Skip to main content
Art and science

Art and science

Optical tricks of the Old Masters

05 Jun 2002

Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters
David Hockney
2001 Thames and Hudson 296pp £35.00hb

David Hockney’s revelations concerning the methods of the Old Masters were first publicized over two years ago in an article in the New Yorker. However, it is only with the publication of this new book Secret Knowledge that the full impact of his discovery becomes clear. Hockney suggests – and attempts to prove – that many Western artists from the early 15th century onwards used mirrors and lenses to help them create paintings and drawings. His analyses and illustrations reveal that Renaissance painters used these optical devices to create projected images that they would then draw over. In doing so, the artists saved time and made achieving a photographic likeness possible.

Hockney points out so many clues and presents so much solid evidence that the reader will wonder why the Old Masters’ tricks were not discovered before. His evidence ranges from the almost irrefutable – such as measurable image properties – to suggestive and speculative observations. The latter include the appearance of an unusually large number of left-handed drinkers, caused, he claims, by the fact that mirrors reverse real images. Hockney also points to the frequent occurrence of white-topped tablecloths, which solve a problem of imaging distortion in optics, and to the fact that many paintings of the time have perfectly rendered parts that do not fit properly together – again caused by the limitations of optical devices.

Hockney’s argument, which is likely to lead to further revelations by other art historians, explains why paintings by van Eyck, Ingres and Vermeer look so different from those by earlier artists such as Giotto, Rubens and Rembrandt. He believes that van Eyck (1390-1441) was one of the earliest artists to achieve such “perfection” and that the new way of depicting the world quickly became widespread. Painting, says Hockney, transformed from painterly to photographic almost overnight – a revolution in art.

Having stared in awe for endless hours in museums and at art books at the incredible detail in such paintings, I used to look upon some of these works as unapproachable goals produced by supermen. Like discovering the reality behind a conjurer’s trick, it at first shocked and dismayed me to learn the “secrets” of the Old Masters. It never once occurred to me that such detail could have been achieved by tracing over images produced by lenses and mirrors.

However, my initial reaction eventually gave way to a new sense of freedom. Although I will still marvel over their works, I now perceive these great masters as highly talented artists, rather than unapproachable gods. They were businessmen, making a living creating images in a time when the man with the best image won the contract. Why should they not have used every method possible? Is an image-projecting device so different from a new type of brush or a paint that achieves some special effect? As professionals, their survival depended on using the latest technology and not disclosing new discoveries to the competition.

Hockney also points to the potential danger that such men faced during the Inquisition, when one could be burned at the stake for making magic with image-projecting devices. After all, such nigh-perfect images would have shocked those who had never seen them before. But while image-projecting devices cannot reduce great art to a painting-by-numbers exercise – drawing, even with optical instruments, is not a trivial task – such tools meant that a merely good artist could possibly surpass a great artist who was simply painting by eye.

The question is why we should have remained ignorant of something so obvious for so long. Fortunately for art history, Hockney managed to suspend his awe and reverence long enough to ask how the Old Masters achieved such “perfection”. Apparently, until now no one had ever seriously questioned why many artists stopped producing detailed drawings and studies before painting on the canvas, a practice that was common before the photographic look appeared. Hockney, however, had the curiosity, courage and wherewithal to ask why.

The book is written in a rather loose style, with three somewhat unintegrated parts. It begins with a visual section containing many paintings to illustrate the argument. There follows a textural section with excerpts, articles and notes that Hockney used in his research. The book ends with a series of letters and notes exchanged between the author and various experts as his investigation unfolded. The style requires the reader to redo some of the same work Hockney did in forming his conclusions.

But since the information in the three sections is not integrated, there is much repetition. Indeed, I found myself reading the same sentence in several different places in the book. And although the letters allow the reader to experience the thrill of the investigation, one must wade through all of the chitchat to glean the relevant details. Another quibble is that the book’s 400 figures – excellent though they are – are not identified in the standard format normally applied in art works. Many figures and pages are not even numbered.

Hockney’s writing style, organization and extensive use of circumstantial evidence are likely to attract much criticism. Indeed, his hypothesis was hotly debated at a recent conference sponsored by the New York Institute for the Humanities (www.artandoptics.com). Nevertheless, Secret Knowledge is a marvellous achievement. It is an absolute must-read for anyone who is interested in the history, politics, theory and technology of art. It is difficult to imagine how the book can fail to change the way art is viewed.

Buy the book
Secret Knowledge: Amazon UK/Amazon US

Related events

Copyright © 2024 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors