Great article about the masters and optical devices for art

[lemorris]

My wife (http://www.caroleaharris.com) found this article at a site she hangs out at.

It's a lot of reading, but talks about the use of optical devices in art and the history of their use.

The guy who wrote it is a bit snobbish, but it is food for thought.

Enjoy!!


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::


I'll make this quick because it's all amateur myth making that helps keep you on your knees.
1) professional artists have and will always use materials and tools that enhance their ability to stay competitive. Unlike hobbyists, their prime goal is not the deep and meaningful expression of their most rare and marvelous soul...it's making a living.
2) the use of optical aids was a well established fact. There are thousands of pictures showing the use of everything from grids, to camera oscura (dark room, not obscure room) to camera lucida (light room). The devices are simple and accurate.
3) ever wonder why so many old drawings are small when the final piece was big...and why they were gridded? That's because the camera lucida only makes small drawings.
4) hobbyists don't know how to choose a brush let alone how to handle an optical device. Most have never even seen a camera lucida let alone used one
so they make wild guesses as to the debilitating effects on the artwork. If you can't draw, your tracing will show it. Drawing with a camera lucida is beyond the ability of all but skilled draughtsmen. The advantage is that it is fast and accurate, but it's as difficult to master as riding a unicycle. If your livlihood depends on it, you master it or starve.

Hockney is absolutely correct in all of his assertions. Anyone who has actually used those devices can tell you which ones were used because each has it's own subtle (too subtle for arguing hobbyists to see) fingerprint. Also, seeing that telescopes were in use in Gallileo's time and microscopes were very common during Vermeer's day, the technology was available and the devices were available. Vermeer's specular highlights are a record of direct observation of the specular highlights produced by raw lenses with no color corrective coatings (those came later).

Do you honestly think that a master would say..."oh no. That would be cheating and against The Rules" (the book of rules published for art competitions at the Olympics)..."I'd rather go out of business than compete on such a base level. It would affect my spiritual and artistic purity."

The truth is that it has no bad effects on the skilled artist...what it does to the unskilled artist I can't say, having never been one. But I have seen the inept artist spending most of their time justifying their ineptitude with the invention of romantic myths. They spend most of their time coming up with excuses for not doing things rather than screwing up the gumption it takes to learn how to draw anything they can see...and paint it. Yes, it's difficult but it can be done...and at any age.

I don't have much in common with Rembrandt but I do have this in common as a fellow working pro...I like the life style that making art affords me, and if I learn of a device or material that will allow me to produce one more sale per year, I'm going for it. If I learn of a device or material that can keep me ahead of my competition, I'm getting it. If my competition is using a device to their advantage, I'm getting a better one.

Notice in the above paragraph that I never mentioned truth, honesty of vision or a set of rules. Maybe I've been a pro too long and the romantic notions of art making have long since faded, but understand this. I can draw, unaided, with the best of them, but I have and will use optical devices such as a camera lucida, an opaque projector, camera, slide projector, computer printout or whatever serves my vision of what has to be done. As a working pro, the only important thing is what goes onto the canvas, not how it got there.

Is Shakespeare great because he wrote with an ink quill rather than a word processor? Will you write like Shakespeare if you use a quill? What this silly argument does is foster ineptitude rather than forcing hobbyists and wannabes to face the reality in the old joke...

"Sir, how do I get to Carnegie Hall?"

"Practice, man, Practice."

Unless you've been there and done it...really done it, you're just talking to justify your not being able to do it. Learn to draw first. Then learn to use a camera lucida and you'll end up agreeing with Hockney...it's obvious except to the partially blind.

[lemorris]

Here's some info about Camera Lucindas


http://painting.about.com/library/we...eralucidaa.htm

Think art-o-graph

[Jeep_Rubicon]

Thats long, but I read it.

[mike@af]

Too much reading right now....I'll definately read it, but I still have to read the Crucilbe tonight.

[bonzelite]

Originally Posted by lemorris

Unless you've been there and done it...really done it, you're just talking to justify your not being able to do it. Learn to draw first. Then learn to use a camera lucida and you'll end up agreeing with Hockney...it's obvious except to the partially blind.

i would have quoted your whole post, but to save space i picked this line out.

the thing is, the working professional will use any means necessary to make the client happy with the image within the deadline. how it is done does not matter. but the artist must have an arsenal of talent and skill to create a convincing piece. all facets must be considered: mechanical aids, raw talent, hard-core skill,

if it is faster to layout the image with a sketch from the imagination and then render it in photoshop, then great. if it is faster to use adobe illustrator to make a logo, with results that exceed hand-inked logos, then great. if it is better to use old fish paper with cow sh!t to make a fine art piece, then use that. not employing something because of lack of skill and experience only limits the artist. this is why i now use digital manipulation on hand-drawn work ---it opens up doors of opportunity for me and my clients. and that is just good business.

people overlook the fact, too, that many, if not most, of the renaissance masters are commercial artists for hire, making money from commissioned work. the most studied and revered of these, to name only a few, rembrandt, michaelangelo, caravaggio, vermeer, da vinci, albrecht durer, van eyke, hokusai, ribera, goya, it goes on... they are all men making money. and many of them had pupils under them, as in a factory, that would lay out the painting, even paint the first layers onto it. then, da vinci or whomever, would finish it and sign it. this was common practice and is well known today. as demand goes up, a need for increased output goes up. and you hire workers. sounds like something henry ford would do.

rembrandt, for example, died in poverty for 3 main reasons that i know: depression, poor financial choices, and number one, perhaps>>he refused to adapt his subject matter to changing trends in contemporary holland. as he aged, he wanted (as i am even experiencing) to more and more paint what he wanted for himself. from the heart. and buyers got scarce. so to all readers: take the notion of 'fine art' and shove it.

[lemorris]

shove it

lololol

You know how I feel about this. Use your tools fellas. A computer is a tool. A pencil is a tool. One is not better than the other. All that matters is what's on the paper.

I went to an art tech school and learned old school illustaration techniques...markers included. I have been fortunate enough to make a decent living selling my art. Just like many of you I have drawn thousands of cars.

I don't know about any of you, but the clients I deal with don't seem to care what I used to make the cool design. All they care about is the accuracy (if it's a personal vehicle), and the cool stuff for shirts and print.

The end result is all that matters because if the end result doesn't work for the client...my kids don't eat.

I pursue the higher feelings between the lines so to speak. The mental pursuit of greater skills is a driving force. The process of progressive competence is addicting. That's why I'm in this game.

-Lemorris

[bonzelite]

Originally Posted by lemorris

The process of progressive competence is addicting. That's why I'm in this game.

-Lemorris

this is a great way to articulate why we stay the course. you have put this sharply. could not have said it any better. so i quote you.

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by GTmike400

Too much reading right now....I'll definately read it, but I still have to read the Crucilbe tonight.

That book sucks.

And bonz, lemorris, how about we stop using all them big words. My head hurts from this thread.

[lemorris]

I thought you had a broken hand or something...

I'd actually be curious to read your take on this topic. You're all over this board. You must have an opinion.

right?

p.s. Where's Mike?