Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the lost techniques of the Old Masters

Very insightful. Hockney explains the techniques the master artists used well. I've read some reviews saying the masters of old using these techniques cheated, but any artist would know there's no such thing at cheating. Hockney explains how the sudden improvements in artists painting objects with ellipses that were perfect, were made. Artists always search for ways of improving their work or painting faster. Like most things in life, artists were problem solvers and when they how found a new way of painting or overcoming a problem they kept it to themselves. Thanks to Hockney I have a much better idea of how they worked.

The art world is well known for the prevalence of jealousy and envy among artists for the more successful among them. It's understandable, as many hard working, highly skilled artists are ignored while others, equally or even less skilled, become world famous, either by accident or because of superior marketing skills. For example, one often STILL reads that Picasso or Dali could not draw or even paint "properly", in spite of the fact that several world-travelled exhibitions of their works have featured early drawings and paintings by both artists showing draughtsmanship skills of the highest order and the ability to produce skilful representational paintings. In both cases, however, as they grew up and developed, they chose to take a different path and be judged by the results. Hockney has joined this exclusive group and produces uniquely stylised paintings, instantly recognisable, only because of the skills acquired in his classic training in drawing and painting, honed by hard work, dedication and long experience.Life is unfair. Hockney has become a National Treasure, because he is an excellent artist, but also, perhaps, because he has not only survived to a ripe old age but achieved "grumpy but lovable old fart" status. Yet many of his contemporaries, equally skilled, are completely unknown or known only to a few knowledgable fellow artists.Of course Hockney can draw. Anyone who says he cannot draw or paint "properly" is either blinded by professional jealousy or simply does not know what he is talking about. There is ample evidence on record in his published work. His teenage paintings and drawings show ample evidence of a great artist in the making. His few representational portraits, throughout his career, as well as many conventional pencil and colour pencil drawings, are clear evidence of classic drawing and painting skills. I am a particular admirer of his charcoal drawings, which show a remarkable ability to convey softness and tonal range as well as the high contrast and hard edges more typical of this medium.As for his theories on the use of optical aids by great artists of the past, there can be little doubt that leading artists have, when required, used every aid technically available to achieve precision when needed - and why not? Grids, shadowgraphs and the camera lucida are techniques which would have been fascinating and irresistable to a skilled artist seeking to perfect his craft. Such techniques are taught in the better art schools alongside the more traditional skill of draughtsmanship.It is also unarguably true that some great artists have, by hard work and enormous dedication, achieved the ability to reproduce the three-dimensional world they see onto a two-dimensional surface with extraordinary perceptual skill, so as to make the image appear convincingly accurate, without the use of instrumental aids. Some of Hockney's early paintings show that he was quite competent at that when he wanted to be.Whether particular artists used optical aids to the full extent hypothesised by Hockney cannot now be known for sure. Nor is the Scientific American article a definitive "debunking" as claimed. It is a contrary opinion as subjective as Hockney's. We shall never know for sure, but the single-minded skilled professional striving for perfection is not something that has appeared only in the last century, and I suspect Hockney's theory, if not 100% correct, is nearer the truth than the denials of his critics.This book is a fascinating exposition of some of the clever techniques the Old Masters could have used, and probably, in many cases, did use to achieve their extraordinary results. In no way does it denigrate their skills - on the contrary, it shows the amount of study and research needed to become a great artist. If you are interested in the craft of painting, this is required reading.

Catching up on Hockney’s thesis. The story is fascinating and I look at pictures completely differently now. Basically everyone uses optical devices to help when they need to, and it shows up more or less obviously depending on the skill of the artist.

It’s david hockeys thesis

I really like the visual design and the logic flow of the book as they work together to illustrate Hockney's thesis -- the old masters used "secret" tools when painting their masterpiece.

I have always wanted to read this book and I was really interested to get it at last. Really well laid out and explained.It is a terrible lack in art history education when none of this information is available. Most artists want to know how things are made and David Hockney has really got to grips with the subject for us and generously let us in on the secret.

I have given 5 stars because this is a readable & interesting book. I think, however, that whilst it establishes a plausible hypothesis it does not get much further. The book had a cold reception from the art establishment. The problem with any claim about "secret" knowledge is that it is inevitably close to a conspiracy theory and attracts bizarre claims and counter claims. Worth reading if you are interested in the history of art - and it might be correct!

Well written and informative on a particular interesting subject