Which is the Real Girl with a Pearl Earring?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2018
- Explore Vermeer's masterpiece "Girl with a Pearl Earring" up close, and see how it's different (and not) from a high-res 3D print of the painting. We visit the Mauritshuis in The Hague and learn what happens when conservation scientists study the painting with today's most advanced technology.
This project was made possible by Google Arts & Culture. For more info go to artsandculture.google.com/pro....
The Girl in the Spotlight research project is a Mauritshuis initiative, with a team of internationally recognised specialists working within the collaborative framework of the Netherlands Institute for Conservation, Art and Science (NCIS).
To support our channel, visit: / artassignment .
Thanks to our Grandmasters of the Arts Vincent Apa and Indianapolis Homes Realty, and all of our patrons, especially Bronze Bond, Patrick Hanna, M12 Studio, Jane Quale, and Constance Urist.
Subscribe for new episodes of The Art Assignment every other Thursday!
--
Follow us elsewhere for the full Art Assignment experience:
Tumblr: theartassignment.com
Response Tumblr: all.theartassignment.com
Twitter: / artassignment
Instagram: / theartassignment
Facebook: / theartassignment
and don't forget Reddit!: / theartassignment
I love how the conservators speak about the painting like it is a person to be cared for and adored.
Oh I know, it's truly infectious. They love her.
I am a person too
It’s a person frozen in time
Good art has its own life.
The 3D can't replicate that spark.
I bet the people back in 1665 would be more impressed by the robot making duplicates of fine art.
Brock Albert - No doubt, most people - not all.
Nope
Or try to Burn it thinking it’s an act against their God
@@adrianghandtchi1562 lmao
you have 666 likes, Im just sayin... Im not liking the comment just not to mess the coincidence... wait... is it a coincidence?
*The original is she, the replica is it.* That probably says it all
Lucas Preti, well what is annoying is the fetishization made around things like artworks.
Why is that annoying?
@@matt Pavi. Do you like the look of a woman, or maybe a man? Do you wanna have a guess what that is?.
Not as deep as you think it is
@@LucasPreti It is annoying because the original painting is an it, it's not a person, the replication is an it, also not a person. There is no reason why an individual couldn't have as a profound, or even more profound, experience looking at the replica as they could looking at the original.
It is annoying because the material object becomes more important than the experience of the art.
Vermeer : "I use Photoshop, with one layer"
Michelangelo : "I use Zbrush, with no plugins"
Da vinci : "I use AutoCAD, without perspective gird"
Picasso : "I use Microsoft Paint, with a mouse"
Van Gogh : "I use FinalCutPro, with my left ear"
Rembrant: "I use AVID. At all."
Chem Hung I use my brushes, with paint.... and I hope I last forever......🎨
I use S U C C with my D I C C
Hitler used GIMP and Blender.
That last one.. too real.
I love the style of the woman at 3:30. Her hair, necklace, and glasses all match!
Yeah, right? And other parts of the video that seem to be other days she is also wearing blue! So nice to look at! :)
yeah i'm not usually into dyed hair but i thought that looked lovely
I know - I was fixated on that as well, thinking "she's a work of art!"
Yep. She has it all.
Taste, Looks, Personality and Brains.
She’s stunning!
I remember seeing her when she was on loan in San Francisco and she had a mesmerizing glow about her I was not expecting
I was there as well in 2013. It was a total surprise to suddenly stand in front of that awesome painting. Didn't know it was there, and it gave me goose bumps (kippen vel).
Fulano de Tal I missed a Vermeer exhibit at the deYoung! Arrgh!!!
This comment gave me such a warm happy feeling, I don’t know why. Thank you
I once interviewed a physics grad student whose research was around paint and how it worked with light and how it degraded with time and the effects on conservation. As someone who was always terrible at physics, it was a very interesting but crazy interdisciplinary research
In another life, and if I'd taken my science courses with the seriousness they deserved, I'd totally be a conservation scientist. It is SO COOL. If you love chemistry and art (and also don't mind executing extremely repetitive actions like daubing a painting with a Q-tip for many hours), this is the career for you.
is there anywhere we can find this interview?
@@gryme unfortunately not :/ it was for a project while in college
@@gryme the field is called technical art history and if you have access to a university library you should be able to find a lot of information about it
It's amazing to take that close-up look at the pearl and see that it's barely there. It is defined by its reflections and for being such an iconic part of this painting, it is really more a perception by the viewer than an object depicted by the artist.
7:35 Her hair, her sweater and her frames match so perfectly is so satisfying.
Stef I know, she was so satisfyingly stylish to look at, I was mesmerised by her.
She obviously went to Specsavers!
She was in her Blue period.
"Dark am I, and lovely, daughters of Jerusalem-
like the black tents of the Kedar nomads,
like the curtains of Solomon’s palace".
There will sadly come a time when those reproductions will look more faithful to the original painting than the painting itself will (if it keeps deteriorating). 🙁 I imagine people, say in 31st century, looking at the reproductions for the accuracy and at the original out of respect to the artist and awe. They'll both be equally important for the different reasons.
Most Albert Pinkam Ryders are mere shadows of what people went crazy over when he painted them. There's a article in the nov 96 issue of Art in America on conservation . It made the claim 95% of everything ever made is lost
This already happened in a way, like when medieval monks copied Roman manuscripts. A lot of the knowledge of the Romans and the Classical world comes from copies of copies of copies of manuscripts.
@@victorseastrom3455 insectes, parasites/uv and infrared lights and human actions is the worst for anything.
@@sportyeight7769 If they are so bad why don't we get rid of them? Human actions are horrible for the painting but without human action there would be no painting.
@@myothersoul1953 I doubt Vermeer invented pesticides. Try to stay on topic. No need to go off into obnoxious, "philosophical" tangents. Besides, you already know the answer. Once humans get used to something and it's the easiest option, that's it. There's little to no afterthought on how it will affect the future.
Imagine painting something and having your artwork admired, treasured and studied meticulously centuries later
Yes, like classical music. Like the Beowulf poem. And the 5000 year old iceman skeleton.
Not ashamed to admit that I had no idea about this painting. I might've seen the image someplace but I didn't know anything about it, much less this level of amazing detail and history.
I've also never, ever looked at it in this way or for this long.
I kept waiting for her to blink.
this is why people fall in love with art and its crucial that it be shared with the world. :)
this is sooo interesting and abbie vandivere has awesome hair
When I grow up, I want to be as chic and cool and as well spoken as Abbie Vandivere.
Right?? And yeah she does 💜
haha I could tell her for you she is my step mother
One thing any original has that no copy ever will is a direct line to its creator. To celebrate an artist’s work is to celebrate the artist that made it as well. And the original canvas was there. It was touched by the artist. And Vermeer, much like his most famous painting, is shrouded in mystery. So the original represents not only the image created by the paints and pigments, but also the moment it was created.
The copy is interesting in the context of for example the big museum fire in Brazil this year. If they get close enough we could make backups of entire museums.
That's a fascinating idea to bring up. If there had been copies of all of the objects in the museum (be they digital or physical), it certainly wouldn't be the same as having all of the originals. But it would be SOMETHING. It would at least allow us to let those objects live on more successfully and be part of historical discussions and reconsiderations.
@@theartassignment They were already doing that. But 3D scanning, for scientific purposes, is expensive, takes a long time, and is difficult to store.
A Brazilian researcher made this thread, explaining her experience with 3D scanning.
twitter.com/darkgabi/status/1037707883046232065
3D scanning is relatively cheap now, to the point where you can get excellent results with a high-end but otherwise standard DSLR camera. There's no excuse for any well-funded institution not to have offsite digital copies, including depth information, of their entire collection.
Kevin Baker I think the key words there are “well funded”. Very few museums are funded as highly as people think they are, and in most instances museum collections hold far more than what you see when you walk in as a visitor, so time is also a factor.
the copies could even be a common fixture in public schools. sort of like having a model of the solar system or a plastic skeletal system that's an extremely accurate copy of the real thing.
Oh, so the reason it's difficult to make a bright oil painting is because the paint is transparent? I didn't know that! So whites aren't supposedly saturated enough to remain white if there're other layers of color beneath them, right? Then that is indeed strange. I know next to nothing about paints, so finding out things like this makes me appreciate the work more.
Different pigments have different degrees of transparency. Whites tend to be pretty opaque (thought it depends on the exact pigment) so just getting the painting to be white isn't hard. However, that opacity also means you can easily kill the rich layered look of the painting if you overuse white or other opaque colors.
The translucency of oil paints doesn't make them harder, exactly; if anything, it means it's easier to keep adjusting until you're happy. However, fully taking advantage of oil's translucency takes a huge amount of skill.
There are also different whites at play, and artists will use them for different reasons. Titanium white is quite strongly tinted and opaque, while zinc white is quite translucent. You’d use one more as a base, and the other more for layering and glazing. Then there’s flake white, which is made from lead, which gives a kind of glow that you don’t get from the other whites. Often you can get blends of the different pigments that will change the qualities of the paint as well. And then there’s the fact that different brands of paint use different oil bases, such as safflower or linseed, which affects the way the pigment reacts, and some of those oil bases are more prone to yellowing over time. At the other end of the spectrum, many artists will mix their “blacks” from blue, crimson and burnt sienna or burnt umber, as they feel it gives more depth to the colour (also straight up black oil paints tend to dry muuuuch slower than one you’ve mixed from primary colours). If you’re interested, a couple of good books on colour and paint include The Secret Lives of Colour by Kassia St Clair and Chromatopia by David Coles.
I believe the only white available to Vermeer was a lead white, titanium and zinc whites had not yet been invented, nor the tubes to hold them. I have used lead white and it is wonderful and has more transparency without the bluish cast that titanium has.
@CrumpArt - thanks, that's actually very informative. I recently painted a very small (3 inches tall) Girl With a Pearl Earring as a gift for someone. I was using cheap acrylics, but I noticed that in many pictures of the Girl, the blacks weren't completely black but had a more reddish hue to them, so I mixed some "burnt sienna" like color into the blacks I used. It's cool to hear I was kind of on the right track with that.
The oils used also yellow with time as they naturally oxidize. Linseed, walnut, and safflower are oils used before and still today. Linseed is commonly used because while it does yellow, it also creates a stronger paint layer, meaning less cracking over the years. Some oils remain wet on the microscopic-level for years. Oils also have different drying times so some artists would sometimes use yellowing but fast drying oil medium if the patron is in a hurry. Aside from the oils, the varnish also yellows and sometimes even goes reddish. So while in it's pristine state hundreds of years ago, the painting may have been bright with the proper whites, oils, and varnish, all of them will change over time and yellow.
The reason we value the original, over even expensive reproductions, is because we have a shared experience as physical human beings who pass through time and space. Rembrandt is part of our shared world history.
You can get a robot to follow a computer program governed by principles of AI and it will reproduce or create a lot of interesting art work. But no one wants it or identifies with it and it’s really only good for mouse pads or coffee mugs. Human made art has the ability to be transcendent in a way that reproductions can never do.
Interestingly that's also why that specific 3D print on exhibit would also hold more value than a state-of-the-art 3D print you could perhaps order to be printed for your own collection. Would it hold as much value as the original? Probably not; however if this is the first print of such a high quality reproduction on such a unique exhibit (or some other unique history with it) perhaps not, centuries from now.
Just this notion is a gate to metaphysical truth on it's own
Did you mean to mention Vermeer instead of Rembrandt?
But AI is a human-made tool. Why is art produced using AI, invented by a creative human, less valuable than art produced using a pencil or paintbrush, likewise a product of human invention? What about physical artworks that aren't created by the artist directly, but by museum workers or assistants following the artist's instructions (like Sol Lewitt's work) - essentially mechanically executing the artist's program? We "share human space" with the artists who code those systems. We "share human space" with the creative technicians behind the 3D printed Vermeer painting.
Technology has a way of hiding the human, but it's there, and it's important not to forget it. For better or for worse, the digital systems we engage with everyday have humans' fingerprints - our feelings, our ideas, our biases, our blind spots - all over them!
@@lmeeken I guess its kind of like that harry potter ai story. Blood, sweat and tears is an aura in itself.
There was a movie in 1953 called "four sided triangle" where 3 friends were able to duplicate any item. The movie gets crazy, but at the beginning the 2 things they wanted to use the technology for were to duplicate medicine and to duplicate works of art. Not for money but to give to people because art is that important.
whow
Her glasses match the hair :D
And her necklace!
I really appreciated the part where he mentioned they were working towards making reproductions better so artwork can be shared. Any time I see a work of art in a private collection that I really connect with I'm sad that so many won't be able to see it in the same quality or at all.
even if you don't care about the scientific deconstruction of an artwork, the fact remains that the original is and will always be the original. object A is THE work of x artist, and nothing will ever change that, no perfect replica can replace its originality.
the fact that generations of people from all cultures would care this much about art preservation and an entire artistic and scientific discipline revolves around it is obvious proof that humans definitely care about original works of art.
honestly, asking the question "does the original matter?" is basically asking "does it matter?"
Exactly. What makes the original superior? It is the ORIGINAL.
Many artists, even some painters really don't care, most likely because they are in the reproduction business. Where conservation specialists are in the conservation business.
I just painted my great grandaughter as the girl with a pearl earring in oils. Very close but I paint portraits for a living.
Woah, would love to see it
Me too, would love to see it
My grandma used to have a print of this painting in the living room and I remember asking her if it was real, and she said it was as real as the photos on the fridge, which didn't really make sense to me at the time but I get now that she meant that it is as significant to her in the same way those photos are
It's an old comment but, I also have a replica in my room, reminded me so much of that. Her wisdom made her see that the originality is worthless, and the meaning is in the art itself. Hope to be one day the person in that story :)
What truly separates originals from reproductions is the small pieces of an artist's soul poured into each and every work. I think that is the aura spoken of.
Vermeer used a camera obscura to achieve his effects. Didn't hear it mentioned. Also there is a movie out "Tim's Vermeer" an engineer figures out how vermeer painted. It is really fascinating.
Ooh, fascinating, I'll have to check that out! Thanks
Probably because Vermeer’s relationship with the Camera Obscura has been massively overstated in the past few years by just three outsider researchers (Tim Jenison, Philip Steadman, David Hockney). Wheelock and researchers at the National Gallery in Washington, in London, the Frick, the Mauritshuis, the Louvre, etc. see traces and evidence continuously of Vermeer using his eye and his imagination in ways that would be impossible if he were reliant on Jenison’s 2013 device. Let alone that the View of Delft would have been impossible to paint on scene in the 1600’s, before tubed paint. If it were a secret device, secondly, it wouldn’t be risked to be used in the open air, yet if he could paint the View of Delft without it then Tim’s argument that direct vision through lenses while painting was *necessary* for Vermeer’s achievement gets blown apart.
Hard to see much color with a camera obscura
this video is more about the one painting than Vermeer, nobody more familiar with his work would consider this his best, but its popular and sells a lot of tickets, its like the Cats of Dutch painting.
Just recently I saw a replica of the girl with pearl earrings by Vik Muniz, who recreates the backsides of famous paintings. Seeing the “real“ back in the video I was amazed by how perfect it actually was.
It felt surprisingly real without me ever seeing the image itself (even though the original wouldn't ever be just leaned to a wall.)
That was definitely one of my favorite parts of the exhibition.
Yes! That series is superb: www.mauritshuis.nl/en/discover/exhibitions/vik-muniz-verso/
Vermeer 's work looks like a photo only 300 years old.
bobm549 cause he used a camera obscura ( basically difficult tracing)
@@peebly7155 Actually NO. There is not a single piece of evidence he did. Only a mountain of evidence that suggests (and in some cases actually proves as fact) he did not use a camera obscura. Also his methods do not matter anyway really. We'll never know how Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. Why? Because we where not there watching when he painted it. Same with Vermeer. No one really knows. The camera obscura theory is just a made up theory without ANY basis in reality. Tim did it all for personal fame. Not for science or art history. Vermeer's work is all about composition, amiance, colour, symolism and originality anyway. The fact remaines that no other painter made these type of paintings before Vermeer or ever again.
Someone needs to create a 3D oil-paint-jet printer that can get the color effects right.
Wow. Your videos have taught me so much about a whole amazing world that I was missing! I will never look at a piece of art the same way again. More, please!!
This is so cool. I did my undergraduate thesis on the pigments Vermeer used and it's amazing to hear they are working on this!
I also think the concept of reproductions is incredibly interesting in the context of access and conservation in the art world (or museum world generally). I think of a lot of ethnological items in very fragile condition, or textiles or cyanotypes or other media that are constantly fading with exposure to light. Also just the general accessibility of seeing a photo on the internet, and what that experience is like in comparison to (or in addition to) seeing it in person.
I'm making a very brief stop in the Netherlands in February and I'm going to spend those hours at the Mauritshuis (as well as taking trains there and away) namely because I want to see the three Vermeer paintings there in person (I think that the View of Delft and the Diana painting are some of his most interesting as well), which is I also think says some interesting things about the real versus the reproduction. Girl with the Pearl Earring was my first introduction to Vermeer, before I even decided to be an art history major and then pursue a career in museums. Would I still want to see the painting in person if I hadn't seen reproductions of it? How is my experience of seeing reproductions of it now different from the reproductions my grandparents saw or the descriptions they read in their guidebooks? How does it change how I'll perceive the piece if I get to view it in person? So many things to think about!ally neat
Thank you for such an insightful discussion on the reading of a painting's surface, and also for the mini travelogue of The Hague. I'll never get there but I really enjoyed it vicariously.
This is fascinating!
Watch the documentary Tim's Vermeer if you like this stuff.
One of my favorite paintings ever, great video, thank you!!
Ooooh I wanna get my fingers all up on that copy.... I wanna study how art FEELS. Topooooooography.....
Vermeer is one of my all time favourite artists!! Love this video!!!
i love this channel; its videos are always so thoughtful
Art is a shortcut to heaven.
art >>>> heaven
Haha jokes on you, heaven doesn't exist
@@dargondude2375 how do you know it dose not exist who told you? did you die and come back to life again to know?
Fantastic as always. I like the documentary, Tim's Vermeer, which gives a theory as to how Vermeer was able to achieve his results. It's very good.
This is the second time you've dodged the issue of physically pronouncing Dutch; you've got to face the music (or at least the International Phonetic Alphabet) someday, Mrs. Green!
I mean, she pronounced gouda in her video where she recreated the food painting with the giant wheel of cheese in it.
The Allegory (Art) of Painting and View of Delft are by far his most amazing paintings. (Though there are few I haven't seen.)
I've visited the Mauritshuis several times and it's the Vermeer's that always draw me back. That and the time machine just down the street... the Panorama Mesdag.
vermeer painting his world and was excellent at painting light. he didnt use actual angles as he tilted mirror and window sun light shadowing thd way he wanted it rather than how it naturally shadowed. he was a expert with coloring .
He cheated a bit useing a camera refractor .this helped him learn light shadowing so well.
The difference between them? The original and the hi-res print? Vermeer's original has the soul.
Incredible analysis of an incredible subject and an equally incredible artist. Thank you.
Vermeer's "Girl" at the Mauritshuis has an equivalent in the Metropolitan Museum, which is Velásquez Juan de Pareja. Both paintings share striking similarities, both are portraits of common people, both have a neutral background, and both sitters stare at us, the viewers, in a way we feel we are being looked at. And, of course both are brilliant works by two of the greatest painters in history. The one signifficant difference is, as opposed to the Vermeer painting, which is shrouded in mystery, the Velásquez portrait couldn't have been more thoroughly documented, from their trip to Rome from Madrid, to the Velásquez 'warmup' with Pareja, his assistant, for the magnificent (-"too true") portrait of Innocent X, and the tremendous public reaction to seeing Pareja's portrait at the Pantheon in Rome, shortly after it was painted. Another interesting detail about the Velásquez (which brought me to writing this), is the fact Pareja's painting is also refferred to by curators at the Met. as -"he", or -"him", like the Girl in Den Haag.
1:24 That still-life looks delicious! If only someone would recreate that food in real life, and make a video about it…
We can only dream XD
I once did a satire drawing of her for English class. I love that painting so much
The implied movement is also worth considering. Is she turning towards the viewer or away? If she is turning towards the viewer she is seen as flirtatious, if turning away; she is apprehensive. She is moving, and that movement is key to the expression, which is created by the viewer. Her face is a blank canvas upon which we can imply our own thoughts and feelings.
I love Thoughts From Places videos :)
I love such passionate people.
Beautiful painting!
I remember seeing the painting a couple ago. It means more to me than the Mona Lisa.
Watch “Tim’s Vermeer” for an interesting study of how Vermeer created his master works.
i wish they would use the special camera and compare them to see if Tim was right on the technique Vermeer used
Tony DeBruyne Tim's Vermeer was not a real 'study'. It was just a 'theory' Tim made up and then desperatly tried to prove using what we call a conformation bias. Tim only saw what he wanted to see and ignored the rest. In the end he found only what he was looking for. Tim did what he did for his own personal fame. Not for schience. Not for art history. His contriution is non existent in art history of Vermeer. In fact: Tim could not find a single piece of evidence that Vermeer ever owned a camera obscura let alone used one... There exists only a lot of evidence against it. ut Tim was not intereseted in tat kind of evidence... Thankfully real art historians have a much more real and scientific approach. And it is widely accepted that vermeer painted perspective using a pin and thred just like any other painter of that time did. In each and every painting by Vermeer where he used a perspective frame there is even a small pinhole present in the painting that is the exact vanishing point of the perspective in that painting. Also when Vermeer died all his posessions and attriutes were listed. No camera oscura was ever found in his studio or home. Also visitors who visited Vermeer during his life while he was painting, never made any mention of Vermeer using any kind of optical device.
Ive always loved this painting I dont know why but Im just so attracted to this painting
I visited the Mauritshuis to see the paintings - the Rembrandt of the examining table was amazing too - but only had time to visit the museum. The town looks quite beautiful and I'm sorry I missed that part of it!
this is so fascinating.
Her expression is so captivating that I doubt is a tronie no matter what experts say. The most wonderful of Vermeer paintings.
My personal favorite of the Vemeer paintings is “Lady in Blue Reading A Letter” I don’t know why, I just love it!
Camera obscura. There is a lovely doc on this out there. Tim’s Vermeer~ something like that.
You cannot get "Art historians" to acknowledge Tim's Vermeer. They would rather refer to nonsensical things like "Aura" of the painting which some ignorant person said in 1936.
Paul Hsieh yes - very frustrating
JJNoire Tim's Vermeer was not a real 'study'. It was just a 'theory' Tim made up and then desperatly tried to prove using what we call a conformation bias. Tim only saw what he wanted to see and ignored the rest. In the end he found only what he was looking for. Tim did what he did for his own personal fame. Not for schience. Not for art history. His contriution is non existent in art history of Vermeer. In fact: Tim could not find a single piece of evidence that Vermeer ever owned a camera obscura let alone used one... There exists only a lot of evidence against it. ut Tim was not intereseted in tat kind of evidence... Thankfully real art historians have a much more real and scientific approach. And it is widely accepted that vermeer painted perspective using a pin and thred just like any other painter of that time did. In each and every painting by Vermeer where he used a perspective frame there is even a small pinhole present in the painting that is the exact vanishing point of the perspective in that painting. Also when Vermeer died all his posessions and attriutes were listed. No camera oscura was ever found in his studio or home. Also visitors who visited Vermeer during his life while he was painting, never made any mention of Vermeer using any kind of optical device.
@@websnarf Tim's Vermeer was not a real 'study'. It was just a 'theory' Tim made up and then desperatly tried to prove using what we call a conformation bias. Tim only saw what he wanted to see and ignored the rest. In the end he found only what he was looking for. Tim did what he did for his own personal fame. Not for schience. Not for art history. His contriution is non existent in art history of Vermeer. In fact: Tim could not find a single piece of evidence that Vermeer ever owned a camera obscura let alone used one... There exists only a lot of evidence against it. ut Tim was not intereseted in tat kind of evidence... Thankfully real art historians have a much more real and scientific approach. And it is widely accepted that vermeer painted perspective using a pin and thred just like any other painter of that time did. In each and every painting by Vermeer where he used a perspective frame there is even a small pinhole present in the painting that is the exact vanishing point of the perspective in that painting. Also when Vermeer died all his posessions and attriutes were listed. No camera oscura was ever found in his studio or home. Also visitors who visited Vermeer during his life while he was painting, never made any mention of Vermeer using any kind of optical device.
We watched this video in my World History class, and it was so interesting. The kind of art I make is very different, but it’s always interesting to look back at the classics, that, in one way or another, got us to where we are now.
I wonder, if I saw these works in person, would I be so moved I’d cry. That’s how I felt while viewing ancient Japanese blades. The amazing human achievement in each object and each example’s survival to this point in time would evoke an indescribable emotion.
A replica will never replace anything that is created through skill and love. This is why people buy an expensive rolex watch over a chinese replica with the same features and detail. Because it's a trophy of the human ability, the idea that a human can create something so genuinely creative with such skill and precision.
Vermeer is my favorite i should try to go to the maurits huis when im in the Netherlands again
Beauty lies in the ear of the beholder
...tell that to Van Gogh
"The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report what my dream was."
-- Bottom, Act IV, Scene 1
I've painted her three times, It's actually an easy painting and quite fun trying to get inside the mind of the artist.
This is an interesting video. I love it and Art.
For me it’s the freshness of the painting. He could have found her today. When I go out in the streets, there are her sisters and cousins. Even her mother. Every time I see a picture of the paining it amazes me of the familiarity of that face.
Wouldn’t it be nice to make a copy of how it looked when it was just painted.
This idea about aura, reproduction, and the future, reminds me of this quote from _Cloud Atlas_: "The maglev sofa swung under the distinguished man’s weight. His daughter-in-law, he said, had redesigned my quarters with me in mind. The Rothko canvases, she hoped, I would find meditative. “Molecule-true original originals,” he assured me. “I approved. Rothko paints how the blind see.” (David Stephen Mitchell Cloud Atlas: A Novel (New York: Random House, 2004), 218) I love this idea of molecule-true original originals!
she's so beautiful
who, the snowperson? ;)
that was super cute ; )
If you want to learn about Vermeer's painting, watch the documentary Tim's Vermeer. Simply amazing.
YES I've got a recording of that doco, interesting his use of camera obscura. Hi from Australia..
Very Nice!! I like I love Vermeer! What soft and lovely light he painted. The light was almost always daylight from a window on one side of the painting. Blue and Yellow, the idea of color valance and complementary colors was not introduced until the 18 century, good contrast pattern of balance of blue and yellow, reflection, and illusion!
"Ain't nothin' like the Real thing baby. "🎶🎵🎼🖌️🎨👱♀️🤩
I love Abbie's style. Her glasses, shirt, necklace, and esp. hair--love it!
Title kinda "clickbaity" since it isn't about any doubt about the original.
HI
YES! I thought it was about a contemporary[ Of Vermeer's] FORGERY!!.
there is value in studying it when it doesn't need restoration. It adds to the volume of information on the painting, and the artists techniques and materials. it can be. used at a later time to restore the work, to restore other vermeer works or to authenticate a potential vermeer
“She” is amazing. I have seen every Vermeer that can be seen, in their home museums, but standing in from of the “Mona Lisa of the North” is quite the euphoric experience. I cannot imagine coming close to feeling the same way about a reproduction. In the town of Delft they have had Vermeer painting contests to test local artists’ skills. The Mauritshuis Museum is a majestic venue to visit. Don’t forget Vermeer’s The View of Delft is also there. There are a number of other paintings by Johannes (please don’t call him Jan; you wouldn’t refer to Leonardo as as Leo) at the Rijksmuseum a short train ride away in Amsterdam.
Breathed a sigh of relief to hear Walter Benjamin’s brilliant work referenced here. Art history is already so rarely talked about, the work of theorists like him likely even less
I was reading a book about René Magritte and it said that Magritte would often say that the reproduction of a painting was enough for him, that he needed to see the original ‘exactly as little as he had to read the original manuscript of books which he had read.’ I don’t ever feel the need the original text of even my absolutely favourite novels even though I’m sure it would be an illuminating experience. I wonder why I feel so differently about artworks though. There is always that need to see the original with my eyes. Anyway, even though I may not necessarily shares his views, I did find Magritte’s perspective very interesting.
“The king and queen work...” lol
I went to the Mauritshuis but didn't have time to see the town. Bummer. The Rembrandt examining table painting was also pretty amazing.
Thank you PBS for making art channel like The Art Assignment. I would like to request a theme of you r next or future video to cover and explain more about illustration as a type of art due to nowadays there are a lot of new illustrators are born rather than being a painter, and since you haven't make a discussion about it in your channel. Thank you before, hope you can fulfill my request. :)
Super interesting
I saw a vid of a guy that figured out how Vermeer used a lens and a light box to paint.
YES it's called a camera obscura...hi from Australia 😎👍🎨🎨
I was alone with the painting for about 10 minutes Jan '20, in fact, only about 20 people were in the whole of Mauritshuis. Felt good after having spent 20 minutes in line at the Louvre for the Mona Lisa a week prior.
I often wonder how much time these kinds of people actually spend with artists in person
If Animal Crossing has taught me anything the real one has a spherical earring while the fake has a star shaped earring
Greatest Artist to have ever lived......
So Pretty!
the fact that paintings age like our skin, imo is one of the reasons that they can feel so alive and exciting!!!
Man, I enjoyed this. I'm sorry that I'm late to the party.
I think the reason the original is more loved than the reproduction is that we can make another print. We will never be able to make another original. We can't get Vermeer to place down the paint with all his thoughts and feelings, we can't get the model to sit for us again. One can be remade, the other is irreplaceable.
Like someone said below, the "vibes" of the original are absent in a copy. Objects are like recorders, they record a person who is working with or having that particular object so the original is imprinted with its creator in a metaphysical way which people could sense, the copy won't have that special "feeling" that would radiate from the painting or artwork.
21 century technology camera optics deconstructing 16 century technology camera optics is sort of ironic. I found this video to see if anyone has learned anything about Vermeer's technique after the documentary of "Tim's Vermeer". I'm curious if conservation scientists bothered to scan Tim Jenison's painting to see how similar his technique is to Vermeer's as a reference.
The original = the original! Says it all. The original is the one the artist made, the artist touched, That's why nothing can beat the original.
I always find it funny how people handle these famous paintings. Like at the end of the day it's still a painting and then you hear these people talking about it like it's a person and just imagine what Johannes would say. My man is prolly just like, oh you like it? Meh it's okay
I've recently begun aiding a friend with his vast art collection, and there is one painting that I have spent large quantities of time staring at transfixed by it's beauty. The painting is about the size of post card and sits humbly on his coffee table, surrounded by the finest silver and crystal. Her name is The Shattered heart, and she is a self portrait by Rachel Bess.
The differintion between the texture of her skin from the cloth and glass to the intentional brush strokes in the background is captivating, and her eyes heartbreaking. All this being said, merely viewing a google image makes her less remarkable, she looses her life and form. I've pondered having a print made and framed for my home, but it seems as though it would be a bastardisation of something that I, in all my nihilism, find meaningful.
So, perhaps art is about something more than mere aesthetic appreciation, about transcending the realm of physical space into something true, something real.
'Tronie' only means that the painting was not meant to portray a specific person. As in 'this is a portait of ... Rembrandt '. Tronies were meant to portray a certain 'type' of person in general (the happy drinker, old wise man/woman, beautiful young woman, religious person, beggar, etc. But in order to paint a 'tronie' always actual real live models were used.
I have a copy of a print of this painting in my home, and I’ve told my wife that no matter where I am in the room, I have the feeling that the girl is looking directly at me.
Oh the wistful painting? Cousin, just for you I'll sell it for 4980 bells!
Really happy to see you quote Walter Benjamin. I'm taking an Intro to Philosophy of Art class at my university, and we just read that essay last week. Very dense, but rewarding.