Amazing detail!

The portrait of the elderly woman also reminds me of an earlier post on your blog, James. I'll probably murder this summary, but it had to do with the face being divided into three general color zones - the top/forehead generally being of a yellow (?) cast, the middle a reddish cast, and the lower (mouth and jaw area) being a cool or blue cast. Was that generally how it went?

hahaha, this post has a very nice punchline! I had to think of some of Rembrandt's portraits which also seemed almost impressionistic when compared to this ultra-realism. Beautiful painting and the artist is quite a discovery for me... thanks!

Do you think optics were involved? I wonder what David Hockney would say about this work.

Android, I read Hockney's book on artists and optics, and it was actually better than I expected. I agree with him that realist artists have long goofed around with lenses and curved mirrors. I even tried a curved mirror window projection to see if it worked.

But Hockney's book also makes a lot of mistakes and overstatements. In general he underestimates or just doesn't understand how accurately a well-trained artist can draw without any optical aids, and how much easier it is to draw and paint from direct observation than to bother with mechanical devices. So to answer your question, I don't know if Seybold used optical aids, but I'll bet he was interested in the magic of such images.

I agree with you. After I read Hockney's book I got all excited and obtained a camera lucida. Unfortunately, I found the device cumbersome to use and slow. I doubt Seybold would be able to zoom such a device close enough to achieve such incredible detail in the eye. Thanks for your fast response! :)

Lol, the sitter was probably a young woman when he started this painting. That detail must have taken FOREVER.

james: what is one of the more important parts to the question of optics yes/no is how you still have to know how to make a compelling drawing, even if you are tracing from an optical helper. else the result may be a more or less accurate representation of the shape the device displays, but most likely, it will be lacking in feeling like that thing it is supposed to be.

James, you summarize my take on Hockney's thesis perfectly (if not more politely than I would) when you say, "[Hockney] underestimates or just doesn't understand how accurately a well-trained artist can draw without any optical aids..."

In my opinion, Hockney's talents, strong though they may be, do not include fine draftsmanship, and I have to wonder if that fact is somehow related to, if not responsible for, his conviction that fine, detailed must have relied heavily or completely on tools, not draftsmenship.

@Tom Hart - maybe Hockney's take also has to do with de-mystifying the canonical works as a socio-political statement? You know, a down-to-Earth take on what has traditionally been a history written to glorify something associated with wealthy people, such that it obscures the grunt-work and "trade secrets" of art? Maybe he's over-correcting but that's no excuse for hasty or inaccurate historical detail on Hockney's part.

PS- That's funny about dividing the face into color zones. I just went through a bunch of makeup colors trying to find a "match" and settled on two: reddish yellow tint for the top and middle, and cooler paler tint for the bottom, because that's the way my face actually is.

Seybold must have had to get rather close, rather frequently to record that level of detail. I can only imagine that it would be a little unsettling for the poor sitter!! :)

Tom Hart--I've added the link to "Color Zones of the Face" and a few others relating to painting the eye at the end of the post.

Long ago, when photography did not exist, neither photoshop;-)

Amazing detail and observance rendered in oil; wow!

Awesome post! Thanks for reminding us that hyper-realism isn't new and usually isn't beautiful, either. :P

Lee: Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.

Tom Hart--"Hockney's talents, strong though they may be,..." What are his talents?

Anonymous said...

Tom Hart--"Hockney's talents, strong though they may be,..." What are his talents?
***********************************

Self promotion, mainly.

@ Anonymous (#1 and #2?)

I did say "..Hockney's talents, strong though they MAY be..."

My opinion of Mr. Hockney's work is, I suspect, very close to yours. Still, I allow for the possibility that there is something to his work that I'm just not "getting".

The truth is everyone can become a better draftsman. I think Hockney mainly wanted to open a dialog about technology and its role in the arts. Like movie studios today, artists in the past would embrace any technology that would facilitate the image making process. I think Hockney's talent is his ability to embrace the new, and to continuously reinvent his work.

There's an interesting documentary called "Waiting for Hockney" which begs the question: How much detail is enough?

Android, I'm quick to admit I haven't read all of Hockney's book on the subject, but I did see interviews with him on this topic, and have read excerpts of the book. I believe his stance goes well beyond what you suggest. I understand his thesis to be a claim that many - or perhaps most -of the tightly rendered drawings and paintings we regard as masterpieces could not have been accomplished without extensive use of a camera lucida. In other words, he doesn't seem to believe that anyone could draw that well. Although I don't doubt that similar tools were used, I disagree that they were used to the extent Hockney claims.

I agree Hockney's analysis does seem to get a little competitive with the old masters, but that might be the old Englishman mentality. And he does underestimate an artist's natural ability to render throughout the book.

Several living artists demonstrated that they could draw and paint accurately without optical aids.
(see artnrenewal link)

All it takes is a visit to say, Grand Central Academy to see it's quite possible to draw and paint with this degree of accuracy with the naked eye.

Jacob Collins anyone?

Also a camera lucida wouldnt' help you handle paint . What about Vermer's outdoor paintings?

Hockney and people like him (many modernists) want it to be true to make up for their own shortcomings.


http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/archives.php?category=Hockney%20Completely%20Refuted

May I add that during the time this was painted (1700's), Germany and Italy had both developed the art of lens grinding where magnifying lenses were made with great precision. It is quite possible that this artist could have used magnifying lenses to help with such fine detail work. I'm referring to simple magnification...not projected images. As an optometrist that loves art, I've observed many paintings from the renaissance period and quite frankly could not see how the artist could have acheived the detail in his work without magnification...especially on smaller portraits.

@Stuart - I can definitely agree with your suggestion: that magnification could easily have been employed by the artist to aid in viewing the subject. But as you point out that's a very different situation from the artist projecting an image of subject onto the canas, as a means to obtaining a highly realistic painting.