Rating: 
Summary: Newest Fad!?
Review: An excellent book and well written. The research is thorough but not as great a revelation as most people may think. Mirrors, optics and reflectors as well as staged studies for major pictures were aids in the creation of art and are worthless without real knowledge of technique and practice. Art historians are wary that this book may diminish the true talent accredited to our art heroes. They are not impressed because of the lack of balanced information (which is an entirely different book) on how hard the old masters/vocational artists trained and studied to sustain their art careers. Isn't it funny how when this book first came out in the book stores it was a forty dollar book classified as only an Art Technique book and that after the CBS 60 Minutes profile on Hockney it became a ninety dollar book classified as Art Theory/Critisism.
Rating: 
Summary: Not even "1" star actually...
Review: David Hockney's proposal is not borne out by facts. If Hockney's supposed "secret" were a fact, contemporary artists would easily match the masters of the Rennaissance in their drawings. Modern artists do not so easily match the masters, nor do they use optics to accomplish drawings either. Therefore, Hockney's proposal is not based upon fact and he is not authoritative. "Secret Knowledge" must join the stacks of popular art books that will not long be remembered, unless it be for the notoriety of being terribly silly.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow!
Review: Great book. Reads like the denouement of spell-binding mystery novel with the visual and textual evidence mounting piece by piece until the conclusion seems inevitable. As a working artist, Hockney teases out clues that may have eluded art historians. The book itself is a piece of artwork with excellent reproductions, skillful layout and beautiful typography.There is one sore spot. Historical and scientific types will quickly notice that Hockney reached his conclusions BEFORE his two year search for evidence and that weaknesses in the argument and evidence are not fully considered. The examples appear selective and are possibly not representative. Looking at the sample artwork, you can see his point but would not be suprised to hear valid alternative explanations. Though not proof positive, the work is persuasive, enlightening and more than a little revolutionary.
Rating:
Summary: Zero Stars - absolute Rubbish
Review: Hockney is an untalented artist. His drawings and paintings are of poor quality. He is the lowest of the low for impugning the reputation of the old masters to make a buck. Many artists of the past and present can and do make very accurate drawings and paintings using no camera obscura or any special machine. They just use pencils, paper, and the knowledge and skill of drawing. If you believe Hockeny, you are an ignorant fool. This book is garbage.
Rating: 
Summary: The Lens modality
Review: I am a visual artists, I work at Universal Entertainment developing video games, and I studied illustration and Baroque painting at Art Center College of Design (I was a scholarship student). Hockney's objective evidence, does indeed call for a popular re-evaluation of the European Arts. Hockney has soiled some of my favorite artist (caravagio and Durur among others), by illuminating their usage of technology which was traditionally believe to be only strong artistic skill. After reading Hockney's work, I have visited several museum to further study Hockney's theories. His research appears very sound, and further research on my part has strengthened his argument. For instance refer to the collected drawings of Hans Holbein the Younger. Clearly, his drawings reveal a traced line quality which according to Hockney indicates his use of lens technology. All of Holbein's drawing exhibit areas of complete disregard of form development. He simply does not "draw thru" the form, which could mean he (a) does not understand the forms; (b) he is tracing the contour! If Holbein could draw this well without the assistance of technology, surely his under drawings would exhibit a more sophisticated use of overlapping lines. This is particularly evident in his pencil drawings of:
Thomas Boleyn,
William Parr
Sir Richard Southwell
Frances, Countess of Surrey
John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester
Margaret, Lady of Butts
Lady Audley (Elizabeth?) I suspect that Keith Patton's negative review is primarily because he could not understand the book, nor *did he read it*.
This book does not debunk the Western tradition. Technological applications in Europe allowed for the 3d world to finally become accurately converted to the 2d genre. Which subsequently transformed the world of art! The applications of this are numerous even in the modern era. Before the lens technology was applied to art, humans had no "exact" technology to accurate *reproduce* the natural world. And it is no wonder why photorealistic painting quickly was replace by the photographic camera, which completely eliminated the need for a specialized craftsman who was using a similar technique anyway. Think about that.
I must highlight the fact that we live in an era when the photograph is transparent technology. We have actually grown accustom to seeing photographic distortions in our image making. Which is why we probably never questioned or even noticed photographic distortions in master paintings? But since Hockney has raised the issue, why would these same distortions appear in master paintings hundreds of years before the invention of the camera?
Technology appears to be the best answer. Hockney uses primary evidence in his discussion. He is not theorizing on the use of lense technology. He cites visual evidence, and has a large section of documents at the end of the book containing primary written evidences to substantiate his claim. I think Hockney's investigative skills and use of primary evidence are excellent examples of research. And I would recommend this book to anyone as a example of good research methodology. Even if the theory did not hold up to scrutiny. Hockney has shown (if we are correct) that imagination is more important than technical knowledge. Go ahead. -B. Alexander Derrick
http:///www.highculture.8m.com Postscript. I have made a successful living painting photorealistic texture maps for the video games industry for the last 4 years. I completely understand the technical skills necessary to create a photorealistic image on the computer(technology assisted) but I can also paint very well in oils and gouache. That is to say, I am not agreeing with Hockney, because I am lacking in technical skills.
The evidence is there. Let us discuss with facts not our emotional attachment to these proclaimed "master artists."
Rating:
Summary: Revealing and relieving
Review: I have to disagree with cat cattus, prior reviewer, who just screwed up the rating for Hockney. This is not about HIS work, this is about his project to study the work of others. He does that very well. I've often thought that the work of the Masters was uncanny, and apparently, it was. Every artist uses whatever aids are available at the time. The deliniation between "before opticals" and "after opticals" is quite clear. His most compelling reason is that the artists of the time were business men first. They HAD to get the production out. They didn't have time to spend months or years on a single painting.
Rating:
Summary: a fascinating insight
Review: I just received Hockney's book and have been eagerly pawing through the text and illustrations. I first became aware of Hockney's latest idea and project through an article in the New Yorker about a year or so ago, and at the time was quite intrigued. As a practicing artist myself, it's wonderful to have this theory of optical assistance put forward by another working artist rather than an art historian of limited mark-making experience, as it were. While at times Mr. Hockney may overstate the possible use of optics where supreme draughtmanship might explain the mastery of the old masters, his ideas are certainly intriguing and merit further examination. It was especially interesting to me to watch Hockney's own mark-making 'improve' as he himself practised drawing portraits using an optical device invented in the early 19th century. I even found myself thinking, "Hey, where can I get my hands on a camera lucida and give this a whirl, too?" Despite whatever academic faults one might find with Hockney's method of establishing his theory, the book itself is a joy. Hockney approaches this topic with unabashed enthusiasm, and rewards the reader with lavish and well-elucidated visual aids.
Rating:
Summary: The Lens modality
Review: It is intriguing that the negative reviews all cite that artists can produce photo-realistic images and abjure the devaluation of training. These are opinions Hockney is IN AGREEMENT with,not refuting. He merely shows that there are focus errors and mapping intracacies that strongly suggest an optical approach. I am by no means 100% sold, but if this was presented as a scientific theory (as it was with Falco and would take minimal editing to resubmit this document as such) it would little doubt be judged valid. I think that the critics who are so quick to object have not read the correspondence section, which is quite elucidating and convincing. As Hockney says, the artist makes the marks. Why is this technology any less valid than the use by Durer of his mapping techniques?
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Detective Work!
Review: It's not every contemporary artist who rewrites the history of modern painting, and pushes back the use of the Artist's lens to the Renaissance. Hockney has changed the way we will consider the paintings of the old masters, and the historical basis for the newest art of our times. The amazing thing is, that we've all looked at these same paintings, seen the same clues, perhaps even had the same alarm bells go off in our heads, but we allow inquiries to be stifled by accepeted art historical explanations. That is, until David Hockey applied the reason and passion for observation that only an artist can bring to the subject. The book's arguments are beutifully illustrated, first visually, using the artworks themselves as historical documentation. Next with scholary reasearch whose meaning, in light of Hockney's visual arguments, brings the correspondence and criticism of the time into sharp focus. And finally, and most lively, you get to see the artist's theory evolve in the form of correspondence with scientists and scholars of today discussing cutting edge technological examinations of the old masterworks previously illustrated. Quite simply, a MUST READ book! - Ken Mora
kenmora.com
Rating:
Summary: no stars
Review: lack of talent leads to jealousy that inspired the author to create his "theories".
| 
