| Home
Archives
Archives before June 13, 2001
RSS Feed
Adaptive
Path (my company!)
About
peterme
Coordinates
Most of the Time
Oakland, CA
Interests
Current
American history around the time of the Revolution, figuring out how to marry top-down task-based information architecture processes with bottom-up document-based ones, finding a good dentist in San Francisco Oakland
Perennial
Designing
the user experience (interaction design, information architecture, user
research, etc.), cognitive science, ice cream, films and film theory,
girls, commuter bicycling, coffee, travel, theoretical physics for laypeople,
single malt scotch, fresh salmon nigiri, hanging out, comics formalism,
applied complexity theory, Krispy Kreme donuts.
surf
Click
to see where I wander.
Wish
list
Show
me you love me by
buying
me things.
Spyonme
Track updates of
this page with Spyonit. Clickee
here.
Essays
[Editor's note: peterme.com
began as a site of self-published essays, a la Stating
The Obvious. This evolved (or devolved) towards link lists and shorter
thoughtpieces. These essays are getting a tad old, but have some good
ideas.]
Reader Favorites
Interface
Design Recommended Reading List
Whose
"My" Is It Anyway?
Frames:
Information Vs. Application
Subjects
Interface Design
Web Development
Movie Reviews
Travel
|
|
| What's the Big Deal? Posted on 12/03/2001. |
|
I find the reaction to David Hockney's hypothesis that many "Great Masters" utilized lenses and tracing to paint their subjects delightfully misguided. It strikes me as bizarre that people would be so invested in the supposed purity of someone else's work (particularly someone long long dead) that they'd find the very idea that Hockney raises to be offensive. It's like their appreciation of these artists is a tenet of faith, not taste, and that someone calling into question the artists' methods is an infidel. It speaks to these folks (mostly long-winded critics, not that I know anything about being long-winded or critical) know nothing about the creative process. Any creator uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to implement his vision. Would it be sinful to posit that Rembrandt used a straightedge to draw a line? It's as if folks want these artists to be divinely inspired and skilled, to have their talents bestowed upon them as a gift from God. When I read about this stuff, I simply get excited for Hockney's sleuthing, his uncovering of clues that lead to his theory. How remarkable that he's figured out what he's figured out! And how shameful of those who cast aspersions just because it contradicts a belief that they foolishly held as unassailable.
1 comment so far. Add a comment.
Previous entry: "An idle question."
Next entry: "Not quite a tres bien ensemble."
Comments:
COMMENT #1
More significantly: Hockney isn't saying anything new. Anyone who's interested in the period's art and technology will have read della Porta, Kircher and the other writers on the camera obscura, and come to similar conclusions. But because Hockney's an artist, rather than a damnable art historian, he gets the book deal and the publicity for saying it.
Posted by nick @ 12/04/2001 04:35 PM PST [link to this comment]
Add A New Comment:
|
All contents of peterme.com are © 1998 - 2002 Peter Merholz. |