> For example if you look at a portrait done by one of the old dutch masters, you often see so much expression and emotion and character in the face. Not one o

> For example if you look at a portrait done by one of the old dutch masters, you often see so much expression and emotion and character in the face. Not one of the old Dutch masters, one of the old Dutch masters and their apprentices, who sometimes did most of the legwork for the master. Anyways, Holbein the Younger kicks most of them into space, except for Pieter Bruegel the Elder. > I think that is why many artists today are talking about how the old masters used camera obscura. Canaletto used a dark chamber, his paintings are considered to be so accurate that the Venice authorities have used them to assist in calculating the change in height of buildings over a two hundred odd year gap. > All you have to do to prove it wrong is look at some rembrandt self portraits, for which he could not have possibly used camera obscura and which do not differ in technique from his usual portraits. Are you sure all those usual portraits were painted by his own hand? The number of genuine Rembrandts has dropped a lot in the past few decades. > Now maybe I am being too hard on artists. No you are not, these days the artist can be very hard on the voyeur. http://jakeanddinoschapman.com/works/zygotic-acceleration-biogenetic-de-sublimated-libidinal-model-enlarged-x-1000/ http://jakeanddinoschapman.com/works/zygotic-acceleration-bi...