text: This book should get 0 stars; speaking as an artist myself, the theories laid out in this book are ridiculous. The basic gist of the argument seems to be that the work completed by the old masters was just too difficult to have been done without the use of optics, etc. To me it sounds like the desperate argument of a man who did not have either the talent or the determination to attain the skill of a great master, and therefore spent years constructing an elaborate excuse.
  
  Admittedly, I could not even finish this book; after reading for the nth time a line of shaky, circumstantial evidence like "all artists know that the ellipse of that collar is very difficult to draw, but there are no correction marks, therefore optics must have been used," I could not even stand to keep reading! On the contrary, all artists who have spent time and dilligent effort in becoming technically skilled know that although that ellipse may be difficult, after a few years of daily drawing and painting it becomes second nature, and could very well be drawn naturally with minimal correction.
  
  That is just one example... the book is filled with flaky examples such as those - Hockney claiming "this is too good to have been done without optics" or "this was too difficult to have been done without optics" - and I found myself thinking over and over that the man simply must not have been disciplined enough in his own art, if that is indeed what he thinks. And, modern artists must remember this: nowadays, the work of the old masters seems very difficult because in modern times artists get nothing like the education or practice time had by the old artists, for many reasons. Superior art education is very hard to find, and there are many distractions in the modern world (TV, computers, having to hold a 'day job', lack of patrons, etc.) and therefore modern artists usually lack discipline and do not live and breath art in quite the same way that the old masters did. Therefore, most will never attain the skill of the old masters. But that is certainly no reason to assume that the old masters could not have done what they did without the help of technology!
  
  Some of the other examples used as 'evidence' refer to 'odd' proportion, perspective, etc. in otherwise masterful work. I am surprised that this author (and those readers who are artists) apparently does not realize that throughout history, great artists did NOT necessarily strive for EXACT realism - even nowadays, photorealism is not necessarily considered great art by many artists, because after all we are ARTISTS not cameras! The point of realist art is to ACCENTUATE the reality, not to copy it! Therefore, many inconsistencies in proportion, perspective, etc. evident in old masters' work are not 'oddities' or 'mistakes', but purposeful exaggerations or adjustments to benefit the composition. 
  
  All that being said, I think this book may even be harmful to the budding artist, since it may cast doubt in the mind of the art student that he or she can build the skill necessary to paint in a masterful way without the help of 'trickery' or technology of some sort. Instead, an art student should be encouraged to build skill, discipline, and self-reliance - because THAT is the true secret of the great masters
  