Camera obscura, London Science Museum |
Years ago, David Hockney caused quite a stir with his book Secret Knowledge, dealing with the idea that certain of the masters of centuries past must have used an optical aid (camera obscura) in order to produce their realistic drawings and paintings. Hockney argues that Hans Holbein, for example, could not have produced the anamorphic skull in his famous work The Ambassadors
Hans Holbein the Younger, "The Ambassadors," 1533 |
without resorting such an aid. Perhaps so, but then again, maybe he used a different aid. Or none at all. The question is, "does it matter?" The answer is it matters to some people, though whether or not it should is a separate question.
Is using a visual aid, whether it's a camera obscura, camera lucida, film or digital camera, or a computer "cheating"? The idea of course is that if you don't make good drawing without aids then you're little more than someone who can trace an image. Or if you use a computer instead of putting down real paint on a real surface, you're not really an artist. Opinions like those do seem less common these days as the older generation of artists ages but they're certainly still around. My generation was taught all sorts of methods for drawing, perhaps the most accurate being the sight-size method, wherein the artist makes an accurately measured and drawn representation of what he sees. But we were also taught how to use visual grids, film references, and even a camera lucida. But most learned to draw without those things, too.
Whether or not Hockney is right about the camera obscura use by masters like Vermeer and Hals (and numerous others), their mastery of light and form and paint and all manner of the painter's art make the argument irrelevant, in my opinion. Masters of the past left us the beautiful and compelling images, regardless of how they were actually made. Their materials, methods and aids, work processes and a myriad of other information are interesting and even potentially useful today, of course. But regardless, they didn't "cheat" when making their art.
Whether or not Hockney is right about the camera obscura use by masters like Vermeer and Hals (and numerous others), their mastery of light and form and paint and all manner of the painter's art make the argument irrelevant, in my opinion. Masters of the past left us the beautiful and compelling images, regardless of how they were actually made. Their materials, methods and aids, work processes and a myriad of other information are interesting and even potentially useful today, of course. But regardless, they didn't "cheat" when making their art.
A professional (in any field) uses any tool needed to produce the end result. Painters of great skill and renown through history always employed visual aids. As Hockney postulated, as scientific inquiry and lens technology advanced, aids like the camera obscura may have been used. The
use of a camera obscura makes perfect sense,
however frequently or infrequently the device may have actually been employed, given the intellectual ferment of the time and the exploration of optics that was taking hold in natural philosophy. Even without more sophisticated gear, though, artists used visual
grids (e.g. Durer) to assist them in composition and perspective. A grid provides an artist with a way to visualize a possible final image, correct proportions, deal with perspective, and so on. Vincent van Gogh discovered how much such a simple device improved his awkward drawings, they remain in common use today.
Another example of course is film photography. Although it wasn't widely available until the late 19th century, once photography took hold, artists began to use it. Masters of that time--Edgar Degas, Winslow Homer, Alphonse Mucha, Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, even Pablo Picasso--began to either actively employ film photography or use found photographs. Certain illustrators and painters in the early and mid-20th century (e.g. Norman Rockwell) made extensive use of photographs but were careful to hide the
fact from the public. Rockwell was an excellent draftsman yet knew full well that the public wouldn't respond well to his use of photos. The Rockwell Museum holds a large collection of his reference photos, including those for famous works like The Runaway. As one can see from comparing the two images, Rockwell made substantial modifications and additions to each of his referenced cover paintings.
Regardless, visual aids of all kinds are pervasive in visual realism. Grids, frames, mirrors, cameras, and computers are simply tools to be used.
Norman Rockwell, "The Runaway," 1958 (Norman Rockwell Museum) |
Photo reference for "The Runaway" (Rockwell Museum) |
Regardless, visual aids of all kinds are pervasive in visual realism. Grids, frames, mirrors, cameras, and computers are simply tools to be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment