I suspect Paul knows this, but in case other people don't...
A few years ago, a physicist Charles Falco in collaboration with David Hockney (artist and art historian), has demonstrated that a lot of renaissance artists were using lenses and mirrors to project images - so that they can paint some elements of the picture over the projected image. This is called "Hockney-Falco" thesis. You can read more about this here: http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/art-optics/index.html I heard several talks/lectures of Charlie, and even had a chance of hosting one of them at Texas A&M University. While some art historians might disagree (they think that Falco-Hockney are trying to take down the importance of the particular classical artists, which is not the case), as a scientist, I am very much convinced by the arguments made by these guys. Igor Fri Jan 20 11:07:42 EST 2012 Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: > Hmmm - a techie version of paint by numbers? > > -p My, the list is judgmental today. Painting with a projector and a photograph is nothing like painting by numbers. More accurately, it could be considered a contemporary version of the camera obscura, a projecting device that most scholars believe to have been used by Vermeer and other Dutch Masters to create their beautifully detailed canvases. I suspect that painting from a projection is much more difficult and requires much more artistic ability than most would think. It doesn't annoy me in the least. However, I have found nothing to suggest that Steve Mills relies on a projector or other device. He is simply a very talented realist, and his art is well received by most critics. jPaul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
