Did 15th century artists use optics?

[William H.]

I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion one way or the other on the theory that painters in the 15th century used lenses and mirrors to assist them with drawing and painting some of their works. It supposedly worked similar to a camera obscura, but in this case a lense or mirror is used to project an image onto their canvas, so they could trace it and get a very accurate drawing.

From an article at CBS news:

What happens is a sudden appearance of realism. Before 1420, faces were idealized; immediately after, they were true to life. Before, garments were flat and formless; after, they were vivid and photographic. He says it started here, in Bruges,
Belgium, one of Europe's great 15th century commercial centers, where that optical look, a photographic look, first appeared in the works of Flemish masters like Jan van Eyck, “a painter who knew about optical projections and had looked at them,” Hockney says. “One thing the mirror projections do is project surfaces quite amazingly, especially shiny surfaces. And there's lots of shiny surfaces.”

The rest of the article can be seen here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/16/60minutes/main536814.shtml

I would have to agree that some painters probably used this technique, I've seen some very complicated compositions in centuries old paintings, and this would help explain how these were accomplished.


Will

 

[zakur]

Don't know much about this topic, so I cannot offer an opinion either way. However, some rebuttals can be found at http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/, particularly those by David Stork.

 

[Captain_Snort]

Dunno about allowing them to effectively trace a scene, but it was quite common for what seemed mere random daubings when viewed in a circular mirror to become portraits of banned and outlawed royal pretenders or religiuous icons. There was a great example of this in Kelvingrove museum in Glasgow, but as that museum is closed for a 3 year renovation, dunno if its on show anymore. The portrait was of Bonny Prince Charlie (the well know gay frenchman) and having in his image around the middle of the 18th century could quite possibly lead to a death sentence. I assume the artists had some form of lens to paint such images

 

[William H.]

Don't know much about this topic, so I cannot offer an opinion either way. However, some rebuttals can be found at http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/, particularly those by David Stork.

Thanks for the link, there are some interesting articles there. I guess it's impossible to say for sure whether optics were used, it's true that lenses weren't absolutely necessary to create any particular painting. In the same manner, cameras, copy machines, and slide projectors aren't necessary to create drawings today, yet I'm sure some people use them.

Will

 

[Psi Baba]

I'd always heard that this originated with Brunelleschi.

"In 1415, Brunelleschi painted his picture of the Baptistry on the surface of a small mirror, right on top of its own reflection. Unfortunately, this work has since been lost: it seems to have been intended to be used only in this experiment, not to be preserved.

To demonstrate the fact that his painting was indeed an exact replica that could fool the eye, Brunelleschi drilled a small hole in the mirror and then stood directly in front of the Baptistry, looking through the peephole to see the real building.

He then held up a second, clean mirror in front of his painted panel. The second mirror blocked the view of the real building, but now reflected his painted version on the original mirror.

By moving the second mirror in and out of the way, Brunelleschi could check whether his painting was indeed an exact copy of the three-dimensional, octagonal building on the two-dimensional surface of his original mirror.

Once he had verified the accuracy of his painted mirror, it became possible for Brunelleschi to analyze the structure by which three dimensions was translated into two dimensions."

 

[DrMatt]

Dunno about allowing them to effectively trace a scene, but it was quite common for what seemed mere random daubings when viewed in a circular mirror to become portraits of banned and outlawed royal pretenders or religiuous icons. There was a great example of this in Kelvingrove museum in Glasgow, but as that museum is closed for a 3 year renovation, dunno if its on show anymore. The portrait was of Bonny Prince Charlie (the well know gay frenchman) and having in his image around the middle of the 18th century could quite possibly lead to a death sentence. I assume the artists had some form of lens to paint such images

Or of shepherds and nymphs doing what comes naturally...

 

[Byzantine Magpie]

I saw a program about this a month or so ago, narrated by the British artist who originally developed the theory.

I even raised it on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (search by Brunelleschi) as a comparison with the way the Moon Hoax theory was presented.

I thought it was quite a convincing argument, but others said that there were problems with the idea.

 

[kittynh]

well, as an artist, I'm torn. I've studied a lot of art work in Belgium, having lived there for awhile. I would say, it's very impressive to see the art, and like the pyramids people think there must be more to it. Maybe, they were just good artists. If optics were widely used, the "secret" would not have been "lost". I know a lot of artists that creative really amazing work, using just their eyes and their hands. And I know artists who use a computer to create amazing work. But artists are usually also teachers and pass on their methods and techniques.

No secret optics, and oh, the Egyptians built the pyramids without alien help.

 

[Byzantine Magpie]

Not wishing to contradict you, kittynh, but there is some evidence of the use of camera obscuras by a number of artists. Apparently John Constable had a collapsible CO, among others.

But I'll leave it at that, because art sure isn't my strong point!

 

[kittynh]

I'm sorry, that wasn't very clear. Certainly many artists used optics, and tracing paper, and pantographs...what ever the technology of the time was. But, it wasn't some deeply held secret. An artist might not want to admit to using a little help, but the article I read about optics acted like it was some deeply held secret passed down by the artists only to other artists. I just contend that I believe as Ben Franklin, "3 can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead."

 

[Rolfe]

OK, this is a bit of a late post, but have a look at the Art Renewal Center's take on it all.

I would agree that some use of optical tricks can probably be argued for. Some of the people, some of the time... But Hockney is trying to make out that without those tricks it is impossible to paint realistically, and that only their introduction and subsequent near-universal use can explain any realistic artwork.

Now we KNOW that ain't so. Modern artists trained in the realistic tradition can paint photorealistic images freehand, and will do so under close observation. These efforts, and the historical examples, are miles better than Hockney's own very amateurish efforts with the camera lucida. And there are very realistic paintings around of animals in poses which couldn't possibly have been held for more than a few seconds. How do you do that, Mr. Hockney?

And if all the paintings produced were mirror-images of the actual subject, wouldn't SOMEBODY, sometime, have mentioned this?

 

[bignickel]

Speaking as someone who's main introduction to art comes via Bob Ross, and little fluffy clouds... (and squirrels, and other woodland creatures, and let's put a little cabin here, and now we give it a cabin-ectomy)

May I posit this possible explanation which may be wholly or completely true or false:

In an era of idealized faces, a few painters secretly experimented with the CO and accomplished remarkably realistic scenes.

This astounded most artists at the time who, not being in on it, suddenly realized just how "photo-quality" they could get a painting to look like.

Said artists, now that the bar was raised a great deal higher, began to earnestly paint exactly what they saw, not knowing that the very few that came before them relied on the CO.

Thus, most of the paintings of the era are 'legit', although they wouldn't have been attempted were it not for the previous CO paintings.

 

[Rolfe]

In an era of idealized faces, a few painters secretly experimented with the CO and accomplished remarkably realistic scenes.

This astounded most artists at the time who, not being in on it, suddenly realized just how "photo-quality" they could get a painting to look like.

This doesn't fit with Hockney's theory. He points to details in many, many paintings over many years which he maintains show they were ALL painted using optics. Left-handed subjects, parts of fields apparently out of focus, that sort of thing.

It also doesn't fit the facts. The alleged sudden appearance of photo-realism is pretty much Hockney's invention, to allow him to expound his theory. The actual paintings which have survived fit much better with gradual refinement and improvement of technique, and really, the sudden shift thing is a myth.

Do have a look at the link I posted above, which also leads to an interesting article by Kirk Richards on the same subject. The juxtaposition there of Hockney's own cack-handed camera lucida drawings with both old master drawings and known free-hand modern work by people who can actually draw, is illuminating.

You simply don't need this theory to explain the observed facts. There are perfectly simple alternative explanations for the few actual facts Hockney cites to support it (some people are left-handed!), and there is so much contrary evidence that it's difficult to believe anyone who has actually thought it through could give his ideas credit.