Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids. This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper aids. Believe me its BS.
ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and proportion. It will not help with filling in the rest of the picture and is almost useless to someone who can't draw.
I strongly advise students to try these aids for themselves.
Hockney didn't do any valid research and doesn't know how to draw. Like so many artzy fartzies Hockney can't help being awed by artistic ability, which I suspect deep down he knows he lacks. So he mindlessly repeats the Modern Academic Art school mantra namely that great artwork is really just a combination of gimmicks which any failure student can pick up if he so desires.
Hockney is a jaded, bored and rather stupid old cackle hen (peruse his other gossipy books) who is well on his way to being a member of the avant-gone. He knows that a whole new tribe of schmucks is out there ready to replace him in the intellectual kitsch competition.
Having major connections in the international daisy chain has allowed Hockney to get his tome of utter bullshit published to the exclusion of lots of lesser cranks who have been saying the same nonsense for years. It impresses all who have never looked up anything to do with technique and learned to draw from idiotic authors like Nicolaides and his offshoots.
Hockney best refutes his own thesis by showing the miserable results of his dependence on optical aids and paste up schmier. He's nothing more than the usual load of PR.
no skill no art!
Mani Deli
