SECRET KNOWLEDGE

When you see a great painting by a Renaissance master, we never stop to think, how did they do that?  We just assume, or at least I assume, that the Rembrandt portrait or the Vermeer interior representing unbelievable light was done with the artist looking at the subject and then applying blobs of paint to the canvas.  At least that was the way I was taught to understand it.

Yet, that knee jerk understanding may very well not be the case.  Instead, that great portrait or interior view probably started out with a lens based projection onto the canvas, from which the artist then traced distinguishing characteristics.  Most of the greatest Renaissance painters used optics as part of their normal working process.  This is the assertion of David Hockney, in his book Secret Knowledge, Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters.

In the 1500s, optics included lenses, mirrors, camera obscuras (both pictured above), and the camera lucida.  Each of the devices allows an optical projection to be made onto a piece of paper, a canvas, or a wall.  And as the person is doing in the image above, they are able to trace this projected image onto their paper.  The devices became portable, so you could set them up in a landscape or an interior.  With this technology, artists could quickly and accurately represent, as Hockney posits, for example, a foreshortened lute on the paper or canvas.  And your outline of a foreshortened lute would look exactly like it is supposed to.

The book gives compelling visual examples which supports this theory.  It also cites historical correspondence in which various artists, say Vermeer, state that they had in their possession one or more of these optical tools.

CAMERA OBSCURA IN SINTRA, PORTUGAL

If you believe Hockney’s assertion, it rather upends the means, methods, and technique of both drawing and painting.  We have drilled into our heads the old trope of hand eye coordination.  We have drilled into our heads that they sat there, in the moment, in the space, in the landscape,and captured what was in front of their eyes.   And that the greats all had a highly developed and sophisticated coordination.   That may be.  Yet if they were essentially tracing the subject so as to get it right, this certainly dilutes the primacy of the romance of the hand and eye.  It might be more accurate to say hand lens coordination.

Hockney does make clear that just because you can trace something, does not mean that you can execute the work just like the masters.  Which of course is absolutely correct.  There remains that incredible technique which is slathered all over the drawings and paintings.  Still…Vermeer…tracing an image projected onto their canvas?

Once again, the beliefs and practices that we hold dear crumble before our eyes.  As has been said before in these pages, the word secret should never be allowed to be part of our understanding of art;  remember that we talked about LeCorbusier being the secret photographer.   The powerful and classic link of hand eye coordination that has been drilled into our heads now is unlinked.  If Vermeer got away with tracing things, then why can’t you trace an image?  So why aren’t we taught that, indeed, tracing things has been part of representational depiction since day one, and this is one critical facet in the production images in Representational Spacetime.

Secret Knowledge is lavishly illustrated with beautiful images;  it is just really fun to turn the pages to look at all of the unbelievable virtuosity even if you are skeptical of his thesis.  And it is a revelation to begin to understand  that many of the iconic Renaissance works were produced with the optical lens as part of their working technique.

1.  Hockney, David. Secret Knowledge. Viking Studio; New York. 2006.