« Evaluation of multilevel decision trees | Main | Fooled by randomness »
February 15, 2006
Did the great masters cheat using optics? Computer vision addresses a debate in Renaissance art history
I saw David Stork give yesterday the best talk I've ever seen. Here's the abstract:
In 2001 artist David Hockney and scientist Charles Falco stunned the art world with a controversial theory that, if correct, would profoundly alter our view of the development of image making. They claimed that as early as 1420, Renaissance artists employed optical devices such as concave mirrors to project images onto their canvases, which they then traced or painted over. In this way, the theory attempts to explain the newfound heightened naturalism of painters such as Jan van Eyck, Robert Campin, Hans Holbein the Younger, and others. This talk for general audiences, lavishly illustrated with Renaissance paintings, will present the results of the first independent examinations of the projection theory. The analyses rely on sophisticated computer vision and image analysis algorithms as well as computer graphics reconstructions of Renaissance studios. While there remain some loose ends, such rigorous technical analysis of the paintings, infra-red reflectograms, modern reenactments, internal consistency of the theory, and alternate explanations allows us to judge with high confidence the plausibility of this bold theory. You may never see Renaissance paintings the same way again.
P.S. Commenter John S. points out this fascinating website on the topic. Here's a summary of Stork's findings.
Posted by Andrew at February 15, 2006 12:23 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/333
Comments
Posted by: John S. at February 14, 2006 8:17 PM.
Doesn't Stork have numerous papers in which he rejects this hypothesis, though? In his lecture, was he still open to the idea that the hypothesis has merit?
Posted by: scott cunningham at February 18, 2006 5:02 PM.
Scott,
Yes, Stork was shooting down the hypothesis. But I had been unfamiliar with his work before seeing the talk, so I appreciated the suspense that arose from the vague abstract.
Posted by: Andrew ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 20, 2006 7:05 AM.
Anyone seeking papers on my work addressing the claim that artists of the early Renaissance traced optically projected images, and other infomation, can find it here: 'http://www.diatrope.com/stork/FAQs.html">here
I'm happy to answer any and all technical questions about the projection theory as well.
--David Stork
artanalyst@gmail.com
Posted by: David G. Stork at March 8, 2006 12:59 PM.
The question I have to ask is that does this even constitute 'cheating'?
Many artists today use projectors, light-boxes, the 'grid method' to create accurate portraits. Calling the use of optical devices 'cheating' is like saying Pixar cheats by sculpting characters out of clay and scanning them instead of creating them entirely 'in the computer'.
The way I see it is that these 'optical devices' are simply technology that aids in the creation of better art...not something 'wrong' or 'bad'.
Posted by: Paulius at August 7, 2008 11:01 AM.