CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
David Hockney
Secret Knowledge, Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
New and expanded edition with 510 illustrations, 442 in colour
New York, Viking Studio, 2006
Review by Francesco Mazzaferro
Part Four
[Original Version: June-July 2016 - New Version April 2019]
 |
| Fig. 63) The proceedings of the conference in Florence, published in 2009 |
The fourth session [128]
Lawrence Weschler chaired a panel of five
artists: Chuck Close, William Bailey, Philip Pearlstein, Abelardo Morell and
Gilles Peress. They were all realists or hyperrealist painters, with the
exception of Peress, a famous agency photographer (he produced some of the most
dramatic images of the massacres in Burundi). One of them, Abelardo Morell, was
still using the camera obscura in
present times, in order to make photographic images which would combine pictures
of interiors and inverted pictures of exteriors. The topic of discussion was of
course the use of technology in their relationship with reality, including the
connection between painting and photography. Unfortunately, only the text of
Pearlstein has been published. Once again, there is a danger of losing the
memory of that encounter.
The numerous press reports about the conference
and the subsequent essays on the subject have however made clear that Close
and Pearlstein took diametrically opposite positions. A few years later, John
Spike has returned to the subject in his report on Caravaggio's Optical Realities [129] at the SACI conference in
Florence in 2008, comparing the images of the two artists, and seeing analogies
and dissimilarities. He noted that both produced images that clearly displayed photographic effects: however, only the first artist used photographs to paint,
while the second created images that seemed intentionally inspired by
photographs, but technically were the product of a traditional way of painting.
Chuck Close, often referred to as photo-realist, is famous for portraits made
with different techniques, but always starting from photographs (in this blog
we have already seen how several other contemporary artists, such as Jacques Monory, Marlene Dumas and Gerhard Richter, depicted images from photographs,
with very different outcomes in style terms). In New York, Close took the view
that it is normal for artists such as Ingres to have used all available
technologies to facilitate their work (and indeed he proposed that the
conference be entitled ‘Look back in
Ingres’) [130].
Pearlstein’s stance was quite different. He explained
that he had always and only made life portrays. Moreover, since the sixties he had
always refused each classification as a hyperrealist painter. Pearlstein’s goal
was to make the camera obsolete, after artists had chosen abstract art for years
exactly because they meant that photography had made figurative art obsolete.
His way of painting was therefore traditional: it was based on the pose of the
models, the geometric design of their forms, the progressive outlining of those
forms closer and closer to reality. He illustrated the steps he needed to
portray Linda Nochlin (cited above) and her husband. "The use of optical devices, whether prisms, sheets of glass or
photographic prints, can give the artist only the outlines of three dimensional
objects reduced to one dimension. But the struggle to make that reduction and
fill the areas between the outlines gives the artist working from direct visual
experience some of his greatest kicks. The difference is like the acceptance of
the published score of a hockey game as the finished product, while ignoring
the physical experience of the struggle that is the point of the game. It is
what is painted between the outlines that makes the difference between merely
competent painting and really meaningful art" [131].
The final session
According to press accounts, the already polemical
tones of the first two days of debate must have fully degenerated in the final
session, moderated by Leonard Barkan, a former director of the New York Institute for the Humanities
and professor of contemporary literature. The panellists were Michael Fried,
Svetlana Alpers, Richard Wollheim, Rosalind Krauss and James Elkins.
Unfortunately, only the text of Elkins has been published; on everything else we
can only assess what journalists reported. None of the participants seemed to
welcome the core thesis of Secret
Knowledge.
Michael Fried, a pupil of Clement Greenberg and
scholar of abstract art and minimalism, was dealing in those years with Caravaggio.
On the subject he held the A. W. Mellon
Lecture in the Fine Arts at the National Gallery in Washington in 2002, with
the title The Moment of Caravaggio [132].
He expressed doubt on the Hockney theory, both in general and in the specific
case of Caravaggio. In his opinion, it was inconceivable that the distortions
identified by Hockney (like for instance the lack of proportions in the Supper at Emmaus, described in the
second part of this post) were unwanted effects. In his view Caravaggio did not
use lenses to project images on canvas, but instead he intentionally painted what
the viewer would have seen, if he had been in front of a mirror. Thereby, he induced
in his public stronger emotional reactions. This explains the abundance of
left-handers in the paintings of Michelangelo Merisi, which we have already
discussed in the second part of this post.
Svetlana Alpers, a student of Gombrich, is one
of the most famous historian of Flemish and Dutch art, celebrated for the book
"The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in
the Seventeenth Century", released in 1983 [133]. She elaborated the
thesis that painting in northern Europe has been based on quite different forms
of perspective from those of the Italian Renaissance: based on Alberti, the
Italian school perspective aimed at creating a link between artist and viewer. In
the Nordic world, to the contrary, perspective has been seen as part of a
nature that exists before the painter conceives it: "The world offers images of itself without the intervention of the human
maker and is thus conceived as existing prior to the artist viewer. The picture
takes the place of the eye and leaves the location of the viewer undefined"
[134]. Perspective only serves to geometrically transform the world into a
workspace, but not for the artist to create an interpretation of nature for the
viewer's consumption; unlike what happens in the Italian Renaissance, in
Northern Europe the viewer assumes a passive position, and only aims at taking
note of the forms and their likelihood.
Thus the researcher cannot agree with the
thesis of Hockney, who takes after all a fundamentally Italian position.
Hockney, in fact, suggests that the camera
obscura served the painter to build images which could best attract the
public's attention. His model is the use of the camera obscura by Caravaggio. Ms Alpers believes that the Dutch
painters (and certainly Vermeer) have also used the camera obscura, but for entirely different reasons than those assumed
by Hockney: not to reproduce reality, but to create special and illusory effects,
like deformations introducing abstract elements in the painting [135]. And it
is in this sense that the researcher took cruel game of the English painter at
the conference [136]: the camera obscura
aimed at ensuring that painters get rid of reality, and this is perhaps the one thing
that Hockney should best do: "Think
about it, dear David!" The invitation to abstraction by Svetlana
Alpers must have looked like a curse for Hockney.
Even the art historian James Elkins, author of The poetics of prospective, had an angry
attitude towards the author of Secret
Knowledge. There is no need to make reference to the technical instruments
to explain the skill of the artist in reproducing the most difficult foreshortening
on the basis of a free design. However, his main thesis is that the painters
have never used Alberti’s rigid geometrical rules on perspective, either in
Italy or in Northern Europe, and that the conversation between artists and
scientists has always been a dialogue of the deaf. To prove the first point,
Elkins produced himself at the conference some sketches of the lute reproduced
by Holbein the Younger in his painting The
Ambassadors, also under different angles from the original. He used
intuitive rules of perspective, similar to those practiced, in his opinion, by
artists for centuries.
On the second point, his conclusions were poisonous, and were addressed perhaps more against the publisher that against the author: "Why is the press so interested in Hockney's book? I am astonished and depressed at the amount of publicity Hockney's new interest is getting. The publication is lavish. I bet most of us on these panels wish we could get production values like that. And I think it's true that no matter how many doubts art historians raise, and how well we argue, we will all lose, because the publicity on the other side is just too great. Recently I talked with someone at Thames and Hudson (who originally published the book in the UK), who expressed some scepticism about Hockney's thesis, but said that "at least" people who don't know anything about the Old Masters might encounter them in this book. Now a publisher certainly does not have to believe in everything she publishes, but that reasoning seemed especially unfortunate. The book makes it appear as if optical devices are what make the Old Masters interesting. That wouldn't be a problem in an academic monograph, but this book will be read much more widely, so it's unfortunate that Hockney has not tried to tie the optical "secrets" and "tricks" to the paintings' more complex and demanding meanings. (It is also unfortunate, but typical, that the book does not have even the very simple calculations that Falco uses to make his points-though that also goes to the point of the kind of reader that is expected.) So why will we all lose? Because there is a tremendous desire on the part of readers, journalists, and people who visit museums to understand the Old Masters once and for all. The optical tricks listed in Hockney's book promise to make that possible. Each trick also helps demote the priesthood of academic interpreters and bypass the often opaque or irrelevant labels that curators normally provide. People like James Marrow and Walter Liedtke (who connected the optical themes to deeper historical meanings) are the worst nightmare for viewers who want their art accessible and relatively free of context. But I wonder (…) how many journalists will note that the satisfaction of knowing that a given painting was accomplished with the aid of a trick is a very superficial satisfaction, and that it leaves the value, the mystery, and the meaning of the painting entirely untouched. It is far more satisfying just to know something once and for all: hence, we will all lose. I will even make a prediction: in twenty years, by 2020, Hockney's claims will be part of first-year art history textbooks regardless of the critical consensus." [137]
The conclusions by
Hockney and Falco
The marathon ended with Hockey Falco taking the
floor to draw some conclusions. Unfortunately, there is no written account of
what they said. The biography of Hockney, written by Christopher Simon Sykes,
reveals that the long and intensive exchange of views had perhaps much fatigued
the old painter, who was therefore unable to offer a synthesis before the public in New York
[138]. The correspondent of the Los Angeles Times, Paul Lieberman, wrote that
Hockney simply recalled that "he did
not claim any conclusive outcome. ‘The paintings I agree are absolutely
magical,’ he said. ‘We will never actually know how they were done'"
[139]. Sarah Boxes of the New York Times added that his only words were: ''I enjoyed it. I learned some things. I will
now go back to my studio'' [140]. However, the semi-official website of the
conference includes three hand-written pages by Hockney, drafted a few days
after the meeting, i.e. on December 31, 2001 [141]. In them Hockney reiterated his
fundamental thesis without substantial changes.
 |
| Fig. 64) David Hockney, Notes in the wake of the conference. Fonte: http://www.zoharworks.com/artandoptics/afterthoguhts/after_fs.html |
The conference in
Florence in 2008
Seven years of controversy passed. However, these
were also years of research, especially at the SACI (Studio Art Centers
International), an American university centre in Florence, specialized in
restoration [142]. We already dedicated the second part of this post to the studies
of SACI and in particular to the research led by Roberta Lapucci on the use of optics by
Caravaggio, and we will not come back to it. We would rather like to explain how
the Painted Optics Symposium gathered
David Hockney and Charles Falco with the active scholars in Florence: in
addition to Ms Lapucci, also Susan Grundy of the University of South Africa,
John Spike (the scholar who had already participated in the New York conference
in 2001) and two other Italian scholars: Filippo Camerota and Claudio
Pernechele. Moreover, it seems useful to note that the conference inevitably
reflected the backward-looking features of Italian culture: if panellists in New York reflected
on the way the optics influenced the way of considering the relationship
between artists and reality in the time span between Renaissance/Baroque to our
days, in Florence they even discussed about the world before Leon Battista
Alberti, about optic tecniques applied by Duccio di Boninsegna and the medieval
Arab treaty of Ibn al Haytham.
Hockney gave the initial report, on the relationship
between the production of images and the power: "Thoughts on Camera Manufacture and its Relationship to Power "
[143]. He noted that the last big altars commissioned by the Church to a
painter were those of St. Sulpice in Paris: we were between 1855 and 1861 and
the author was Eugene Delacroix. The year 1839, date of creation of the
photographic image-fixing, had just passed and the world was about to
experience a revolution in the control of the creation of images.
 |
| Fig. 65) Eugène Delacroix, Jacob wrestling with the angel, 1861. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
It was also the time when the production of
images passed from the control of the church to that of the chemical industry,
with the spread of photography (and, later on, of film and television). It was not
an innocent passage: these were the tools that eventually made the conquest and
the management of power possible over the following years, and created the basis for consensus to
totalitarian regimes. And yet, the chemical process was not entirely new: the
invention was that of the new techniques to fix the image, but in reality its
projection through the camera obscura
was known for centuries, and was kept secret; likewise, in the Silicon Valley IT
corporations today still require the signature of confidentiality agreements to
anyone who visits them. Hockney told that the same company that had produced the
optical instruments he used for his documentary on the BBC, i.e. Panavision (http://www.panavision.com/), was still famous those days for not disclosing the technological
processes used to create the lenses employed in Hollywood movies (he claimed they
did not yet have a website). Conceptually, this was not much dissimilar from the
attitude of the catholic church, bringing Della Porta before the Inquisition in
1579, because they wanted to prevent the dissemination of his knowledge on the camera obscura. Today a different era
has begun: one where controlling image is made difficult by the universalization
of technology: each of us can take pictures from the phone. With the creation of
Photoshop by Adobe, the photographic
image production has been now integrated into that of the pictorial design.
With the iPad, one paints directly
with Photoshop. It was the new
frontier of creation even for Hockney, until he decided to retire to the UK in the East
Yorkshire and to return to eye painting.
Falco offered, along with Aimee L. Weintz
Allen, a study on the treatise in seven volumes on the optics of Ibn al-Haytham
(Ibn al-Haytham's Contributions to
Optics, Art, and Visual Literacy) [144], between the tenth and eleventh
centuries. Arabic scholar made use of the camera
obscura to study the transmission of light and tentatively give a
theoretical basis to the existence of the rays.
 |
| Fig. 66) Artemisia Gentileschi, Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, around 1639. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Susan Grundy held in Florence two reports. In
the first one she studied the theme of allegorical representation of painting
in the baroque world, with the text “The
Allegory of Photography in Baroque Painting” [145]. She compared the Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting
by Artemisia Gentileschi, Vermeer’s Allegory
of painting, Las Meninas by
Velázquez and The Self-Portrait with a
Sunflower by Anthony van Dyck. In his opinion, not only all of them were
conceived and realized with projections through the use of the camera obscura, but they were also
allegorical depictions of the role that light and the mirrors have in the
activity of the artists. The sunflower in the self-portrait by Van Dyck was in
his view the symbol of the sunlight, the source that ensures the operation of
optical instruments, also determining their effectiveness (depending on
intensity) and regulates their functioning (the movement of the positions of
the sun necessarily impacts on the focusing of the lenses).
 |
| Fig. 67) Antoon van Dyck, Self-Portrait with Sunflower, 1635-1636. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
But it was mainly the unusual oil on plaster
ceiling by Caravaggio, depicting Jupiter,
Neptune and Pluto, in the Villa Ludovisi in Rome, to draw the attention of
the South African scholar. According to Ms Grundy, the painting was executed in
1597, originally to decorate an alchemical room in the residence that Cardinal
Del Monte had purchased just that year to become the residence of Caravaggio.
The allegorical motifs recalled the chemical elements that the painter had used
in those years to produce a monochrome image on the canvas, copying and pasting
the projections of images through the camera
obscura. The restoration of the Uffizi
Bacchus, as well as of the Santa
Caterina and Judith Beheading
Holofernes, had in fact permitted to discover the presence of chemical
elements based on silver and mercury, which was known since the Middle Ages as
materials changing in the presence of light. An impression might have formed on
the so treated canvas in just a few minutes of exposure. The painter would have
painted above these monochromes layers. Ms Grundy also noted that such chemical elements would be banned today: fixing silver with mercury vapour, while
entirely possible, meant being exposed to highly toxic substances, with very
serious, and even potentially deadly, effects on the central nervous system.
 |
| Fig. 68) Caravaggio, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, 1597. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
 |
| Fig. 69) Duccio, Christ before Pilate and Accusation of the Pharisees, Maestà, 1308-1311. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
The only way to prove that the images were
reproduced by the Sienese painter through optical instruments would be to
detect deformations in images that may have been caused by the use of mirrors
and lenses. The researcher examined in particular three predellas: the Announcement of the Death of the Virgin,
the Leave of Mary from John
and the Leave of the apostles.
The three episodes are set in the same room. Yet there are some subtle
differences: starting from left to right, the surface of the wall in the
background (the one from which the ceiling beams depart) progressively narrows,
while the arch on the left increases in size. By making a computer inspection
of the images, Ms Grundy analysed the changes as a subsequent rotation of the perspective
by ten degrees, and was able to correct this problem, so that the three images were
fitting perfectly.
 |
| Fig. 70) Duccio, The Announcement of the Death of the Virgin, the Leave of Mary from John and the Leave from the Apostles, Maestà, 1308-1311. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
The back of Majesty also reveals a double
perspective image (the image of the temple, in the predella of the Temptation on the temple) which is very
similar to that described by Manetti as the act of birth of the depiction of
perspective by Brunelleschi (the representation of the Baptistery in Florence
1420). The image also contains a representation of the Interior of the temple, in
foreshortening. As well as for Brunelleschi two hundred years later, these
features may suggest that Duccio used a concave mirror to create a
one-dimensional picture, which was naturally organised according to a vanishing
point due to the physical characteristics of the medium used.
 |
| Fig. 71) Duccio, Temptation on the Temple, Maestà, 1308-1311 |
 |
| Fig. 72) Duccio, Temptation on the Temple (detail), Maestà, 1308-1311 |
The iteration between the optical theories of
the Franciscan Roger Bacon and Arabic Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) and the
representation of perspective through Euclidean geometry by Giotto, Ghiberti
and Masaccio is the object of the survey by Filippo Camerota on "Before Alberti. 'Perspectiva' and 'Pictura' "
[147]. In a postscript, Camerota takes however distance from Hockney's thesis,
believing that the images were produced using techniques and procedures of
Euclidian linear geometry and not through optical instruments.
Rome, 2010: the
conference "Lumen Imago Pictura"
The last episode of this story on the
reflections of Secret Knowledge in
recent years leads us to Rome, to the research project "History of the light in the theory of vision
and in the visual representation", and the Lumen Imago Pictura conference, organized by the Hertziana Library
from the Max-Planck Institute, in cooperation with the Academy of Fine Arts in Rome on 12 to 13 April 2010. The research
project was curated by Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, Pietro Roccasecca and Andreas
Thielemann, who organize an international meeting attended by scholars from all
over Europe [148]. It was also an opportunity to present, in digital form, a
previously unknown manuscript of the Latin translation of De aspectibus treatise by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) [149], the
mediaeval Arabic scholar of optics.
 |
| Fig. 73) A page of the manuscript Alhazen Casanatense MS1393 Alacensis / Liber de aspectiibus et vocatur prospectiva / legit de visione corporea, de luce, de oculis |
The proceedings of the conference have not been
published, but the results of the Max-Planck Institute research project were
collected by Andreas Thielemann in 2011, in a report on "Knowledge of optics in the history of
painting" [150]. The analysis of the relationship between optical and
painting runs on three lines: "The
direct vision based on the direct spread of light, the reflection on reflective
surfaces and the refraction of the rays of light on an interface, through means
of different densities." It is the third stream to be directly in line
with the thesis of Hockney.
 |
| Fig. 74) Andreas Thielemann, Projection of a basket of fruit through a water jug ©Bibliotheca Hertziana / A. Thielemann. Source: https://www.mpg.de/1075867/Optik_Malerei.pdf |
This is what Thielemann wrote: "The English painter David Hockney has
supported the view that many painters from the 15th century on have used
projected images as a support to their painting, to be able to give their
paintings a naturalistic effect worthy of admiration. Since then the theory has
been subjected to careful analysis in numerous conferences and publications.
Although it was not possible to remove all differences of opinion, it is clear
that one cannot speak of a generalised use of secret optical practices. In
addition to several new elements of information, the discussion has, however,
led to the need of analysing in a fundamental way the relationship between the
development of optics and the history of painting. (...) By taking a point of view
that combines practical and theoretical knowledge, it turns out very soon that
the optical construction in the Dutch still lives, which are based on a refined
play of reflections and refractions, are directly related to the scientific
publications of the time.
 |
| Fig. 75) Andreas Thielemann, Refractions, reflections and multiple reflections. Left: Still life by Willem Claesz. 1634 (detail). Middle: Still life by Ambrosius Bosschaert the younger, around 1635-1640 (detail). Right: glass ampoule. Source: https://www.mpg.de/1075867/Optik_Malerei.pdf |
Numerous optical effects that can be understood with great difficulty in treaties and handbooks of the era, are represented in these paintings in detail, colour, and on the basis of three-dimensional objects, and thus assume a scientific nature according to the criterion of evidence, albeit in the manner of a game and a visual spectacle." Thus these were real experiments, which painters constructed with optical manuals at hand: to fully understand the images therefore requires experimentally reproducing the conditions of their production. In short, Hockney’s empirical spirit continues to be essential to understand art.
 |
| Fig. 76) Andreas Thielemann, Optical Experiment with adjustable opening window © Bibliotheca Hertziana / A. Thielemann. Source: https://www.mpg.de/1075867/Optik_Malerei.pdf |
Post Scriptum
I had just finished writing this four-part post
when my brother told me about the article by Steven Yin titled "The Mirrors Behind Rembrandt’s
Self-Portraits", published in the New York Times just one week ago [151].
It quotes the recent article "Rembrandt's
self-portraits" by Francis O'Neill and Sofia Palace Corner [152]. The
two authors extend the discussion on the use of optics to Rembrandt’s
self-portraits. There is really no doubt that the issue will continue to be given
attention also in the next years.
NOTES
[128] We are continuing the analysis, on the
basis of the available documentary evidence, of the conference on Art and Optics, held in New York on
December 1 and 2, 2001 to present and discuss the thesis on David Hockney and
Falco Charles (see the webpages
http://www.zoharworks.com/artandoptics/index.html and
http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/). For a discussion of the first three sessions of the conference, please refer to Part Three of this post. Part One sets out the arguments contained in the book Secret Knowledge by David Hockney (first edition 2001; second edition 2006); in Part Two, reference is made to the studies by David Hockney and Roberta Lapucci on the use of optics by Caravaggio.
http://www.zoharworks.com/artandoptics/index.html and
http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/). For a discussion of the first three sessions of the conference, please refer to Part Three of this post. Part One sets out the arguments contained in the book Secret Knowledge by David Hockney (first edition 2001; second edition 2006); in Part Two, reference is made to the studies by David Hockney and Roberta Lapucci on the use of optics by Caravaggio.
[129] Spike, John. T, Caravaggio’s Optical
Realities, in: Painted Optics Symposium. Re-examining the Hockney-Falco thesis
7 years on, Florence, Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio Art Centers
International, 7-9 Settembre 2008, pp. 15-20.
[130] Sykes, Christopher Simon - Hockney: The
Biography, Volume 2 1975-2012: a pilgrim's progress, New York, Doubleday, 430
pages. Quotation at page 341.
[132] The lesson The Moment of Caravaggio is available in six parts at the address http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/audio-video/mellon.html. In 2010 the author drew from it
the essay The Moment of Caravaggio,
published by Princeton University Press. The criticism to Hockney is contained
in
https://books.google.de/books?id=LviRBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=michael+fried+david+hockney&source=bl&ots=qNXI-Rn6hM&sig=KinjiJeIbYhFVmIIg6d2xMplcRw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ-6aMyurNAhVDIsAKHSUWBf8Q6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=david%20hockney&f=false.
https://books.google.de/books?id=LviRBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=michael+fried+david+hockney&source=bl&ots=qNXI-Rn6hM&sig=KinjiJeIbYhFVmIIg6d2xMplcRw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ-6aMyurNAhVDIsAKHSUWBf8Q6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=david%20hockney&f=false.
[133] Alpers, Svetlana - The Art of Describing:
Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1983,
302 pages.
[134] Girnius, Rima Marija - Rembrandt's
spaces, Dissertation, Ph. D. Bryn Mawr College, 2007. Quotation at page 30, 242
pages.
See: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/dissertations/2/ and https://books.google.de/books?id=tLFkZzOnExgC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Svetlana+Alpers+david+hockney&source=bl&ots=9V5SzH4NSS&sig=04zzbF7yHsKDxiSn3TqqVWYB_Qg&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFhM2z5OnNAhXBOxQKHboUAQEQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Svetlana%20Alpers%20david%20hockney&f=false
See: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/dissertations/2/ and https://books.google.de/books?id=tLFkZzOnExgC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Svetlana+Alpers+david+hockney&source=bl&ots=9V5SzH4NSS&sig=04zzbF7yHsKDxiSn3TqqVWYB_Qg&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFhM2z5OnNAhXBOxQKHboUAQEQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Svetlana%20Alpers%20david%20hockney&f=false
[135] Psicologia clinica:
dialoghi e confronti, edited by E. Molinari e A. Labella, Springer Verlag,
2007, 340 pages. Quotation at
page 67
[137] See: http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/elkins2.html.
See also: https://www.academia.edu/163438/Essay_on_David_Hockneys_book_Secret_Knowledge_
See also: https://www.academia.edu/163438/Essay_on_David_Hockneys_book_Secret_Knowledge_
[138] Sykes, Christopher Simon - Hockney: The
Biography, Volume 2 (quoted), p. 340
[142] Painted Optics Symposium.
Re-examining the Hockney-Falco thesis 7 years on, Florence, Fondazione Giorgio
Ronchi e Studio Art Centers International, September 7-9, 2008, 142 pages.
[143] Hockney, David - Thoughts on Camera Manufacture
and its Relationship to Power, in Painted Optics Symposium. Re-examining the
Hockney-Falco thesis 7 years on, Florence, Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio
Art Centers International, September 7-9, 2008, 142 pages, pp. 5-13
[144] Falco, Charles and Aimée L. Weintz Allen
- Contributions to Optics, Art, and Visual Literacy, in: Painted Optics
Symposium. Re-examining the Hockney-Falco thesis 7 years on, Florence,
Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio Art Centers International, September 7-9,
2008, 142 pages, pp. 115-128
[145] Grundy, Susan - The allegory of Photography in Baroque Painting, in: Painted
Optics Symposium. Re-examining the Hockney-Falco thesis 7 years on, Florence,
Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio Art Centers International, September 7-9, 2008,
142 pages, pp. 20-35.
[146] Grundy, Susan - Observable Optical Phenomena in the Painting of Duccio di
Boninsegna, in: Painted Optics Symposium. Re-examining the Hockney-Falco thesis
7 years on, Florence, Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio Art Centers
International, September 7-9, 2008, 142 pages, pp. 103-113.
[147] Camerota, Filippo - Before Alberti.
‘Perspectiva’ and ‘Pictura, in: Painted Optics Symposium. Re-examining the
Hockney-Falco thesis 7 years on, Florence, Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi e Studio Art
Centers International, September 7-9, 2008, 142 pages, pp. 83-101.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento