I saw an interesting program on (Australian) ABC TV last Sunday. It presented the theory that since the early 15th century, artists have been producing paintings by projecting an image onto canvas by means of a light source and a lens, tracing the image on the canvas, then painting over the tracing.

It’s quite a sensational claim (apparently one critic said it would be like finding out that all the world’s great lovers used Viagra), and in retrospect, the way it was presented makes an interesting comparison to the way the Moon Hoax is presented. Also, as I don’t know much about art, I had to rely on critical thinking skills to judge the claim.

There are a few questions I think are useful in judging claims like this, so let’s compare the two theories…

Is the theory internally consistent?

Art: Yes, as far as I could tell.

Moon Hoax: No. Explanations are generated on an ad hoc basis to explain problems, regardless of whether they agree with each other.

Does the theory explain the evidence better than other theories?

Art: Yes. The theory explains why, from the early 15th century onwards, artists were able to render complex shapes (candelabra in Vermeer painting) or shading (medieval armour) very accurately. It also explains minor inaccuracies in some paintings (examples on demand).

Moon Hoax: No. At least not once the underlying physics or technology is understood.

Is the theory consistent with what we know of related technologies?

Art: Yes. Lenses were known by the Greeks and Romans, and were first used in spectacles in about the 14th century. Lenses were first used in telescopes in the late 16th century (there you go – an astronomy link!). Their use by artists in the 15th century is not inconsistent.

Moon Hoax: No. The development of rocket technology was swift but seamless in the 1960s. The engines on the Space Shuttle were developed from Apollo technology. Computer technology in the 1960s was primitive compared to today, but NASA had access to the best programmers in the world.

What criticisms are there of the theory?

Art: None that I know of. However, art or optics experts should be able to spot any inconsistencies.

Moon Hoax: Numerous! Just look at the BABB.

Can the consequences of the theory be reproduced?

Art: Yes. The theory’s proponent recreates several paintings using the techniques he describes, which require nothing more than a lens and a dark room (together, a camera obscura).

Moon Hoax: No. The failure of Moon Hoax proponents to reproduce the “anomalies” they see is one of the more damning aspects of their theory.

What are the credentials of the people proposing the theory?

Art: The theory’s proponent (David Hockney) is himself an artist, and explains how he has used the techniques he believes the renaissance artists used.

Moon Hoax: The theory’s proponents don’t have qualifications in the fields they attempt to judge, but instead either appeal to common sense or incorrect science.

Has any of them like David Percy tried to reproduced them?

__________________
~AstroMike

No. Or at least, if they have attempted it, their failure to indicate this is notable.

I get the impression this is something which particularly bugs JayUtah.

Some of them try to demonstrate their theories, but they end up demonstrating some other theory altogether. For example, David Percy tried to demonstrate varying shadow lengths moving to and from a light by projecting the shadow against a wall instead of the ground. If the shadow is projected onto the ground, as in the Apollo photo, the effect is reversed, contrary to Percy's prediction. This is blatantly rigging the demo.

Percy's sample photos are legendary for failing to illustrate anything but special cases.

Most of the "demonstrations" are drawings or diagrams which illustrate what "would" happen. Of course in a drawing anything can happen, even things which defy nature.

If the conspiracists have indeed falsified their own conclusions by experiment, and have withheld that information from their readers, I would consider that fraud.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I haven't seen this documentary, of course, but from your description I can bring up several questions about the theory.

1) Does this theory really explain paintings better than previous ideas about the progression of painting techniques throughout history?

2) Is there any physical evidence that they actually did this? Have lenses/materials been found among the possesions of famous artists?

3) Is there any actual mention of the practice in the literature of the time? If it was so widespread, then surely someone would have mentioned it in a diary or something.

4) If the practice was so popular, then why did it die out to the extent that nobody knows about it or uses it today? I mean, famous painters usually trained students, who trained others, etc. Knowledge like that usually just doesn't disappear. (The fact that the main proponent uses it doesn't mean it was used historically)

Not trying to debunk the theory, just being skeptical here. :-) I'll need more information to judge it properly.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I checked out other webpages about Hockney's claims. Artists have used devices to help draw life for a long time, although we're finding out more about what those devices were. I think it is a stretch to say that all the great artists used the same devices all the time, as that Viagra quip might imply. Hey, aphrodisiacs have been sought forever.

The parallel with the moon hoaxers that I see is that Hockney has difficulty drawing and has a hard time believing that others don't. Similarly, a moonhoaxer can't understand some aspect of the technology, and rather than thinking that that indicates a personal limitation, they believe that the others must be faking, and they take it as a personal quest.

Just one question: if paintings were projected, how did they create the image they projected onto the canvas? Wouldn't that be sort of redundant?

They used real life, for the original image.

I have seen this theory before, not just from Hockney.

The BBC did a couple of progs on it last year, Several well known masters used it openly in their studios, What's new is how widespread it's thought to have been.

It is'nt used today because there aren't any 'realist' painters anymore, we have photographers for that.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

To say that one of the greatest living artists has difficulty drawing so thinks others can't is a bit of a claim to make!

The technique only works for landscapes or room interiors, it wouldn't be used much for still life or portrait.

It isn't used today because we have photographs.

Lots of painters use them as a ref rather than sitting in the landscape or having a model sit for days, it doesn't make them less of an artist.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Art and drawing aren't the same thing, though--and we may disagree about what we mean by drawing. For instance, one of the most celebrated artists was the American primitive Grandma Moses. And in this context, drawing refers to the realistic depiction of subjects, in perspective.

My point was not about art, though, it was about human nature and the tendency to believe that someone else's great talent or ability is fake, or artificial. Although that is sometimes true.

We had a speaker come to our university a few months ago talking about this very thing. His conclusion: The 'masters' probably did not 'cheat.' While there does seem to be a rather sudden appearance of near photographic quality paintings in the 15th century, other explanations exist. For one, oil paints were developed around that time. My understanding is that these oil paints took a long time to dry so an artist could spend weeks touching up his painting. Also, the oil paints provided better colors.

In addition, IIRC, Hockney claims a spherical mirror was used not a lens. Lenses were not developed till some time later. In either case, in order to get a traceable image, the object must be very brightly illuminated. However, many of the paintings used as evidence were obviously of rather dark scenes with only one or two candles present.

It is also important to note that there is no historical evidence for this. Artists did not discuss this technique in private letters or in their diary. No mirrors or lenses have been found with their belongings. Some things would be lost, but there should be some evidence and there is not.

Now to address some things in the OP:

Not necessarily. As I said above, there are other explanations. The candelabra in the Vermeer painting is very impressive, but careful analysis shows that it is really not that good. If you take a photograph of a similar object and "run lines" through points of equal height (say the wicks of any two candles), they should all meet at a vanishing point. However, with the Vermeer painting, this does not happen. The lines form a tangled mess. Minor inaccuracies can also be explained by less than perfect artists.
Are you sure about this? Spherical mirrors yes, but I don't think they had lenses.

Yes, there are criticisms, and yes, art and optics experts have spotted inconsistencies.

Agreed. But just because you show that some could happen in a certain way doesn't mean it did happen that way. Although I would like to see Hockney reproduce some of the paintings with only a single candle as a source of light and not bright sunlight.

Yes, Hockney has good credentials. There really is no comparison between him and the HBs.

So in short, be a good skeptic and stay skeptical on this one until better evidence comes out.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

I recall seeing devices for just such "art" advertised on the inside covers of comic books when I was a kid. The illustration showed a light source and an easel and a subject. The artist was supposedly tracing the subject perfectly onto the easel. If it were that easy, we could all be artists. Tracing and art are not the same.

What about scenes that you can't set up in real life? There are plenty of paintings of imaginary scenes.

Well, before we get too far off astronomy, maybe I'd better withdraw my support for Hockney's theory! :-)

Based on people's comments, though, I think I can find a couple of other interesting comparisons to draw from the program.

Hockney claimed that the candelabra in the Vermeer painting was so accurate it could only have been drawn using a projection method, whereas a few people on this thread have challenged the accuracy that Hockney claimed for the candelabra.

Hockney also claimed that the perspective lines in the Vermeer paintings were accurate, whereas people on the thread say they're all over the place.

These would suggest that the program didn't give Hockney's critics a fair opportunity. This reminds me a little bit of the Fox Apollo program, though maybe it's a bit unfair to draw comparisons between the two.

In defense of the program you saw, I would say that the critiques of Hockney's hypothesis are relatively recent. It's quite possible that the producers of the program didn't know about them yet.

In contrast, the Fox program was put out when moon hoax debunking resources were easy to find. And still no effort was made to present a balanced arguement.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

I don't think it's possible that the producers wouldn't have known about the critiques. Did they not mention them at all?

Peter,

I viewed the same telivision show that you speak of.

The greatest 'proof' that was so amazing was that in [ALL] the
paintings [all] the people were LEFT HANDED!!!!

All, heh? This is starting to smell bad. I just looked over a few dozen old master paintings, and none seemed to demonstrate lefthandedness, some demonstrated right-handedness.

A good test of someone's theory is how they treat evidence that goes against their theory.

I don't remember the speaker that came to our campus mentioning this. My question is how can you tell from a picture? Also, even if this were true, it hardly proves anything. Perhaps some of the subjects of the paintings really were left-handed.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Or the artist was--I'm a lefty and the people and critters I draw are left handed...

__________________
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." — Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

441!!!! :)

My unscientific impression is that the vast majority of comic strip characters are left-handed, perhaps because the vast majority of comic strip artists are left-handed.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

My rememberance was that the people in the paintings were all left handed.

My Husband and I both saw the show. He says the show said that
'a majority' of the paintings had left handed people in them.


I do apologize though for accepting what was 'shown' to me in a film,
for being truth.

I had posted at this very forum today explaining my concern about the moon hoax movie, and that my daughter believed the movie!!!! And here I am doing the same thing.

I do apologize!

No apology necessary. We've all been taken in. I remember once I believed in ... well, that's a different story, isn't it? Welcome to the BABB.

To kilopi,

Thank you for the welcome.

This is an interesting website indeed!

It is.

I want to mention again that I am not saying that Hockney's theory is wrong, I'm just suspicious at this point. A lot of artists use mechanical aids--that doesn't mean that they always do, or did. This is getting far afield from astronomy--but Peter B did a good job in relating it to the Lunar Conspiracies in the OP!

If you take a photograph of a similar object and "run lines" through points of equal height (say the wicks of any two candles), they should all meet at a vanishing point. However, with the Vermeer painting, this does not happen. The lines form a tangled mess.

Given that the height of a candle changes throughout its illuminated career, I'd hesitate to use two lit candles in a candelabra as sample "points of equal height", and then try to use them as evidence of the artist's mastery of perspective...

Holy thread reanimation Batman!

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Actually using a projection to base a painting on did not come into play until photography and overhead projectes became common.

The way an artist normally does things, is they carry a scetch book with them. If they see something they would like to paint, the quickly sketch the scene in a rough form, sometimes annotating the edges with information to refresh thier memory later.

When they are ready they take a thin peice of paper (usullay rice paper) the size of which matches the painting they plan to do, and carefully outline the scene using the scetch and notes for reference. The use a very hard carcoal pencil (or in the 1500's a sharpened hard chalk or stick of coal. Once they have a dim outline they use a very soft pencil (chalk or coal in older times) and darken the outlines bygoing over it two to three times, but on the other side of the paper. They place this over thier canvas. the using the hard pencile (or a brush handel) the trace the outline one more time. The soft charcoal or chalk build up on the other side transferes to the canvas.

THen they paint over the entire thing using the outline on the canvas as a referece for where to fill what in.

This form of image transfer was invented indepently at different times by various cultules, inlcuding the Chineese who have done this since they had paper in 2000bc, the Toltecks began using this around 800BC once they had figured out paper for themselves.

The method is achient, totaly unknown who used it first, and is still used to this day. Even when doing projection transferes it usually done by scetching the needed outlines from the projection, darkening the back side, and trasfering that onto the canvas.

And yes, Carbon paper was based on this technique, and was used to copy writing since the 1300's when the records didn't persay need to be permanent ink, or were being stored in document libraries.

Other variations of this used for copying only that was longer lasting was to attach the charcoal to the transfer sheet with a thined mix of pitch in either acohol or naptha and letting that dry. Then when ready, then each page to be trasfered to was trated with an even thinner mix of pitch/solvent, or more commonely, dandelion sap watered down. This part was tricky as you only wanted to brush enough on to get it onto the paper, but not soak it, which it why dandelion sap was prefered choise, it didn't dry as fast, and was easier to control the application.

When the transfer sheets and papers were stacked, (usualy 2 copies, and one main) the wrting on the top sheet would transfer through. The naptha/pitch method was almost as good as ink for durability. The dandelion sap was almost as long lasting, but it tended to attract silverfish which ate the paper to get at the dried out layer of sap.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Oh i should correct something, they didn't use scetch pads persay, but what was known as Art Cases or Document Cases (a rough wooden precursor of brief cases). My Bad

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/