why art historians are so quick to dismiss the view that the shift toward naturalism in painting in the early 15th century was due in large part to new technologies i will never understand. because it makes those old masters cheaters? come on. because it diminishes the perceived value of such a work? if so then that perceived value is meaningless. because it diminishes the potency of their own theories and conclusions? much more likely.

how can art critics and historians embrace artists who don’t even touch their own work, or have no physical work at all, but be all ruffled at the thought of a guy who slaved on a beautiful canvass and happened to use a mirror or lens in the process? that art historians even commented on any scientific reading of their bread and butter is almost certainly only because david hockney was involved in popularising the idea, one of their own so to speak, who they could not simply ignore. as this very interesting article postulates: “art historians felt insulted by david hockney, who dismissed their observational skills when he wrote that the clues he noticed “could only have been seen by an artist, a mark-maker, who is not as far from practice, or from science, as an art historian.” the article offers some facts and figures you might not have heard after turning away, mid-argument, from the self important, proselytizing hockney. as annoying as the grand pronouncements of artists, or anyone for that matter, can be, these links are very interesting for those of us with nothing to lose by entertaining alternate ideas. i know this is all old news but some good reading anyhow.