Caravaggio: Was he the world's earliest photographer?

[Poisson Du Jour]

While Australian in origin this news item is very interesting in terms of insight of an early, well-established brush artist. The report that he [Caravaggio...] "...masterminded a whole ranges of techniques that are the basis of photography" is especially intriguing in the context of mentioning chiaroscuro (light & shadow), which modern photographers deal with as part of their visual literacy and is also addressed in detail in Visual Art/FA photography streams. Importantly, note the comment of the artist's notorious temper attributed to working with mercury!

Link: ABC News AU: Caravaggio was early 'photographer'

 

[wayne naughton]

you could start a mega bunfight on another site this topic...grin.... maybe caravaggio invented image stitching several hundred years before photoshop as well. google 'Hockney-Falco thesis' and all will be revealed. or try

Dead Link Removed

you could include vermeer as well, if you want to......

wayne

 

[Marco B]

To be honest, I wonder if this isn't just a bad translation. I would like to read an Italian language version of this article...

It is no news that famous painters sometimes used optical aids for composing an image.

Quote:
Caravaggio "fixed" the image, using light-sensitive substances, for around half an hour during which he used white lead mixed with chemicals and minerals that were visible in the dark to paint the image with broad strokes.

The only really interesting part of the article is the supposedly "light sensitive" nature of the used "lead + minerals" mixture. However, I begin to think that this might be a bad translation and that what is actually meant is simply that Carravagio used lead white paint (a poisonous, but much used white paint in the 17th through to the 19th century, before the introduction of the much safer tin and titanium whites) in combination with other specific colors well visible in the dark, to overpaint his projection, like paints with some sort of fluorescent nature, or simply high contrast.

The article clearly mentions "overpainting" as a way to "fix" the image (with fixing not meant to be interpreted as "fixing" in photography). This is something completely different from a truely "light-sensitive" emulsion reacting to light.

 

[Marco B]

OK, my suspicion was more or less confirmed here, read the paragraph about the "fire-flies":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...tography-to-create-dramatic-masterpieces.html

Also, the word "fixing" is again justly between quotes in this version of the news article...

 

[Mike Crawford]

I always find these theories fascinating, especially the bit about left handed subjects. Caravaggio's 'Supper at Emmaus,' shown in the Telegraph article is here in London at the National Gallery, and it has always struck me how incredible the perspective is of the arm on the far right of the painting. (24mm lens?) The article has lots of mights and maybe's. Not sure this discription of a Camera Obscura is very accurate;

'Art history scholars have long known that Caravaggio worked in a sort of darkroom, illuminating his subjects through a hole in the ceiling and projecting the image onto a canvas using a lens and a mirror.'

Will be keen to read Roberta Lapucci's theories if they are published. (Anyone know?) A fascinating book related to this is Vermeer's Camera by Philip Steadman, though is obviously about the Dutch painter's probable use of optics and mirrors.
http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk/home.htm

 

[pierods]

To be honest, I wonder if this isn't just a bad translation. I would like to read an Italian language version of this article...

Here you are Sir:

http://www.repubblica.it/2009/03/se...ografia/caravaggio-fotografia.html?ref=hpspr1

 

[2F/2F]

I would not say "photographer", but it is well known that he and many others made use of lensing in their work. Cameras existed long before photography did just like wheeled vehicles existed long before they were ever powered by internal combustion engines. If science had been more advanced, or someone had figured out a way to fix a light-sensitive material by chance, we would have had photography over half a millennium ago. The use of a lens or a camera as an aid, or even a projected image as a guide does not make one a light painter.

The part about him using a temporary light-sensitive material is interesting, although the use of the word "fix" is totally incorrect. The difficulties with figuring out the "fixing" of the image was a large part of what delayed photography for so long. He did make photographs of a sort, I suppose. However, their temporary nature and their intended use as an intermediate step doesn't qualify him to take the "first permanent photograph" label from Joseph Niepce (or whoever folks might argue was first from around that time), IMO.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Well if he was, stay tuned to a flood of articles in Popular Photography magazine. Grin.

 

[phritz phantom]

there is not only the book "secret knowledge" by david hockney, but also a bbc documentary by the same title. i have recently watched it and i'd definitely recommend it. it's thrilling and informative. i'm neither art historian nor physicist, but his arguments do sound convincing: amount of left handed people, blurs, distortions which could result from tilting of the lens/mirror/canvas. ...

 

[keithwms]

Well none of the aforementioned folks is even close to being the first... people were exposing leaves in pinhole cameras much earlier. I don't think there is a well established date for the first pinholes and obviously the leaf images weren't permanent so we don't know how early that was either. Suffice it to say long before the invention of the glass lens.

 

[wayne naughton]

it's a rather stupid article and there's nothing new in it..... i'm more fascinated as to how art historians get their knickers in an absolute twist when this topic arises. it was only a few years ago that the deeds were changed for the Archibald Prize (australia's major portrait competition) that originally forbade artists from painting from photographs. How they policed it in the first place is beyond me. And i can't for the life of me work out what chiaroscuro has got to do with her argument.

There were all sorts of toxic substances and rare earths used in the pigments of the times....maybe some fluoroescent substance found it's way onto the artist's palette.....

wayne

 

[2F/2F]

it's a rather stupid article and there's nothing new in it..... i'm more fascinated as to how art historians get their knickers in an absolute twist when this topic arises. it was only a few years ago that the deeds were changed for the Archibald Prize (australia's major portrait competition) that originally forbade artists from painting from photographs. How they policed it in the first place is beyond me. And i can't for the life of me work out what chiaroscuro has got to do with her argument.

There were all sorts of toxic substances and rare earths used in the pigments of the times....maybe some flouroescent substance found it's way onto the artist's palatte.....

wayne

word

 

[Herzeleid]

IMO, It is just theory without proof.

I think David Hockney was the first to come up with this idea and he became quite popular
Other side of the coin - http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004/Hockney/yoder1.asp

 

[Marco B]

Here you are Sir:

http://www.repubblica.it/2009/03/se...ografia/caravaggio-fotografia.html?ref=hpspr1

Ok, thanks for pointing out that. I can read Italian, so here are the portions of that article that I think are most relevant with my translation of it in English (of course, any Italians here on APUG may correct me if I made a mistake):

QUOTE 1:
"Sulle tele del Caravaggio, ha spiegato Lapucci a diversi giornali stranieri, sono stati ritrovati sali di mercurio, sensibili alla luce e utilizzati nelle pellicole.

On the canvases of Caravaggio, explains Lapucci to some foreign news agencies, have been found mercury salts, sensitive to light and used in film as well.

Well, that is the first difference from the originally indicated English language article, which, at least suggests, that lead was also a part of the "light-sensitive" substances. No such thing here, it's mercury.

QUOTE 2:
"Non solo: le ultime ricerche, rivela la docente, indicano che Caravaggio usava sostanze chimiche che trasformavano le sue tele in primitive "pellicole" impressionabili. La preparazione che usava, composta di diversi elementi sensibili alla luce, permetteva di fissare l'immagine sulla tela per circa una mezz'ora. Nell'oscurità quasi totale, in questo lasso di tempo il pittore abbozzava l'immagine proiettata sulla tela con una mistura di diverse sostanze, elementi chimici e minerali visibili anche al buio."

The last researches, according to the lecturer, indicate that Caravaggio used chemical substances that transformed the canvases in primitive sensitive "film". The preparation that he used, composed of divers chemical elements sensitive to light, allowed him to "fix" the image on the canvas for about 1/2 hour. In almost complete darkness, in that period of time, he sketched the projected image onto the canvas with a mixture of different compounds, chemical elements and minerals visible also in darkness.

Well, this is where probably the lead white, as a base color, comes in, mixed with more or less "fluorescent" colors...

I have to agree with Wayne here, that the babble about "chemicals and minerals" proves nothing, as paints, even today, consist of a host of different chemical substances, that's why we have that wide array of colors in professional paints today...

There were all sorts of toxic substances and rare earths used in the pigments of the times....maybe some fluoroescent substance found it's way onto the artist's palette.....

wayne

QUOTE3:
"La polvere "magica" sfruttata dal Caravaggio potrebbe essere stata ottenuta da lucciole schiacciate, una tecnica al tempo utilizzata per creare effetti speciali nelle produzioni teatrali."

The "magic" powder/substance used by Caravaggio could have been obtained from crushed fire flies, a technique at the time also used to create special effects in theatrical productions.

OK, funny to see how these fire flies were used. Even more funny is that the word "lucciola" can also be translated as "prostitute", but I guess the fluorescent properties of the average crushed human being would not help much

Actually, I wonder how this really helped and could work? Because doesn't a fire fly use "bioluminescence" instead of "fluorescence" or "phosphorescence", which would imply the substances used might actually not emit light in a dead fire fly (see this article in the NewWorld Encyclopedia). Well, maybe some of the substances used in the bioluminescence reaction chain of fire flies, do act as simply "fluorescent" or "phosphorescent" substances...

But if this is true, I guess it would be very simply to extract the DNA of the fire flies from the canvases of Caravaggio to proof he did use the fluorescent paints. Why the researcher makes no reference to this, or hasn't done that, I don't understand...

Marco

 

[Marco B]

OK, funny to see how these fire flies were used. Even more funny is that the word "lucciola" can also be translated as "prostitute", but I guess the fluorescent properties of the average crushed human being would not help much

Well, have to quote myself here to add another bizar thing I just remembered... During the 19th century, after Napoleon's expeditions in Egypt, an idiotic temporary hype led to "mummy-black" being used as a (black) pigment in oil paints, made of true "crushed" human remains: mummies...

Surely, the painters using that paint must have suffered from brain damage caused by to much lead white and mercury sniffing...

 

[glenn_dmello]

Also, Dr David Stork has pretty thoroughly debunked his suggestions using a computer analysis of perspective and light. It's a fascinating analysis and shows exactly how wrong Hockney is.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Hockney wasn't exactly original in his theory, but I don't know of any prior efforts to actually prove the use of optical devices. I remember Jack Welpott making that suggestion in 1965. I don't know whether he had just thought it up himself, but I doubt that. I would imagine a great deal of speculation, but don't know for sure.

As far as the validity of the theory is concerned, it seems to me the usual back and forth that goes on in almost any field of research and pretty much a red herring. You don't need lenses and mirrors to obtain accurate perspective. Simpler devices are much more practical.

We know that Brunelleschi used an optical device incorporating a painting and a mirror in his discovery of the principles of linear perspective around 1415. We also have abundant graphic evidence in the work of Albrecht Dürer that he used an intersector to enable him to achieve the remarkable perspective fidelity that he's known for. He studied in Italy sometime right around the turn of the 16th C; it is likely that he had commerce with the Italian masters, possibly even Caravaggio. Since the world was going crazy about perspective at that time, it seems reasonable that such devices were being used, perhaps rather widely. Hockney could be right or wrong regarding the actual devices used, but it seems quite reasonable to at least allow for the possibility that artists were using the aids available to achieve the accuracy they desired. In my view, not to use them would be ridiculous. Why do the historians and realists regard that as "cheating"?

For myself, and for whatever it's worth, I think it somewhat imprudent to make judgments about the validity or invalidity of a theory on the basis of others' opinions. Often, the authors have an axe to grind. For example, in the Yoder article, the author says parenthetically that "he [Hockney] can't draw much better than the average high school student can doodle". That attitude reveals a less than balanced view. A lot of artists don't agree with him. Stork and Falco can battle it out without my help. It's best to watch and listen; there are no stakes involved and open minds have the amazing property of the ability to learn. Who cares who's "right"? It's fun to watch, and who cares about my opinion anyway?

Brunelleschi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunelleschi#Invention_of_linear_perspective

Dürer: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/DURER1.png

 

[Marco B]

Yes, that Durer image is a classic one and full proof that some sorts of (optical) aids were used by some artists. There are more of these images showing the use of optical aids. In the end though, I am pretty much sure most artists don't actually need them. I have made successful perspective drawings of real live town scenes without the usage of such aids. It's all up to the artists eye and his ability to accurately see. Often, really the only device you will need is your pencil, and that can be used to correct and measure up certain distances as well...

Here's a nice example that I made freehand sitting right in front of the scene in the centre of Haarlem using just a single pencil:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, that Durer image is a classic one and full proof that some sorts of (optical) aids were used by some artists. There are more of these images showing the use of optical aids. In the end though, I am pretty much sure most artists don't actually need them. I have made successful perspective drawings of real live town scenes without the usage of such aids. It's all up to the artists eye and his ability to accurately see. Often, really the only device you will need is your pencil, and that can be used to correct and measure up certain distances as well...

Here's a nice example that I made freehand sitting right in front of the scene in the centre of Haarlem using just a single pencil:

*/Breathlessly\* Darn... I haven't had the time to read through this thread properly today and even now, finishing the week's work and getting sticky merangue on the keyboard (preparatory to a pavlova "with the works") while I battle to get things set for dinner later (that's about 10pm!!).... maybe read more tomorrow; I am very interested in the observations. Marco, I really love that drawing above, especially the couple seated on a trolley (?) rueing the sharp freefall in their super portfolio...

 

[Marco B]

Well, actually, it's a couple of people sitting on a bench eating an ice-cream. What appears to be a wheel in this small representation of the original drawing is a pot with a plant in it But mini-mini-drawings of people are probably not my best virtue... The shop they are sitting in front of is "Gelateria Bartoli" that is squeezed against one of the walls of the St. Bavo cathedral in Haarlem...

 

[wayne naughton]

Yes, that Durer image is a classic one and full proof that some sorts of (optical) aids were used by some artists. There are more of these images showing the use of optical aids. In the end though, I am pretty much sure most artists don't actually need them. I have made successful perspective drawings of real live town scenes without the usage of such aids. It's all up to the artists eye and his ability to accurately see. Often, really the only device you will need is your pencil, and that can be used to correct and measure up certain distances as well...

Here's a nice example that I made freehand sitting right in front of the scene in the centre of Haarlem using just a single pencil:

Yeah, but Marco, Durer didn't have the 500 years of history and analysis that you've been exposed to when he drew. What was the historical perspective that HE drew on? (sorry...bad pun) if it all depended on how good his eye is, well, the previous 1000 years of art practicioners must have suffered some serious eye defects en masse....grin. Or are you saying that Durer was the first artist ever who had a 'good' eye?

and a very nice drawing it is too.........

wayne

 

[keithwms]

Pinhole cameras go waaay back, at least to 400 BC. That is probably the first kind of camera. You don't need any glass at all to make a camera

Not too long ago I gave an historical summary of photography and I wanted to state when it all began. I was surprised to discover how ambiguous that is. But I recalled that every child knows that leaves are photosensitive and I remember experimenting with sun-patterns on leaves- so it's a really obvious thing to try. Anybody smart enough to make a pinhole camera would certainly be smart enough to think about how to "capture" that image, and leaves are probably the most obvious of all light-sensitive materials.

We have to think outside the [black] box of modern photography. It'd not shock me at all if the ancients were excising the eyeballs of animals to try to get at the "seeing stuff" inside and see what's there, in which case they would have found a lens.... It's amusing to try to think in the minds of the people who knew nothing of modern technology I betcha they did some pretty wacky and interesting experiments with vision and photography.

Now, astronomy clearly goes back long before lens-based telescopes. Those measurements could arguably be the very first high detail images.

So.... anyway, in my seminar I argued that the first photographs were very likely pinhole shots onto leaves. These of course would not be well preserved but I am 99.44% certain that people were playing with pinhole-leaf photography thousands of years ago. Add that to the fact that people must also have realized that you can get the pigment out of leaves by mashing them up and it's not much of a stretch to imagine making all manner of temporary solar prints. People were very interested in isolating dyes/pigments way back into history, and one major issue they had was that sunlight would fade them and change the colours... so people must have made primitive photographs thousands of years ago. One must be on guard of our eurocentrist historical record when considering such things; when you really know what you're looking for, it's much easier to find it. People looking for leaf photographs would be looking for obscure descriptions of the method... not the actual prints of course.

In my seminar I argued that the first "modern" photographer was Vermeer.... this argument is of course based on Hockney and others before him.

Maybe I'll pull this all together into a blog entry when I get time.

 

[Akki14]

Well, have to quote myself here to add another bizar thing I just remembered... During the 19th century, after Napoleon's expeditions in Egypt, an idiotic temporary hype led to "mummy-black" being used as a (black) pigment in oil paints, made of true "crushed" human remains: mummies...

Surely, the painters using that paint must have suffered from brain damage caused by to much lead white and mercury sniffing...

just to nit-pick, it's not black, it's a sort of reddish brown known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_mortuum

 

[Marco B]

Yeah, but Marco, Durer didn't have the 500 years of history and analysis that you've been exposed to when he drew.

You may be overestimating my age a little... I am not Metusalem ...

What was the historical perspective that HE drew on? (sorry...bad pun) if it all depended on how good his eye is, well, the previous 1000 years of art practicioners must have suffered some serious eye defects en masse....grin.

I agree with you that the middle ages may not have been the best basis for Durer to develop his perspective drawing skills, but actually, I think the whole issue of non-perspective drawing and painting during that time period, is more a consequence of the compulsory, restrictive and highly stylized paintings as requested by the byzantian and catholic churches, than of a lack of skills on the part of the artists involved.

It is the same as with the Egyptians: all of their great architecture shows that they had all the knowledge and skills to develop or use perspective drawing, yet they didn't use it. I think this is more related to religion and the need to conform or develop certain symbolic styles, than a limitation in the knowledge about perspective drawing...

 

[Larry Bullis]

Fine drawing, Marco. Mighty impressive.

No, not everyone needs an optical device (I won't say "aid") but some may wish to use one for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that not everyone has your skills. But there are other reasons, too.

Dürer wasn't just drawing, but analyzing perspective to better understand how it works. You no doubt have noticed that in some of the Dürer examples, the eye is positioned well above the center of the grid, giving the same effect as dropping the front on a view camera. When researching this stuff for an article I wrote for Pinhole Journal - holy cow, 20 years ago! - I encountered a lot of really interesting stuff. Euclid understood linear perspective, for example, but was uncertain just where in the eye the locus of perspective would be.

The intersector is a great tool for understanding how perspective works. When I taught the view camera I had the students make pinholes and an intersector which they attached to the front standard of the camera, and a stick on the rear standard to locate the eye. Then, I asked them to take an object to place in the foreground of a scene, and using three bellows extensions (short, medium, and long) to photograph that object and scene rendering the foreground object at the same size in each image. This required moving the camera back or forward, away from the object or toward it. The resulting images clearly showed how the relationship of the foreground to the background changes. This is frequently fairly difficult for students to understand, and this exercise was very helpful for them. Also, the employment of the device is useful in understanding the Scheimpflug principle.

These days, some very interesting work is being done using perspective. Gillian Brown has been painting from photographs right on the location where the original photographs were made: http://www.gillianbrown.com/JillStairs-1.htm. These works must be viewed from a particular point to make any sense at all. There was a wonderful example of her work at RIT in the office shared by Jeff Weiss and Elliot Rubenstein. She had made a hole in the door, and projected an image of Jeff in his chair, looking at the door, right across the desk, the wall, and everything. Inside the office, it broke into confusing patterns, but looking at it through the hole in the door it was astonishing, just like he was sitting there looking at you. I don't know whether it is still there; I guess Jeff has moved on. Eric Renner is also making perspective boxes. He has a chapter in his book about works of this kind. I find this stuff a lot of fun.