirrors were almost certainly used, he maintains throughout the book that it still takes a talented artist to create a masterpiece. The optical devices did not replace the artist, they only enhanced his ability to create more stunning realism.

I found his arguments interesting and enlightening... and if you are a student of art, or have any interest in the history of fine arts, I think you would enjoy this Book for its ideas and its many beautiful reproductions of artwork. Get this one today and See the "Old Masters" through a "new lens".

This is meticulously and beautiful book, that supplements the photos of art with excellent detail closeups. David Hockney writes in an accessible and lively style. Non Artists will have no trouble following his argument, though we may not be able to fully judge it as well as art experts can.

But that's not the only accomplishment of this book. Following the path of Hockney's investigation, we learn an enormous amount about painting and how it is accomplished, not just in the past but how it ties to today's techniques. As a still and movie cameraman I found it very illuminating and even useful.

The book came this morning. I opened it here and there for an hour or so. It is refreshing to see these issues addressed by a real mechanic/maker rather than Art Historians who in the end are audience, (well? educated audience) David Hockney has moved lots of paint and much else; he knows about these things, these pictures. I feel like I was talking shop with another painter this morning. What a book! and what a clear and direct use of digital technology to make a book. The book is revelatory because Hockney always reveals, so matter of fact, a man explaining his trade, saying it as it is.

Can we doubt the influence of optics on pictures? Heck no! Hockney easily proves that. It's all the other stuff he does along the way; Hockney has a good time when he works, he shares his good time with us. The luckiest readers of this book will be the non-painters. Hockney is going to tell them how it is to think like a painter. For me, it's so cool to look at (discuss? ) pictures with Hockney. I'm going to take this book in pieces, savor my time with it

2/4/02 Optics and painting/drawing both make edited copies of reality; these flat things we call pictures. Did the painters trace, draw, collage or all three; does the camera? It's all mark making. We make pictures so why would we not look at other pictures. A tree can't tell you how to draw it but a drawing of a tree just might. Huge numbers of people are still seduced by optical looking paintings; it is something of a standard. In economics that's called demand and over the centuries painters have fulfilled that demand. We still like all those pictures. Hockney is still right, optical pictures were and are the overwhelming force in the set of all pictures. Watch TV for an hour and you see vastly more frames than anyone in the 15-19th century saw in a life time. Hockney simply pointed at an evergrowing forest of optical images;

As usual. the scientific and historical types miss the forest because of the trees; for painters the big picture is the picture. All the detail in the world won't help a ridiculously constructed picture. The problem is the historical and scientific people are academics, painters are people who make things; it is a different form of intelligence. Clearly academic skill is prized in this culture but there are many other kinds of knowing; the academics should learn to see them.

As for the man who encouraged his son to trace; right on guy. If the kid wants to be a painter all that use of a pencil; that feel of how flat things work, even thinking about the picture, will be useful. Just remember to also encourage the making of more freehand marks; way more. Drawing from nature is it's own game; one that shouldn't be missed and drawing from imagination is cool too. In the end it all comes together.

Poor David. His book has certainly stirred up controversy. This has to be the most reviewed art book I've ever come across.

First of all I'd like to say that I find the authors style refreshing in that he doesn't try to force his opinions on you and his arguments are logically set out. However I have to agree with some of the other reviewers in that he did come to his conclusions before he proved them and I feel that some of his evidence is inadequate and forced to fit the theory and not the other way round and some of his arguments are faulty or badly presented.

However, the authors' overall information appears to be based on pretty solid ground and I found it quite interesting. There seems to be enough contemporary evidence available to show that the sort of optical devices he talks about were available to artists of the time if they wanted to use them. I think at the end of the day though it all comes back to - does the use of any sort of optical device enable you to paint something that you wouldn't have the skill to paint without.
In my experience, the answer is no.

If you check out the websites of any of the good realist art schools you'll see that people today can match anything the old masters did in terms of realism without the use of any sort of photographic or optical device at all (many realist artists are dyed in the wool 'purists' in regards to that (www.adriangottlieb.com is a good example). However David Hockney never claimed this. In fact he writes in the introduction "Let me say here that optics don't make drawing any easier either, far from it - I know, I've used them". The fact that he hasn't made this view clear throughout the rest of the book and is known as not being an accomplished realist painter himself, is the reason I think, that he's drawn so many peoples fire.
Also, Anthony Ryder (a very skilled realist artist and author of the book `The Artists Complete Guide to Figure Drawing') says that it takes him about 20 hours to complete a life drawing; and that's just a drawing, let alone a painting. And he's an expert. Possibly add another 10-15 hours for a painting. What wealthy customer has the patience and time to pose for that long? I think that any `old master' or painter would be very grateful to get their hands on something that could accurately and helpfully speed up the whole process if they needed or wanted it.

Apart from that, the illustrations in this book are lavish and there are quite a few close-ups, which is always a bonus for an artist. The writing is refreshingly easy to read and interesting, although perhaps lacking a little in the scholarship and research department. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. At any rate, at least you can have something to say to those irritating people (usually non-painters) who claim that " real painters don't use photographs".

In recent trips to Europe, I've had the good fortune to see many of the actual paintings reproduced in Secret Knowledge. And as a photographer who has spent years staring at projected images on the ground glass of an 8x10 camera, an optical projection is the last thing that came to mind when I looked at those paintings.

It's true that some of the paintings look like photographs. In some cases, as with Van Eyck's paintings for instance, faces have the translucent quality of real flesh. But it's a mistake to assume, as Hockney does, that a painting that has the "look" of a photograph is evidence that camera optics were involved. Realism and fine detail in a painting would more plausibly pass as evidence that painters observed their subjects directly, not by tracing optical projections, or more specifically, optical projections made with primitive, long focal length lenses. Such projections have extremely poor depth of field and very low resolution. The so called Flemish "primitive" paintings have astonishing detail, images projected from primitive lenses do not.

Hockney points to the "perfect" perspective of some paintings as evidence of optics, but many of Hockney's examples are paintings that have imperfect perspectives. So he then proceeds to devise far-fetched explanations of how such distortions could be evidence of optics. Thus, according to Hockney's convoluted logic, both perfect perspective and distorted perspectives are evidence of the use of optics.

When we finally get to see projections that Hockney makes with a convex mirror, the poor resolution is notable. Curiously, after many pages of referring to the "optical look" of paintings, Hockney marvels at the "painterly look" of his optical projections. Indeed, his projections compare favorably with a still life by Chardin, an eighteenth century artists known for his "painterly" brushwork.

We also see Hockney tracing a man's portrait from a projected image (Hockney draws in a darkened room while his subject sits outside squinting in bright sunlight so the projected image will be bright enough to see). The result is a drawing, not a painting. And most of that drawing is filled in with details drawn by Hockney observing his subject directly.

Hockney never discusses painting technique - the importance of oils, brushes, glazes, surface preparations or any other technical matters relevant to applying paint to canvas. If paintings are primary documents, surely the paint, and how it was applied to the substrate, has some bearing on the "secret techniques "of the old masters. But to Hockney it's all optics -fuzzy logic as seen through a fuzzy lens.