I just watched a program about the so called "Hockney–Falco thesis", which claims that the explosive development of renaissance art largely was due to advances in optics and new techniques for mirrors and lenses for camera obscura. The controversial bit of the theory is basically the word largely.
It is well known that artists did use optics to project pictures on to canvases, like in the 16th century picture below from a "Sketchbook on military art, including geometry, fortifications, artillery, mechanics, and pyrotechnics". (Source: Wikipedia commons.)
The controversial bit is just how much it was used, and if it was crucial to the explosion of life like pieces of art from the renaissance and onwards. And I do not care. I'm agnostic.
Regardless, it is interesting to consider the possibility that already at the time, there was a technical competition between artists. Those who could afford the best optical equipment could achieve the best paintings, just like you today can achieve much better photos with a DSLR camera than with a phone camera. There may have been discussions already at the time, which tools were best, like we today discuss the advantage of high resolution over noise reduction in dark pictures.
Besides, a large number of objects must have been real. When we see a magnificent lute in an old still life, it is very likely that the artist really had access to a lute in order to project it onto the canvas. It was probably rare that he painted something he had seen in the past from memory.
The artists could project different objects on top of each other, and paint one person one day, and call in another person to be projected onto the same canvas another day - each part being photorealistic in isolation. But just like when we today cut and paste layers in Photoshop, one had to pay attention to make sure that the different parts fit together realistically.
It is said that when Matteo Ricci in 1601 introduced Western paintings to the Chinese emperor Wànlì (万历, 萬曆), there were people at the court who said that the paintings were admirably life like, but it was not art. If the paintings indeed were made with optical aids, the Chinese may have perceived them like we perceive holiday snaps next to a Renoir or Picasso.
The Italian painter Giovanni Niccolo taught painting in Japan at the end of the 16th century. His pupil Jacopo Niva (倪一誠) executed religious art at several locations in China, like a copy of a Virgin of St Luke for a church in Beijing and decorations for a church in Nanchang. Matteo Ricci noted that to the Chinese, Niva's pictures seemed more like sculptures than paintings. I know of no evidence that Niva actually used optical projections for his paintings, but even if he did not, his paintings built on a tradition that partially included optical projections. The perceived hyper-realism could explain the Chinese reactions.
It is well known that artists did use optics to project pictures on to canvases, like in the 16th century picture below from a "Sketchbook on military art, including geometry, fortifications, artillery, mechanics, and pyrotechnics". (Source: Wikipedia commons.)
The controversial bit is just how much it was used, and if it was crucial to the explosion of life like pieces of art from the renaissance and onwards. And I do not care. I'm agnostic.
Regardless, it is interesting to consider the possibility that already at the time, there was a technical competition between artists. Those who could afford the best optical equipment could achieve the best paintings, just like you today can achieve much better photos with a DSLR camera than with a phone camera. There may have been discussions already at the time, which tools were best, like we today discuss the advantage of high resolution over noise reduction in dark pictures.
Besides, a large number of objects must have been real. When we see a magnificent lute in an old still life, it is very likely that the artist really had access to a lute in order to project it onto the canvas. It was probably rare that he painted something he had seen in the past from memory.
The artists could project different objects on top of each other, and paint one person one day, and call in another person to be projected onto the same canvas another day - each part being photorealistic in isolation. But just like when we today cut and paste layers in Photoshop, one had to pay attention to make sure that the different parts fit together realistically.
It is said that when Matteo Ricci in 1601 introduced Western paintings to the Chinese emperor Wànlì (万历, 萬曆), there were people at the court who said that the paintings were admirably life like, but it was not art. If the paintings indeed were made with optical aids, the Chinese may have perceived them like we perceive holiday snaps next to a Renoir or Picasso.
The Italian painter Giovanni Niccolo taught painting in Japan at the end of the 16th century. His pupil Jacopo Niva (倪一誠) executed religious art at several locations in China, like a copy of a Virgin of St Luke for a church in Beijing and decorations for a church in Nanchang. Matteo Ricci noted that to the Chinese, Niva's pictures seemed more like sculptures than paintings. I know of no evidence that Niva actually used optical projections for his paintings, but even if he did not, his paintings built on a tradition that partially included optical projections. The perceived hyper-realism could explain the Chinese reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment