True To Life: Twenty-Five Years Of Conversations With David Hockney

David Hockney's accomplishments during the second half of the 20 th century are widely acknowledged.   His range extends from drawing, painting, and print making; through photography in all its forms; and on to design and decoration for stage and screen.   And there is no sign of his tiring as he bounds into his eighth decade.   In addition, Hockney is somewhat exceptional among artists for his embrace of history and philosophy.   About 10 years ago he ventured a new working hypothesis on the application of lenses, mirrors, cameras obscura, cameras lucida, and eventually slide projectors within the visual arts.   Artists who chose to employ such devices as they became available enjoyed facile methods for tracing the form of a subject and perhaps achieved a better command of perspective.   According to Hockney's analysis, the first sign of the use of this technique appeared suddenly in Western art around 1430, and it was responsible for a "new look."

Hockney expressed some of these thoughts at a symposium attached to the exhibition "Portraits by Ingres: image of an epoch," at the Metropolitan Museum, October 5, 1999 to January 2, 2000.   His theme was greeted with mixed reactions from curators and art historians.   But Hockney was more convincing than the traditionalists may have wished because he declared that he was doing experiments himself and because he implied that it takes an artist to see it.   Lawrence Weschler was impressed with Hockney's ideas and wrote a piece [1] for the New Yorker in January 2000.   This achieved a broader audience and the perception of a growing conflict attracted attention in the media.   Hockney's book [2] appeared in 2001.   In December of that year, Weschler orchestrated Art and Optics , a wonderful conference [3] at New York University, which I was fortunate enough to attend and to review for Leonardo (4).   By that time Hockney had started collaborating with Charles Falco, a professor of optical sciences at University of Arizona.   Another optical scientist, David Stork of Ricoh Innovations, emerged as a severe critic of the Hockney-Falco working hypothesis.

Weschler's conference was designed to bring Hockney, Falco, and their principal supporters (including Philip Steadman, John Spike, Chuck Close and Martin Kemp) into the same auditorium with oppositional art and science historians (including Keith Christensen, Walter Liedtke, Svetlana Alpers and David Stork) for a public airing of their disparate views.   The tide of battle went back and forth.   At the end of the second day it was not at all clear that many minds had been changed by the exercise.   Regrettably, the New York Times story [5] was typical of reports in the popular media in that conflict was their focus -- objections to Hockney-Falco from participants were listed without appraisal while clarifications and refutations were largely ignored.   Too many of the art historians lacked even the introductory elements of physics and the scientific method to comprehend the evidence that was offered.   And the journalists also had a difficult time with the whole thing because they lacked the expertise to make sense of it.   During the course of the presentations it had been announced that summaries, analyses, and future developments would appear on the conference's website.   But they turned out to be sparse, difficult to access, and then disappeared, leaving the field essentially to Falco [6] and Stork [7] who have maintained their own vested websites ever since.   So it is with much interest and anticipation that we look to True to Life for a more extensive and objective update and summary.

This 272 page book (6" x 8" format) is nicely produced on good quality paper, includes 100 black and white reproductions and 60 color plates, 18 pages of notes, and a 7 page index.   The striking design by Sandy Drooker is notable.   It is clear that Hockney remains a considerable subject for biography and Weschler wants to be his Boswell [8].   He tries hard to capture the nuts and bolts of the person as well as the art (and even the art industry) in recounting his "twenty-five years of conversations with David Hockney."   Each of the eight chapters is faithfully dated.   The substance of the book is the art-and-optics working hypothesis (chapters 5,6,7) for which Weschler rightfully claims a seminal role in promotion.   He animates the subject, offers bits of insider information, but does not advance the field in any profound manner.   Nevertheless, this book will serve as a useful introduction to those entering the field for the first time.

It may be of some interest to readers of Leonardo to highlight the Hockney quote on page 69 of True to Life , "Science is moving toward art, not art toward science ... but scientists and artists have all kinds of things to say to each other now."   As a scientist who has labored long at the interface of art and science, I have been unable to communicate easily with artists.   Whereas scientists openly display email and postal addresses, our established artists typically do not.   For example, my attempts to discuss the perspective machine of van Gogh [9] with the principals in the field under review have met with no response.

References
[1]   Weschler, L.   Onward and Upward with the Arts: The Looking Glass. The New Yorker, January 31, 2000, pp. 64-75.
[2]   Hockney, D.   Secret knowledge: rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters.   New York: Viking Studio; 2001.   [New and expanded edition, London: Thames & Hudson; 2006.]
[3]   Art and Optics: Toward an Evaluation of David Hockney's New Theories Regarding Opticality in Western Painting of the Past 600 Years.   The New York Institute for the Humanities, New York University, New York; 1-2 December 2001.
[4]   Arnold, W.N.   Art and Optics at New York University, in Leonardo Digital Reviews, January 2002.
[5]   Boxer, S. Paintings too Perfect? The Great Optics Debate. New York Times, 4 December 2001.
[6]   Falco, C.M.   http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/FAQ.html
[7]   Stork, D.G.    http://www.diatrope.com/stork/FAQs.html
[8]   James Boswell (1740-1795) is best known for his biography "The Life of Samuel Johnson," first published in 1791.
[9]   Arnold, W.N.   Vincent van Gogh: chemicals, crises, and creativity.   Boston: Birkhäuser; 1992, p.16.