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?