Tim's Vermeer with Fine Art Connoisseur
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2014
- To celebrate the release of the DVD of the popular documentary TIM'S VERMEER, Fine Art Connoisseur Publisher B. Eric Rhoads visited Tim Jenison and the Vermeer room, which Jenison built for the documentary. The room is an exact replica of the Vermeer painting "The Music Lesson." Read more about this interview at www.fineartconnoisseur.com/Fin....
TIM'S VERMEER will be available on Blu-ray & Digital June 10th, ow.ly/wMa9t.
Owners of the Blu-ray can access more than two and a half hours of bonus material. Including deleted, extended and alternate scenes, commentary with Tim Jenison, Teller, Penn Jillette & Farley Ziegler, and a special Toronto International Film Festival Q&A. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 24 วันนี้!! “จาร์เร็ด vs กุสตาโว”](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ENNA-fsT67c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ไฮไลต์] "บิว" ภูริพล บุญสอน วิ่ง 100m ชาย รอบคัดเลือก | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3kUSMfgtQ5s/mqdefault.jpg)
For those who don't know, this isn't a video related problem. Tim Jenison is also in 15 frames per second in real life and it's a little unnerving at times.
Linda what an Amazing artist and teacher you are!!! I love your style❤
Tim combines a part of the camera obscura, the convex lens at the front, with a reflector telescope. In fact the only difference is that in a telescope the convex lens is used as the eyepiece. If Vermeer used the same technic, Vermeer invented the reflector telescope years before Newton in 1668 did.
There is no evidence that Vermeer manufactured or innovated optics (nor did you say so). In fact part of the claim is that he could have done something of this sort because Delf was the "Silicon Valley" of optics of the time, and he had associates who made such things. And another claim that is made is that mirrors were in general distribution at the time.
It is somewhat plausible he used this set-up due to distortions found in his work. Though at least at the time of the Movie it was not regarded as definite that he used a specific setup.
This is just another comment. When I see a Paul Klee painting, PK didn’t paint something of/ from the real life, he let say that he invented what he painted. And now people like his paintings, and you can buy reproductions of his art from many suppliers. For me I think this is sad. But people like to have rheir own Paul Klee painting on the wall at home, as they the public can not afford to buy an original they buy a replica.That is sad, sad that there are so many reproductions around of many famous painters.
ALL art students have known since before the 1950's that the great artists were using "Camera Obscurer". This is a VERY important documentary! It proves they not only used lenses to get the proper perspective in the sketches, but mirrors to actually apply the paint. He is proving that the paintings were OBJECTIVE! 20 people, ones who have never painted before will paint the same painting as the masters.
i teach painting.For someone to say they have never painted before, they have only sketched and drawn, and then are able to mix paint is a fantasy. To understand mixing, value, color temperature, and paint application is painting. This guy is hiding the his own secret.
That's why he started with black and white - and it's pretty easy to mix colour if you have a basic concept of how colours interact and which combination creates what colour. Also mixing paint isn't that difficult, you just have to make sure you use a material you're comfortable with.
What you're forgetting is that he took a long, long time for it, he wasn't finished within a few weeks but it took him months.
And the way he set the whole thing up he had continuous, stable lighting without colour shifts and so on. And it was pretty clear he didn't create a perfect copy with perfect values, but a very (!) close resemblance of the general approach that Vermeer could have used to create his paintings.
This guy had a color chart for mixing paint, and it took months. Also, this has nothing to do with the subject. No one is saying Vermeer was a complete amateur, only that he used a projection device.
Try this with Rembrandt . You'd be staring at your feet within an hour . This dude & Hockney conveniently steer clear of the real big guns in art history - Rs portraits are drawn freehand with a very slight fish-eye lense perspective to create a convincing picture plane . Make a little lightbox that does that or f@ck off. # Stamp on what u cant comprehend
@@ronjohnson4566 I think part of the issue is that the marketing makes it out like some complete ignoramus can do what he did. And you can get beginers to use the mirror and get decent results. But by the time Tim got to the starting point of his painting, he had for one thing: Made all his own paint from the raw materials Vermeer used. You can see how steady his hand is as he paints. He went through a very specific process that some university should give him a degree for. He was unschooled when he started, but he has pursued, and developed, a whole field.
Plus he is an optics inventor who has made billions. He probably knows a few things about light already.
So I don't think the color mixing is hard to explain at this point.
I watched this video, it blew me away. This man is very smart.
awesome film
The key to the authenticity of this technique is "Vermeer's smile." If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you haven't seen the film. Vermeer used these optical techniques to at least a 95% level of confidence. Nothing is ever certain, not even the inverse-square law of gravity. Our knowledge is synthetic.
So did the advancement in optics also magically rearrange his home's (let alone entire cities) geometry and decoration?
Despite his research, apparently Tim did not notice that the Viola da Gamba is bowed 'underhand'!!!
And his colors are sweet and childish, not the ones of a great master... I think they do not show everything in the film, I think he gets some help of some painter, certainly not someone of a fame, if judge by the end work itself, as far as I can have some experience in the field.
casi quedo turnio con esa tecnica
ɷɷ I Have Watchedd Thissss Movieee Leakedd Versionnnn Here : - t.co/e6QlTccFx6
What I find most amusing about Tim's experiment is that it pissed off so many elitist people with art degrees. They would seethe at the mouth about how his painting sucks, or how Vermeer was so much better, and how Tim didn't prove anything, or how Tim's painting is worth nothing. The envy coming off them was very real, and this wasn't a small minority of people either. The strawman arguments lobbed at Tim were numerous too and ultimate it demonstrated the character and fragility of this community quite a bit. They want this stuff to be more than what it is so bad, and they don't want their degree to be upstaged by a non-painter who did something more incredible and more insightful than they have in their lives.
I read 2 criticisms, one in The Guardian and the other from a blog post and boy they weren't able to point out concretely what the weak points of the documentary is, it's basically just "no that's not it", "Tim's totally wrong", and the likes.
Joyce Orphanoudakis N.J.and N.C. Now bushed into painting by a drunk driver in 1989 .. iam still here healing in Art now a award winner in Art in 2023 so Art safes my life Amen watercolor for 10 years now all mediums thank God A Real Artist now
Tim has kept up his research, and he has a bunch people working on a related project. If anyone has access to Tim, I would like to know where one can get cheap 710mm lenses. He made his for specific reasons. He said new ones are too good. But if one wanted to try the system out, is there somewhere to get lenses, from some supplies that is cheap, like a Chinese lens maker.
Try Surplusshed.com, American Science and Surplus, or see if Edmund Scientific is still around (I though they were gone, but then were back).
The source I have (a paper called “Did Tim paint a Vermeer?” by Stork et. al.) has a diagram showing 10cm aperture and 75cm focal length for the lens. I’m trying to learn optics so I can know if a trade off can be made with different sizes, or can the field of view be increased and/or let you make a smaller painting instead. When you say “710mm lenses” are you referring to the focal length? Did you find a source? I looked at Edmunds for instance because that’s where I bought a “first surface” mirror (I don’t think Tim’s Vermeer mentions it but a first surface mirror is better for doing the comparison because then there is no visible edge between the reflection and the canvas.)
I don't understand how this would work with the fluctuations of the natural light Vermeer was working with.
Hi Flora,
I have forwarded your question and will get back with you as soon as I receive a response.
@@artschoollive Gosh, thank you for replying, I wasn't expecting that!
I've watched the movie several times, as well as a film that came out disputing its findings (can't remember the name. narrated by Meryl Streep) here are my thoughts: Tim took a very "paint-by-numbers" approach, which works but has sort of a stiff quality to it. Vermeer could have used his contraption to match colors and details, but in a more layered approach, not necessarily one small section to full completion at a time. That is where the artistry comes in. He could have made quicker studies just for the sake of recording color on a given day, without worrying about precise details, and referred to it during the final painting process. He USED his device but was not a slave to it.
I think he takes this up somewhere, presumably the film, but maybe the presentation at SFI, also on YT. Apparently it nets out for values, I think is what he said, but that there are changes in hue. But you can keep working up to the point of the extreme, because you have your colours matched, you just have to keep your values straight, and they remain relative.
If that is the wrong answer, I know he dealt with it, he talks about clouds coming over and how it nets out somehow.
Blane Smith Very similar to what Rockwell said about using a Balopticon projector.
I think Penn and Teller, like to kid around.
They couldnt find investors for the movie because people thought it was a ruse
Aren't color photographs also about narrative and icons?
The mere fact, that Tim's experiment cannot convey the magical light and atmosphere of the original shows lack of the great master skills. Any well trained painter can repeat again and again with greatest accuracy an object many times, since we train to measure from day one.
In Vermeer's Music Lesson, all lines of perspective converge to a vanishing point on the woman's left elbow. The painting's floor tiles, among other things are aligned perfectly to that vanishing point. On the other hand, in Tim's reproduction, the floor tiles are noticeably warped by the lens he used. The absence of lens distortion in the master's painting shows that Johannes Vermeer did not use the camera obscura as crutches for his genius.
But how did Vermeer do such perspective and vanishing points if his paintings did not rely heavily on sketches? He probably used both techniques to some degree I think. He started with vanishing points and the point perspective to get everything to line up, and then used the curvature mirrors to get the colors totally accurate. Anything else doesn't seem to make sense when you add everything up. You just have to imagine Vermeer was using the best technology at the time, with the best known techniques that artists created in the past. The forefront of depicting the real world.
You do know that is is possible to create lenses with zero distortion? That's a measured property of camera lenses on the dxomark website. Tim was just using a different lens, plain and simple. Occam's razor.
You didn't watch the movie. There were distortions in Vermeer's work that can only be explained by it being a lens distortion.... but even more proof was he painted chromatic abberations. That is the ultimate proof since that is only created by lenses.
I've always found it weird that a modern artist with talent, or many many of them at least can reproduce something with absolute photographic quality precision, yet for around half a millennium the greatest and most legendary artists in history never did anything like that even once. Yeah I know they were more interested in artistic beauty and so forth but it's amazing none of them ever thought "hmm... you know.. I bet I could copy that exactly". If they had, we could have had essentially a photographic record dating back to the middle ages.
Tim's Vermeer is entertaining but takes no account of the construction of Vermeer's pictures, and the evidence that he painted in layers.
To see a way to transfer images from a camera obscura projection to a canvas, without the use of mirrors using truly authentic materials, go to:
www.printedlight.co.uk
Still, Tim made a Vermeer-like painting of staggering beauty, that for all intents and purposes is art.
The film was immensely engaging from start to finish, as an inquiry into the process of art, as an investigative documentary, and also as an insight into the mind of another genius, Tim Jenison.
As a Psychotherapist I see time and time again that what appears as expertise and genius is mostly bloody hard work mixed with normal human dexterity and some lateral thinking and logic, all teachable skills.
The fact that it's painted in layers has nothing to do with whether optics was used or not. No one says Vermeer is a robot who prints dots. He was still an artist, using optics to assist his paintings to bring them to the next level.
there are many ways to copy images from photographs - I think I'm misunderstanding this.
If you want to go into it let me know. like Tim says the optics was the revolution. Modern art Is a result of the impact of photography. Modern art/ conceptual art brings something else to the world. Its all worth looking at although of course there are things hidden if you can call them that. Look for devices on the net and you'll find them.
a lot of artist think this is a cheating way
Have you tired it? It isn't easy.
Easy is for amateurs. If you do something at an expert level, easy is irrelevant. It is amateurs who look for easy ways out of the hard won skills others have acquired. I don't know how Vermeer painted, but two things are clear: 1) it would have been a huge leap forward to have been able to cheat your way to the very kinds of imagines, photographic in nature, that we now take for granted in every part of our world.
2) Great craftsmen all use tools to make their jobs easier, and to get their product out there. Well some today go back to less effective means, just because. Great artists used apprentices to produce work, and either simply supervised, or took over at some point. They had short lives and lots to do, and why would they waste time.
The weird thing here is how time wasting this method was. But it may have been necessary for a particular effect, and it may reflect Vermeer's abilities, and an exploration of photographic perspective. A claim that in some form the movie makes, but does not really fill out.
@@HondoTrailside It took Tim months to finish the painting. It's not something one would do in a week.
Dear Mr. Rhoads,
I bought the DVD to study it on my IPAD. Ask Tim to explain HOW the full sized drawing was placed on the wooden masonite. Is it a digital transfer photo-mechanical offset print?The windows, the designs on the lead panes, the virginal, mirror and painting on the wall, seahorse design, ceiling beams, rug design, floor tiles and more ...were outlined with pencil before Tim began to paint. Tim simply fills in the colors! This pencil drawing STEP was left out of the film. Jon Boone posted on Amazon reviews of Walter Luedtke book on Vermeer that he ( Jon) contacted Tim. Tim told him that the small mirror on the " device" MUST ...HAS to be a "FRONT silver faced mirror". Yet, the film continues to show a regular mirror .
He painted it there.. just like Vermeer did. The painting, using a thin paint and a fine brush, sets up a map that is later used to more quickly orient you optics.
Each time you move the magnifying mirror on the back pane, you need to slightly tilt the concave mirror and place your comparator mirror so that the bottom edge makes a straight line to the main lens. The lines form the reference so that you can make this adjustment quickly.
I'd also add that once you start painting a region.. when you lay down the initial colour to that area, you have to be careful not to stop until you have enough detail to find that area again should you feel you wish to come back to it.
While I find this video very interesting, I'm not convinced that a person paining in the 1600s, with somewhat modest means, could have had access to the equipment required. If he did, I believe he could have gained more notoriety teaching the technique. In my mind, Vermeer was simply a master and a genius. I'm an engineer and somewhat artistic (I can draw) but I can't conceive of any way that I could mix and match the beautiful colors that Vermeer produced. Also, his colors were produced in layers over a broad range, not in small areas as this technique implies. I love art and appreciate this investigation of technique.
Really, think before you make your points. The colors being painted in layers vs small areas has nothing to do with whether or not an optical device was used. No one has said Vermeer wasn't an artist. It's being stated that he used the tool to assist in getting correct tonal values. That doesn't immediately throw all of his other painting techniques down the drain.
The Dutch are very inventive & they have always been on the leading edge of art & technolgy especially diamond cutting just because the technical info is not published for the public doesnt mean the technology wasn't used & even today there are highly guarded trade secrets used in diamond cutting . . . And only 1 in a billion ppl knows all 9 steps of cutting a diamond. . .
if I would of listened to my 6th grade teacher who thought I was retarded for day dreaming of becoming a cutter I would of never mastered the art of diamond cutting. . .
It's because of narrow minded ppl like you that stops the progress of mankind's betterment & retards mankinds creative imaginations !
FYI my I.Q. was tested I scored a 186 & the catholic nun that insisted I was retarded was reassigned to cleaning toilets in the Vatican!
He painted chromatic aberration. Only a lens can create that.
Done.
Proof.
Case closed.
I am a professional artist and photographer and I was skeptical and then was convinced. He was not only a creative genius he was a technical one as well.
One of Vermeer's personal friends was the scientist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, who developed optical lenses and microscopes. So getting such equipment would not have been impossible for Vermeer.
WOW! Imagine Vermeer changing the walls, windows, furniture, floor, stained glass windows, musical instruments, almost each time he did a painting!
How much time and money will it take to make just one painting? Sometimes we have to let go and accept the fact that The Old Masters ware very skillful at their craftsmanship (Drawing, Painting, Colors, Illusion, etc).
Maybe he had a camera obscura and after looking trough the lens, he said wow it looks cool all those little colored light spots! I'll tray to incorporate them on my paintings! and that's how he painted it. if you're not an artist you don't see like an artist you just wonder how it was done and make conjectures. The real challenge will be to copy that same painting by eye, or best yet paint something that surpasses a Vermeer painting!
In the meantime you are just another artist that copies and learns from The Old Masters, thats what you'r doing just learning from The Old Masters!.
There are a lot of artists from the past and present that are very skilled as painters and they don't use a camera obscura. how do we explain that?
+Gerard C Vermeer did 20 paintings withing the same room with different items. obviously it was his studio. As for money..Imagine such an artist at that time suddendly coming out of nowhere painting images that look virtually Real in comparison to contemporary artist works of the time. Vermeer wouldve been very well paid and employeed for his work, and also very secretive about his techniques. If everyone used his invention his type of painting would be the norm. The biggest most direct sighting about Vermeer using optics is the simple fact that we cannot see exacting tonal shades out brain eliminated the difference. case in point.. www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/contrast-changing-optical-illusion.jpg that image shows seemingly two shades of grey when in fact they are exactly the same color. meaning.. its impossible for Vermeer to have created accurate tonal imagery without optics. Im an artist, Animator painter musician. with degrees from two of our top Art schools. I know great artists but overglorifying artists has nothing to do with facts and reality. is it impossible for vermeer to have painted without optics, certaintly not. but he would have been one of an unbelievably few people with an eye mutation that called Tetrachromat such as this woman. www.popsci.com/article/science/woman-sees-100-times-more-colors-average-person the conditions is unbelievably rare so you can pretty much count that out. and seeing more colors doesnt mean your able to recreate such accuracy on a canvas and get the whole image correct. Tim Jenisons optical device is incredible simple, and more than likely how Vermeer was able to overcome all the obsticals inherit with a camera obscura. and notably. one must ask the question.. as an artist why would he create so many similar painting in the same room? changes are after discovering optics he was so happy with the results he produced many as experiments.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I am OK with it being true, or not being true. One thing that is interesting is Hockney writes a very detailed book on the subject of aids. Aritist and scientists have been using this stuff for millennia, and hundreds of years with some intensity. Tim passes through the lobby of the building of this subject and comes up with a device that is far simpler than any we know to have existed hitherto; naturally nets out parallax issue; and naturally nets out values changes that occur from light intensity changes (or some other thing I have goofed the explanation of). He is generous enough to suggest Vermeer might have invented it. And it is conceivable he tripped over it because it is that simple. Buuut... As far as we know it took a 21st century optics genius/billionaire/lateral thinker, in the wonderland of today's commercial and information age, to actually come up with this. And there is no hint of it's preexistence.
A lot of things in history weren't necessarily written down i sources that survived for 400 years. This could have been a popular trick in Vermeer's country in the 1600's, he didn't need to have invented it. You can make Stonehenge yourself using sand, pebbles, water, and ropes, it makes it obvious how the original was constructed, but no one necessarily *wrote down* how they did it, no did anyone keep it if they did, nor would that have been kept in an archive for centuries if it was.
This guy showed you that you can paint a Vermeer with no experience at all. Van Meegeren made a forgery that the art critics called better than Vermeer's other work. Vermeer is special to you because of reasons that have nothing to do with the canvas, and you don't realize it and convince yourself it had to be something special in the painting. But you're just shutting your eyes and believing what you want to believe.
So, a painter needs to use her or his eyes to correct the mecahnically produced image to match it to perceived reality, not vice versa. In this sense, there is not such a thing as just copying mechanically produced image, because it never works.
I wish there were a time-lapse video of Tim painting his "Vermeer". If you find the article "10 Reasons to doubt Tim's Vermeer" on Digitopoly, I think your faith in this theory will be significantly eroded.
That is a terrible article, and you apparently didn't read it all the way through. The author acknowledges at the end of the article that all 10 reasons have been debunked. Penn and Teller have 2400 hours of raw footage of Tim painting his "Vermeer". Anyone can contact them to get access to it and watch it. If you have the time of course.
Nah Vermeer was a human GPU.
Even a GPU requires data input from a virtual camera to draw a 3D image on a 2D surface
It is nonsence all those optic instruments fantasies. It is becouse Hockney until lately always used optics, reducing painting tot fill in lined figures with piant. Vermeer used for his compositions supporting lines on his canvasses and worked from there.. How do we know? Because the pinholes for his set-up of the painting are stil to be found in his canvasses. So Freud teached Hockney how to paint without lenses etc. Hockney style lately is again fill in solid forms, he is back tot square one!
I'm afraid it's you who is talking nonsense. Vermeer was Dutch and a direct contemporary of Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek (also Dutch and credited with inventing the microscope). Both were born in 1632. It is entirely likely that Vermeer was aware of him and his work and very likely that, as an artist, he would have taken advantage of tools and devices that enabled him to make better paintings. I'm a musician. If I become aware of a technological development that enables me to make better music, I will certainly use it. Why is an artist any different?
@@laurieharper1526 You aren't a 17th century musician, and people's ideas on technology have changed greatly. It has been resisted in the past with people destroying factories, etc... You should see what the development of the sewing machine did in Paris when it was introduced. Artists in the past have been tortured by reactionaries to reveal their magic methods. Not saying any of that specifically was affecting Vermeer, or his environments, just saying you can't analogize from 21st C attitudes.
I remember hearing a show where U2's Bono described his hits as being guitar driven. And not a musician it was really interesting because you could see how the advent of something like the Ebow would translate into a hit record. So pass that up today, and you miss out on an easy million. It is a different time.
@@HondoTrailside I think you misunderstand me. I believe that Vermeer did use some form of optical instrument (and I pointed out why I thought that possible). What has 17th century music, Bono, etc have to do with this? Are you commenting on the wrong thread?
@@laurieharper1526 Vermeer might have used optical devices to do his paintings, but there is no direct evidence than he did. Therefore, we must refrain to affirm that as a fact. I read a very interesting book ("Traces of Vermeer") that explores the possible use of camera obscura and/or other optical devices by him, yet the conclusion is that there is no enough proof supporting that. A minor point is that when Vermeer died, no optical instruments were found on his belongings (although records at that time were not very accurate).
@@antonio270156 Vermeer was in debt when he died in 1675, it's possible that he had already sold his equipment to support his wife and 11 children. He hadn't been able to sell any paintings after the Dutch economy collapsed in 1672.
Tim's experiment is not objective. There are enough students in the academies, in Moscow and Florence, who can make very good copies today. The Guild of Saint Luke in Delft was chaired by Vermeer because he was a very good artist. It is a personal quality.
A well-trained artist does not need such devices. Even with them it can get worse. Of course, as a modern man of his time, he was informed about the new discoveries. The list/ inventory of the family's belongings after his death lacks such devices. (You can see it online). A well-trained artist does not need them.
Many of the students at the said academies can do very good work, much better than Tim's, and without gadgets.
A professional artist is highly trained to see, quite differently from ordinary, everyday viewing. He understands form. If a non-professional artist paints, he cannot understand the form and express it in its entirety, and the professional sees what the amateur does not understand, that is why there is amateur painting and professional painting. (It is not enough to have eyes and opinion, "like" - "dislike", just because you have acces to it, to have an expert opinion on quality of art, it needs many years at the university and a whole life).
If you look closely at Tim's painting, you will certainly see what striking defects there are, despite the copying, because in order for things to look realistic, it is not necessary to "just" draw them as you see them. Here technique loses, it is defeated by painterly competence and maturity, and they need time... If Vermeer spent several months on his works, if he worked closely, he could have done it much faster. See for example the New Vermeer competition.
Any classical academy student can do much better, more accurate and way faster than this Tim, from a couple of weeks to a couple of month and build a way more convincing copy in terms of any of its aspects. Without any gadget!!!
And Tim's work, as it appears above his fireplace and in other shots, clearly lacks a painterly quality. Which only comes with a very deep knowledge of painting. Therefore, painting is studied for years in classical academies, and one enters there when the artist is already very, very prepared.
It's one thing to be a painter. Being an artist is another. There are only a few places left in the world where you can learn to work at this level. Real painters can be counted on the fingers of both hands. The rest, like Jackson Pollock for example, they are artists. Which is fine. And they too have opened new worlds and are remarkable personalities and true artists.
I could not agree more.
his copy-tracing is so far removed from the skill and depth of vermeer. his lights seem dull in comparison.
Why can't people like Hockney or this Tim guy, who are trying to remove mystery from art, cannot still paint or draw, even with the help of all the mechanical devices they have, like the old masters did? I know from my personal experience as a painter, instructor and academician that, when one projects, traces or paints from a photograph the result somehow looks wrong on the canvas. Many time times, I have had to correct the drawings of my students traced or projected directly from a photograph. What these guys do not and cannot understand is that technique in art is not the cause nor the aim of the artistic poject, but its result. When it is, like in the case of Hockney or this guy, the result is always bad art.
Did you see his finished result ?_I bet you haven't even seen the film because of your entrenched prejudice. What is wrong in removing mystery from art ? Surely one would appreciate being in the know when it comes to acquiring artistic skills and knowledge of materials...unless,one would use ''mystery'' to justify their own incompetence and laziness in the discipline required to excel at art. Technique is the conduit through which the final image comes into manifestation. If you don't have the method or the skill_you can't produce the result. Any fuckwit can be mysterious.Just look at all the modern art poseurs and their pseudo intellectual bullshit pretending that the no-skill they have,. is somehow significant. As they say, '' if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
+Feyzi Korur Erm Tim's painting was incredible, considering he has no training...
+Feyzi Korur
Not only was Tim's painting incredible, but it showed several characteristics very typical of Vermeer's paintings, providing extremely strong evidence that Vermeer used that same technique.
Unless you were a rich aristocrat, painting was no hobby at that time. It was a way to acquire wealth and fame, and painters would have sought out any technique allowing them to get ahead of the competition.
Vermeer just beat them all. Props to his ingenuity.
"if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit." AHHAHAHAHAHAHA i'm stealing this
A PHOTOGRAPH is *not* a PROJECTION. Cameras have a very limited & linear dynamic range when compared to the human eye, which perceives values in a logarithmic fashion. This means when students work from printed or digital photographs, you can see how the colors have morphed to a limited and linear dynamic range due to camera sensor limitations. The same does not occur when using mirrors like Tim and Vermeer.
The one thing that most puzzled me about this analogy from a modern day experiment is:
Here is this billionaire, with a superior education, some kind of a genius himself. In a world where in the US, you can get almost any product you want overnight (even in Canada it is like living in the 70s as far as access goes, and prices). Yet it takes him years to come up with this stuff. He can start at the end, and reverse engineer a project that someone else who invented it would have had to dream up from the beginning. Yet Vermeer was poor, and barely had the resources of a decent Dollarama to work with.
To me the optics and theory are OK, it could be. But unless Tim had exiled himself from all modern books and technology, and then gone to Haiti, got some local crap poor source of money through some crap job, and then produced his theory, and ultimately his tool working only with local resources, and in the time left at the end of the day, I don't see how the economics work out.
Maybe I'm the one who's wrong (the last time I took art history was years ago), so I apologize in advance, but where did you get the idea that Vermeer was poor? From what I remember he was from a very well off family, married a woman from a very well off family as well and had a more than decent income. His paintings also contain some VERY expensive pigments. Seeing that he both sold and created paintings, it wouldn't have been unthinkable for him to have had access to these optical tools?
Furthermore, as someone who works R&D in the technological sector, I personally think that innovating using the newest technologies is a vastly different process than reverse engineering a tool you're not even sure existed, while also staying true to historical context. It is not like he recreated something that we 100% know existed and was used for this purpose from, say, a patent or an existing model.
Besides, this time period is not called the renaissance for nothing. It was very much a time of innovation and science, and men in the higher circles of society would very much have had access to this kind of information, and a lot of artists were even trained in scientific subjects such as maths, optics, and natural science.
All in all I do not think your final analogy is correct. People in those days very much had the knowledge and resources to be innovative, and I think Tim having to actually research not only the science behind this concept, but place said science in the correct historical context, would be very close to someone in those days actually innovating without such restrictions.
How come that a rich 17th century painter use optics in a country and a nighborhood famous for its 17th century astronomers, I wonder.
@@pardismack Vermeer was besties with Leeuwenhoek, guy who is the father of microbiology and used lenses to look at bacteria.
the only reason why Tim needed so much money and resources is because he wanted to create the 17th century studio, if he just wanted to make a painting of a modern day setting, all he would've needed was a lense and some paint, which were widely accessible during Vermeers time
Nonsense. Why wouldn't someone inquire about all the modern masters at work now, and their technique?? Many of them, superior to Vermeer in light effects. Artist like Jacob Collins, Michael Klein, Nelson Shanks, etc., all of whom do NOT use optics. Maybe you can replicate a painting with a mirror glued to a table, but that doesn't prove Vermeer did it that way. In fact, Tim's painting almost proves Vermeer DIDNT do it that way. One is a photograph, the other is a painting glowing with light. Why are there vanishing point holes pricked with a needle in Vermeer's paintings then? Wouldn't that be superfluous? Just because you CAN so something doesn't mean others did it that way. I applaud Tim for proving one thing- That the skill of an artist is more than devices and tricks. It's knowledge, practice, technique, and emotion.
In the movie he shows the Vermeer laid out some lines geometrically, presumably because it is faster, and a ruler is cleaner for that. So he could have had pin holes during that process, as for the one you are suggesting.
I have yet to find one classically trained artist who believes this nonsense. Tim's "expert" artists, Martin Mull and Hockney, have no idea what they are talking about because they do a completely different type of art. You would think he would bring in a practitioner of classical painting. I'm guessing the classically trained artists didn't support the theory. Hockney's book is full of, I'm being kind here, deceptions. For example, he claims there was a period of time when there was a preponderance of lefties depicted in art because the artists using the lenses didn't know how to reverse the reflection back to normal. I checked hundreds of paintings by the artists he cites. It is absolutely not the case. About 7% are lefties which sounds about normal. Most of what Hockney says in his book is wrong due to ignorance or deception. For a knowledgeable practitioner, the information in Hockney's book actually proves the artists could not have used the lenses. Yes, it is possible to make a bad copy of a Vermeer the hard way as Tim has done. It would be much easier to paint it the normal way as artists throughout history have done. It is a shame that with their money and notoriety behind them they are able to buy a false version of art history.
No, not throughout history. The painting style and quality improved dramatically from the 16th to 17th centuries, which corresponds with both the timing and geographical location of the improvements in optics. Not just Vermeer either, but Holbein, and Van Eych for example. And we know artists of the period were using at least some mirrors and optical tricks because they put them IN THE PAINTINGS, such as the mirror in Arnolfini Portrait.
kev3d the mirror in the painting you refer to is convex. Many artists were interested in optics. But they are crude at best, and limiting. The best way is to have great command over technique and most of the "tools" become redundant. There are many classical artists working today, like Nelson shanks, odd nerdrum, etc, who shun the use of optics as a restrictive crutch.
I'll try it and let you know. This is all new to me, as I've never had "training", but my skill as an artist comes naturally.... yes... there is such a thing as natural ability. I paint landscapes in oil, yet I can't paint people or animals. I can draw people, but can't draw landscapes it animals. My niece paints animals and people that look like photographers, but she can't do landscapes. If it's in you too do so.... it can be done with natural talent. Did you ever consider that the oldest artists just may not have had the ability to create anything realistic?
It could be that those who DID have the ability couldn't afford the supplies nor have the time it takes to create because they were too busy farming or baking bread or sewing or spinning and weaving. They didn't have easy made items back then... they had to grow, mine, smelt, harvest, and create what they needed. We only think we know everything... yet we know very little. It could be the crappy artists of centuries gone by were the only ones who were bold enough or could acquire the supplies and had the spare time to create. Very little of what I see today is anything near what I could call art.
@@bobwilson5910 in the 1650s there were microscopes capable of 300x magnification. Hardly "crude" optics.