When David Hockney compares the relative accuracy of tracing from mirrors or lenses with what he calls “ eyeballing ” the subject , he seems to be unaware of the full nature of classical drawing and sets up a false dichotomy . Renaissance and Baroque masters did not merely “ eyeball ” the model , nor was it drawing from “ memory ,” as has also been brought into the debate . Master draughtsmen could draw from their spacial and anatomical understanding of structure , the three-dimensional forms of their subjects — whether with a model in front of them , out of their head , or a combination — such as when Rubens depicted a lion hunt .
But the Hockney-Falco and Steadman theories also raised reasonable questions that had to be addressed . One major attempt to take this bull by the horns was a series of papers collected under the auspices of the prestigious Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in 2007 , with the compelling title Inside the Camera Obscura – Optics and Art under the Spell of the Projected Image . 3 The sixteen papers include such titles as Alhazen ’ s Optics in Europe : Some Notes on What It Said and What It Did Not Say , The Optical Quality of Seventeenth-Century Lenses , and Neutron-Autoradiography of two Paintings by Jan Vermeer in the Gemäldegalerie Berlin .
Pieter de Hooch ( 1629-1684 ) Man reading a letter to a woman 1674-1676 oil on canvas 27.5 x 30.3 ” The Kremer Collection
One of present interest is , “ The Camera Obscura as a Model of a New Concept of Mimesis in Seventeenth-Century Painting .” Now “ mimesis ” here means the “ imitation of nature ,” central to classical and Renaissance art . The author starts out by saying that he does “ not wish to discuss the question as to whether artists of the seventeenth century actually implemented the camera obscura in a painting process or not ,” but to “ investigate how concrete contemporary applications of this instrument might have looked , what problems were associated with it and what such an application would mean for the creative process , practically and conceptually .” He selects two artists to compare and contrast from our general period here — Vermeer and the Spanish painter Diego Velazquez . It ’ s a long article .
There is no historical documentation that either artist really used the camera and , while there ’ s not much at all for Vermeer , there is much for Velazquez , through his father-in-law Pacheco … no mention of any optical devices . Of course it may have been a closely held secret , which even the father of the great artist ’ s wife was sworn not to divulge , as the title of Mr . Hockney ’ s book implies : Secret Knowledge . Hmmmm …
Johannes Vermeer Lady Writing a Letter with her Maid c . 1670 – 1671 Oil on canvas 28 x 23 ” National Gallery of Ireland , Dublin
In 1993 Jorgen Wadum , chief restorer at the Mauritshuis gallery in The Hague , discovered a tiny pinprick in the left eye of the lady writing , which is the exact location of the vanishing point for the picture ’ s perspective .
36 ART CHOWDER MAGAZINE