Is the use by old masters of camera obscura and optics in general a taboo topic in Art History, or was David Hockney's thesis wrong?

Question

About 20 years ago, David Hockney made in his book "Secret Knowledge" a powerful case for the hypothesis that a revolution was set off in Western painting by the use of camera obscura and other optical instruments from the 15th century onwards.

According to his very convincing thesis, the breathtaking realism of (especially portrait) paintings by Van Eyck, Vermeer, Velazquez etc. could never have been achieved by simply "eyeballing" the subject. By the beginning of the 19th century, the technique was so widespread and refined, that many "paintings" were de facto "photographs" before the advent of photography itself.

Of course, this crucial introduction and generalization of "photographic" painting, without which the evolution of Western art over the past 500 years would be impossible to understand, could be seen as "cheating". Is the controversy caused by "Secret Knowledge" justified? Have art historians given Hockney's thesis the attention it deserves?

Examples of old masters' works which "couldn't be just a painting": Van Eyck's "Man in an Turban, 1433 Holbein's "Thomas More", 1527

Wikipedia on contemporary photorealism: "Photorealist painting cannot exist without the photograph. In Photorealism, change and movement must be frozen in time which must then be accurately represented by the artist. Photorealists gather their imagery and information with the camera and photograph. Once the photograph is developed (usually onto a photographic slide) the artist will systematically transfer the image from the photographic slide onto canvases. Usually this is done either by projecting the slide onto the canvas or by using traditional grid techniques. The resulting images are often direct copies of the original photograph but are usually larger than the original photograph or slide. This results in the photorealist style being tight and precise, often with an emphasis on imagery that requires a high level of technical prowess and virtuosity to simulate, such as reflections in specular surfaces and the geometric rigor of man-made environs."

Answer 1

Hockney's claims have drawn at least some serious scholarly attention and experimentation.

The Art & Optics website hosted by Brandeis University reviews the theory, experiments, and arguments for and against the use of optics by old masters -- noting that evidence that some painters may have used some devices in some paintings doesn't mean they used them in other paintings.

One note is that the mechanical drawing underlying a painting is only one aspect of the painting's production and impact, neglecting choice of subject matter, composition, use of materials, application of stroke and color, glazing, and more. The documentary Tim's Vermeer drew mockery for lauding Tim Jenison's dab-by-dab work replicating the surface of Vermeer's The Music Lesson as anything comparable to the process of producing the original work.

The evolution of Western art that you note involves far more than the technical precision of using optics for drawing, and of course there have been many phases of Western art that valued less-precise, even impressionistic interpretations of scenery, still lives, and society.

Answer 2

The Hockney-Falco thesis is NOT a taboo subject in art history.

This is not going to be regarded as a good answer because I can't cite any written sources, I've asked former art students who were aware of the theory and had been taught it at college. Also, there has been plenty of discussion of the idea over the last twenty years. When it was introduced it was very controversial and there was much discussion and research.

Over time, its importance has faded; the good parts have been retained, the bad are ignored. I'm happy to discuss the good and the bad elsewhere, this is an attempt to provide a direct answer to the question

Answer 3

Have you actually looked at any paintings from before the renaissance? There's plenty that look accurate. Besides, David Hockney, whilst he was at art school made a point of not going to art history lessons, so I'd take his ideas here with a large dose of salt.

Have art historians given Hockneys ideas the attention it deserves?

Why should they? He disrespected them all the way through art college!