use people are in continuously eyeball and many students have learnt to do it better than Hockney can within a short time .If it was true that, Old artists were not able to make realistic- drawings, then this means that they were worse at drawing than contemporary art students are and this invalidates Hockneys claim and thus his search for a "better" explanation is left unjustified.
Contemporary artists record what they have done and the general methods used to demonstrate how they undertake their business. Dictionary of human form by Ted explains how to make accurate human drawings in broad variety of poses. (Ted, 5-35). Hockney explains that, medieval artists feared being burned as witches for making images with lenses and mirrors, but does not explain how contemporary artists publish information and how they do that. He dismisses past centuries evidence which indicate that old artists did not use optical on the grounds that they actively hided secrets by falsifying evidence. He does not put into consideration dismissing the living artists who work in the way that he claims is impossible. He is similar to a conspiracy theorist that supports their theories because there is no evidence to its negation.
Ateliers are not new and they present unbroken chain stretching back to the Renaissance. Books written by pre-20th century painters do not mention the use of optical aids in drawing and painting. These books are still in existence but Hockney did not study them to discover how the Old artists did their work. He selectively choose writing that mention optical devices and went ahead to present the claim as if the rest didnt exist and that, artists lied about the methods they used to avoid being burned as witches. His claim is not convincing because the painters he claim could not paint lived in era where there was no chance of being condemned.
Sculpture during the olden days were realistic and lively just the same way drawings and painting were and there were