[Hockney's] analysis isn't really very scientific. Some of the things I remember reading from his book made little sense (the right-hand, left-hand thing, the mirrors, etc.) I never really saw much in Hockney's work, so maybe I might harbor a biased opinion on his take of Renaissance art. That aside, I don't believe there really was a point to the book in the first place and his art experience does not give him any expert opinion on the subject. His skills are below average and his art is only gimmicky. He is mildly famous and he wants to make some kind of statement to draw attention to himself for the purpose of making press for himself. If he truly believes what he wrote, we can accept that, because he doesn't really know anything about drawing and painting (at least on any expert level, I'm sure he can draw stick figures), but is it worth anything on scientific grounds?, . . . No! They didn't have halogen bulbs in the 16th century. Candlelight just isn't that strong. I'm right-handed, I draw left handed people all the time. I'm sure you couldn't make a big enough lens to capture all the details in those paintings he uses as examples. And if you managed to project that stuff onto a canvas, panel, whatever you would have to have eyes like a giant squid to see anything becasue the room would be so dark you'd be tripping over yourself trying to get the color matches. And if you managed to get the drawing traced, you'd still have to paint the thing.
Travis
