Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters...

Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters | David Hockney | Great story, great information

books:

Secret Knowledge (...

	Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters David Hockney Studio, 2006 - 336 pages average customer review:based on 65 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Fascinating historical reconstruction.

The premise is simple: Hockney believes that the Old Masters of European art used tools and techniques of which little record remains. This book presents his justification for that belief.

The first half of this book is visual. It shows the original paintings and drawings that led Hockney to this idea. Once it's pointed out, many signs are unmistakable: odd proportions in otherwise masterful works, inconsistent perspective drawn by people who really knew perspective, and a few other better-known oddities. Although I'm not a fan of Hockney's own work, I respect the training and sensitivity that picked out these features.

Hockney goes on to show how these artifacts could have come from use of a family of optical tools, including camera lucida and several variants on the camera obscura. This is where he brings the most to this book, in trying the tools himself, as an artist, and seeing what unique features each tool imposes on the resulting artworks. This is what has so many critics upset - the idea that the Old Masters might have used every tool possible to complete their commissions faster, and to give their patrons the most pleasing result for the ducat. Those critics know about the assembly-line work in some of the Old Masters' studios and who know about the other mechanical aids that are well documented, but squawk at the idea of adding another tool to their toolboxes. Huh?

Hockney's evidence is often circumstantial, since painting was (and often is) a secretive and competitive business. Still, he offers a good story, and the second half of the book adds a strong foundation of written records to the structure. This is the book's weakness, though. Hockney is an artist, not a historian or optical technologist. He chose a story-telling format for presenting his findings, the letters he exchanged with scholars and specialists in other fields. It has a friendly look, but lacks in density and in organization of the historical records.

Despite its many flaws, I find it a fascinating study. Hockney really brings history to life, with his own hands, dispelling the idea that historical study is a dry, dusty practice. His documentation lacks in formal rigor, and he addresses the Great Masters about whom people have strong sentiment. Some people see that as iconoclasm for its own sake - guys, get over it.
-- Address his facts with facts. Name-calling says more about you than him.
-- Picking one nit (and there are lots) doesn't pick apart the whole presentation.
-- Don't assume that Hockney's own art (of which I'm not a fan) decides the merit of his historical analysis.
-- Accept the idea that his eye may be better than the words he can put to his vision.

It's an honest and vivid account, with a good base in reason and fact. It deserves respect on that account, and works hard to earn the reader's enjoyment. I recommend this to anyone interest in the history and practice of visual art.

//wiredweird

for more information click here

Great story, great information

"Secret Knowledge" is a great read and a fascinating revaluation of past artistic techniques. The way the book slowly builds up visual evidence (with excellent reproductions) to present the case for the use of optics is very convincing. While reading the book, I was concerned that only paintings that supported Hockney's conclusions were presented.

However, since this book was published in 2001, there has been plenty of time for art historians to refute Hockney's conclusions. I expected reasonable arguments against the evidence presented in the book. Instead, all of the "optics theory" critics I could find on the Internet presented only shrill denunciations of Hockney. The author is berated for daring to question the skills of the artists that would make them resort to using optical technology. I found only the most meager and unconvincing challenge to the actual evidence.

I think most people recognize that if Hockney's thesis is correct, much of the aura of these past masters dissolves in the eye of the general public. While any painter recognizes the tremendous skill involved in producing these works (even with optic help), I believe the public would tend to see these masters as mere copyists. I believe that's the reason for the vehemence and bile directed at Mr. Hockney.

If you're an artist, be sure to pick up this book. It is amazingly helpful in application of many of these techniques to your own work. It also shows you how to avoid some of the pitfalls that provide the visual evidence of the use of optics. If you're curious about art history, this is also a must-have.

for more information click here

He is correct in my professional opinion

First, this is a fascinating telling of a few artists' stylistic development-- if you enjoy some of the artists discussed in the book (Durer, Carravagio, Van Eyck), it's worth a read.

Second, Hockney brought on this debate by the provocative layout of his book-- he puts his own work side-by-side with the works of the most revered "old masters"! Some readers don't like him referring to his own contributions to art history so mightily, and I think they miss the point and don't even read the whole thing. I think Hockney intended to ruffle the feathers of those who deny artists' technical mastery and invention, as if art is magic.

Third, as an engineer and professional artist, his case is sound. I make photorealistic 3D CGI special effects for movies-- my job *is* perspective-- and I believe Hockney's visual evidence supports his case.

for more information click here

Revealing and relieving

I have to disagree with cat cattus, prior reviewer, who just screwed up the rating for Hockney. This is not about HIS work, this is about his project to study the work of others. He does that very well. I've often thought that the work of the Masters was uncanny, and apparently, it was. Every artist uses whatever aids are available at the time. The deliniation between "before opticals" and "after opticals" is quite clear. His most compelling reason is that the artists of the time were business men first. They HAD to get the production out. They didn't have time to spend months or years on a single painting.

for more information click here