What does /ic/ thinks about the Hockney-Falco thesis, and the documentary Tim's Vermeer ? The ones who pretend that classical paintings are sooo damn realistic, that they were probably made with a camera obscura and other optic devices...
>>2561217
I don't have time to detail all this right now, but the documentary made a pretty good case, from a scientific POV.
In particular, Tim predicted based on his experience that some lens distortion should happen at some places in the picture.
The other argument is the rate of decay of light, which cannot be observed by the human eye with the accuracy of Vermeer's paintings.
They did happen in Vermeer's picture.
Many paintings at the time did have some photorealistic backgrounds, with figures drawn in the room with such poor colors, anatomy, etc, that you would believe it was painted by the artist's 7yo son afterwards. It's explained neatly if the artist used this technique. (you can't really use it for humans)
It is interesting to note that the technique itself does not do all the work, and there are a bunch of painter technique required to make a painting of Vermeer's level with a camera obscura. But combine both and you strike gold.
no rules only tools
>>2561267
>The other argument is the rate of decay of light, which cannot be observed by the human eye with the accuracy of Vermeer's paintings.
>They did happen in Vermeer's picture.
That whole part was bullshit. You can observe the falloff of light. If you paint it a singular tone it will be obvious that it should be getting darker and it will look off. Knowing even basics of light theory will allow you more easily observe subtle value shifts too.
>>2561297
I think you don't understand really well the physics/biology. The problem is not that the light look well, it's that the level of accuracy is humanly impossible. To give you an analogy, it's like someone ask you to draw a line of length π cm, and you draw something of 3.1415926535897... cm. Either you used a tool to be ultra-precise, or God himself came from heaven to help you.
>>2561312
I don't think you understand as it's really not like that at all. There have been countless artists who have the same level of value control as Vermeer, and they have done it without the use of tools. Even if you had a tool, you would still need to be able to see the exact tone to mix it properly. You underestimate how sensitive the human eye can be, especially when there are two colours or tones next to each other than you are trying to compare.
>>2561217
Not all "classical" paintings, but some (like Vermeer) show tell-take signs of having been created with the aid of optical devices. Butthurt kids want to believe in us olde magical artists who used nothing but his eyes and a badger hair brush, so they reject the evidence for optical devices. What they fail to understand is that it isn't cheating, it doesn't lessen these masterpieces, it just informs us about the process and the brilliant and patient artists who made use of contemporary technology. No rules, just tools.
>>2561318
Can you cite me these artists that manage to paint the correct physical decay of light? Give a link with the proper measurements.
Secondly, you seem to defeat yourself, unless you used underestimate for overestimate?
>>2561325
Tell-tale
Ye olde*
Ducking auto-correct
>>2561325
It's just like drawing on a tablet is cheating for those same idiots. We are well aware that the tablet does not make you an artist...
>>2561312
>>2561318
Been a while since I saw the documentary, but this was the image he copied right? I took swatches from three sections on the wall and put them next to each other. The difference is really obvious between them.
I also did a quick and dirty edit to make the wall the solid colour that is next to the window so there is no falloff, and it obviously looks wrong as though it is getting inexplicably brighter the farther it is from the window.
Why would they all forgot to write down those secrets, though, if they were widely used.
>>2561330
What? Are you saying that you don't get the argument at all?
The point is the level of accuracy, not that if you take a few samples you observe a difference of value.
>>2561339
Because even Panini's perspective techniques were forgotten for about two centuries, while they have been taught in schools for a while... nobody wrote the shit down.
>>2561341
I am talking of the accuracy of the values. What are you talking about? Being able to distinguish between different values is the most basic thing when it comes to accuracy in value. The whole argument that he used tools was that the human eye cannot distinguish such subtle value transitions, and I am saying it is very easy to see these transitions.
>>2561352
No, the whole thing is about making the gradient. If you were to paint the thing, you would probably get like you did 3 key colors (or any other number, it does not change the argument), then do a gradient inbetween. Even if your three colors have the exact physical values, the gradient you would do would never match the correct one.
>>2561362
Lol wtf, have you never painted before? You're spouting nonsense.
>>2561367
>You're spouting nonsense.
>but no rebuttal
Ok, if you don't understand this, you're a complete retard. Do you really think that if asked, you could paint the exact same gradient that photoshop would do?
It's always fairly easy to detect something that has been made by a human, because there are certain limitations to our perceptions and specific quirks to how we process information.
>>2561369
Well it's not even a perfect gradient in the Vermeer. And humans can paint pretty damn close to a perfect gradient, yes.
>>2561371
Okay. The argument is "the accuracy is such that it's beyond what the human eye can distinguish" and you answer "my eyes see no difference whatsoever". You're a complete retard.
>>2561395
>It's beyond human understanding!
>No, I can see and understand it
>Wow you're retarded, you can't understand it, I just said that
>>2561406
>human perception has no limits!
>I can see atoms!
Did you go to school?
kys frankly
>>2561418
You're not even looking at that wall in the Vermeer. The gradation is plain to see, and you can see the very brushstrokes he used. It's well painted but it's not a "perfect photoshop gradient" and it's not beyond human ability to see or paint it. You're the one blindly believing a shitty documentary that spouts largely debunked claims and uses "experts" who have no clue about art.
>>2561428
Still no arguments. I already did some research on the subject, so I'm not just basing my opinion on that movie. There are many discussions to challenge it, where you'll see a lot of supporting evidence. It's a convincing case. Now if you won't try to refute things with scientific arguments, I'm out.
>>2561451
I literally pointed out that you can see the brushstrokes and you can see the value shift. How do you not see this? Use your eyes and common sense.
>>2561339
>Why would you keep trade secrets a secret?
It's a mystery
>>2561395
Give up, he's clearly not going to understand.
>>2561454
He's not arguing that it takes a camera obscura to create a gradient, but rather the mathematical precision of the shift in values indicates the use of an optical device. This entire time you've been acting as if his argument is "it takes optical devices to make a fucking gradient." You need a lot of help with reading comprehension.
>>2561217
Breaks down very quickly when you compare the maximum size of a camera obscura projection to the size of some of the paintings they claim were made with one.
Basically Hockney's just an old hack trying to justify his own ineptitude, although I don't question that some of these artists may have been experimenting with optical devices. I just don't think they were practically employable on the scale Hockney's deluded himself into thinking they were.
>>2561217
Vermeer wasn't even the only Dutch painter to master natural light and gradients, let alone painters in general. Heda was painting like this before Vermeer was even born. The North had a long history of extreme realism (which was applauded by Italian painters) for reasons that are basically tl;dr to get into in this post. Dutch golden age artists were often sons of painters, all of which were members of guilds and so knowledge and craft was being passed on. The effects of this are really obvious when you look at the work of early Netherlandish artists like van Eyck or Bosch (who were still half-bound by holdover classical idealism) and later artists who were producing still lifes, landscapes, peasant scenes, naval scenes and so on.
There's absolutely no evidence -- not a single letter, notebook, testimony, or even a piece of equipment -- for this whole camera obscura/mirrors/high-powered lenses notion. In fact, the closest to this are letters from Dutch artists who'd purchased cameras (typically from England) and found them promising but not useful. The camera obscura is phenomenally cumbersome and awkward
Realists *today* are capable of producing work that surpasses Vermeer in strict accuracy without the aid of *any* tools bar their own eyes -- and this is considering that Dutch painters would sometimes use compasses or rulers to gauge proportions. In fact, Northern painters arguably had an advantage over young artists today due to the stronger artistic culture, the patrimonial system and so on.
One small PS: Hockney claims that the camera was first used in Italy and then migrated North. This is completely ahistorical: the Northern renaissance influenced Italian artists, not the other way around. With the exception of Caravaggio realism (and painting in general) was not a favoured or prestige art in Italy. It's this kind of historical ignorance that has made it difficult for Hockney to be taken seriously by art historians, let alone by scientists.
