bob_bill Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 <p>As a fan of Vermeer's work, I watched the above movie with great interest. A non painter engineer devises a tool to paint mechanically exactly the subject and it's color and tonality in front of him. He uses a camera obscura reduced to a lens, shaving mirror and one inch mirror to simultaneously view the shaving mirror and canvas. He took months using graphic programs to construct down to the inch the corner of Vermeer's studio down to windows, floor and harpsicord in The Music Lesson. Then, using only natural light diffused through the windows took months to painstakenly produce the painting from his set/models right down to the individual knots in the rug and the dolphins on the harpsicord. He discovered a curve to the dolphin design that could be from distortion of a lens, what looks like chromatic aberration on other paintings and a consistency in size of the paintings- they are the same size indicating a possible use of a camera obscura. In addition, he consulted with a doctor who confirmed the naked human eye would not see the gradient of tones on the walls Vermeer rendered nor detail of the knots in the carpet. Also, he had foreground objects out of focus, perhaps as rendered by the lens? Was a Vermeer's work a hybrid of painting and the primitive camera obscura? Nothing wrong with that in my mind. Perhaps it accounts for his ability to render light so subtly that I love? Of course, his compositions and soft northern light all come from his painterly skills. Anyone else see it. Your thoughts? Kind of appropriate that it was produced by magicians Penn and Teller, experts in smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 <p>I noted this in an interview with Penn, and have been looking forward to seeing it. It takes a nerdy enthusiast like him to throw money and time behind a project like this - an inspired choice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bill Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 <p>Matt, saw your earlier post on Tim's interview but no one commented since and if you like Vermeer, I think you will enjoy it. I had to watch it twice. Will be examining the paintings now (once I unpack those books)with this possibility in mind. It's available on Amazon. If this is the case, perhaps Vermeer is a missing link between painting and photography. It sure explains his delicate sense of light. I need a light meter. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 <p>See also David Hockney's book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Knowledge-New-Expanded-Rediscovering/dp/0142005126/ref=sr_1_1/190-7265950-2952142?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406070531&sr=1-1&keywords=Secret+Knowledge%3A+New+and+Expanded+Edition%3A+Rediscovering+the+Lost+Techniques+of+the+Old+Masters">Secret Knowledge: New and Expanded Edition: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters</a></em> -- which is, IMO, really interesting, in particular because Hockney is himself a painter and photographer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bill Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 <p>Not only is Hockney in the movie and was consulted before the making of the painting, his expression when he first saw Tim's painting said it all. I note Hockney also thinks another of my favorites, Caravaggio may have used optics. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 <p>OK, finally got around to watching it. Fascinating.<br /><br />It certainly convinces me that there was Tim's (or a very similar) technique at work, historically. But the film is really more about how Tim's mind works - also fascinating.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill owens Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 <p>I just finished the film...a phenomenal documentary. Although the issue was briefly discussed in the film, I assumed it would be trivial to judge if a lens was at work by looking for barrel distortion, especially given the simple lens involved. I Googled for a while to understand what level of distortion might be introduced if a large camera obscura set-up includes a simple lens (rather than just a pinhole, which I know creates no distortion)...but came up empty. In any case, looking at the original and Jenison's art using Photoshop's lens correction tool, I see little meaningful evidence in the edge areas of distortion.<br> Another clue that wasn't mentioned is brush strokes. Anyone painting over the edge of a mirror would probably paint primarily in small strokes parallel to the mirror's edge...has anyone explored this?<br> Anyway, a great film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now