Rating: 
Summary: Secret Knowledge by Hockney
Review: The author depicts the mechanics of visual effects and textual evidence/design. The fine detail of van Dyck is illustrated and explained. Vermeer's knowledge of opticals is depicted in famous scenes. Caravaggio's "Supper at Emaus" shows the skilled rendition of Christ in full color. The author provides detailed critique on the intricacies of painting individual famous works.
This work is perfect for art enthusiasts, designers and a wide constitueny of fine arts students and collectors.
Rating: 
Summary: Critique of "Secret Knowledge..." by www.loissimon.com
Review: There isn't really much to read in the first half of the book. It's what we called a picture book as a child. I come from a long line of artists. My great-grandfather was one of the originators of the first art gallery here in San Francisco. My father, an artist, sold my great-grandfather artwork before I was born. I can remember when I was about two or three years old (that was about 1952) watching my father paint a painting of the ocean in photorealistic style. There was nothing on the kitchen table but his painting and his paints. It all came from inside his mind. I was in awe; and told him at the time that I wanted to do that, to paint. I told him his painting was great. He said that it was just academic stuff; he was a student at Oakland College of Arts & Crafts. He went on to become an abstract-expressionist. In all my discussions about art and artists and how they worked and the "good old days", no one ever said anything about using a camera to trace a picture. The way Hockney makes it sound to me, that all artists were running around with cameras as part of their routine equipment. If it was so prevalent then why hasn't any of our family members through the ages remarked on this way of doing work. My family as many American families, has letters dating back hundreds of years from past family members. And usually artists breed other artists. It's hereditary. I could always draw a likeness since a child. People have always given me praise since a child. The first time I saw a camera obscura was in the early 1990's at the Cliff House, in San Francisco. It's not inside the Cliff House. It's located outside in a circular booth. The screen is also a circle. I was amazed; but it would be impossible to trace the picture on the screen as the picture's subject is always moving. The camera obscura is more like a motion picture camera to me. It's easy to paint a photorealistic style painting. It just takes time and patience depending upon how much detail to want to disclose. You don't need all these fancy cameras to execute a painting; trying to incorporate them into the painting process is very time consuming and inhibiting to me. In comparison to "Vermeer's Camera" by Philip Steadman, I think Steadman did more research; and did not jump to conclusions. He held an unbiased opinion based on what little or no evidence we have.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Story
Review: This is a GREAT book. I can't believe what some of the other reviewers claim. I am a professional artist. This book is not the bible on all of art history, it is simply a group of theories by the author, who is a world class artist himself. The superb illustrations and easy reading text works for me. I now view the work by the old masters in a different light - not negative - not positive - different. This book is expensive but if you have the bucks or if your business or life causes you to deal in traditional art - get the book.
Rating:
Summary: a study in looking
Review: this is a terrific book. hockney's method proceeds along three paths: identifying in western works of art the visual traces left by specific kinds of projective or optical technologies; inferring the types of optical devices actually used; and reconstructing the devices to generate comparative evidence in drawings and photographs. this is probably the only book that compares drawings by warhol and ingres to show the fundamental similarity in their techniques. this similarity, it turns out, arises in the physical act of tracing a projected optical image. throughout there is a spirit of patient inquiry, patient accumulation of evidence, and a real fascination with artistic *craft* and imagination. the book includes many handsomely reproduced paintings and drawings (with explanatory or documentary photographs and schematics), and an extensive section of text summarizing the historical references to optical devices, and hockney's extensive correspondence with optical scientists and art historians on specific research points. hockney has gotten some surprisingly hostile criticism from some art historians (ingrid rowland especially), who feel he is either saying nothing new or is just smoking crack. these folks especially like to ding hockney for impugning the integrity of "great" artists, who of course could draw faultlessly without any visual aid. my two cents: there's a strong thread of professional jealousy in this reaction -- an *artist* scooping me on art history! how dare he! -- and a big dose of retrograde delusion. artists have clearly always been intrigued by technology -- dutch lenses and digital video processing alike. the real message of hockney's book is not the story of particular visual technologies, but a celebration of the artistic romance with seeing and anything that clarifies, steadies and emboldens seeing. every artist should own this book.
Rating:
Summary: New Perspective
Review: When the Lawrence Weschler article about David Hockney's sleuthing about artists and optics came out in the New Yorker a couple of years ago, I read it with a racing heart: as an artist, I too have always wondered how those guys did what they did with such apparent effortlesness. In this wonderful treasure of a book, Hockney lays out his argument visually, and the case he makes is compelling. But in a sense, it doesn't really matter whether his theory is right--the book is sure to generate a lot of discussion about image making and technology and visual intelligence. And whether you're an artist, art historian, or interested viewer, that's bound to be a good thing.
| 
