![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last night, I splurged and bought myself a copy of David Hockney's Secret Knowledge, in which he makes the argument that the jump in realistic detail during the Renaissance was largely due to artists taking advantage of the science/technology of optics and using lenses or convex mirrors to project images onto their canvases as guides (which he rightly emphasises is not "cheating;" as with a photograph, the picture doesn't draw itself, the artist's will must enter into the process, and quite a bit too). Anyway, I'd heard a little bit about this before and knew his theory was somewhat controversial among art historians (Hockney is not a historian - on the other hand he is a well-known professional artist with about five decades of practical experience); so when I saw this in the Wikipedia entry:
His theory of the use of this method in Old Master works is seen as incorrect by most optical historians and many art historians. Please see Hockney's Secret Knowledge: Refuted
I figured I owed it to intellectual honesty to follow the link. The lack of names in the clause in the actual entry should have tipped me off, but I was kind of flabbergasted to read the "refutation." I like Hockney, and I'm trying to be hyper-aware of my bias, but I just can't discover any counter-argument in it, just paragraphs of schoolyard-level insults against Hockney and anyone who gives him the time of day. So, I'm now wondering if I should edit the entry and point out what bunk* the link is, or just trust readers to follow it and watch the argument self-discredit. Should I add a link to this article on Secret Knowledge, which contains a synopsis of a panel debate by Hockney and critics who make somewhat more reasoned arguments against his theory?
*(Actually the whole artrenewal.org site seems a bit fishy to me - basically they seem like they should be called wehatemodernart.org, and I notice they make a big deal of "acrediting" artists who've taken their courses and paint in their approved style. Bit ironic that they hate Hockney, since he was one of the people carrying the torch of representational painting during the mid-twentieth c. when most of the art world wouldn't admit to anything but abstraction.)
His theory of the use of this method in Old Master works is seen as incorrect by most optical historians and many art historians. Please see Hockney's Secret Knowledge: Refuted
I figured I owed it to intellectual honesty to follow the link. The lack of names in the clause in the actual entry should have tipped me off, but I was kind of flabbergasted to read the "refutation." I like Hockney, and I'm trying to be hyper-aware of my bias, but I just can't discover any counter-argument in it, just paragraphs of schoolyard-level insults against Hockney and anyone who gives him the time of day. So, I'm now wondering if I should edit the entry and point out what bunk* the link is, or just trust readers to follow it and watch the argument self-discredit. Should I add a link to this article on Secret Knowledge, which contains a synopsis of a panel debate by Hockney and critics who make somewhat more reasoned arguments against his theory?
*(Actually the whole artrenewal.org site seems a bit fishy to me - basically they seem like they should be called wehatemodernart.org, and I notice they make a big deal of "acrediting" artists who've taken their courses and paint in their approved style. Bit ironic that they hate Hockney, since he was one of the people carrying the torch of representational painting during the mid-twentieth c. when most of the art world wouldn't admit to anything but abstraction.)
