>The Hockney–Falco thesis is a theory of art history, advanced by artist David Hockney and physicist Charles M. Falco. Both claimed that advances in realism and accuracy in the history of Western art since the Renaissance were primarily the result of optical instruments such as the camera obscura, camera lucida, and curved mirrors, rather than solely due to the development of artistic technique and skill. Nineteenth-century artists' use of photography had been well documented. In a 2001 book, Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, Hockney analyzed the work of the Old Masters and argued that the level of accuracy represented in their work is impossible to create by "eyeballing it". Since then, Hockney and Falco have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids, and the historical plausibility of such methods. The hypothesis led to a variety of conferences and heated discussions.
Where is your god now artfags?
you are an artfag yourself and ask this?
no rules, just tools nigga
you are blessed to live in a world where picture exist, so you can do a study, and when doing a portrait irl you will know to render better. you have mirrors so can detect flows in your art, and focus on dismissing them. the number of ppl which can afford the luxury to do art is bigger, so you get more critique than ever and from different points of view
you don't have to reinvent the wheel, which means more time to pick up and take art to the next level
ofcourse stuff which give us more time, stuff which helps us detect flows, stuff which helps us connect with more ppl are all gonna add up and rise the bar
>No rules, just tools
This is not what Vilppu was talking about at all.
You can't honestly conflate when he says "No Rules, Just Tools®" with Photobashing and the like when he often says in his very next breath that "We don't 'copy' the model' and that '99% of the drawing you do will be from imagination'.
The whole theory is obviously Hockney projecting his own butthurt, as he's someone who can't paint nearly as well as the old masters WITH all of the tools he accuses them of using (and the contrast between his assisted work and imaginative work is stark). Few of the old masters would have been even close to 100% reliant on these sorts of tools and fewer of them still would have been able to afford to have models present for more than a fraction of the work they'd done.