Caravaggio used 'photography'

[Bill]

The 16th century master used modern darkroom techniques to create his masterpieces, more than 200 years before the invention of the camera.

Italian researchers claim the technique explained why many of his subjects were left-handed – the image projected onto the canvas had been reversed.

Art historian Roberta Lapucci said Caravaggio's dramatic 'chiaroscuro' style of light and shadow was based on "a whole set of techniques that are the basis of photography".

Art history scholars have long known that Caravaggio worked in a sort of darkroom, illuminating his subjects through a hole in the ceiling and projecting the image onto a canvas using a lens and a mirror.

But Mrs Lapucci is the first researcher to suggest that he treated the canvas with light-sensitive substances, including a luminescent powder made from crushed fireflies, in order to "fix" the image as 19th century photographers later would.

He then used white lead mixed with chemicals such as mercury, to outline the image in greater clarity, she believes.

complete article....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... ieces.html

[internalenthusiast]

very interesting, bill. thanks!

[Felipe Bidó]

Wow.

[Franklin]

very cool

thanks for posting


franklin

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Leonardo used it as well...shhhhh.

pinhole "cameras" have been around for centuries.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

the ancients used them to observe the sun among other things, but in the renaissance, with alchemical knowledge growing, light sensitive chemicals could be applied to canvas or other materials and then the pinhole image would be set to on it for as long as possible until the image formed on the textile.

[Dmitri]

Damn!
Thanks for posting.

[lazyboxer]

Ms. Lapucci 'based her hypothesis on research by British artist David Hockney, who wrote in his 2001 book "Secret Knowledge" that many old masters used optical instruments to compose their paintings.'

His book and views on the subject have generated a storm of controversy among art critics which makes the flame wars which occasionally break out here resemble a mere playground squabble between eight year olds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney-Falco_thesis is a good place to begin researching the Hockney-Falco thesis.
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp goes for the jugular.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/16/60minutes/main536814.shtml descibes the 2003 CBS TV program on Hockney's theory.

FWIW, I don't think Hockney wants to undermine classical draughtsmanship, as suggested by some. He has a magpie mind, is fascinated by ideas, and got interested in the Renaissance camera obscura because of perceived anomalies in famous paintings. As for his own draughtsmanship, it's noteworthy that the traditionalist English art critic Brian Sewell has said that "his drawings of the earlier Seventies, not only of portraits, but of still lives and empty rooms, prove him to have been one of the very few great draughtsmen of the 20th century."

P.S. He's also a very deaf and stubborn chain-smoking Yorkshireman - a true British bulldog!

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Well, camera obscura aside, I know for a fact that there are a few artists who actually would use projectors to do their work from photographs! I learned how to do this myself and it made the production of photo-realism pieces a veritable piece of cake.

A lot of them! lol.

The best never reveal their techniques as to how they can produce such photo-realism in such a shortened time line, but well, there you have it, it's how it is done quite often.

[dragontigerpalm]

Well, camera obscura aside, I know for a fact that there are a few artists who actually would use projectors to do their work from photographs! I learned how to do this myself and it made the production of photo-realism pieces a veritable piece of cake.

A lot of them! lol.

The best never reveal their techniques as to how they can produce such photo-realism in such a shortened time line, but well, there you have it, it's how it is done quite often.

That is the most often used method of many of the top illustrators.

[wiesiek]

camera obscura
or
modern age projector are trasch right now,

if you like to get "photo-realism pieces " of the art/?/
you simply print it in B&W on canvas /cost: ~~$20 for 1sq.m. !/
then stretch it
and throw some paint on it to make impression of hand work
thats how modern "art" is easy and fast done / not to mention print it in full colour and just varnisch it a little /
however
i hardly would call it : the art
/ilustration is more proper name in those cases/
but
it is topic for another thread

e.:
ps
camera obscura was used by artists around the globe before Caravaggio
ps2:
i used to paint by this method /projector/ once when I worked for well known NY artist .
His price - $ 80 000 for big piece /2x4m/and it was 20 years ago!
average worki`n time 2-4 weeks

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Um, illustration is an art form in and of itself actually. it's not some cheap throwoff.

printed stuff is easy to spot, projected then painted, not so much because ultimately, it is entirely hand painted.
It's just a coloring book way of going about it.

observational painting is becoming a more rare artform everyday.

There aren't many artists who do magic realisim or photo realism strictly by observation any more.

there is a post modern impressionist movement still going on and of course abstract art is a fav these days because, wel who knows. I would say that a lot of it is produced simply because the painter involved generally lacks observational skills or the patience required to produce something and opts for abstract because it's harder to judge ability in that genre due to the nature of the product.

Picasso was a brilliant realist as were many other cubists and abstract artists. they laid their foundations in old school observational works way before they went on the discovery route. These days, not so much.

Many artists do not use the traditional methods anymore and the form is being lost rapidly in this age of cgi and photography.
Heck it doesn't even take much talent or an eye or technical skill to be a good photographer anymore.

I think that intellectually, we are slowly killing ourselves in that respect.

It's a good argument for traditional art forms though.

[wiesiek]

Um, illustration is an art form in and of itself actually. it's not some cheap throwoff.

printed stuff is easy to spot, )

not quite
printing only black and white gives you XVI c.Flamand style background
difference is
that they did the drawing and schadows by brusch and black paint /white was from prepared board/canvas/
so when you print it you get 1/2 job done
after covering it by couple layers of colours by hand
it almost impossible to discover the fraud w/o X-ray

of course prepared canvas and paint is much more time resistant than print
and
if you proffesionally playing with paints you eye can find some trace signs,
well
you even able to tell when i use "standard" paint /directly from a jar/ or dry pigment and solvent - brusch srtokes looks different
but
its another story...

with rest of u post i agree