Question: Who was the Hockney-Falco thesis named after?
About the article "Johannes Vermeer", section "Theories of mechanical aid".

Candidate passages:
Critics of the Hockney–Falco theory claim that the quality of mirrors and optical glass for the period before 1550 and a lack of textual evidence (excluding paintings themselves as "documentary evidence") of their use for image projection during this period casts doubt on the theory.
However, the historians were more sanguine about the possible relevance of the thesis between 1550 and the invention of the telescope, and cautiously supportive after that period, when there clearly was interest and capacity to project realistic images; 17th century painters such as Johannes Vermeer and Gaspar van Wittel used optical devices in variety of ways, though not the ways postulated by Hockney.
Leaving the technical optical arguments aside, historians of science investigated several aspects of the historical plausibility of the thesis in a 2005 set of articles in "Early Science and Medicine".
In his introduction to the volume, Sven Dupré claimed the Hockney–Falco analysis rests heavily on a small number of examples, "a few dozen square centimeters" of canvas that seem to show signs that optical devices were used.
Falco has presented evidence describing textual evidence for the manufacture of optically adequate mirrors and their use for image projection. 
As described in "Secret Knowledge", in January 1999 during a visit to the National Gallery, London, Hockney conceived of the idea that optical aids were the key factor in the development of artistic realism.
He was struck by the accuracy of portraits by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, and became convinced that Ingres had used a camera lucida or similar device.
From there, Hockney began looking for signs of the use of optical aids in earlier paintings, creating what he called the "Great Wall" in his studio by organizing images of great realistic art by time period.
What he saw as a sudden rise of realism around 1420, combined with Charles Falco's suggestion that concave mirrors could have been used in that period to project images, was the germ of the Hockney–Falco thesis.
In 2000, Falco and Hockney published an analysis ("Optical Insights into Renaissance Art") of the likely use of concave mirrors in Jan van Eyck's work in "Optics & Photonics News", vol.
11.
In 2001, Hockney published an extended form of his argument in "Secret Knowledge". 
In addition to incredulity on the part of art historians and critics of modern art, some of the harshest criticism of the Hockney–Falco thesis came from another expert in optics, image processing and pattern recognition, David G. Stork.
Stork analyzed the images used by Falco and Hockney, and came to the conclusion that they do "not" demonstrate the kinds of optical distortion that curved mirrors or converging lenses would cause.
Falco has claimed that Stork's published criticisms have relied on fabricated data and misrepresentations of Hockney and Falco's theory.
Stork has rebutted this claim. 
In "Secret Knowledge", Hockney argues that early Renaissance artists such as Jan van Eyck and Lorenzo Lotto used concave mirrors; as evidence, he points to the chandelier in Van Eyck's "Arnolfini Portrait", the ear in Van Eyck's portrait of Cardinal Albergati, and the carpet in Lotto's "Husband and Wife".
Hockney suggests that later artists, beginning with Caravaggio, used convex mirrors as well, to achieve a large field of view.
"Secret Knowledge" recounts Hockney's search for evidence of optical aids in the work of earlier artists, including the assembly of a "Great Wall" of the history of Western art.
The 15th century work of Jan van Eyck seems to be the turning point, he argues, after which elements of realism became increasingly prominent.
He correlates shifts toward increased realism with advances in optical technologies.
The argument of "Secret Knowledge" is primarily a visual one, as Hockney was largely unable to determine when and how optical aids were used by textual or direct evidence. 
The Hockney–Falco thesis is a controversial theory of art history, advanced by artist David Hockney and physicist Charles M. Falco, suggesting that advances in realism and accuracy in the history of Western art since the Renaissance were primarily the result of optical aids such as the camera obscura, camera lucida, and curved mirrors, rather than solely due the development of artistic technique and skill.
In a 2001 book, "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters", Hockney analyzed the work of the Old Masters and argued that the level of accuracy represented in their work is impossible to create by "eyeballing it".
Since then, Hockney and Falco have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids, and the historical plausibility of such methods.
Part of Hockney's work involved collaboration with Charles Falco, a condensed matter physicist and an expert in optics.
While the use of optical aids would generally enhance accuracy, Falco calculated the types of distortion that would result from specific optical devices; Hockney and Falco argued that such errors could in fact be found in the work of some of the Old Masters.
Hockney's book prompted intense and sustained debate among artists, art historians, and a wide variety of other scholars.
In particular, it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and historians of science, as well as general historians and art historians.
The latter have in general reacted unfavorably, interpreting the Hockney–Falco thesis as an accusation that the Old Masters "cheated" and intentionally obscured their methods.
Physicist David G. Stork and several co-authors have argued against the Hockney–Falco thesis from a technical standpoint.