Hockney is a very very good artist, he can draw incredibly well. His "old master theory" is very misunderstood by some of the comments here. He is NOT saying that they couldn't draw and paint, as the evidence obviously shows that they could. All he is saying is that there is a good chance they used mechanical devices. Vermeer certainly did and he's as close to a genius as you can get! You have to know how to draw well to be able to use a projector or whatever. merely tracing lines won't make it
@REDBULLHEADiphone Well, I think the point he was making is being able to see something in a way that a photo would capture it are incompatible. Hockney has a deep understanding of perspective and how things appear in real life. He has always played with perspective and I thinks that's what makes his work so unique.
@proust2020 I agree. Those helps do not make the paintings &take nothing away from the artist's achievements. Hockney is quite clear about that . Any artist knows: they are a start, they are a help , but won't do the painting for one. When he says " I can paint it now with great confidence," he's saying after 50 years of painting, he can go directly to what is essential. After 50 years of painting, he knows...but it takes the years of doing so...no mirror can get you there, only painting
Anything is photographable, but you have to let go of preconceptions based on other forms of visual image creation. But then again, Hockney used photography as a tool to illustrate his very creative artistic ideas and not purely for its own sake, so I suppose his statements shouldn't be all that surprising.
Of all the crazy comments on this video about Hockney's skill, the clear answer is he doesn't draw very naturalistic, he draws good in a crude sense. Whether he does by choice or because he can't draw naturalistically well is somewhat irrelevant. I don't like his art in a higher sense, but for art as art its not bad. Only because, like many, he does his crudeness naturally, it doesn't look forced. In that he is talented, in that small small regard for what ranks artistic merit.
All the great artists master their trade(for want of a better description) and then experiment with medium, colour, light, brush work, composition; it's about finding something new, and yourself in the process. David Hockey is no different. It's obvious he has great technical ability, it's shown in the paintings of his mother.
Thank's -- and what is interesting, is how "art critics" so often deal with "how" and not what. I heard critic, where the sole issue has been if the artist "cheated" and not once but many times -- as I sometimes use these myself,-- the ones who find only the method and not the image, motiv or composision interesting, is realy guessing and know nothing about how the aparatus work or it's limitations and even that 99 pct. use it wrong. -- so even the guesses are wrong, as that is not how it work
@rosecarriage I am grateful for your erudition - whether approbatory or opprobrious. Art is merely fashion - what was once great is now old hat, e.g. Cezanne was for a long time deified by art schools as the inspiration of Cubism (another fad) even though his long time friend and contemporary, Victor Hugo, told the world that he had no talent whatsoever- which is true. 'Artistic taste' is formed by dealers who prey on the gullible, insecure wealthy who need to feel cultured, special, elitist.
Possibly it's an attack, because he seems somewhat crooked. But there are things photography will never capture, there are things photography can only capture, but most importantly photography is relatively limiting.
@zthetha You don't have to be pretended as a charming human,looks like courtesy，foresight and sagacity.That's really not interesting.It is your freedom to set up your belief on some kind of knowledgeable people like what Victor Hugo.I just belive in my eyes and my feeling.No matter who is your dream lover in art,you are bullshit when you deny the beauty with some ‘righteous’ reasons.You have lose your heart forever.
why watch a video of the iraq war when you don't like war, why watch the news if you can't do anything about it. Hell why don't we just sit in boxes. :]
His drawing abilities are unremarkable. His theory about the camera obscure is flawed from the start. He presents no actual evidence only his own belief in it. Vermeer for example, we have evidence of sales receipts for every material in his studio. Notes on his works, second account descriptions of his studio, ant painting techniques. Nothing on the "Camera Obscure". He says this isn't proof he didn't use one, rather a secret. I say he used painting pixies and kept that a secret
What I notice as being obvious here is that David's attack on photography is an attempt at giving his own work more importance and also that it's completely subjective how good/bad, much of an artist or anything anyone thinks he is
Hockney is a very very good artist, he can draw incredibly well. His "old master theory" is very misunderstood by some of the comments here. He is NOT saying that they couldn't draw and paint, as the evidence obviously shows that they could. All he is saying is that there is a good chance they used mechanical devices. Vermeer certainly did and he's as close to a genius as you can get! You have to know how to draw well to be able to use a projector or whatever. merely tracing lines won't make it
first time i've heard of robert hughes liking the work of an artist
@REDBULLHEADiphone Well, I think the point he was making is being able to see something in a way that a photo would capture it are incompatible. Hockney has a deep understanding of perspective and how things appear in real life. He has always played with perspective and I thinks that's what makes his work so unique.
Great artist and a likeable chap.
@proust2020 I agree. Those helps do not make the paintings &take nothing away from the artist's achievements. Hockney is quite clear about that . Any artist knows: they are a start, they are a help , but won't do the painting for one. When he says " I can paint it now with great confidence," he's saying after 50 years of painting, he can go directly to what is essential. After 50 years of painting, he knows...but it takes the years of doing so...no mirror can get you there, only painting
thanks for posting.
I agree with you Reiner84- True creators don't
behave like that. Its strange of him. I'm surprised
I love the way Hockney has experimented and how he has let Chinese art influience him
Anything is photographable, but you have to let go of preconceptions based on other forms of visual image creation. But then again, Hockney used photography as a tool to illustrate his very creative artistic ideas and not purely for its own sake, so I suppose his statements shouldn't be all that surprising.
@rosecarriage Not quite sure what you're banging on about but thanks for your comment.
Kavacom, when's your exhibition on?, I'd love to come and see your work, I may even buy some of your paintings!
Of all the crazy comments on this video about Hockney's skill, the clear answer is he doesn't draw very naturalistic, he draws good in a crude sense. Whether he does by choice or because he can't draw naturalistically well is somewhat irrelevant. I don't like his art in a higher sense, but for art as art its not bad. Only because, like many, he does his crudeness naturally, it doesn't look forced. In that he is talented, in that small small regard for what ranks artistic merit.
All the great artists master their trade(for want of a better description) and then experiment with medium, colour, light, brush work, composition; it's about finding something new, and yourself in the process. David Hockey is no different. It's obvious he has great technical ability, it's shown in the paintings of his mother.
Thank's -- and what is interesting, is how "art critics" so often deal with "how" and not what. I heard critic, where the sole issue has been if the artist "cheated" and not once but many times -- as I sometimes use these myself,-- the ones who find only the method and not the image, motiv or composision interesting, is realy guessing and know nothing about how the aparatus work or it's limitations and even that 99 pct. use it wrong. -- so even the guesses are wrong, as that is not how it work
@rosecarriage I am grateful for your erudition - whether approbatory or opprobrious. Art is merely fashion - what was once great is now old hat, e.g. Cezanne was for a long time deified by art schools as the inspiration of Cubism (another fad) even though his long time friend and contemporary, Victor Hugo, told the world that he had no talent whatsoever- which is true. 'Artistic taste' is formed by dealers who prey on the gullible, insecure wealthy who need to feel cultured, special, elitist.
Robert Hughes needs to zip it; he can't stay out of the way. Hockney is beautiful.
@SmartishPace i couldnt agree more
@gordondragonninja76 He likes him and his work judging by this so there you go
Possibly it's an attack, because he seems somewhat crooked. But there are things photography will never capture, there are things photography can only capture, but most importantly photography is relatively limiting.
@zthetha You don't have to be pretended as a charming human,looks like courtesy，foresight and sagacity.That's really not interesting.It is your freedom to set up your belief on some kind of knowledgeable people like what Victor Hugo.I just belive in my eyes and my feeling.No matter who is your dream lover in art,you are bullshit when you deny the beauty with some ‘righteous’ reasons.You have lose your heart forever.
If we didn't know he was great we'd think he was crap.
why watch a video of the iraq war when you don't like war, why watch the news if you can't do anything about it. Hell why don't we just sit in boxes. :]
AGAIN YOU & YOUR FAMOUS ART SELF???|
LETS SEE YOU ART!!!
You a DREAMER KURTURMIS
SAD
His drawing abilities are unremarkable. His theory about the camera obscure is flawed from the start. He presents no actual evidence only his own belief in it. Vermeer for example, we have evidence of sales receipts for every material in his studio. Notes on his works, second account descriptions of his studio, ant painting techniques. Nothing on the "Camera Obscure". He says this isn't proof he didn't use one, rather a secret. I say he used painting pixies and kept that a secret
What I notice as being obvious here is that David's attack on photography is an attempt at giving his own work more importance and also that it's completely subjective how good/bad, much of an artist or anything anyone thinks he is