Secret Knowledge

Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters

What Is it?
Secret Knowledge is a theory and book by the Artist David Hockney,
One day he decided to put down his brushes and stopped painting, he
became obessessed with finding out how the Artists of the past had
managed to depict the world around them so accurately and vividly.
The Theory is: That from the early 15th century, many western artists
used optics (Mirrors & Lenses) to create living projections which would
then be used directly to produce drawings and paintings.
For two years he followed the trail, tracking down the hidden secrets
of the old masters. As word of his investigations spread around the art
world, his discoveries became the subject of headlines, media attention,
and debate amongst scientists, art historians and museum directors
worldwide.
In the book, Hockney recounts the story of his quest uncovering piece
after piece of scientific and visual evidence, each one supporting his
theory. Using his keen eye as a painter, he reveals the truth of how artists
such as Caravaggio, Velazquez, Van Eyck, Holbien, Leonardo & Ingres
used mirrors and lenses to help them create their famous masterpieces.

The Great Wall

Hockey collected photocopies of paintings on the wall of his studio as a way to get an overview of the history
of western art.
By the time the book was finished, the wall was over 70 feet long, covered 500 years chronologically, with
northern Europe at the top and southern Europe at the bottom

The Great Wall

Left - The Beginning of the wall - Byzantine mosaic, Cefalu Cathedral, Scicily. c1150 - Pre Optics
Right - The End of the wall - Vincent Van Gogh - portrait of Trabuc, An attendant at Saint Paul Hospital 1889 - Post Optics

The Tools
Concave Mirrors
Can be used to create projections. The effect seems
magical and is purely unelectronical. The images are
in colour and can move. In Medieval Europe, projected
apparations would be regarded as magic yet people
can still be fooled using this trick today.

The Tools
Camera Lucida
Basically a prism on a stick, This small device would allow the user to see two images at once, the
paper and the subject. The downside of this device is that as soon as the artists moves his eye
the whole image moves, so the lucida could only be used to make quick marks, such as where
features would be, quickly noting the positions of the eyes, ears, nose, mouth etc before the
artists eye moves.

The Tools
Camera Obscura (see set-up)
The camera obscura in essense works in the same way as
the human eye, a tiny hole or lens allows light through
and the image from the otherside is projected onto the
parallel wall. this would allow artists to spend as long as
they wanted infront of the projection, with the ability to
look about freely.

Evidence

The Clues Left Behind

Ingres
On the right is Igress portrait drawing of Madame LouisFrancois Godinot from 1829. although not regarded as one
of Ingress finest drawings of the period, Hockney found a
number of clues left behind in this piece that suggests he
used a camera lucida to create it.
Artists would eyeball portrait sketches - the way an artist
sits down in front of a sitter and draws or paints a portrait
by using his hand and eye alone, looking at the figure
and then trying to re-create the likeness on the paper or
canvas, by doing this, the artist gropes for the form they
see before them.
Hockney concluded that Ingres must have used a lucida
device when creating the piece because he doesnt seem
to eyeball the piece, his lines are swift, precise and
accurate. He theorised he did the head first through the
lucida, taking quick notes of the position of her head and
features, taking a few minutes to do this, then finishing
the head from observation, taking a few hours potentially.
Later, he would draw the clothes, having to move his
lucida slightly, its now we notice the ladys head seems
very large in relation to her body, if he did move his lucida,
a change in the magnification would occur, explaining the
difference in scale.

Ingres/Warhol
Hockney knew that Andy Warhol used a projector to make
drawings like the one opposite. His line has an obviously
traced look.
Comparing warhols sketching to the clothes in Ingress
portrait, Hockney found even more evidence to conclude
that Ingres used optical devices to help him create work.

Ingres
Again, comparing the two images below, Both by Ingres, The one on the left, is eyeballed. The lines are groped for,
there are hesitations - where exactly is the correct position?. Where-as the the right one is more confident and
quick, potentially drawn with the aid of a lucida. All drawn lines have a speed that can usually be deduced, They have a
beginning and an end and therefore represent time.

Clothes
Hockney began to notice clothes, Giottos full-length lady of 1303-06 for example (left), is done in a simple graphic
way. In 1438 Pisanello follows form in a more accurate way (middle), But by 1553 Morini is painting the most elaborate
dresses, with bold designs that is always believable on its surface, following the folds, with highlights and shadows all
depicted. More proof Artists using optics?

Clothes
Further examples of the quick progression in painting clothes accurately.
Left - Masolino da Panicale 1425. Middle - Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo - 1467-8. Right - Agnolo Bronzino - 1545.
In only 120 years, techniques have progressed from simple representations to photo-realistic. This couldnt be only
attibuted to artist skill alone, something must be helping them to create such realistic works.

Armour
Looking at depictions of armour from two centuries, Hockney found similar progression. The armour goes from
almost awkward and simple to shiny & detailed (look at the reflections captured in the last piece). Suddenly in 1501,
Giorgiones helmt and face look much more modern and much more realistic. By 1557, in the painting by Mor, the
armour is painted with very accurate detail, the shine seems genuine, the patterns and chain mail follow the rounded
forms pefectly. By the time of van Dyck, The armour looks almost like a photograph. The perfect engraving, the sword
handle all seem very accurate and unawkward.
What happened to make the last painting so different to the first one? Again, it must be the use of optics.

1448 - Andrea Del Castagno

1450 - Pisanello

1460 - Andrea Mantegna

1501 - Giorgione

1557 - Antonis Mor

1625 - Anthony van Dyck

Gerrit Van Honthorst

Hockney turned the painting on the left black & white, which I have also done here, It looks like a photograph, with
the lighting exactly correct. How did van Honthorst create this effect? It couldnt be down to better drawing skill, The
picture on the right is one of his sketches, it seems rather crude when compared to his paintings, which are stunning.

Detail
Heres another comparison between two pictures at either end of the Renaissance to show the dramatic transformation
that took place in painting, The left painting is a section from The Death Of The Virgin by Giotto and dates from 1310,
the one on the right is by Caravaggio and is from 1599. Compare the wings, Giottos are an imaginative invention
(who has seen a real angel?) they are stylised when compared to Caravaggios, Which look much more Photographic.
He probably had some real wings right there infront of him. His work is created in almost the same way as how digital
artists work today. cut and paste.

Curves
Some of the hardest things to paint with a linear perspective are curved objects such as lutes, globes etc.
Durers famous woodcutting of 1525 suggests that some artist used technical aids to help them. Durer had a keen
interest in technology. His cutting shows how a piece of string is attached to a point on the wall, representing the
observers viewpoint. The string is then connected to a point on the lute and its position recorded by moving two other
strings stretched across a woodern frame and them marking where these meet on a hinged screen. This is repeated
untill there are enough points on the screen to construct the shape of the lute.

Curves
Now look at Caravaggios painting of
arounf 1595. Could Caravaggio really
have used Durers method to paint
that inccredibly foreshorted lute? (he
left no drawings), and how about the
violin on the table? and the music
that follows the curve of the page so
perfectly? it would be difficult and
time consuming to do this using a
drawing machine like Durers. Was it
devine skill? or could he have used
optics?
Caravaggio painted his lute player
70 years after Durers woodcut, and
technology of drawing machines may
have moved on by that date, but on
the other hand, machines like that
could already have been out-of-date
in 1525. was durer depicting an earlier
and now obsolete method of drawing
curves in perspective?

Curves
Hans Holbens - The Ambassadors (Below) was painted in 1533, just 8 years after Durers Print. It is filled with curved
and spherical objects, all of which would have been difficult to eyeball, yet all of them are totally accurate in their
perspective. Everything is perfect, the folds in the curtains, the globe on the shelf, the lines of lattitude and longitude
across it, the patterns on the tablecloth. This would have been impossible to paint using Durers machine alone. It
would been possible though to project 3d images of objects onto a flat surface and then trace around them.

Curves
The strange form in the foreground is a distorted skull. Holbein has stretched it. this can be acheived by tilting the
surface that you project the image onto. when the skull is squeezed back into its true form, it looks very real. A clue
that Holbein used optical tools?

Conclusion
My presentation is just a short look into Hockneys findings, He goes into so much detail i could
have made this presentation so much longer but I have tried to pick out the key points and
evidence to his findings. The book is really worth reading if you have never heard about this
theory and want to know more.
I personally feel that Hockney was really onto somthing with his findings. I believe everything he
found to be true. Some people at the time took the book as Hockney claiming art was some kind
of fraud or cheating, or that Hockney was trying to tarnish the reputation of the old masters,
But as he states at the very beginning of the book (and ive held it back until now to try to see if
anyone else thinks hes just putting a cat amonst the pidgeons.)
Optics do not make marks, They cannot make paintings . Painting and drawings are made by
hand. and that takes great skill and optics dont dont make drawing any easier All i am saying
here is that, long before the 17th century, there is evidence artists ued tools in ways previously
unknown to art history.
What I think Hockney found, was artists using the tools around them to create their works, in the
same way today, we use the tools avalible to us.
David Hockney - Secret Knowledge - An interesting read.