 | | |
| Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters | 
 enlarge
| Author: David Hockney
Publisher: Studio
Category: Book
List Price: $60.00
Buy New: $19.01
You Save: $40.99 (68%)
Buy New/Used/Collectible from $19.01
Avg. Customer Rating:  (63 reviews)
Sales Rank: 271700
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 296
Shipping Weight (lbs): 4.3
Dimensions (in): 12.2 x 9.8 x 1.3
ISBN: 0670030260
Dewey Decimal Number: 751.409
EAN: 9780670030262
ASIN: 0670030260
Publication Date: October 29, 2001
Release Date: October 25, 2001
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Book Description
Recently, David Hockney, often described as the "world's most popular artist," has made headlines not with his own work but with his sensational and controversial theories about how some of Western art's famous masterpieces?paintings by artists such as da Vinci, Caravaggio, Velazquez, and Van Eyck?were actually created. A chance observation of a drawing in London's National Gallery led Hockney to ask, "How was this done?"
His answer led to fascinating insights into the history of art: that many of the world's most revered artists used mirrors and various optical devices?such as the camera obscura?to project images onto their canvasses and then "traced" the scenes. Hockney's radical speculations have prompted both astonishment and outrage from prominent art historians and museum directors worldwide. The debate aside, Secret Knowledge offers readers the exhilarating opportunity to see the Old Masters afresh?through the eyes of a living master.
In Secret Knowledge, hundreds of paintings are reproduced in stunning color plates, and many are discussed in close and accessible detail. Hockney's own drawings and photographs illustrate how artists would have used the technology available to them in rendering their subjects. Extracts from historical and modern documents provide further evidence while correspondence between Hockney and an impressive array of international art historians, curators, and scientists details both the evolution of his theory and the furor that has erupted over it.
Amazon.com
British painter David Hockney, well known for his cool and lovely paintings of California pools, has taken on the new role of detective. For two years Hockney seriously investigated the painting techniques of the old masters, and like any admirable sleuth, compiled substantial evidence to support his revolutionary theory. Secret Knowledge is the fruit of this labor, an exhaustive treatise in pictures revealing clues that some of the world's most famous painters, Ingres, Velazquez, Caravaggio (just to mention a few) utilized optics and lenses in creating their masterpieces. Hockney's fascination with the subject is contagious, and the book feels almost like a game with each analysis a "How'd they do that?" instead of a whodunit. While some may find the technical revelation a disappointment in terms of the idea of genius, Hockney is quick to point out that the use of optics does not diminish the immensity of artistic achievement. He reminds the reader that a tool is just a tool, and it is still the artist's hand and creative vision that produce a work of art. (296 pages, 460 illustrations, 402 in color.) --J.P. Cohen
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 58 more reviews...
 Giving copies to friends August 14, 2008
Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
This book researches and explains the methods used by the old masters to achieve beautiful results in their realistic paintings. A must read. I buy it as gifts to educate my friends, artist & non artist alike. Cynthia
 too much words March 29, 2008
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
quality of pictures is good,but words are too much,
it is different to read,
Very interesting November 22, 2007
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Despite some negative reviews here, I thought this was a good book, and I find Hockney's theory quite credible, due to a study I did some time ago.
Twenty years ago, I wrote what was probably the most detailed analysis of perspective and visual distortions in van Gogh's famous painting, Bedroom at Arles. The research showed that the visual system can create several spatial distortions in a painting if the painter fails to map out a precise perspective. These deviations from geometric perspective--such as exaggerating the perceived sizes of objects in the foreground (to about 20 feet away from the observer), minimizing the sizes of objects in the distance, and the famous overall hyperbolic distortion of the human visual field, were clearly demostrable using standard perspective analysis, especially using the advanced techiques that I learned from Dubery and Willits's fine book on the subject.
I wasn't the first to note them, as these distortions have been noted by many observers and discussed by the great John Ward and Patrick Heelan in their journal articles in The Art Bulletin on the same painting, but no one had done the full quantitative analysis yet or linked them to the visual neurobiology. In addition, van Gogh also showed a spiral or torsional twist in some paintings that suggested something further in the way of physiological optics going on or perhaps even something neurological.
Through close obsevation of the real world, the great artists are aware of many of these problems, and how difficult it is to paint perspective precisely, and ever since my earlier study I've always suspected that Hockney's hypothesis was correct, I just didn't have the data myself, since I was working in a somewhat different field of perceived visual distortions in paintings that result from the operation of the human visual system itself.
So Hockney's thesis seems very plausible to me. I note one very negative review, but based on my own investigations, I think Hockney is probably right. Various geometric drawing devices and optical projective devices were available to the artists of old, and it's very likely that at least some, and perhaps many of them, used them as integral aids in their painting. Furthermore, there is the obvious case of anamorphic art in the Baroque period, where artists were known to have used optical devices to paint pictures that couldn't even be understood without the use of cyclindrical mirrors.
I found Hockney's book well written and a very interesting read. I think he did a great job on it and I learned a lot myself.
Hockney's Evidence is Thought-Provoking, Verifiable/Falsifiable March 26, 2007
10 out of 12 found this review helpful
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.
Another great book from Hockney's first rate mind January 11, 2007
11 out of 18 found this review helpful
I have spent years painting and teaching and drawing the figure. Its amazing how much a person still can learn after practicing it for so long. This is one of the joys of drawing. Every investigated mark is a learning experience. That is what I also love about Hockney. This man might not be the greatest shining star artist of our time, but it would be easy to defend him as the greatest thinker in the arts since Da Vinci.
'Secret Knowledge' is just a small chunk of Hockney's oeuvre. He has been writing books primarily through the interview form for decades. Each book has looked at aspects of art in different lights. This book only happens to be the most concise and stylized of his many efforts.
Basically, if your here reading this, I bet you have some idea what this book is about already. You know that Hockney is putting forth a thesis on how drawings were so precisely crafted by the masters two hundred years ago, while today as one of our societies foremost draftsmen, Hockney cant even come close to matching those abilities. Hockney goes into detail on how he can see characteristic pencil marks created by Warhol or other artists using over-head projectors and Ingres' drawings. This is pretty obvious if you have done both. Hockney then goes into precise detail on the drawbacks of using the camera lucidea and obscuras and how they were used.
I really find some qualms with the reviewer who says that Hockney's arguments are on par with a junior high school students and that they are not scientific. Quite the contrary. Hockney's arguments are precise and unfold in a step by step process. You can't really give scientific proof over how a drawing was created any other way than Hockney has done so. The more time you spend drawing the figure, the more you will realize what Hockney is saying, is right on.
I think that this book will go down as one of the benchmark art books of our era. Its well worth pondering over and I think that even though it does not have quite as much relevance in our post-modern era, it will be around for as long as people still want to understand art.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| | |
