David Hockney (1937–2026)

This is one of those books where you have to look quite closely at the title: It's not a history of visual art, it's a history of pictures. In other words, Hockney and Gayford are discussing the history of human depictions of the real world on flat surfaces. They look at the interaction between imaginative reproduction — artists putting lines and colours on paper — and technical reproduction where we use optical devices to project images of the real world either temporarily onto a wall show more or a screen or more permanently onto a photographic film or a digital sensor.

Hockney, of course, has a long-standing bee in his bonnet about the way artists have used optical devices to assist them in composing pictures. So there's a lot about how every important artist from the renaissance onwards has been using a camera obscura to trace forms or at least to establish the composition of their work. It's perhaps controversial if you're an art historian, but if you don’t have a vested interest, it does seem to make perfect sense. Why wouldn't you use a tool if it's available and makes your work easier?

Of course, they emphasise that there's still always an important creative element in choosing the composition and lighting of what you want in your picture and then choosing how you want to transfer it from the projection to the permanent record.

Hockney points out that trained artists have often also turned out to be very good at taking photographs, whilst people who have no sense of visual art are unlikely to be good at taking photographs, except in a technical sense.

The book also covers moving images and digital creation of pictures — Hockney is the great advocate of iPad art, of course — but it’s just a bit too old to cover the rapidly developing topic of AI-created images. I’m sure there will be a chapter on that if they ever update the book. It would be interesting to know what Hockney thinks about computers producing images of penguins on surfboards or inadequately-clothed Asian girls in post-apocalyptic cityscapes.

It's interesting how this book is set up very explicitly as a dialogue with alternate passages written by Hockney and Gayford. Hockney writes, of course, from the practical viewpoint of a practising artist and also from his own aesthetic insight, whilst Gayford sticks more to filling us in on the history of art, explaining the background and context of the things that were going on around the artists at the time. It's a very good collaboration and it works surprisingly smoothly. I didn't find it at all distracting really.

The book is very richly illustrated. It includes practically every picture mentioned in the text, even the very over-familiar ones. In the paperback it's not always the most beautiful, glossy reproduction, but they're all perfectly adequate. The book is quite pretty to look at, although a bit chunky to be a coffee table book.

If you're going to read just one book on the history of visual images, this is probably a bit too random and discursive: you would probably want to start with someone like Gombrich. But this is also a very nice one, and a lively, entertaining read. show less

Дэвид Хокни, популярный современный художник, и Мартин Гейфорд, художественный критик, историк искусства и автор биографий Ван Гога, Констебля и Микеланджело, ведут увлекательный диалог о месте и истории изображений в жизни людей. Именно изображений, потому что беседа, show more начинаясь с глубин веков, органично вплетает все больше и больше визуальных средств их воспроизведения, самыми узнаваемыми из которых, безусловно, по сей день являются картины. Однако и фотография, и кинематограф оказали заметное влияние на то, как мы воспринимаем изображения сейчас, и на то, как пишутся картины, а потому разговор идет и о них. Отдельная нить обсуждения — технологии: импрессионизма не было бы без изобретения тюбиков для краски, которые позволили писать на пленэре, а камера-обскура совершила подлинный переворот в живописи, хотя многие великие художники стеснялись признаваться в ее использовании. Хокни и Гейфорд, демонстрируя энциклопедические знания, распознают тайные приемы мэтров и даже находят у них ляпы. Впрочем, делается это без злого умысла, их интересует вопрос правдивого изображения мира. Ведь «если одни картины более правдивы, чем другие, они все равно не говорят всей правды, ибо это невозможно». show less

Hockney reverse engineers the story of why the style of European painting diverged so fast and to such an extent starting from about 1420 onward. What he comes up with is a credible explanation: painters made use of optical tools (concave mirrors and lenses) to make projections to help them see and get their job done. He rebuilds this story by finding visual evidence in the “document” of the painting itself.

Hockney’s account is wonderful because it takes you from the inception of his show more idea through the many stages of work he did to gather evidence for his hypothesis. Very quickly, it becomes clear that optics did influence art earlier than once thought and one starts to get a sense of what an “optical” image really looks like in comparison to the “non-optical”. This visual training in the book allows one to really understand what Cezanne and Picasso were responding to when they did their work. They, too, knew that most imagery was informed by optics and, by counterexample, helped remind us that there are many more ways to represent what we see.

Hockney does not make a judgment about the artists who used optics or even optics in itself. His slogan is, “optics do not make marks”, meaning that artists still had a trained hand. Obviously there are good uses for optics and Hockney himself appears to have been dazzled by the optics he experimented with on his journey. However, Hockney is criticizing those that would rather hold up artists as savants than to interpret them as practical inventors. In fact, the prior view does double damage: it both locks us out of art (and the world, according to Hockney) and allows the art establishment to be “nobility”.

Hockney feels that the optical image keeps us in a fixed position with no movement. If this is all we know, how do we see ourselves in the world -- also fixed in position? What’s worse is that most of us think that the optical style is “real”. So if we think being fixed is real, then how can we see ourselves as part of that world where movement is necessary? I see some of the spirit of James Clerk Maxwell in that argument insofar as Maxwell wanted science to be about the process more than he wanted it to be about the products. Although we all enjoy the products of science and art, it is the process that is most important and should be available to us all instead of only the fixed products.

Of course, as the title suggests, the crux of this explanation is that these artists kept their usage of optics secret. There is no explicit written record of artists using these techniques, however the painting is the historical document and all but proves the techniques were used. It is also not unreasonable to think that images were highly sensitive materials in those days (since they are still powerful today). The use of optics and the independent creation of images would have been punishable and would require secrecy. Aside from external motivation for secrecy, there's the selfish motivation to maintain an artist's competitive advantage (in other words, money and prestige were at stake).

Hockney is highly visually literate, and, by reading this book, we all have a chance to see what he saw and pick up on his nuanced visual sense. Hockney’s most artful accomplishment in this book is that he successfully makes something so prevalent and ingrained as the optical image (TV, computer screens, print) seem so foreign to life. Hockney is a true artist for helping us realize this. show less

This book was a delight! It was just a random pick at a local library but kids enjoyed it and learned quite a lot from it. And I did too! So don't be discouraged by the title. ;)

It is basically a discussion between an artist and an art critic that helps the reader to look at, analyze, and appreciate visual arts. It's broken down by elements of a picture: lines, shadows, space, etc., and presents how they evolved throughout history. Authors describe major innovations (like new kinds of show more paints) or trends (like establishing trade routes with the Far East and its influence on Europe) that helped artists change and improve how we think about those concepts.

It might sound "academish" but the book is very approachable and written in easy language. Playful illustrations help to keep kids engaged while art examples are intriguing and insightful. It feels much more like an exploration and having a sneak peek into artists' secrets than a dry lecture on art history. It got many Wow!'s from my kids when we were reading it together so I guess it works for its target audience.

One technical thing that didn't work so well was the font choice. One author has a typical "bookish" font, while the other one has a sketchy comic-like font. The latter is difficult to read for younger kids and can frustrate them. Content-wise painting and photography were explained very well, especially how these two arts inspired each other. However, the film description only scratched the surface and digital art was only mentioned (and lacked any context or meaningful examples). I wish these newer forms of visual expression got more attention and depth.

Overall, it is a highly enjoyable book for kids and adults that will help them understand visual arts better. It leaves some blank spaces and many questions unanswered, so I hope it will be just an introduction to a further exploration and education for whole families :) show less