Thank you for this video and for expressing such profound concepts in simple words. I learned many interesting details, such as Dalì's juxtaposition between the Lacemaker and a rhinoceros. What is missing from this Young Lady Seated at the Virginals is that vital force present in every work of the Delft master because it's not possible to bluff on certain details. Also, there is the girl's face, which is so far from the other faces painted by Vermeer. And then the light. While Vermeer's entire work seems to be bathed in that life-enriching light, here, despite the attempt at imitation, the scene seems to take place in a dark basement.
That was very interesting, have you watched the documentary called Tim’s Vermeer? I got a whole new appreciation for vermeers talent after seeing that documentary
Yes, I know the film and, being a painter, collaborated with Tim some time, but eventually came to the conclusion that the device is just ultimately impractical (particularly for a trained painter who already knows how to do, and with greater ease, what the device does), and its mentally and physically very taxing. Short time experiments are very interesting but once I tried to do a complete painting with it one time and became, literally, exhausted. Sore eyes and back. Tim's experiments, however, have brought to many a greater appreciation issues related to realistic painting (tone) that generally fly under the radar.
@@essentialvermeer that's interesting, I also made my own version of Tim's device and did several portraits which I found very difficult, very time consuming and painful but the end result was remarkable. They were the first paintings I'd ever done, I had no previous experience with painting before and they look almost like photographs. I think it's possible he could have used a similar device due to the quality of all of his paintings and how there isn't much of a progression from amateurish portraits to his masterpieces but I also know they may just be hidden or have been destroyed over the years
Thanks, I am trying to get a ball rolling bit. Even now, after it was officially canonized as by Vermeer in the current Vermeer retrospective, I haven't seen single, neither positive or negative, anywhere about it. Strange, you would think someone might find it an interesting story.
Thanks maestro-another excellent video. For what it's worth: as a fellow representational painter who has copied several Vermeers and who lectures on 17th-century Dutch painting, I agree with you. This is certainly NOT a Vermeer.
Michael. Sorry for the delay. Have been completely absorbed by the Vermeer Symposium at the Rijksmuseum. I gave my talk on this picture on the 29th and as far I was able to tell, it was well received. I hope the ball gets rolling but I think it will take a bit of time before momentum picks up. Art history walks slowly, except at the NGA with the rejection of the Girl with Flute.
Thanks for sharing your experience! What is baffling me is that you did not mention the unelegant way the left arm/hand is portrayed, it almost looks like it is made of wood, missing any accentuation between the arm and the wrist. Does anybody notice?
Yes, I agree, but the video was starting to get much longer that I wanted to I had to eliminate a few things, even though they were very obvious failings of the painting.
I can never never say I'm absolutely, but I hope to at least get some debate going. The silence that has surrounded the inclusion of this work has been deafening. Every time it's hung as a Vermeer, it is accompanied by, at best, a cursory catalog entry.
I think you'll be even more convinced when you see the picture. I just saw it a few hours ago at the Rijksmuseum opening. And it really was underwhelming when compared the brilliant late works by Vermeer. I hope that the painting will be debated.
A note on pronunciation. Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are. The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI. BI sect is to cut in two pieces. TRI sect is to cut in three. But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree. So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
Whoa. You knew, I never knew that double s's are pronounced in English. I live in Italy where double consonants are, but after 50 years living here, I still can't hear them. When an Italian says capello or cappello, I can't tell the difference! It's much too late me now. But thanks the same.
My point was about the pronunciation of the letter i in DISSECT, the letter i is not pronounced like eye. It's pronounced like MISS Because the prefix is not DI. It is DIS. @@essentialvermeer
I had never considered how clumsy this piece is until your analysis. Because of your solidly made points, I believe it must have been executed by a student or copier. The person who painted this was not fit to clean Vermeer's brushes!
Well, one reason is that it's very small and not really an image you would linger over for long. But if there's Vermeer hand somewhere there, I would bet it's buried under some serious retouches. I don't see single element or passage that wakes me up. I am very interested if it will eventually become topic of discussion. For now, silence.
I might point out, that the Roland picture has extensive craqueline damage, while the other Vermeer paintings have some, but are not as extensive. This suggests a different working order by the artist of the Roland, as well, different (inadequate) preparation methods of the paint. Perhaps they did not maintain fat over lean, but most likely, they did not perform as many under-painting layers as Vermeer was wanton to do. He (Vermeer) made two under-paintings at least, because you can never be too careful when you are a genius.
@@essentialvermeer Indeed. Your takedown of this thematic fake was epic. This painting looks OK to the layman, but the practiced painter quickly sees the lack of aesthetic.
I'm here in Amsterdam for the Vermeer exhibition and the differences between Vermeer's secure works and the Rolin picture are even more striking than on one's monitor, The contrasts Aare exceptionally harsh. All the darks are uniformly flat, and opaque, completely mute, with virtually no color. More what you would expect an amatuer than master.
@@essentialvermeer I noticed the same thing in my copying of The Girl with the flute, his treatment of shadow is very unique. Jan understood the concept of 'hidden' painting, as well as using verdaccio green shades to its full effect on skintone. I experienced the same treatment on Rembrandt's early self portraits (another study) but his was always skirting bone black darkness, while Vermeer says the hell with it and paints shadow in a state of illumination. Somehow it works. I always thought that Jan was colour picking from a mirror, painting with his back to the subject.
As a restorer of 30 years experience I do agree with you. Some of the ambiguities could be due to the restoration (to dark shadows i.e.) but there is more, that does not make it Vermeer. The most important is the lack of narration. In 17th century Dutch art it was a choice between the narration and the decoration ;) It feels like 19th century to me, same as a girl with a flute. This one could be even later. It is not impossible to forge the 17th century materials and technique. I have written an essay on presumed Rembrandt painting where I explain how it can be done. Of course, nowadays there is a scientific method that analyses the paint composition together with the environmental influences at the time, but I suppose it's very expensive and in no great interest to the involved. Thank you
Yes, there is no story nd Vermeer, except for his landscape sand tronies never created his works without and underlying narrative , some more complicated than others. And you're the only one who says it feels like 19th century. The composition is simple barren. Why would Vermeer have ever wanted to paint something like that? If it's really about music, then why is the virginal cast in deep shadow?
This is one of 9 out of 37 Vermeers which I have not seen, and possibly my last chance to see it has evaporated. I was just not in a position to book tickets last month. Now, I can afford a special trip from Chicago to Amsterdam, alas.
I would not worry too much. This one travels quite a bit, so sooner or later it should be in reach. and on March 6, the Rijksmuseum will announce something new about ticketing, exactly what, I don't know. But if you are interested, then keep an eye on the Rijksmuseum's website or their social pages. That's were the announcement will be made. Good luck.
After having visited the Vermeer exhibition in the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, I absolutely agree with your conclusion on this work. I cannot see a Vermeer in this work, it lacks his soft touch and the nuances of light and shadow. Where is the mystery? I miss al the wonders that made me admire Vermeer as the greatest painter I know. The girl's face says it all: this painting is not by Vermeer.
Yes, the soft touch is definitely not there. The head and wrap have a sculptural quality alien to Vermeer's treatment. Arthur Wheelock has suggested the unsatisfactory quality may be due to old retouching, but the question is: how much has it been retouched? What are we seeing that really by "Vermeer"? A lot, a little, or a whole lot? Sotheby's declared it was in good shape and necessitated only minor retouching's. It's one or the other.
Thank you. It's a bit embarrassing, isn't it ? Mr Kaplan is absolutely passionate about Dutch 17th C painting and he is also extremely generous. He gave a superb Ferdinand Bol to the Louvre when that museum's Vermeer exhibition was in preparation several years back. His Vermeer, the picture here in question, was duly included in the Louvre exhibition, its attribution and provenance validated. But hanging on those august walls alongside the other paintings, any eye could see that it did not measure up and one felt one was being presented with a piece of art historical sleight-of-hand. What was it Swann said after examining the picture one of the Guermantes claimed to be a Vermeer ?
Thanks for the interesting considerations. What appears odd to me is that the picture continues to underwhelm. As far as I know, not single newspaper article addressed the painting, and perhaps more importantly, the discussion in the exhibition catalog is almost non-committal, under-the-radar so to speak. There is no direct probing critical assessment of the picture, its artistic merits and demerits, but just a few technical considerations and historical judgments most of which are paraded out any time someone decides to write about this inglorious picture. It's as if no one is really willing to step up the plate (America baseball jargon) and address the painting's front side with thoughtfulness. Of course, I don't pretend to have given the final word on the matter, but please, isn't there anybody out there willing to take up the issue? After all, if I'm not mistaken, an addition to Vermeer's corpus is a major art historical issue.
There is actually a more evidence that casts doubts on the painting's authenticity but I didn't want to make the video look too one-sided and too rambling.
Since I first saw this painting (as a reproduction) years ago it seemed obviously wrong. I'm sure that it's not represented in the present exhibition in Amsterdam.
You may be right about the first thing, but, ahimè! you are wrong about the second. It is in the Vermeer retrospective. See my answer to the second Cal's comment below.
At the retrospective, it looked pretty out of place. Seems not many people were looking at at. I hoped it was better, but my thoughts in the video were confirmed.
Very brave of Mr.Jonathan, again seems the purpose to blame Johannes Vermeer who worked 350 years ago in very difficult circumstances. Due to all the suffering he died very young.
It’s always easy to blame f.i.a great painter who lived 400 years ago in very poor conditions, the purpose of these negative comments are mostly to put themselves in the picture, why don’t they paint a better result ?
Yes, it does look a bit damaged, but to my mind, Vermeer's shines through that s it does in his super-damaged Womaan with a Lute. I was really impressed by the Flute when I saw it a month ago in Amsterdam.
Thank you for this video and for expressing such profound concepts in simple words.
I learned many interesting details, such as Dalì's juxtaposition between the Lacemaker and a rhinoceros. What is missing from this Young Lady Seated at the Virginals is that vital force present in every work of the Delft master because it's not possible to bluff on certain details. Also, there is the girl's face, which is so far from the other faces painted by Vermeer. And then the light. While Vermeer's entire work seems to be bathed in that life-enriching light, here, despite the attempt at imitation, the scene seems to take place in a dark basement.
you summed it up quite elegantly. Thanks for the words of encouragement!
Great presentation. Congratulations Jonathan for your work.
Very welcome. It's pleasurer making them. Should have one or two new ones soon.
That was very interesting, have you watched the documentary called Tim’s Vermeer? I got a whole new appreciation for vermeers talent after seeing that documentary
Yes, I know the film and, being a painter, collaborated with Tim some time, but eventually came to the conclusion that the device is just ultimately impractical (particularly for a trained painter who already knows how to do, and with greater ease, what the device does), and its mentally and physically very taxing. Short time experiments are very interesting but once I tried to do a complete painting with it one time and became, literally, exhausted. Sore eyes and back. Tim's experiments, however, have brought to many a greater appreciation issues related to realistic painting (tone) that generally fly under the radar.
@@essentialvermeer that's interesting, I also made my own version of Tim's device and did several portraits which I found very difficult, very time consuming and painful but the end result was remarkable. They were the first paintings I'd ever done, I had no previous experience with painting before and they look almost like photographs.
I think it's possible he could have used a similar device due to the quality of all of his paintings and how there isn't much of a progression from amateurish portraits to his masterpieces but I also know they may just be hidden or have been destroyed over the years
Thank you for the very informative discussion and reasoning!
Well, you may not believe me but it took months to write and produce. I hope the next videos are a bit easier.
Looks like the work of a student ... Great content, Jonathan. Thank you. G Ire
Thanks, I am trying to get a ball rolling bit. Even now, after it was officially canonized as by Vermeer in the current Vermeer retrospective, I haven't seen single, neither positive or negative, anywhere about it. Strange, you would think someone might find it an interesting story.
I would have said the work of a mashup copyist.
excellent presentation!
Thanks. It's a complicated issue, hard to unravel, but yes, I think I did a fair job of it.
Thanks maestro-another excellent video. For what it's worth: as a fellow representational painter who has copied several Vermeers and who lectures on 17th-century Dutch painting, I agree with you. This is certainly NOT a Vermeer.
Michael. Sorry for the delay. Have been completely absorbed by the Vermeer Symposium at the Rijksmuseum. I gave my talk on this picture on the 29th and as far I was able to tell, it was well received. I hope the ball gets rolling but I think it will take a bit of time before momentum picks up. Art history walks slowly, except at the NGA with the rejection of the Girl with Flute.
Fascinating analysis
Thanks for sharing your experience! What is baffling me is that you did not mention the unelegant way the left arm/hand is portrayed, it almost looks like it is made of wood, missing any accentuation between the arm and the wrist. Does anybody notice?
Yes, I agree, but the video was starting to get much longer that I wanted to I had to eliminate a few things, even though they were very obvious failings of the painting.
I agree with you absolutely Jonathan.
I can never never say I'm absolutely, but I hope to at least get some debate going. The silence that has surrounded the inclusion of this work has been deafening. Every time it's hung as a Vermeer, it is accompanied by, at best, a cursory catalog entry.
This is very interesting and I enjoyed it. Thank you so much!
Whoa. These are my first two videos. You compliment helps. Thanks stay tuned
Thank you, Johanna, for a very informative video. You are very convincing, and I am with you, in it is more than likely not a Vermeer.
At lest I hope it's given you some food for thought. Too much critical science around the painting, which I don't think is good for anybody.
You have convinced me!
I think you'll be even more convinced when you see the picture. I just saw it a few hours ago at the Rijksmuseum opening. And it really was underwhelming when compared the brilliant late works by Vermeer. I hope that the painting will be debated.
A note on pronunciation.
Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are.
The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI.
BI sect is to cut in two pieces.
TRI sect is to cut in three.
But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree.
So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
Whoa. You knew, I never knew that double s's are pronounced in English. I live in Italy where double consonants are, but after 50 years living here, I still can't hear them. When an Italian says capello or cappello, I can't tell the difference! It's much too late me now. But thanks the same.
My point was about the pronunciation of the letter i
in DISSECT, the letter i is not pronounced like eye.
It's pronounced like MISS
Because the prefix is not DI. It is DIS.
@@essentialvermeer
I had never considered how clumsy this piece is until your analysis. Because of your solidly made points, I believe it must have been executed by a student or copier. The person who painted this was not fit to clean Vermeer's brushes!
Well, one reason is that it's very small and not really an image you would linger over for long. But if there's Vermeer hand somewhere there, I would bet it's buried under some serious retouches. I don't see single element or passage that wakes me up. I am very interested if it will eventually become topic of discussion. For now, silence.
I might point out, that the Roland picture has extensive craqueline damage, while the other Vermeer paintings have some, but are not as extensive. This suggests a different working order by the artist of the Roland, as well, different (inadequate) preparation methods of the paint. Perhaps they did not maintain fat over lean, but most likely, they did not perform as many under-painting layers as Vermeer was wanton to do. He (Vermeer) made two under-paintings at least, because you can never be too careful when you are a genius.
I am not an expert in craquelure, but as you pointed out, it's quite a bit different that most other works by Vermeer.
@@essentialvermeer Indeed. Your takedown of this thematic fake was epic. This painting looks OK to the layman, but the practiced painter quickly sees the lack of aesthetic.
I'm here in Amsterdam for the Vermeer exhibition and the differences between Vermeer's secure works and the Rolin picture are even more striking than on one's monitor, The contrasts Aare exceptionally harsh. All the darks are uniformly flat, and opaque, completely mute, with virtually no color. More what you would expect an amatuer than master.
@@essentialvermeer I noticed the same thing in my copying of The Girl with the flute, his treatment of shadow is very unique. Jan understood the concept of 'hidden' painting, as well as using verdaccio green shades to its full effect on skintone. I experienced the same treatment on Rembrandt's early self portraits (another study) but his was always skirting bone black darkness, while Vermeer says the hell with it and paints shadow in a state of illumination. Somehow it works. I always thought that Jan was colour picking from a mirror, painting with his back to the subject.
As a restorer of 30 years experience I do agree with you. Some of the ambiguities could be due to the restoration (to dark shadows i.e.) but there is more, that does not make it Vermeer. The most important is the lack of narration. In 17th century Dutch art it was a choice between the narration and the decoration ;) It feels like 19th century to me, same as a girl with a flute. This one could be even later. It is not impossible to forge the 17th century materials and technique. I have written an essay on presumed Rembrandt painting where I explain how it can be done. Of course, nowadays there is a scientific method that analyses the paint composition together with the environmental influences at the time, but I suppose it's very expensive and in no great interest to the involved. Thank you
Yes, there is no story nd Vermeer, except for his landscape sand tronies never created his works without and underlying narrative , some more complicated than others. And you're the only one who says it feels like 19th century. The composition is simple barren. Why would Vermeer have ever wanted to paint something like that? If it's really about music, then why is the virginal cast in deep shadow?
This is one of 9 out of 37 Vermeers which I have not seen, and possibly my last chance to see it has evaporated. I was just not in a position to book tickets last month. Now, I can afford a special trip from Chicago to Amsterdam, alas.
I would not worry too much. This one travels quite a bit, so sooner or later it should be in reach. and on March 6, the Rijksmuseum will announce something new about ticketing, exactly what, I don't know. But if you are interested, then keep an eye on the Rijksmuseum's website or their social pages. That's were the announcement will be made. Good luck.
I think its not by Veermeer.
Very interesting analysis!😅
After having visited the Vermeer exhibition in the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, I absolutely agree with your conclusion on this work. I cannot see a Vermeer in this work, it lacks his soft touch and the nuances of light and shadow. Where is the mystery? I miss al the wonders that made me admire Vermeer as the greatest painter I know. The girl's face says it all: this painting is not by Vermeer.
Yes, the soft touch is definitely not there. The head and wrap have a sculptural quality alien to Vermeer's treatment. Arthur Wheelock has suggested the unsatisfactory quality may be due to old retouching, but the question is: how much has it been retouched? What are we seeing that really by "Vermeer"? A lot, a little, or a whole lot? Sotheby's declared it was in good shape and necessitated only minor retouching's. It's one or the other.
Thank you. It's a bit embarrassing, isn't it ? Mr Kaplan is absolutely passionate about Dutch 17th C painting and he is also extremely generous. He gave a superb Ferdinand Bol to the Louvre when that museum's Vermeer exhibition was in preparation several years back. His Vermeer, the picture here in question, was duly included in the Louvre exhibition, its attribution and provenance validated. But hanging on those august walls alongside the other paintings, any eye could see that it did not measure up and one felt one was being presented with a piece of art historical sleight-of-hand. What was it Swann said after examining the picture one of the Guermantes claimed to be a Vermeer ?
Thanks for the interesting considerations. What appears odd to me is that the picture continues to underwhelm. As far as I know, not single newspaper article addressed the painting, and perhaps more importantly, the discussion in the exhibition catalog is almost non-committal, under-the-radar so to speak. There is no direct probing critical assessment of the picture, its artistic merits and demerits, but just a few technical considerations and historical judgments most of which are paraded out any time someone decides to write about this inglorious picture. It's as if no one is really willing to step up the plate (America baseball jargon) and address the painting's front side with thoughtfulness. Of course, I don't pretend to have given the final word on the matter, but please, isn't there anybody out there willing to take up the issue? After all, if I'm not mistaken, an addition to Vermeer's corpus is a major art historical issue.
You have convinced me that if we connect the dots of the evidence, it is highly unlikely that this is by the master’s hand.
There is actually a more evidence that casts doubts on the painting's authenticity but I didn't want to make the video look too one-sided and too rambling.
Agreed. Clearly not by Vermeer
Since I saw the picture two weeks ago in the huge Rijksmuseum Vermeer exhibition and my impressions have been reinforced.
I always found this picture terribly off.
Even if it were a 'van Meegeren'
"even if were by Van Meegeren"..Great phrase!
Since I first saw this painting (as a reproduction) years ago it seemed obviously wrong. I'm sure that it's not represented in the present exhibition in Amsterdam.
You may be right about the first thing, but, ahimè! you are wrong about the second. It is in the Vermeer retrospective. See my answer to the second Cal's comment below.
@@essentialvermeer It's so obviously wrong. Do these so-called experts have eyes?
imho it is not from Vermeers hand.
I think more people believe this than we know. Some are having a hard time admitting it.
in any case its not the Vermeer work one would admire
At the retrospective, it looked pretty out of place. Seems not many people were looking at at. I hoped it was better, but my thoughts in the video were confirmed.
Very brave of Mr.Jonathan, again seems the purpose to blame Johannes Vermeer who worked 350 years ago in very difficult circumstances.
Due to all the suffering he died very young.
Ditto other response.
Wow. Their Ipads were so primitive. :)
Seems so. But they did that a few other things that worked much better, like painting.
It’s always easy to blame f.i.a great painter who lived 400 years ago in very poor conditions, the purpose of these negative comments are mostly to put themselves in the picture, why don’t they paint a better result ?
looks like it may have been a study for other virginal. it have been damaged and overpainted or abandoned and finished by another artist.
Yes, it does look a bit damaged, but to my mind, Vermeer's shines through that s it does in his super-damaged Womaan with a Lute. I was really impressed by the Flute when I saw it a month ago in Amsterdam.
Perhaps the lacemaker was a study for a larger painting as well, now lost.