I so wanted to hear Charles Falco. He's a noted motorcycle historian too, you know. He helped to curate the Art of the Motorcycle at the Guggenheim in 1999. Which the art world hated but whatev.

That was a fascinating book. Really turned art history on its head, which isn't easy to do. Of course, there's plenty of absolute genius left just because there was "tracing".

You can keep the chandelier if I get the lady's delicious green dress-blanket.

Her arms do look pretty short. And why does someone have to be an absolute genius to be a good artist?

When I was an engineering student at UW I watched a colloquium presentation on this subject. A researcher from Kodak labs used some cutting-edge imaging techniques to show just how far from perfect the paintings are. He also noted that in many cases, the type of optics that would be required either wouldn't fit into the room, or could not have been machined with great enough precision.

The whole hypothesis seems unlikely to me because it would have been more complicated to set up a system of lenses and mirrors than it would have been to just paint the damn thing.

my favorite detail, the graffiti on the wall: "Jan van Eyck was here"

I love the chandelier too, but I think perhaps my favourite part has always been the mirror at the back -- it shows others in the room (including van Eyck?) and is surrounded by tiny scenes from the Passion. Wonderful.

The idea that artistic genius = ability to represent a scene in a photorealistic manner (without tracing!) makes me batty. I love that we're turning it on its head.

Is it because I'm a current student in art history that the whole idea of this 'turning art history on its ear' seems inaccurate (and somewhat dismissive) to me? I am willing to admit it if I am; I'm fully aware that it's likely that the way I'm being taught to look and evaluate represents new thinking in the discipline. But I was at this talk and found myself bristling at Falco's claims that art historians insisted Caravaggio only had mirrors, "not lenses!" in his inventory - and that art historian wouldn't (couldn't!) realize that these or a pair of eyeglasses could account for works that might have utilized optics. I'm still trying to suss out whether I'm so defensive about the whole thing is because what I've learned since I began my art history education in 2005 completely takes into account Hockney & Falco's findings to the point that other views seem antiquated - in which case, they really DID turn art history on its ear. Or is it too much to believe that art historians were capable of much more than this, given that they look for a living? Further, art in the 15th century was never just about art, but about a compendium of learning: literary and otherwise. It's not as though art historians weren't aware of this, so is it too much a stretch to imagine them open to that possibility?

For certain Falco's talk was amazing - I think it was the way he was able to map out perfectly what he saw that stood out to me. I also liked his point about the use of 'tracing' in art and how sadly that probably banished from the classroom so many students who couldn't draw these things by freehand when the masters had used optic tools for these things.

Should I just get used to people shitting on art history as a discipline in general? I realize it probably appears I'm taking this rather personally, but I've been safe in my little art school bubble and am on the verge of my first degree with plans to go on; is it really that we art historians must be rescued by physicists, or was that so much hot air?

Given a panel with this imaged traced on it how many people could produce the end result, very few.