David Hockney’s career, which now spans more than six decades, stands as a testament to the transformative power of formal innovation and unapologetic queer visibility.
He is still such a gem, and one of the best draftsmen of the last 60 years. I once interviewed him about his controversial theories on the Old Masters' use of optical devices in their work. I remain skeptical, but he was almost persuasive in his arguments. An intriguing and important artist. Thanks for the reminder.
His artistry is next-level. And those optical device theories he’s championed really throw a wrench in our assumptions about the Old Masters (Hockney–Falco thesis). (For those who don't know, Hockney argues that starting in the early Renaissance, a bunch of master painters secretly used optical devices ((camera obscuras, lenses, even camera lucidas)) to project scenes onto their canvases so they could trace them with insane accuracy and that this explains the astonishing leap in realism. Once you realize you can trace a projected image, suddenly you can render faces, drapery, cast shadows, and vanishing points with breathtaking precision). He makes you look twice at a Titian or a Vermeer. It’s that kind of fearless questioning that makes him such a standout.
My problem with the optical devices theory is how come we don't have a shred of documentary evidence--no letters, no notes in sketchbooks, not a single written line anywhere by contemporary critics--to buttress Hockney's argument. But it's certainly an intriguing hypothesis.
It’s true there aren’t any diaries saying “I used a camera obscura,” but a few 17th-/18th-century sources drop hints. Samuel van Hoogstraten’s 1678 Inleyding even tells painters to use lenses and a camera obscura to nail perspective and lighting, and mid-1700s Paris bookseller Charles-Antoine Jombert noted that Flemish painters “studied and imitated the effect of the camera obscura” in their work (which they documented). If you look at Vermeer’s The Art of Painting, with its pulled-back curtain and model posed under a single light source, it basically reads like a tip-off that he was tracing a projection (a theory suggested since the early 1990s).
Hockney’s work reminds me how art can be both deeply personal and powerfully political. The fact that he’s remained so daring across so many decades and mediums is its own kind of activism.
Absolutely. I love how he just goes for it, mixing the personal with political punch without ever blinking. He’s been pushing the envelope for decades, hopping between painting, photo collages, even messing around with iPads, and it always feels like he’s shouting, “Screw the rules!!!!”
That fearless streak of his is pure activist energy, proving art can shake things up and get people talking.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 yay I am going to dive in and stay in the pool as long as I can! More as I go…
He's always a fun one to cover!
He is truly an inspiring multidisciplinary artist. I was lucky to see so much of his art in his hometown Bradford last summer.
He is still such a gem, and one of the best draftsmen of the last 60 years. I once interviewed him about his controversial theories on the Old Masters' use of optical devices in their work. I remain skeptical, but he was almost persuasive in his arguments. An intriguing and important artist. Thanks for the reminder.
His artistry is next-level. And those optical device theories he’s championed really throw a wrench in our assumptions about the Old Masters (Hockney–Falco thesis). (For those who don't know, Hockney argues that starting in the early Renaissance, a bunch of master painters secretly used optical devices ((camera obscuras, lenses, even camera lucidas)) to project scenes onto their canvases so they could trace them with insane accuracy and that this explains the astonishing leap in realism. Once you realize you can trace a projected image, suddenly you can render faces, drapery, cast shadows, and vanishing points with breathtaking precision). He makes you look twice at a Titian or a Vermeer. It’s that kind of fearless questioning that makes him such a standout.
My problem with the optical devices theory is how come we don't have a shred of documentary evidence--no letters, no notes in sketchbooks, not a single written line anywhere by contemporary critics--to buttress Hockney's argument. But it's certainly an intriguing hypothesis.
It’s true there aren’t any diaries saying “I used a camera obscura,” but a few 17th-/18th-century sources drop hints. Samuel van Hoogstraten’s 1678 Inleyding even tells painters to use lenses and a camera obscura to nail perspective and lighting, and mid-1700s Paris bookseller Charles-Antoine Jombert noted that Flemish painters “studied and imitated the effect of the camera obscura” in their work (which they documented). If you look at Vermeer’s The Art of Painting, with its pulled-back curtain and model posed under a single light source, it basically reads like a tip-off that he was tracing a projection (a theory suggested since the early 1990s).
This I didn't know. Thanks for the references. I don't know if this spoils the magic or not....
Hockney’s work reminds me how art can be both deeply personal and powerfully political. The fact that he’s remained so daring across so many decades and mediums is its own kind of activism.
Absolutely. I love how he just goes for it, mixing the personal with political punch without ever blinking. He’s been pushing the envelope for decades, hopping between painting, photo collages, even messing around with iPads, and it always feels like he’s shouting, “Screw the rules!!!!”
That fearless streak of his is pure activist energy, proving art can shake things up and get people talking.