No, they’re not photographs: Astonishing acrylic paintings..you thought you could paint?

Mailonline ^ | 06/09/12 | Damien Gayle

[Erasmus]

These days, if you did them the other way around, you’d be swimming in NEA grants.

[supercat]

That was exactly his evidence: a lens sees things differently from the human eye. The paintings in question have the effects and perspective of a lens.

I am familiar with one particular work cited by Mr. Hockney (I have seen the actual work--not just pictures--at the Memphis Brooks Museum). Aesthetically, I don't like it as much as a like many of William Bouguereau's works. While it certainly includes a level of extraneous detail not typically found in classical realism, and the perspective would not be inconsistent with a camera obscura, by my understanding Hockney goes further:

1. He seems to suggest that painters mostly relied upon the camera obscura, rather than it being used as an occasional experiment by a few painters.
2. Some people who are familiar with the way images are projected can reproduce effects such as foreshortening "accurately" without cameras; I won't quite way "freehand", since the techniques often involve guide lines. Such lines may not appear on a finished work if the design is first rendered as a drawing.

I won't dispute that some 19th-century painters probably used the camera obscura, at least experimentally. I do, however, dispute what I understand to be Hockney's broader claim--that the Classical Realist artists weren't so impressive as they seem, since all they did was trace projections.

[Flag_This]

"I do, however, dispute what I understand to be Hockney's broader claim--that the Classical Realist artists weren't so impressive as they seem, since all they did was trace projections."

I never got the impression, while reading Hockney's book, that he was denigrating the classical artists at all. He presented the idea that projection was a tool that they used. He then presented his evidence.

Ultimately, a work of art is successful for a wide variety of reasons - the mere presence of extraneous detail isn't helpful. You could project to your heart's content, but if you aren't a good artist (concept, composition, color, execution, etc), you will end up with crap.

[supercat]

They were considered worthless and could not even be sold at auction so they were thrown away and many were burned.

There was a lot of dreck produced, as well as some good stuff. Further, since the paintings wouldn't have generally had to last more than a month, I wouldn't be surprised if, in many cases, the paints and materials were less archival than would be used in paintings that were designed to be of lasting value. Further, while I haven't examined paintings that were painted for the purpose of reproduction, I have seen some pen-and-ink original cartoons. Many of them included parts that were cut and pasted over other parts. I suspect few art buyers, even today, would be interested in buying an obscure cut-and-paste work by an obscure artist. Although some of the better works and artists from the middle of the last century have become well-known, I don't think such a thing would have happened without some major and unforeseen changes in imaging technologies. If a magazine was going to print 100,000 copies, I don't think anyone would have expected that the cover artwork would ever be seen by anyone who didn't happen to view one of those 100,000 copies. It was only the fact that technologies have allowed images to become immortal that has given their original representations lasting value.

Incidentally, I suspect that the idea of paintings as being a transitory work product goes back centuries, to the theater. Some productions, from what I understand, featured some rather wonderfully painted scenery, but since the scenery produced for a production existed for no other purpose than to be used in that production, the scenery would generally be junked once the production was complete. I'm sure a lot of the scenery that's been produced, even for quality productions, was relative dreck, and some of it may have been good, but even most of that would have been junked with the rest.

[Pharmboy]

I never forgot my encounter, and you obviously never forgot yours. For me, that taught me a lot...creativity and technical proficiency are often decoupled. When they are both well-developed in the same person, we get Michaelangelo, Bach or van Gogh.

And those are, obviously, very rare.

[P.O.E.]

Incredible stuff, but I’ve always thought acrylics had no “soul”. Oils, pastels, etc. have a certain warmth to them. Just MHO

[Windflier]

...creativity and technical proficiency are often decoupled. When they are both well-developed in the same person, we get Michaelangelo, Bach or van Gogh.

Well said, and very true. Some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard, was created by musicians who had no formal training at all. Examples abound in the annals of popular music.

[Doogle]

..if I draw a straight line and it’s anything other than black or red, I’m ecstatic. So when something is very unusual I marvel.

[Doogle]

???

[Skooz]

BFL = Bump For Later. Kind of like a bookmark.

[Doogle]

yeah, I figured it out right after I posted ???

[iceskater]

Thanks for the ping.

It was just what I needed today.