There was a BBC documentary David Hockney's Secret Knowledge which got a very limited release here.

Steve, I missed the BBC documentary! I'll bet it was fascinating. The book certainly was. My husband and I both read it. We were persuaded to Hockney's point of view. And like Hockney, we certainly think no less of the artists. Even with inverted lenses and tracing and years of practice, I could never do what they did.

-- Anita

Thanks Anita, fascinating subject, very nice job!

i think the guy may be udnerestimating the great masters though. I'm not a particularly good artist, but if i put my mind to it i can do real detailed drawings ni less than a day. As for the scale, i find that i usually defult to a very small scale, the more detailed the drawing the harder it is for me to do it big, as keeping it small makes detailing easier (for me).
I'd try and do an example for you, but i have nowhere to host it.
Considering that the great masters will have had plenty of time to perfect their skills, i don't see why it's impossible that their works were, in fact, done freehand.

This is such a load of crap.

Most scholars in the art world aren't 'shocked' by this, and Hockey acts like he's explained the Big Bang. It's pretty much common knowledge among art scholars that the camera lucida and other aids to the eye were at work from the renaissance on. We have drawings, sketches, etchings, etc of the things.

Where scholars part ways with Hockney is in the amount of credit he gives these aids vs the talent of the artists. Tracing an outline of a body is a long way from a finished Caravaggio, but Hockney is more interested in marketing .

Hockney is exaggerating the 'controversy' of his 'theory' -- and in the meantime, laughing all the way to the bank.

What a maroon.

BTW: The examples of astounding freehand accuracy are almost infinite (Michelangelo and DaVinci sketches were incredible!), and one can go into a contemporary drawing class and see it for oneself.

Which sorta negates Hockey's load of hogwash right off the bat.

One exception deflates his emphasis on drawing aids.

I think it is quite fair to say that Hockney's theory has caused controversy, and that the existence of a controversy is not manufactured. Just the comments expressed here are indicative of controversy -- look at the diverse range of opinions about whether freehand drawing can be as precise as a tracing.

And if you click on the link I included in the post: http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp

you will see more evidence of controversy surrounding the use of lenses versus freehand drawing (The site says: "This is ludicrous in the extreme and defamatory not only of the greats of the past, but of the living masters who quite capably can draw without the help of any such apparatus.").

As to whether the use of optics was already known and accepted in the art world, Hockney himself concedes that art historians had written about the practice, but goes on to say that what's different in his theory is its extent and earliness:

"Many art historians have argued that certain painters used the camera obscura in their work -- Canaletto and Vermeer, in particular, are often cited -- but, to my knowledge, no one has suggested that optics were used as widely or as early as I am arguing here."

Yes, I read the 'big debates' online a year (or two?) ago.

And Anita, I must admit a bias: I used to work with a lot of these pinheads, so I have some distain for [some] of these scholars who, in other eras, would have argued as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The [experts] whose intellects, integrity, and taste I admired generally dismissed Hockney's revelations as a bid for publicity, book sales, and more importantly, to get a rise out of the scholars.

He doesn't have the talent to shock with his art, so he wrote a book.

Where's Duchamp when ya need him!?

BTW: A few years ago, someone created an art work in his honor.

Hockney writes a book that explains clearly why artwork looks a certain way. This explanation is rejected by many people. However, their rejections are based on emotion, not experience and knowledge.
In the future, I believe, Hockney's point of view will be accepted as being obviously correct.

It may be the case that one must be an artist to understand correctly what Hockney proposed.

There are many confirmations of his theory that he did not mention. For example, the anatomical impossibility of the famous Ingres reclining nude. Also, the abrupt change in Norman Rockwell's depictions during the 1920s. Gerome's gladiators were depicted with photographic harsh highlights and deep shadows.

To me, it verges on the obstinate or stubborn to claim refutation of Hockney's thesis.

Interestingly, the comments ranged from "there's nothing revolutionary in what Hockney says, because use of the camera lucida by artists is well accepted" to "what Hockney says is ridiculous and to suggest that artists used tracings is ludicrous."

So, is he a maverick bucking the scholarly knowledge of the established world, or is he stating the so-called obvious?

All I know is, after reading the book I am a believer in his theory. He proved it well enough for me.

It should be remembered that the "established world," with its "scholarly knowledge," has a vested interest in the high evaluation of art. There is no pure objectivity here. To suggest that many artworks are based on mere tracings, which anyone could do, is to jeopardize a great number of academic paychecks, or so it is feared.
It comes close to the common phrase: "You would say that or you'd be out of a job."

I have not yet read Secret Knowledge by David Hockney, but have just finished watching the BBC documentary. Although this was not such a "secret" to-the-trade, it has never been explored so well. I was inspired by the focus given to the use of these optical devises in the creation many very well known Old Masters' paintings. It has not undermined my respect of these artists only enchanced it. This idea of science coming to the aid of painters has widened my understanding of the artists vision and thier determination to communicate the precise and acurate details of thier lifes and times. Bravo! To David Hockney another Bravo for taking us through the mind of these artists. I am inspired and will use concave mirrors & dark rooms to illustrate this concept to prepare new docents to work in the Dutch and Flemish galleries of the Fine Art Museum Of Budapest.

Sounds like a good use in the art world for Hockney's theory, Linda.

I'd love to take a museum tour and have the docents delve into the minds of the artists using Hockney's techniques -- to illustrate what the artists might have done and how they might have accomplished it. That would add a lot of value to me as a museum patron.