Thursday, September 10, 2009

Hockey's Theories

As David Hockney stated, by 1420 a large change seemed to occur. All the artists could suddenly draw better. With all the evidence Hockney provides, it's quite clear that his theory is correct. How else could artists draw so emphatically realistic that it is similar to a photographic? As Hockney said, the sketches had a traced look to them. These talented artists were not near as talented as they appeared. They had devised a camera obscura, so they could simply trace the subjects . They didn't just use their eyes, hands, and a pencil, but also a curved lens to trace the pictures. In the artistic world, this is cheating. It does not take much talent to trace a picture. But after a few artists began to spread this information, they would have clearly rather used this equipment than draw without. People were amazed by their "talent". They became incredibly famous for their drawing and painting skills. But their drawings were not made as one would assume. They gained much fame from these incredibly realistic pictures that had never been seen before. The artists were still talented, but did cheat somewhat. They still had a steady hand to paint the pictures and it's tedious detail, but used more than just paint and a paint brush.
Van Ike was one of the artists that is thought as using this method. Van Ike purposely did not write down his formulas, so none of his competitors would find the secret. Van Ike shared the secret with a selected few, and they all kept it to themselves. During the 15th century, after all these artists' death, painting and drawing as realistic-looking as these were no longer seen. No paintings got even close to their realistic-look during this time. This is all the more proof that these old masters used a curved lens and/or a concave to produce their pictures. Their method was quite genius. They were close to inventing an actual camera six-hundred ago. But it was dishonest to fans to say they had made the picture by hand and nothing else. They really did not have enough talent to be refereed to as a master.
Many artists and art historians would feel quite disappointed after hearing this information. They would feel, or perhaps do feel, that these "masters" were liars, and that they were not nearly as great as they appeared to be. That these artists were just cheaters with a little bit of talent. On the other hand, some artists feel somewhat relieved that these old artists are perhaps not as talented as themselves. And that painting those extremely life-like paintings can not be achieved without a curved lens; that they are maybe just as talented as the old masters. The artists were quite talented for coming up with this brilliant method, which was quite unknown of and unheard of at the time, and, as previously stated, they did have some drawing skills that were quite impressive. But not only were they brilliant, but also cheaters.

No comments: