Yeah, I like that one. I also like the argument about the brightness gradient in the white wall being super accurate. But these sorts of arguments aren't considered strong by critics.
Now imagine that we found a half-burned-down painter's workshop in the countryside, with a bunch of artifacts. Or a woodcut or drawing of a painter's workshop with these devices in use. Those would be very convincing to a critic. But we don't have those.
Yeah, fair enough, I guess I just disagree with critics there because chromatic aberration is a very specific defect, and not just "random colors gone wrong". Art critics will know more than me on this, though, so they must have their reasons.
Hopefully we will find a workshop somewhere with a bunch of photographic equipment and crack this puzzle.
What's with the spam link? You have a really good comment history, so I'm thinking either your account has been penetrated or somehow your "yeah" was autocorrected to a bogus hyperlink, or you meant to link something else.
And their existence is part of critic's arguments against the Hockney thesis: many tools have been used in various ways at various times, and there's been little or no shame in acknowledging and documenting it.
To accept Hockney-Falco, you'd have to accept the opposite: that such devices were widespread amongst artists but kept secret or never mentioned. I think Occam's razor suggests that if such devices were commonly used, it wouldn't be so hard to find evidence of it.
Those aren't images of the tools that Tim used. And I totally agree that the tools used by Tim aren't found in middens or descriptions or drawings. Occam's Razor does apply, but, it leaves me wondering why The Music Lesson is so great. Or why the Girl with a Pearl Earring is 1:1.
Now imagine that we found a half-burned-down painter's workshop in the countryside, with a bunch of artifacts. Or a woodcut or drawing of a painter's workshop with these devices in use. Those would be very convincing to a critic. But we don't have those.