SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

eligious dimension here is quite clear but there were prints that were made at the same time
that inlayed in the landscape the portraits of [sounds like “Francois Premiere”?] for example so
the political. Already the notion that you have to hide, which means that you have to reveal,
which then suggests that maybe some of these instruments, not just parametal mirrors and so
on would have been used that way but I don’t have any evidence other than this later stuff. It’s
a good question. That’s a good question. I guess—a little bit what you want.
Question: Hi, I have one question. With regard to David Hockney’s secret knowledge and your
exhibition, a recent symposium at NYU on Kircher.
Dr. Stafford: On what?
Question: On Kircher, which was fabulous.
Dr. Stafford: I bet! Yes, we had it. I was in Stamford but that’s a dog and pony show. I was in
the Stamford one. Right, I couldn’t go to NYU. Thanks.
Question: The question that was raised was whether all of this interest in the pre-modern right
now is an antidote to post-modernism. So, can you just comment about secret knowledge as
being a way to change the conversation?
Dr. Stafford: You know in one way David Hockney is absolutely right about the camera
obscura. Let me just say that up front. On the other hand, I think his argument is narrow just as
what I read and I was not here for all the big hoop-la report in the New York Times. When was
it, about a year ago? You know, Suzanne Sontag saying that—I’ll never forget this—if Vermeer
had used the camera obscura it would have been like all the great lovers of history using
Viagra. I remember that statement. I thought that was low—unless the New York Times skewed
it somehow—I thought both parties missed the relevance of this and I’m not saying that I’m a
great holder of truth but it seems to me these technologies I am interested in. I’m interested in
them because, as a teacher who studies the past, I also deal with very contemporary media: how
can I make the past speak to the present? This is not about nostalgia for me, so I have to
explain that. To me it’s part of a larger project about rethinking the past. Okay, now your point.
I don’t think we can just reduce it to that. I can only say why I am really interested in
recuperating this and enriching our technological landscape. I put it that way and I have been
for a long, long time. I mean I’ve been doing this since Body Criticism where I was talking
about MRI and cat scans. David Hockney has a—I don’t know—I think he has a separate agenda
but I think he’s right but I don’t think he’s necessarily right. He kind of throws it up when they
attacked him and he said, oh well you know, these are much more than artists’ aids. I think
that’s my bottom line. These are much more than artists’ aids. The best thing about our
contemporary technology is that they’re much more than just about simulation. There’s a lot
more going on and that’s what I meant at the beginning. We have to get at the level of desire.
What’s a desire that doesn’t get satisfied? It kind of goes on and on and I think something
religious. Thank you. It’s a very rich and difficult question.
Dr. Hendricks: I think that’s it. Thank you very much.
[Applause]
16