I never noticed until watching this talk, what a BEAUTIFUL job he did on the blank, painted walls. So many subtle variations of the light going across it.
I'm very sorry to bother you and it's rare I comment on these things but on studying vermeer I discovered that he painted a sepia under drawing first , all of his paintings have been studied. He starts with sepia under drawing then fills it with paint. It is impossible to simply paint straight away like this as if by magic. I enjoyed your talk and learnt a lot. Thankyou
Terrific talk, John. Fascinating.I've seen the Delft painting in the Hague, which is exquisite and has that ethereal quality about it that is, of course, Vermeer's trademark.Thank you.
I've seen it as well. I was shocked to be able to get right up close to it. Somehow a painting that famous is entitled to like the Mona Lisa have a "restrictive" fell, for the lack of a better word.
@@nigellee9824 The book is even better. There were some things they left out of the movie (time limitations probably) that would have helped explain a couple of things. Having read the book before seeing the painting made it even more meaningful.
after seeing Tim's Vermeer and hearing about devices the artist may have used I still have the same thought, those devices require still objects, so how did he paint real people given they'd move around
I don't think there is any doubt these artists used optical aids and the lack of contemporary evidence of this must mean they did not want the public to know! But as David Hockney said,"Optics don't make marks!"
Michael McDonnell. It is unlikely large lenses existed at this time. It was most laborious to make lenses, and also unhealthy as the grinding of the glass produces dust which was breathed in and ended up in the lungs. The lenses would not have had sufficient contrast and to achieve better contrast reducing refraction and astigmatism would need two convex lenses combined, one flint glass the other schott glass, which was only invented in modern times. In all the talks about the supposed use of lenses in the late Renaissance this fact is never alluded to. After a death a detailed list would be drawn up of the contents of the house, and the list of the house of Vermeer did not contain a single lens, none at all. Where are the lenses and why has none survived? What did exist at the time of the Spanish invasion of the Netherlands was a telelens fitted with very small lenses, and it is hardly surprising this was by the Dutch solely used for military purposes.
@@Foxglove963 When Vermeer and van Leeuwenhoek were born, just a week apart, in 1632, Delft was renowned for the quality of its lens glass. Although lenses were mainly used in eyeglasses, they were increasingly being incorporated into tools for scientists and artists. The telescope was invented around 1600; within a decade it had been transformed into a scientific instrument by Galileo, who also developed some of the earliest microscopes by adapting telescopes to study insects
I don't believe that Vermeer uses a camera obscura to trace outlines. His tiled floors would have been particularly easy to do with a projection device but these were constructed with a chalked thread and a vanishing point (visible in some of his pieces) He may well have studied projected images of sitters and studied the depth of field effect and specular highlights produced by lenses, incorporating them later into his work.
Painting an image upside-down produces a more "honest" work - you're not painting what your brain wants a "face" or a "chair", or "brown" or "blue" to look like, you're just painting the shapes & colors you actually see.
A big secret of Vermeer’s was the fact that he did not paint several. And those several are the amateur ones, like the Guitar Player. That was executed in a paint by number style as are the others. His daughter, Maria was the likely artist. Now here is the proof… Vermeer, of course painted TGWTPE which is obviously, Maria. He painted his other daughter, Elizabeth called Portrait of A Young Lady. Note.. her age. Someone else painted Elizabeth at that age too. The dark haired girl in front of a spinet. That painting is cringingly bad. Certainly not by the master. This information is now coming to light after the exhibition at the Rijks Museum.
Enjoyable little talk. I talked with Lawrence Gowing while a student at the Slade. I make camera obscura and although it is difficult to accept, Vermeer seems to have made a living being a slow photographer. I doubt he could draw a smiley. To survive he used his curiosity and intelligence. I never got a solution like Tim Jenison did in his movie. Mirror matching is used in sextants and even in existing pantone matching devices. To leave that out and include some irrelevant and inaccurate camera obscura references is a shame. It is 'spherical aberration' that causes a patch of light around bright details. No idea where you got this 'halation' from as that is an issue within analogue silver film negatives. I have replicated Tim's idea. Vermeer composed the tableau using contemporary cliches. The fact that he wasn't an artist at all reassures me that experts and critics really know nothing more than the echoes whispering around their galleries. Lawrence Growing was a real draughtsman, admitting to me that there is something not quite right about this Vermeer painter. His inconsistencies of which you make no mention. The curved paper on the keyboard paper? The anagrams and wordplay in the deliberate text offset Latin?
Hes made 30 of the top 100 paintings yet he's not a real artist. That is such a stupid thing to say. Real artists use tracing paper, projectors, razor blades, and anything else they want to make their images. Maybe he did use optical devices to help him make images faster... so he could sell his paintings to support his family. He didnt though. He used a nail and a piece of string. It's just most people's brains cannot accept the fact that his perspective was so good... usually.
Enjoyed this talk very much particularly the symbolism in the compositions of Vermeer's work. However he did NOT paint using a camera obscurer. It is impossible to paint using one, it is suitable for drawing but capturing colour and tone in a darkened space is impossible. He did almost certainly use a lens/mirror device of some kind because he achieves a level of tone and colour almost impossible for the human eye/brain to distinguish (hence the photographic quality). I suggest you watch "Tim's Vermeer" a film exploration by American engineer Tim Jenison who recreates "The music Lesson" using a lens/mirror combination to create a very convincing impression of the painting. All the more extraordinary since Jenison is not an artist! ruclips.net/video/WPL7D0Ha1kQ/видео.html
Of course the Flemish used optics to trace. It wasn't and isn't a secret. Painters were thought of as no different than we think of day laborers today. They were just unskilled labor. They weren't painting secrets, allegory or anything else. They painted what they could capture by the optical devices and what the buyer wanted. Nothing more. Painters today are thought of as artists. Although most of them trace and pretend tracing is acceptable, they wouldn't dare admit it to a buyer. Not in a hundred years. They absolutely hide their projectors, cameras, light boxes, dark rooms, etc when company comes. If tracing were acceptable they wouldn't feel the need to lie about it or hide it from the buyers.
Friends of Kenwood. You refer to The Hague, the city that does not exists. You probably mean Den Haag, in South Holland. If so, then why call it by another name? Is The Hague English? The people who founded Den Haag are Dutch. Its most ancient name is Die Haghe, which became Den Haag. The original name reflects the identity of the people. The Hague is not English, it is a fantasy name. I don't doubt you can effectively and easily pronounce Den Haag.
The letter scene is quite conventional. The maid is repeating, including the gestures and attitude, what the letter writer told her to say. That's why the maid looks so awkward--she's pretending to be a man. The woman is feigning surprise. Vermeer's characters are always acting. It must have been an insufferably mannered society.
Informative about these wonderful, mysterious paintings. Kenwood House is certainly (and deservedly) fortunate to have one.
Really enjoyed watching this. Thanks for making and posting this video.
I never noticed until watching this talk, what a BEAUTIFUL job he did on the blank, painted walls. So many subtle variations of the light going across it.
I'm very sorry to bother you and it's rare I comment on these things but on studying vermeer I discovered that he painted a sepia under drawing first , all of his paintings have been studied. He starts with sepia under drawing then fills it with paint. It is impossible to simply paint straight away like this as if by magic. I enjoyed your talk and learnt a lot. Thankyou
Terrific talk, John. Fascinating.I've seen the Delft painting in the Hague, which is exquisite and has that ethereal quality about it that is, of course, Vermeer's trademark.Thank you.
Have you seen Tim's Vermeer?
Thanks for put this. I think Vermeer´s story is not complete yet, maybe we have to look to all his contacts and study all of them. Lot of secrets !!
I was lucky enough to see “Girl With a Pearl Earring” in Delft. It literally glows!
I've seen it as well. I was shocked to be able to get right up close to it. Somehow a painting that famous is entitled to like the Mona Lisa have a "restrictive" fell, for the lack of a better word.
Yeah, it was a great film…
@@nigellee9824 The book is even better. There were some things they left out of the movie (time limitations probably) that would have helped explain a couple of things. Having read the book before seeing the painting made it even more meaningful.
Lucky you!🤩
? Delft? She is in the Mauritshuis in The Hague! 🇳🇱🌷🌷
She's listening to the sound she is making, while singing.
thanks for posting. helps to while away some time and actually learn something. thx
The cursor looks like a fly but I'm really enjoying this talk.Thank you very much.
after seeing Tim's Vermeer and hearing about devices the artist may have used I still have the same thought, those devices require still objects, so how did he paint real people given they'd move around
I don't think there is any doubt these artists used optical aids and the lack of contemporary evidence of this must mean they did not want the public to know!
But as David Hockney said,"Optics don't make marks!"
Michael McDonnell. It is unlikely large lenses existed at this time. It was most laborious to make lenses, and also unhealthy as the grinding of the glass produces dust which was breathed in and ended up in the lungs. The lenses would not have had sufficient contrast and to achieve better contrast reducing refraction and astigmatism would need two convex lenses combined, one flint glass the other schott glass, which was only invented in modern times. In all the talks about the supposed use of lenses in the late Renaissance this fact is never alluded to. After a death a detailed list would be drawn up of the contents of the house, and the list of the house of Vermeer did not contain a single lens, none at all. Where are the lenses and why has none survived? What did exist at the time of the Spanish invasion of the Netherlands was a telelens fitted with very small lenses, and it is hardly surprising this was by the Dutch solely used for military purposes.
@@Foxglove963 When Vermeer and van Leeuwenhoek were born, just a week apart, in 1632, Delft was renowned for the quality of its lens glass. Although lenses were mainly used in eyeglasses, they were increasingly being incorporated into tools for scientists and artists. The telescope was invented around 1600; within a decade it had been transformed into a scientific instrument by Galileo, who also developed some of the earliest microscopes by adapting telescopes to study insects
I don't believe that Vermeer uses a camera obscura to trace outlines. His tiled floors would have been particularly easy to do with a projection device but these were constructed with a chalked thread and a vanishing point (visible in some of his pieces) He may well have studied projected images of sitters and studied the depth of field effect and specular highlights produced by lenses, incorporating them later into his work.
Painting an image upside-down produces a more "honest" work - you're not painting what your brain wants a "face" or a "chair", or "brown" or "blue" to look like, you're just painting the shapes & colors you actually see.
Skyman. That'll work for clouds but certainly not for portraits.
If he used a camera then why did he use a pin to draw perspective lines?
🤩
He used a nail not camera obscura or Lucinda. He was a virtuoso.
2 paintings featuring a man: Astronomer & Geographer.
the hole of the instrument it is usually dark. I know because I have a guitar and a small lute
A big secret of Vermeer’s was the fact that he did not paint several. And those several are the amateur ones, like
the Guitar Player. That was executed in a paint by number style as are the others. His daughter, Maria was the likely artist.
Now here is the proof… Vermeer, of course painted TGWTPE which is obviously, Maria. He painted his other daughter, Elizabeth called Portrait of
A Young Lady. Note.. her age. Someone else painted Elizabeth at that age too. The dark haired girl in front of a spinet. That painting is
cringingly bad. Certainly not by the master.
This information is now coming to light after the exhibition at the Rijks Museum.
Enjoyable little talk. I talked with Lawrence Gowing while a student at the Slade. I make camera obscura and although it is difficult to accept, Vermeer seems to have made a living being a slow photographer. I doubt he could draw a smiley. To survive he used his curiosity and intelligence. I never got a solution like Tim Jenison did in his movie. Mirror matching is used in sextants and even in existing pantone matching devices. To leave that out and include some irrelevant and inaccurate camera obscura references is a shame. It is 'spherical aberration' that causes a patch of light around bright details. No idea where you got this 'halation' from as that is an issue within analogue silver film negatives. I have replicated Tim's idea. Vermeer composed the tableau using contemporary cliches. The fact that he wasn't an artist at all reassures me that experts and critics really know nothing more than the echoes whispering around their galleries. Lawrence Growing was a real draughtsman, admitting to me that there is something not quite right about this Vermeer painter. His inconsistencies of which you make no mention. The curved paper on the keyboard paper? The anagrams and wordplay in the deliberate text offset Latin?
Errata:Lawrence Gowing
Stupid AI spell correct.
Hes made 30 of the top 100 paintings yet he's not a real artist. That is such a stupid thing to say.
Real artists use tracing paper, projectors, razor blades, and anything else they want to make their images. Maybe he did use optical devices to help him make images faster... so he could sell his paintings to support his family.
He didnt though. He used a nail and a piece of string. It's just most people's brains cannot accept the fact that his perspective was so good... usually.
Enjoyed this talk very much particularly the symbolism in the compositions of Vermeer's work. However he did NOT paint using a camera obscurer. It is impossible to paint using one, it is suitable for drawing but capturing colour and tone in a darkened space is impossible. He did almost certainly use a lens/mirror device of some kind because he achieves a level of tone and colour almost impossible for the human eye/brain to distinguish (hence the photographic quality). I suggest you watch "Tim's Vermeer" a film exploration by American engineer Tim Jenison who recreates "The music Lesson" using a lens/mirror combination to create a very convincing impression of the painting. All the more extraordinary since Jenison is not an artist! ruclips.net/video/WPL7D0Ha1kQ/видео.html
Of course the Flemish used optics to trace. It wasn't and isn't a secret. Painters were thought of as no different than we think of day laborers today. They were just unskilled labor. They weren't painting secrets, allegory or anything else. They painted what they could capture by the optical devices and what the buyer wanted. Nothing more.
Painters today are thought of as artists. Although most of them trace and pretend tracing is acceptable, they wouldn't dare admit it to a buyer. Not in a hundred years. They absolutely hide their projectors, cameras, light boxes, dark rooms, etc when company comes. If tracing were acceptable they wouldn't feel the need to lie about it or hide it from the buyers.
I believe the last painting showing a woman in a blue “bed jacket “ is a woman who looks clearly pregnant. I’m an expert
Of course he did, they all did.
Vermeer is a much better painter than Rembrandt
Friends of Kenwood. You refer to The Hague, the city that does not exists. You probably mean Den Haag, in South Holland. If so, then why call it by another name? Is The Hague English? The people who founded Den Haag are Dutch. Its most ancient name is Die Haghe, which became Den Haag. The original name reflects the identity of the people. The Hague is not English, it is a fantasy name. I don't doubt you can effectively and easily pronounce Den Haag.
The letter scene is quite conventional. The maid is repeating, including the gestures and attitude, what the letter writer told her to say. That's why the maid looks so awkward--she's pretending to be a man. The woman is feigning surprise. Vermeer's characters are always acting. It must have been an insufferably mannered society.