Piet Spijkers wrote:
Virgil,
Thanks for your well thought comments. I really appreciate the time you take in answering my post. (I already proposed an alternate hypothesis on Hockney's motives, but it doesn't come across. If somebody proposes an opinion on how the Old Masters worked, it is not relevant to take into consideration the artistic capacities of the proponent. Nobody is questioning the artistic capacities of Dr. Stork. The opinions on GoodArt here, which I esteem highly, are made by artists and not-artists (I assume) but that does not as such qualify the truthfulness (maybe the value) of their opinions.)
Thanks for your well thought comments. I really appreciate the time you take in answering my post. (I already proposed an alternate hypothesis on Hockney's motives, but it doesn't come across. If somebody proposes an opinion on how the Old Masters worked, it is not relevant to take into consideration the artistic capacities of the proponent. Nobody is questioning the artistic capacities of Dr. Stork. The opinions on GoodArt here, which I esteem highly, are made by artists and not-artists (I assume) but that does not as such qualify the truthfulness (maybe the value) of their opinions.)
Piet,
It is relevant to Hockney's contention that something is impossible. What could be his basis for such a supposition? All he can say without deviating from logic is that it is impossible for him. There is no basis for him to extrapolate from that that since he cannot do it, therefore it is impossible. Yet his premise can only be based on the idea that he cannot do it. If he could, he would not say it is impossible, because he would know that that was not true, just as I and all the other artists who can do these things know that what he says cannot be true, and there would be a contradiction in logic. Only people who cannot do these things can believe that it can't be done. There are different levels of understanding involved, which do indeed bear on the discussion.
Regarding Stork, his field is science, which is based on logic, wherein truth is determined on the basis on what can be supported by proof, and he can produce artists who can prove that it is actually possible to do what Hockney and Falco says are impossible to do; whereas, Hockney and Falco cannot produce proof to support their claim that these things are impossible without optical devices. Therefore, Hockney's and Falco's hypothesis fails the test of logic. It cannot be true.
So I see the possible reasons why Hockney says these things are humanly impossible as being; 1) ignorance of the truth; or, 2) dishonesty, meaning he knows it isn't true, but would like to convince us that it is anyway. Neither of those are respectable, from my perspective. If you have a third possibility, let's have it.
Virgil Elliott
