Transcription
[Music] I kept looking for lenses so people would say well where's all the equipment I want to demonstrate that actually the only piece of equipment it is is piece of glass David hockney our most celebrated living artist reveals that 400 years before the invention of the photograph artists were using simple cameras to capture stunningly realistic images on canvas.
[Music] in a Hollywood studio hockney recreates masterpieces by Vermeer Caravaggio and Van Ike and demonstrates the secret techniques they use to create such vivid pictures his extraordinary new evidence rewrites the story of some of the most famous paintings in the world.
[Music] man this dress looks good all engines all sources show the second stage is burning perfectly Rogers we thought we saw the 20th century on the news film and elsewhere better than any previous century although we could say we did not see it at all a camera did up to 160 years ago all images were made by artists chemicals replace them.
[Music] today photographs monopolize reality and Truth as painting did in the past.
[Music] no electricity involved in this picture it's done purely optically and very clear very beautiful.
[Music] if we think what is in front of a camera is truth very similitude then those who command control over Optical imagery have great power look at film this the press and advertising but the real news is the power of the photographic image including this one you see in front of you is coming to an end exciting times are ahead.
[Music] here we are in the Hollywood Hills below are the lights of Studio City with all harder work here making pictures in studios I've been designing my own kind of Hollywood set here is representing Renaissance Florence Bruges and Gent they look brand new as they did 600 years ago because this is a set in Hollywood this is Hollywood too Florence Bruges gent and Hollywood four cities deeply involved in picture making they were secretive then and they're secretive today on this set and in other real places I'm going to make experiments that I hope will begin to reveal secrets of how these pictures were made over the last 600 years think of these words real natural photographic true to life what do we mean when we use these words why does this Byzantine Christ look like this van Gogh this all started with a hunch the great 19th century French Portrait Painter I had to show the National Gallery in London with drawings made of English tourists on The Grand Tour going to Rome they are beautiful drawings of rather wonderful looking characters rather ground all putting on their best clothes I saw these drawings and I was struck by how small they really were very very small indeed the scale I would draw ahead you kind of draw what you call site size which is bigger than these drawings so I noticed this incredible accuracy about them almost a photographic quality I blew some of them up on a Xerox machine just to look at them a bit better and I started to notice that the lines reminded me of Andy Warhol he would project a photograph and Trace the line the line has a traced look and to my surprise some of these harder lines similar to that so well 1812 how how could it be done and on a hunch I I wonder if he used a camera lucida it's not that easy to use a little tricky and in effect you get a what looks like a projection onto the piece of paper and you can also see your own hand nobody else sees this projection It's actually an illusion what you do first is look at the face very carefully then decide what characteristics to measure do you see what I mean once then you look so long as you've made some relationships especially between the eyes the nose and mouth that's what you would set up in my studio we pinned up hundreds of color photocopies of paintings paintings which seem to have an optical lock and paintings that did not slowly we got a kind of order I put northern Europe at the top and southern Europe at the bottom the wall was necessary because I could then sit back and scan centuries of Western painting we worked back further and further and finally we got to a date where beyond that it is very different and that date is approximately 14 20.
[Music] that date is when a big change occurs that's been observed by every art historian the explanations for it are everybody could suddenly draw better ah really uh not that good an explanation not that rational really so we are focusing on this Sudden Change that happened so what is an explanation.
[Music]
[Laughter]
[Music] these faces are highly individualistic they seem like very very real people these were unprecedented at the time I mean people came in to see these all admired them they seemed vividly real we can't appreciate really what that meant today I mean it would be what would an equivalent be I mean some kind of 3D effects in Disney World or something you know.
[Music] it is very strong Lighting on the faces generally there is a very strong contrast the strong contrast like that is really made with the sun you're not getting a strong contrast on my face in here because the sun actually isn't beaming in sun on the face was the big clue it is even more obvious in northern Europe Bruges and gent individuals true to life and again brightly lit look at the Deep Shadows small irises they were sitting in very strong light the Sun these paintings are all quite small roughly the same size about 30 centimeters across it is strange that these artists are still referred to as Flemish Primitives but history places the dawn of the Renaissance in Florence not here Bruce and gent were very sophisticated new cities the Royal Court in the church was almost as rich and Powerful as in Florence both the church and the court commissioned paintings John Van Ike was the court painter he was not a humble Craftsman he ran a large workshop with many apprentices he was an intellectual a theologian and a scientist he is described by vasari as an alchemist and credited with the invention of oil painting primitive.
[Music] you are totally knocked out when looking at this picture it's unbelievably rich in detail in every single part of it the textures of cloth the Canon is holding a book with a kind of shammy leather that wraps the book amazing the little figures behind are made of wood your eye can tell out he can tell everything about the textures of the cloths the incredible detail in The Bishop's staff anything that's shiny they seem to particular love the armor is polished all the gold thread in The Bishop's coat the shines look amazing they look correct as we'd say you could almost say at times almost like photographs you could almost say that it was that photographic look that I was beginning to see I began to look at patterned Fabrics.
[Music] this is Marcelino masachio's teacher 1425 is made no attempt to describe the form under the fabric the pattern is painted flat vanix fabric done 10 years later is very different see how beautifully the pattern follows the form absolutely believable on the surface.
This is bronzino 1545 by now a bold elaborate fabric is following all of Falls done very elaborately.
Now armor the problem with shiny surfaces is when your eye moves the shine moves in 1450 did not even attempt the shine he do it by hand so it has a handmade look and then something happened in this 1501 giorgioni the shine here looks correct.
By 1625 Van Dyke's armor with a delicate etched pattern could almost be a photograph.
Fabrics and armor are very difficult to draw but look at this chandelier in vanix's Arnold Feeney wedding painted in 1434. I've wanted most of my life how he painted the chandelier in 1435 Alberti in his book on painting described a method for drawing complex objects a net a grid of threads held in front of the subject it's not that accurate and it is difficult to use and of course you have to look through a fixed point to see it how would you do it by eye by two eyes.
[Music]
[Music]
Tracy architectural drawing engineering drawing anything well no that what I was trying to do on this piece of paper was conceptualized into two Dimensions this fantastic complicated marvelous chandelier that appeared in a painting in 1430 I know that it is impossible for my two eyes here to make a drawing of that the way it appears in the painting.
With a computer you can turn the chandelier around the very [ __ ] do this tells us that he's drawn in perfect perspective from a single point and yet the methods for drawing something this complicated did not exist for at least another Century so how did artists in 15th century Bruges do it well today they would have used a camera to take a photograph a slide project it onto the canvas then trace it there are descriptions a hundred years after van Ike and dark rooms with a lens called a camera obscura which simply means dark room I kept looking for lenses and people would say well where's all the equipment what do you mean a camera obscura one of the problems with camera obscure is it sounds like a piece of equipment I want to demonstrate that actually the only piece of equipment it is is a piece of glass.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music] in the 1700s we know caneletto used a camera obscura many artists did this is bind Reynolds Reynolds certainly owned one it's in the science museum in London he obviously didn't tell everyone it falls up to look like a book but in the paintings of Vermeer done in the 1600s we see the most Vivid use of Optics they have a photographic look this basket is out of focus the eye does not go out of focus how did he paint his Fabric and the map and this chandelier by I these paintings look strange to people at the time they were painted the foreground objects seemed too big but not to us we're used to looking at photographs Professor Phillip Stedman built this model not only from the painting but from 17th century chairs tiles Etc that he went to Great Trouble to find and discovered that viewed from one single point the view of vermeer's camera a photograph of the set matched the painting exactly if you computerize Philip's model and project the scene through the lens the image focused on the back wall is exactly the same size as the original canvas in this model room you can do the same with several other vermeers only the people and the furniture change the chance of this happening without Optics is millions to one you need quite a big lens because of the light you're indoors and you need to see detail and also you need to project an image the size of the painting which is you know this kind of size so you need something that'll project over that area you don't need it all in focus at once because of course you can refocus a bit but I think that his lens was that kind of size and that's the sort of lens you begin to get late 16th century 17th century early 17th century for telescopes and big magnifying glasses people making them involved so um yeah because images are more important in a way.
When we were constructing the wall one picture we found was a picture by Lorenzo Lotto I think it's 1545 and there is an elaborate tablecloth and we could notice at one point this tablecloth goes out of focus we put it up on the wall because we felt this was quite a clue to something our eyes don't go out of focus doing it geometrically would see everything in Focus if you're working that out in linear perspective everything is in focus so I happen to show this to a new friend Charles Falco and he's a scientist not in the Arts at all and next day he faxed me saying he'd been thinking about that painting and he realized there was some real clues in it that particular painting probably had enough information in it for me to calculate the lens that had been used well over the next couple of days I made measurements on the painting and there are several features in that Lotto that are independent confirmation that a lens had been used in fact there's so much information I was able to calculate the the focal length and diameter of the lens to reasonable accuracy what we seem to have found was lotto's solution with using a lens causing a depth of field problem when the focus moves from foreground to background the scale changes placed together the two halves will not match Lotto had to paint the problem area out of focus to the right hand side of that Lotto there's a very small but measurable change in the vanishing point at the same depth into the painting as the central feature where it goes out of focus the laws of geometrical Optics prove that Lotto used a lens and so that's the thing that's different about this if you understand the science you realize that this isn't just a nice story it's a scientific fact this proof established an artist using a lens in the 1540s the change we had seen on the wall or happened in Van Ike's time more than a century before we were stuck there was a huge weight of opinion that artists could not have used Optics as early as this because glass was such poor quality that you could not make a good lens during the course of conversations and in discussions I happened to mention that well of course a curved mirror also is a lens and this was a sort of statement that a scientists regard this as obvious a physical scientist knows this that a curved mirror like a simple shaving mirror or a makeup mirror in the bathroom forms an image or can be used to form an image and David didn't know this there's no doubt they had mirrors I mean they had convex mirrors if they had convex mirrors it's absurd to say they didn't have concave mirrors it's actually just a piece of glass the other side remember the grave Image Makers van Ike and so on again are going to have whatever latest equipment is available like uh Hollywood well or anywhere well concave mirrors have been known since Antiquity they were called burning mirrors Archimedes was thought to have used burning mirrors to burn the Roman Fleet that was trying to sack syracusa around zero BC well at the same time you're focusing the sun's Rays you're also forming an image now under normal circumstances you don't notice the image because the bright glare from the the bright sunlight that's focused washes out the image so it's inconceivable to me that somebody in the right circumstances didn't see an image and it's obvious to me that van Ike saw those images and the difference between them and others over the thousand years before is they were smart enough to know how to make use of it oh here we have a marvelous color projection of the Tower you can see the IV is blowing in the wind it's moving very beautiful color this is done with a very simple mirror and in 600 years ago in Bruges they were making mirrors and in the Guild of Saint Luke which was for the painters they also had the mirror makers they were part of the same Guild if you want a good image to take some Trouble and think of where the sun is and think of all that kind of thing just like a photographer carefully thinking about where the light is and so on and so on anybody can do it for themselves and see this happen and it was a surprise to me a great surprise to everybody else who showed it too we realized no art historian knew this nobody we knew knew it and it was a pivotal moment for us finding it then finding the size the size of The Sweet Spot is 30 centimeters square that's about the size of the Doge by Bellini that's the size of the Robert Campion head this is the size of enormous numbers of early Netherlands portraits is that a coincidence no I really found a very very useful tool which they kept to themselves as they would thank you but I never wrote down any formulas whatsoever for The Marvelous glazes he was using they were not written down probably in case somebody else got them who he didn't want to have them it was a rival uh meaning they were in business and he needed other things so he's not going to tell them exactly how he does things when we made the first image with the mirror it was deeply exciting I knew we'd discovered something rather big we were setting up a still life based on the coton painting of the cabbage on the string and unfortunately the Cabbage started spinning round it didn't stay still but I went into the dark room to see it but there on the projection was the cabbage spinning and I realized this is a color movie it moves I mean there it is it's spinning it's quite beautiful of course it's upside down the strings coming from the bottom and I then realized my God this is a this is a movie in color they must have seen it 600 years ago and actually there's a straight line from this to the television picture of today and it goes all the way through European painting uh that dawned on me I think nobody's observed that before but it has to be true actually.
[Music]
[Music] you could have a string grid here and so on all that's possible but so is the mirror now if you've got one or the other which you're going to use one is simpler clearer cleaner of the drawing that's it I mean this is a question if we can see the possible techniques you pick the simplest one the one that will produce the best results and frankly that's what we're just finding let's have a look uh just knock that off let's go just measure we're getting near wait a minute yeah we're getting near we're getting there it's a bit bigger God can you go back further and as you go back further I think we get more in Focus do you see yes this projection is now about this exactly the size of the chandelier in the painting this is approximately eight inches across it is precisely the size the mirror making this projection is a about five inches across it is small and it is very sharp it is very clear uh the sun would be uh giving this light but you could see how this incredibly difficult perspective if it had to be drawn mathematically how difficult it is I'm just doing this very crude but you can see the highlights very similar to uh in the painting you say I'm just measuring Little Things we will be extremely difficult to get these shapes negative shapes positive shapes but here you can see it the curve at the top is precisely how it is in the painting these curves um if you uh you can't see what I've done but if you take a candle and then I cover up the mirror uh you can see I'm beginning I could plan the curves they're rather crude I'm doing them quickly but you can see it opens the process it opens the method of doing it now you take the candle away take the hand from the mirror it comes back this is very very very strong evidence and I'll repeat now I think to look for evidence of lenses and mirrors you look at pictures pictures give you evidence because lenses and mirrors make pictures all the questions about where is the equipment seem to Fall Away but something else was happening at this time in Florence the defining moments of Western image making brunellesque's invention of perspective perspective is an abstraction a device for putting what we see in three dimensions onto a two-dimensional surface it gives us an illusion of space things are scaled as they appear to the eye from a single point larger the front and smaller at the back famously made a painting of the baptistry that astonished Florence made some time before 1412 it was suspiciously 30 centimeters square I was taught he was based on abstract geometry but how was it conceived did he see something first we went to Florence to do an experiment in the precise position where we know Brunelleschi painted his picture that is about two meters inside the doorway of Florence cathedral early in the morning the sun is on the baptistry but inside it is very dark it is a camera.
[Music] stood in this doorway supposedly about six seven feet in the door and made a panel of the Baptist group and uh we think he did it he made a perspective picture we know that the mirror makes a perspective picture Brunelleschi was the man in charge of every tool there was in Florence he's building a dome on the cathedral every bit of latest technology was there the descriptions of the pulley system they described for him to pull things up it's therefore it seems to me not possible that he didn't know the mirror would do what we did in Florence Brunelleschi had to have known it's not possible we were the first people to do that using the mirror It could only produce a small picture about 30 centimeters square that by extending these lines of perspective he could create what all artists wanted a bigger space and a bigger picture.
That way of course makes you one fixed point out here that's what he would do and a mathematical point of that somehow they never did that in Bruges In Bruges it would seem to me if their picture is this size the cost of optical projections they wanted to make them bigger they somehow add like this because it has an effect of making you close to everything this is the last supper by Dirk boots it has a kind of perspective things are bigger at the front and smaller at the back but not precisely scaled as in Italian paintings parallel lines do not all meet at one point it's a collage of separate mirror lens views each one precise accurate and Optical the reason perhaps I was able to see this is that I had done something very similar myself I made my polaroid pictures because I was dissatisfied with the limitations of the single photograph I wanted to make a bigger picture each individual Polaroid is precise accurate Optical you get a different kind of space and yet to me it's closer to how we really see with two eyes and the eye being part of the Mind you could call it a wonky perspective like us we're wonky for myself I prefer actually the spaces made here because I feel you are a person who's in them like I am in the world I'm not outside the world looking in through a window I'm in it uh we should all feel we're in it everybody flocks to Florence for inspiration when you've got a Cali you drive off quick and often bypass Bruges and gent but perhaps we should stop here because there's a marvelous example of a picture that makes us feel a part of the world than Ike's masterpiece the Altarpiece in Ghent this is the very very sophisticated picture amazing power when you come in this room the central panel of this is a quite remarkable space where you seem even in the middle distance the crowds in the middle distance you can see every detail in the hatch the jewels in the archbishop's hearts and so on wonderful foliage marvelous green the green and red together give it this incredible depth more than practically any other painting I know in a way I've just put together A reproduction of a desert High Road I'd done 16 years ago and I put it next to the center panel here and I immediately saw there must be similar principles at work here in the pair loss of Highway it looks for as though you're stood outside the picture first though you don't remain outside very long because actually I was never stood outside any area you were close to everything a stop sign I was up a ladder doing it you were close to it somehow van Ike was close to everything here until you get to the way the far distance but the groups in the front you feel close to them you see wonderful detail meaning you have to be close to see that detail uh you see it in the middle distance as well and I remember walking about this thing I was not stood in my yet I made a still picture this is a still picture but it's a moving picture in your head actually.
[Music] concave mirrors were used by artists for about a century but then a superior technology came along the lens which is much more versatile.
[Music] the projections now can be almost any size you want it can be life-sized it can be tiny they can be anything with the mirror lens that's not true you see it's a certain scale it's that scale of the Netherlands portraits so obviously once you got this Superior piece of equipment you don't bother with the other this is sick Bacchus by Caravaggio painted in 1594. to me this seems to have been done with the concave mirror because he's constructed in sections like the Flemish paintings now look at this one painted a year later the space is quite different look at them together the one on the left is much closer to you it seems more like the Flemish painting the one on the right is set back further more like a photograph these two paintings it seems to me show them all from Mirror lens to lens.
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music] pick up the glass of wine.
Pull it back to you a bit more hold it there okay rested put it down now pick it up again and I'll tell you exactly where to put it now down a bit down a little bit okay that's how if he rested you'd get it back and Caravaggio did make marks like that in the pen though there was a slight technical hitch using a lens unlike the mirror lens the picture is reversed he picked it up of course with his uh right hand but here it looks as though his his left hand because this is a straight projection um not using a mirror to reverse it again um everything is reversed now once I realized this I started to notice a large number of left-handed drinkers never seen in jotto by the way when you reverse the paintings the amazing thing is they look more harmonious and natural.
1660 from the France House Museum everyone is left-handed including the man pointing at them try that with your hands the chances of finding three left-handed people and look are left-handed monkey seem to be remote.
Eventually artists found a simple remedy to this problem bounce the image from the lens onto your canvas with a flat mirror because this is another piece of equipment and very expensive fine glass up rich.
He now picks it up with his right hand because we the mirror flat mirrors reflecting the image through the lens beautiful highlights in the eyes gorgeous yeah once you begin to see the optical base you notice other strange things parmigiano's lady has a massive right shoulder in Van Dyke's Genovese lady if she stood up she'd be 12 foot tall The Peasant wife by George De La Tour his legs out of proportion to her body she seems to be on stilts this is what kind of happened to George De La Tour we get the projection like this and you get very clear let's get the face in focus you get the face in focus so you get the points where things would be the harms are in Focus then to make this dress in focus at the feet so you are moving it you see how she's been lengthened as you can see when you tilt things squeeze up and that is what is happening that is why we get what we call these kind of optical distortions.
You see it's a very simple way the lens can move it just tilts that way or that way you can also actually tilt this way and this way it's now going out of focus as I'm tilting the lens it would focus something else from about 1500 to about 1860 you never see a badly done basket they always get the weave in the right place the projection itself here is just simply ravishingly beautiful the different tones of Grays that are set up here tiny highlights you can see if I'm looking at it three-dimensionally they're quite hard to see exactly where they are because if you move as well the shine changes here it does not it will not change beautiful absolutely beautiful techniques of using the lens of course varied enormously the work doesn't have to look like a photograph Franz house for example never made a drawing there's no known drawing by him he works straight onto the canvas with very loose brush work yet the underlying Precision is uncanny almost no drawings survived from Velasquez either he didn't seem to make many I always wondered how did he paint that Silk so perfectly so fast.
Ing out here say this red satin now of course uh this isn't the real Pope this is a Hollywood Pope and actually this is a bit of Hollywood uh silk so it's not quite uh doing the things that the real Pub would but nevertheless you can see that on this flat surface the whole of these subtle Reds how few there are actually and how that shine is in the right place that a few brush marks by a very clever painter could capture very quickly just as Velasquez brush marks are thus they are made fast like that I'm just making the point that on the flat surface as you can see the folds uh and subtleties of highlight are all here absolutely and very beautiful absolutely very beautiful to look at the pope was certainly there for painting the head but not necessarily for the robe a mannequin could have been used this is a reconstruction of caravaggio's loop player once you see a projection like this you fall in love with its magic capturing the three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional surface for an artist to see it is to use it they would have been thrilled.
First that not all artists would have used Optics directly but once one did others would see the result and be influenced by the look we still are.
The mirrorlands seemed to be used for drawing first and then painting but how can you use a lens to tell a story the master of setting this scene seems to be Caravaggio let's look at the card sharks by caravaju it's a story about deceit they're free brightly lit figures in the painting but is use one model twice.
The space between the characters is quite shallow and they appear pressed together and the standing man is surely meant to be looking over the boy's shoulder at his hand of cards but there seems to be some confusion he's actually looking at the back of the boy's head many people have suggested he was like a film director and now as a description it seems not far from the truth okay tell me when I want to start soon because he's very hot yeah and the face is good we're going to stop keep looking up rich and we're gonna stop stay still the first problem is the lens can only project one model at a time in fact the lens has a hot spot in the middle so Caravaggio would have to find a way of dealing with this he would work out where in the composition the projection is required right now wait a minute uh it could move in one minute wait a minute.
Rich uh you can move away in now actually go and move away okay now I want to do his hand another essential is to decide where to focus the lens I'm having to reposition the cameras to get this hand in focus don't forget we saw this happening in the lotto painting changing Focus changes scale you can see that quite clearly in caravaggio's supper at Emmaus of 1601. this hand here is bigger than the bowl of fruit that's it now we've got a rough position for the first character we need to set up the position for the second character I'll be using the same model like Caravaggio the while a model is changing I'm using a standing to set up the position as you would in a movie studio also note it is the canvas that has moved position the model is going to sit in the same position as the first model they all sit in the same space hence the problem of space please very good yeah now the hands about there that's it now wait a minute uh put your hands round the cards better you see very good and look at the cards rather innocently yeah very good I just can't see his face very good uh that's it better now just uh looking at the car are you looking at the cards Rich yeah.
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music] understood the other okay you can move and now we want uh I wanted to raise his right hand here uh let me just show him that he's now to be looking back here looking back here looking over there next the last figure what I'm trying to do is position his head so his eyes are looking at the cards but as with Caravaggio the whole process is very difficult because the model is looking at something that is not there you see this in movies too when actors are filmed in close-up is usually done separately so they have no fixed position to look up and it's very easy to get the eye line wrong you can see this in other paintings doubting Thomas for instance looks past his finger this is hard I can't see.
Um okay wait a minute just leave it there okay stay still please Michael uh.
[Music]
[Music]
[Music] stop we will stop but you move Michael and also look at it I'm not showing a this is very hard yeah uh let's have a look at it actually look at that thumb yeah of course I knew about the problems afterwards and we're still having problems of eye lie and scale and so on was so thrilled with the image he wouldn't have noticed everybody is thrilled with new technologies first it's only later that you notice the limitations.
But his eyes are in the real pain and looking behind actually Optics I was going to say do not make marks don't the Sean did my English school teacher mentality do not make Optics do not make marks.
Um uh I made the marks the Optics made a picture there but that picture is ephemeral remember until until 1839 and chemicals could uh freeze it as it were these images were there but they were ephemeral meaning they'd be gone the only record made is some artists doing that the artist Paints the pictures and it is his painting skills that count the hand is in control even when it is inside the camera and then in 1839 chemical photography was invented by dagar in France and fox Talbot in England almost at the same time photography is usually seen as the start of something but it is in fact the end of something the artist's hand in the camera was replaced by chemicals after the invention of Photography painters no longer had a monopoly on images you could call real natural true to life so artists began to look elsewhere for other ways of depicting reality this 1889 Van Gogh is not considered real like a photograph it's a reaction against the photograph nor is this Byzantine Christ considered true to life it's done before artists discovered Optics could be used to make pictures before and after very similar awkwardness returned to painting about 1870 and avant-garde emerged they wanted to find fresh ways of depicting the world Cezanne doubts the position of things he is using two eyes it's more human cubism in the early 20th century combines multiple viewpoints.
But in the end the single Viewpoint the Frozen moment triumphed with the Advent of film and television the tyranny of the lens was complete with a moving image it's almost impossible to have more than one viewpoint.
But we are now at the end of chemical photography a new tool has arrived the computer the computer allows us to manipulate images manipulate means to use the hand the hand is back in the camera chemical photography only lasted about 170 years.
A full air this painting by bugaroo painted in 1896. art history says Cezanne triumphed over this kind of painting the kind of which he thought was dishonest Madness but the problem is boogero is closer to what we are seeing today in the 1890s bugaro was probably projecting photographs to make this you can see quite clearly the girl is lying on a table oblivious to the wave about to crash over her it's really an absurd picture all he did was put in a back projection he could have placed there anywhere just as you do on the computer today.
We seem to live in an arrogant age in fact the idea that there is not much to learn from the past is rather disturbing in some ways we might say we do know more but we seem to have forgotten some things that they knew in the past you could say we still live in a perspective nightmare the single point of view will always restrict our perceptions there seems to me a great big beautiful world out there and we are hemmed in don't you want to get out to see a bigger space a bigger picture I think we do exciting times could be ahead.
[Music]
[Music]