Talk:David Hockney

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChloeJBorders.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Style

it is they are artists and they have artist eyes.....anyway how the hell can u trace of a mirror when youd have to stand infront of it therefore you would be seeing your own reflection --User:219.88.118.254 06:27, May 31, 2004

I can only suggest you try to get a copy of Hockney's book and/or the TV programme. He shows that projecting and tracing like this is possible, though whether it was actually done is a different matter, of course. --Camembert

Hockney's deductive theory satisfies the precept of Occam's Razor much more than pure artistic skill. Furthermore, as Hockney himself asserts, the use of a lens as a tool no more invalidates the role of the artist than does the use of a paintbrush as a tool. "Optics don't make marks." 139.84.48.249 14:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen to me you fucking modernist, go to artrenewal.com and read the rebuttal of Hockney's outlandish claims. Hockney is jealous that the old masters could paint so well and he is stuck painting filthy Modernist shit.

"Anyone who paints a blue sky green ought to be sterilyzed." - Adolf Hitler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.172.220 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2006.

Time to invoke Godwin's Law I think... -- Solipsist 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The irony of this trollish post, of course, is that David Hockney himself has often questioned his relationship to Modernism and modern art. I read the website s/he recommended, and I must say it's kind of disturbing how anti-modern an intolerant some people can be. Ghamming 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to questioning the validity of quoting artrenewal.com as the article in question makes out that Hockney is jealous because he can't draw, which invalidates the argument almost straight away. Sfgreenwood 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a more NPOV about this would be good. It is interesting as an idea regardless of whether it happened (and there are some engravings suggesting that some people did this), and as an issue in the history of technology and art. It probably deserves a seperate article. Justinc 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A good description of the technical side you will find in the article Camera lucida Xauxa 4 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Can I add a second (or third) for removing the reference to Art Renewal in this article? They are--to say the least--not a well recognized organization with tenuous connections to the art world. Their critique largely consists of fairly obvious distortions of Hockney's thesis. There are certainly more recognized names that participated in the debate--Keith Christiansen, a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Susan Sontag, Linda Nochlin,--as indicated by the following New York Time article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/arts/design/04OPTI.html?scp=1&sq=hockney%20sontag&st=cse&pagewanted=1 76.67.16.61 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Paper pools?

Would I be right in thinking that David Hockeny was involved in a series of artwroks known as the paper pools?

These were IIRC pictures constructed using colored paper pulp?

See Also : http://www.nga.gov.au/BigAmericans/Detail/Diver.htm

Yep, that's right. Julia Rossi 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Old masters' techniques

i believe that the statement about the hockney theory satisfying the principle of Occam's razor, that the use of optical devices was commonplace among so called old masters to be a fallacious one. anyone who has experience with academic drawing and painting will realize that such devices aren't necessary, or would be auxiliary. however whether they were used extensively as an aid is really a matter which should rest on historical evidence of an empirical nature. furthermore i propose that the idea that using them is a way of cheating is also fallacious, since the production of realistic painting techniques isn't a proof of an absolutely valued artist's skill. such language ascribes literal measurements of skill through objective comparisons. the purpose and function of the vast majority of art pieces produced within human history was not to simulate visual reality, but rather to fulfill certain aesthetic or philosophic/religious/cultural needs. by and large realism was the focus of oil painting during a certain development of european painting, and was later adopted by academic or ecclectic painters who sought to combine techniques in previous painting instead of exploring new aesthetic territory. most art has been about producing an artifact which performs and reflects a social function and that culture's concepts of what the symbolic artifact means. realism in oil painting began when a particular culture decided the valued quality in art was in how well it imitated visual reality. for most of oil painting this was actually considered genre painting, and the highest value was accorded to grand manner painting of mythological and historical subjects. these were no less detailed but involved often a monumentality or sense of composition that is absent in the more photograph-like rendered still lives or portraits of tromp l'oeil. my inclination would be to point out that perhaps there is a congruency between photography and realistic painting, however if there isn't a lot of evidence for his historical claims, and i'm not a historical literatus in this particular field, he may be dreaming.

perhaps, David could explain how Johan Sebastian Bach achieved the intricate sound textures in his works. Or how Michelangelo worked his statues. Yes, not painting, but related anyway: barroque style is highly intricate and detailed, regardless of the artistic expression. Compare that to the simplicity of classic or the gritty and minimalist modernist approach. What Bach used? mirrors too? They could've used mirrors, yes, but highly skilled artists, even today, have not much trouble looking at a scene and reproducing it to perfection, without extra devices other than eye and hand.

This article is not up to wiki standards, it reads like an essay written by a schoolkid and furthermore seems to be signed in such a manner

Also, I am not sure if individual paintings should get entire articles. Flying Hamster 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends, I think, on the painting. See Guernica as opposed to The Matador. Amphytrite 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambig of RA

Can anyone find a definition for the RA mentioned after Hockney's name? The placing leads me to believe it's short for that Royal Artillery, but I can't be certain. Amphytrite 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be Royal Academician, a member of the Royal Academy, also known as the Royal Academy of Arts because military service doesn't seem to be in Hockney's history. Julia Rossi 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Amphytrite 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He was a conscientious objector to mandatory military service in England. He spent two years between his Bradford Art School days and his Royal College art school days working in healthcare. This might have been resolved already, I dunno. Ghamming 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep,it is Royal Academician! All the Best,Jared Harrell

Wiki cleanup

Yes, I did it. It's a good project and I wanted to clean it up to save its little hide. I also removed some of the weasel-ish words and some sweeping statements though I could see it was written with love and enthusiasm which is greattttttt, so didn't wanna be too heavy handed there. You might like to expand about the Pools which was a californianising of Hockney or Hockney's song of praise to Cal - I guess it applies either way. The context is that he was freer to express his lifestyle in LA and he came from cloudy ole England. His experimentation in art history circles is considered a post-modern exercise in working across disciplines and he championed printmaking, simply by churning them out and using whatever, which is normally seen (in an elitist way) as poor cousin to painting. He's quite egalitarian really. Continue having fun, Julia Rossi 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oils?

a PS - about oils being his preferred medium, I saw a documentary showing Hockney's assistant madly spraying water across a huge canvas to prevent the acrylic paint from drying out. These paintings were large and very flat in rendering. Did he switch to acrylics, and if so, when? Julia Rossi 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ThanksStokes.thomas 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He switched to acrylic when he moved to LA in 1964, I know that much. He liked the quality and range of colors of American acrylics much better than he did English acrylic. I don't know as much about his work post-1974 or so, though I'd be happy to research it once the copyright issues are resolved. I can cite sources on the acrylic thing, too. Ghamming 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Acrylics were the medium used for the works of the 1960s and the Clark's double portrait, so the reference to oils was inaccurate. Philip Cross (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

...but some of his most recent work DO use the older medium. Philip Cross (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Most of this article is taken from the David Hockney biography at http://www.davidhockney.com/bio.shtml -- it is paraphrased to some extend, but very clearly plagiarized. I don't know what steps to take to mark this article as a copyvio; will someone with more knowledge on the matter help me out? CDrecche 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks as though the copyright violation was added around 21 January 2007 by an anonymous editor. Reverting to versions prior to that would seem to be safe. DCB4W 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, nice detective work DCB :) --Cactus.man ✍ 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought versions prior (as in closer to the pinched original) would be more likely copy vio. Turned out that's what the article starter did before running out of time to mutate it. That's why when I tackled it, I tried to paraphrase. Since then it's looking quite different.Julia Rossi 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

where is the proof that the clark/percy painting is one of the most popular at the tate? that statement is kind of out of place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.231.144 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of Hockney?

Can anyone find an appropriate picture of David Hockney for this article? It seems necessary, especially because of his distinctive appearance (blonde hair, thick black glasses), i.e. the Hockney look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graymornings (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's done with (concave) mirrors

Hockney did not provide a clear explanation of the use of mirrors. He didn't sufficiently emphasize that the mirrors that were used were concave mirrors, not flat mirrors. If you stand in front of a window and point a concave mirror at the window, the image of the objects that are outside the window will be projected onto the wall in front of you. This projection is upside down, but otherwise it is a true image of the objects. The artists duplicated this phenomenon by placing objects inside of a windowed space and projecting them onto a canvas for tracing by using a concave mirror.Lestrade (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I have to laugh at humanity. Here's a man who hands everyone an obviously true explanation of a phenomenon and many people reject it because they don't understand. People would rather have mysteries and paradoxes than clear explanations.Lestrade (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Vandalism

someone thought funny to add "this website sucks!" in the early years part. I removed it.Gigakight (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"He also had the audacity to say he hoped this was the end for new labour, therefore showing public support for the Conservatives even though not voting makes his political opinion less valid." Removed for want of NPOV. 71.233.245.97 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:English expatriates in the United States

Looks like an erroneous category to me: he appears to spend most, if not all, of his time in Bridlington. I've removed it. --GuillaumeTell 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Death of Dominic Elliot was not from a fall

The truth of Dominic's death is completely different, he died from drinking acid after ingesting alcohol, cannabis, temazepan, cocaine and ecstasy NOT from the fall go here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-23885509 please correct data Veryscarymary (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request

In 2004, David Hockney was invited to serve as a mentor for the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative, an international philanthropic programme that pairs masters in their disciplines with emerging talents for a year of one-to-one creative exchange. Out of a very gifted field of candidates, Hockney chose Matthias Weischer, a German painter his protégée. RMP2014 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Source:

References

I would agree that this is entirely relevant and should be added to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you suggest this be inserted? May be "Public life" section. Keith D (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's as good a place as any. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Hockney/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated the article as start, because I see no references or proper inline citations.--Yannismarou 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David-Hockney.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• David-Hockney.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

David Hocking

Why does "David Hocking" redirect to "David Hockney"? David Hocking and David Hockney are completely different people.98.149.97.245 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

He has a Bible Teaching Ministry? He has no Wikipedia article. I guess the redirect is to help those people who can't spell or who get the two names confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Books by Hockney

Larry Stanton: Paintings and Drawings (1986) is not a "book by Hockney," it's "a book of 39 drawings and paintings by Larry Stanton with writings on Stanton by Arthur Lambert, David Hockney, Henry Geldzahler and others". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Worldcat entry says Larry Stanton : painting and drawing -- Author: Larry Stanton; David Hockney, JISC says by David Hockney, OttoBib says Hockney, David, et al., etc. Why is it that you, Martinevans123 , feel that the book is not by Hockney given that numerous library catalogs state that it is? -- Jamplevia (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You could call him a joint author. I'm happy to go along with how Stanton describes his own book. He's the one who actually has his name on the cover. It's also not a "book by Arthur Lambert," or "a book by Henry Geldzahler" or a "book by others". It's a book by Stanton with contributions by others. Do you know how many words Hockney contributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Larry Staton's name is on the cover because it is part of the title of the book. Are you really basing your opinions on a picture of the cover of the book on a webstore that appears to be a primary source? -- Jamplevia (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to assume that the publisher of a book knows who it's by. So I'd expect their description to be pretty accurate. I have no reason to suppose that the image of the cover of that book has been faked in some way. But you might want to answer my question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sitting here with the book at my side. It was published in 1986. Stanton died in 1984. The cover says simply "Larry Stanton: Painting and Drawing". (The spine reads "Larry Stanton – Twelvetrees Press".) The title page repeats this, followed by "writing by David Hockney[,] Henry Geldzahler, Tim Dlugos[,] Julia Mayo, Arthur Lambert Jr." and "Twelvetrees Press". None of the forewords or afterwords by the named contributors mentions who curated the works included in the book or otherwise prepared it for the publisher. In a sense, the book doesn't have an author or authors per se?

Having written a foreword or afterword doesn't itself confer status as an author of the book. Having said that, it was my understanding from sources I read years ago that Geldzahler and Hockney instigated the publication of this (with Lambert's input too?). Perhaps, if that's so, "author" is nevertheless the wrong term. "Editor"? The same as a person who compiles a selection of a given writer's writings into a single book and slaps a foreword onto it? Even so, it would still be a "book by Hockney (et al.)". Just compiled by him, not written by him.

On the other hand, Stanton certainly wasn't the author of the book. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. Even if someone died in 1984, it's still quite possible for them to be the author of a book first published in 1986. I still see it as a book with content mainly "by Stanton", as all the artworks are by him? But perhaps you could also tell us how many words Hockney wrote for the book? If Hockney did indeed instigate the publication of the book, that might be worth mentioning in the text. I'm not sure why it still can't be listed under "Contributions by Hockney". Or perhaps we need another sub-section of books headed "Edited by Hockney". Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Confirming that the book was conceived as a posthumous memorialization: From the publisher's website, "When an artist dies young there begins the task of editing his oeuvre .... Several remarkable men have participated in editing Larry Stanton's work for this volume, among them Henry Geldzahler, David Hockney, and Nicholas Wilder ... a tribute by his friends in recognition of his talent and our loss."[1]; Twin Palms Publishing and the book's listed publisher, Twelvetrees Press, are a single concern.[2] Yes, the appropriate term for the contributors would be "editor", not "author". I agree that "works by" Hockney oughtn't to include this. It could be acknowledged as a work he co-edited, but whether that rates a mention is a matter of perspective. As far is having written a foreword is concerned, though, I'm pretty sure, though, that few, if any, bios on Wikipedia list, under the subject's works, the various forewords the subject may have written for other people's books. If that were to happen at all, I'd expect it only to be in cases where some note had been made in sources of the subject's having contributed such a foreword—which I believe does happen. Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree about "editor", not "author". So those are the words (and the only words) written by Hockney in that book? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I guess if there were multiple secondary sources that described Hockney's interest in Stanton and/or his part in creating the book, that might warrant a mention in the text. As it stands, I think it's somewhat debatable if the book warrants inclusion in "Books" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Hockney (27807337800).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)