Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the lost techniques of the Old Masters Paperback – 18 Sept. 2006

Lots of information. Really enjoyed the bookz

So often fed up with art books that describe paintings which are either not shown or reproduced so small you cannot see any of the detail described. These are beautiful (large scale) reproductions, with zoomed in detail to demo strate Hockney's points. Combination of an artist's eye and technical research are very convincing. Great book

The art world is well known for the prevalence of jealousy and envy among artists for the more successful among them. It's understandable, as many hard working, highly skilled artists are ignored while others, equally or even less skilled, become world famous, either by accident or because of superior marketing skills. For example, one often STILL reads that Picasso or Dali could not draw or even paint "properly", in spite of the fact that several world-travelled exhibitions of their works have featured early drawings and paintings by both artists showing draughtsmanship skills of the highest order and the ability to produce skilful representational paintings. In both cases, however, as they grew up and developed, they chose to take a different path and be judged by the results. Hockney has joined this exclusive group and produces uniquely stylised paintings, instantly recognisable, only because of the skills acquired in his classic training in drawing and painting, honed by hard work, dedication and long experience.Life is unfair. Hockney has become a National Treasure, because he is an excellent artist, but also, perhaps, because he has not only survived to a ripe old age but achieved "grumpy but lovable old fart" status. Yet many of his contemporaries, equally skilled, are completely unknown or known only to a few knowledgable fellow artists.Of course Hockney can draw. Anyone who says he cannot draw or paint "properly" is either blinded by professional jealousy or simply does not know what he is talking about. There is ample evidence on record in his published work. His teenage paintings and drawings show ample evidence of a great artist in the making. His few representational portraits, throughout his career, as well as many conventional pencil and colour pencil drawings, are clear evidence of classic drawing and painting skills. I am a particular admirer of his charcoal drawings, which show a remarkable ability to convey softness and tonal range as well as the high contrast and hard edges more typical of this medium.As for his theories on the use of optical aids by great artists of the past, there can be little doubt that leading artists have, when required, used every aid technically available to achieve precision when needed - and why not? Grids, shadowgraphs and the camera lucida are techniques which would have been fascinating and irresistable to a skilled artist seeking to perfect his craft. Such techniques are taught in the better art schools alongside the more traditional skill of draughtsmanship.It is also unarguably true that some great artists have, by hard work and enormous dedication, achieved the ability to reproduce the three-dimensional world they see onto a two-dimensional surface with extraordinary perceptual skill, so as to make the image appear convincingly accurate, without the use of instrumental aids. Some of Hockney's early paintings show that he was quite competent at that when he wanted to be.Whether particular artists used optical aids to the full extent hypothesised by Hockney cannot now be known for sure. Nor is the Scientific American article a definitive "debunking" as claimed. It is a contrary opinion as subjective as Hockney's. We shall never know for sure, but the single-minded skilled professional striving for perfection is not something that has appeared only in the last century, and I suspect Hockney's theory, if not 100% correct, is nearer the truth than the denials of his critics.This book is a fascinating exposition of some of the clever techniques the Old Masters could have used, and probably, in many cases, did use to achieve their extraordinary results. In no way does it denigrate their skills - on the contrary, it shows the amount of study and research needed to become a great artist. If you are interested in the craft of painting, this is required reading.

I loved the book. I don’t envisage I shall ever look at classical art in the same way again

We tend to think of the great artists of prior centuries as super capable human beings, able to eye something and re-create it on canvas. While these were highly skilled people, truth is, they secretly used viewing devices that hugely improved their work. This book does a great job of explaining an proving how the artists accomplished their results. Fascinating.

It is amazing that it has taken so long for somebody to do this research and to produce a book such as this.Aesthetically it is beautifully produced. Intellectually it is an inspiring piece of investigative discovery. It puts the old masters into a different perspective. And every artist losing their way, doubting themselves and the place of painting in a century of digital ‘art’ will be inspired to read this.

Having seen every Hockney UK exhibition for the past two decades, he rarely disappoints, usually quite the opposite as he has continued to explore new artistic techniques, e.g. his forthcoming immersive exhibition at the “Lightroom” in January 2023 promises to be another breakthrough using image projection in a new way. The book has been on my “must buy” list for a little while.As reviews state, his thesis creates a new way to look at art, just as, according to Hockney, many of the old masters looked differently at their subjects using mirrors and lenses allowing them to create works radically different from their previous work and the work of contemporaries not using optics. He identifies the first use of optics in Flanders in 1430 and develops his thesis from there. As an artist, creator and paintbrush user, Hockney is able to look at works of art differently, to see what most cannot, to observe and point out what most are unable to do or see. This makes him a great guide through this approach to art history (even if, on occasions, he does not explain his point fully for the non-artist).Perhaps to refute accusations of cheating, at various points in the book, he is at pains to remind readers that “optics do not make marks, they only produce an image, a look, a means of measurement. The artist is still responsible for the conception and it requires great skill...” (P. 131)The high quality, large format book is lavishly illustrated with a huge range of paintings to explore and support his theory. To create the full historical picture, he states that he filled his long studio walls with hundreds of time-lined paintings to clarify the development of painting - its subject, materials, eras - together with the development of optics and their use in the wider world while noting also their availability to artists. This wall is reproduced on two double pages early in the book and, if it were necessary, it reinforces the Hockney’s meticulous research and his approach to all his work.“There are many unanswered questions, and this book can be no more than an introduction to this vast subject.” (Page 183)Although it did for me what Martin Kemp wrote on the cover, made me look at art differently, there are a few disappointments. I have been a follower, admirer and wonderer standing before Canalettos for decades. I cannot visit the National Gallery without seeing the Canalettos and will travel (reasonable) distances to see exhibitions. He seemed a likely contender for optics and Hockney’s research but no, mentioned only on six widely separated pages. That, however, is a personal disappointment and should not put off readers from Hockney’s wider view.Another personal disappointment is that there are not enough illustrations showing how the optical techniques work. Apart from the picture on page two hundred showing him working on his DIY easel, mirror, lense and cloth, there are only verbal descriptions (and the front cover). I would have liked more but, as I said, a personal point.Using the DIY devise on page two hundred, Hockney points out he was unsurprised to discover its success was largely dependent on light - the better the light, the stronger the image, a good point to finish the review.Hockney lets light into a subject few have considered and emphasises that only artists’ hands create works of art, light and shadow (not optics).Easy to read from cover to cover to be re-visited many times later, I recommend it highly.