Subscribe to The Eye
(Daily Updates)

Delivered by FeedBurner

    Follow-twitter     Join-facebook

About Us

 

We like to think of Peterman’s Eye as an old fashioned interactive community newspaper (if there is such a thing) focused on travel and curiosities. Talk with us about today’s post. Tell us about the places you’ve been. Or take a trip using J. Peterman’s exclusive travel services (coming soon). Read more...



Photo Contest Entries

Photo Contest Entry from karend

Submitted by:
karend
03/11/14

Photo Contest Entry from tashab

Submitted by:
tashab
03/07/14

Photo Contest Entry from NancyLynn

Submitted by:
NancyLynn
04/07/14

Photo Contest Entry from sambayer

Submitted by:
sambayer
03/16/14

Photo Contest Entry from chrysler_building

Submitted by:
chrysler_building
04/05/14



Could it be that the world's biggest art swindle was perpetrated by the artists themselves?

Depends who you ask. Some art experts claim that the near perfect realism and perspective achieved by many of the West's great artists came by way of a little help from their lens.

A groundswell of opinion indicates the likes of Caravaggio, Durer, Hals, Holbein, Raphael, Rembrandt, van Eyck, Velazquez, and particularly Vermeer used an optical aid called a "camera obscura" to project their subject matter on a screen prior to painting. Although camera obscuras were known in Aristotle's time, the first version to practically assist artists consisted of a large unlit crate the artist could stand in. Lodged in one of the walls was a glass lens and when aimed at a subject outside the box, it would project a mirror image of the scene on the inside wall of the crate.

Other portable versions became available and were used, not just for transposing images, but also as a means of observing the sun.

But let's get back to the masters. If the camera obscura left no physical trace of its use, what proof is there that it was used at all?

Perhaps the strongest evidence is the way these artists perfectly recreated images that would have been in focus to the artist's naked eye, but out of focus when projected by a camera obscura. The two lion head finials in Vermeer's The Girl with the Red Hat are good examples of this. Also, the apparent lack of preliminary sketches and the absence of sharp lines add weight to the theory.

Moreover, noted English artist David Hockney goes so far to say that the realism of paintings improved at the same pace as the advancement of lens technology.

But come on now, we're all friends here. So what if Jan et al had a little help? It's not like they tried to pass off a giclee as a painting.

Is the use of the camera obscura art, or simply a case of the artists being artful?

J. Peterman

 

Share your opinion   Print
| More

 

Under Construction: Design Stuff & Member Commenting - Changes Soon.
0 Members’ Opinions
What Do You Think?

Share your thoughts about an event or topic discussed in Peterman’s Eye; if you’re not a member yet (you need to be), use the Sign Up.

Sign up | Forgot username or password?

Honor Roll



still thinking about today...



Yesterday's Discussion

I've gone to my farm in Kentucky for the weeken...

 

Read More 0 comments


Photo Contest Entries

Photo Contest Entry from cpfiggy

Submitted by:
cpfiggy
04/01/14

Photo Contest Entry from emilyenroute

Submitted by:
emilyenroute
03/07/14

Photo Contest Entry from NancyLynn

Submitted by:
NancyLynn
03/06/14

Photo Contest Entry from chrysler_building

Submitted by:
chrysler_building
04/05/14

Photo Contest Entry from Balaney

Submitted by:
Balaney
03/12/14