what I don't understand about the Vermeers is that these paintings would have to have been done over many hours, maybe over many days.... The light would not have been exactly the same on each day, and at different times of day - so how did he compensate for that? The paintings of the delft is probably the best example of that - some buildings were sunlit while others are in the shadow of a cloud - how'd he do that?
The light on canvas is exactly the same as room. There were three windows. The Delft view was about 8am in early September 1659 or 1658. Some buildings where light is cast had tones marked as samples. That's all you need because it painting by sample. The town didn't move! The church tower shadows give date and time. But cloud shadow is just the usual overcast sky. The little house has really crude clouds. Tell me why?
For those cynical. It is a hypothesis. I have tried the full kit with lens and two mirrors. Unless it is north light the paint pigment cannot match brightness. Sunlight on a wall would need a glowing pigment and such doesn't exist. It is a skill and craft with a slow process to paint by matching. And Tim and team realised that a simple single point horizontal perspective grid for floor and windows etc would be sufficient. Vertical lines are parallel. There are some anomalies. Some major red flags where Vermeer didn't grid tiles thoroughly and fluffed up in far corner of one painting. Inconsistent with a trained master painter. So circumstantial evidence but compelling. And oh what wonderful paintings with their cool ambience and stillness. I believe a dog was a corpse and stuffed. That's real still.
Sunlight. If there is a patch of sunlight on the wall for example. Then you would need the canvas to also have that sunlight falling on it. Your pupils would contract, you match the tone with paint. On dark shadow area of wall it will appear black. So you end up with silhouette, you have exceeded brightness range of pigments on canvas. About same as s modern photograph. 100:1 to 1000:1 reflectance depending on high gloss or matt finish.
Not all shadows are accurate in the paintings of Vermeer. So what he painted is not what he would have seen through a camera. Of course this still means that he could have used some sort of camera or device and adjusted the image and or shadows.
BUT IN ESSANCE HE DID PAINT WITH A CAMERA OBSURIA THE FORBRINGER OF THE CAMERA. BUT THE ABILITY USING MIRRORS TO CORRECTLY ORENTATE THE IMIGES THAT IS TRULY REMARKABLE
The premise of this whole film may be faulty. Here you have Tim, an engineer, who believes great art must have a mechanically engineered optical device as its basis. He then goes on the hunt for bias confirmation. Because you can come fairly close to replicating something using one method does not prove that it was originally created that way.
No, you misunderstood the point of the movie. Vermeer used a similar technique as the one Tim discovered. The point of the film was to say that technique does not impact what art is.
No, it doesn't prove it... and they even say as much. It's a hypothesis as to how it MAY have been done. They admit they'll never know for sure. But from the result... seems a pretty darn good guess. And I can understand thinking it's bias confirmation... but his ideas changed over time. With a documentary, you are only seeing an edited form of the journey. Maybe he only discovered a method to replicate the style, but it wasn't what Vermeer originally did. That's okay... but I look at it and feel like it makes Art more accessible. That someone who feels like they don't have artistic talent can make something beautiful if they have some readily-accessible tools and a willingness to do the work? That seems pretty special to me. Art is not beautiful because only a relatively few people in history can do it well... but that everyone can. And we need more of it in this world.
Well, to an extent. Unlike, say, a printer, paint itself, has texture. This texture is usually defined by the materials used to make it at the time and the technique or painting of the artist. Yes, you can duplicate the image, but duplicating the paint composition, the texture, and the degree of pigmentation decay would be a bit harder.
Yes. And its called a digital laser ink jet print and is a lot quicker than in the 17c. But it doesn't smell of turpentine and you didn't get to have sex with the maid.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
what I don't understand about the Vermeers is that these paintings would have to have been done over many hours, maybe over many days....
The light would not have been exactly the same on each day, and at different times of day - so how did he compensate for that?
The paintings of the delft is probably the best example of that - some buildings were sunlit while others are in the shadow of a cloud - how'd he do that?
The light on canvas is exactly the same as room. There were three windows. The Delft view was about 8am in early September 1659 or 1658. Some buildings where light is cast had tones marked as samples. That's all you need because it painting by sample. The town didn't move! The church tower shadows give date and time. But cloud shadow is just the usual overcast sky. The little house has really crude clouds. Tell me why?
For those cynical. It is a hypothesis. I have tried the full kit with lens and two mirrors. Unless it is north light the paint pigment cannot match brightness. Sunlight on a wall would need a glowing pigment and such doesn't exist. It is a skill and craft with a slow process to paint by matching. And Tim and team realised that a simple single point horizontal perspective grid for floor and windows etc would be sufficient. Vertical lines are parallel. There are some anomalies. Some major red flags where Vermeer didn't grid tiles thoroughly and fluffed up in far corner of one painting. Inconsistent with a trained master painter. So circumstantial evidence but compelling. And oh what wonderful paintings with their cool ambience and stillness. I believe a dog was a corpse and stuffed. That's real still.
Sunlight. If there is a patch of sunlight on the wall for example. Then you would need the canvas to also have that sunlight falling on it. Your pupils would contract, you match the tone with paint. On dark shadow area of wall it will appear black. So you end up with silhouette, you have exceeded brightness range of pigments on canvas. About same as s modern photograph. 100:1 to 1000:1 reflectance depending on high gloss or matt finish.
Not all shadows are accurate in the paintings of Vermeer. So what he painted is not what he would have seen through a camera. Of course this still means that he could have used some sort of camera or device and adjusted the image and or shadows.
BUT IN ESSANCE HE DID PAINT WITH A CAMERA OBSURIA THE FORBRINGER OF THE CAMERA. BUT THE ABILITY USING MIRRORS TO CORRECTLY ORENTATE THE IMIGES THAT IS TRULY REMARKABLE
No need to shout. You'll only spill milk. Old Flemish proverb.
The premise of this whole film may be faulty. Here you have Tim, an engineer, who believes great art must have a mechanically engineered optical device as its basis. He then goes on the hunt for bias confirmation. Because you can come fairly close to replicating something using one method does not prove that it was originally created that way.
Vermeer painted lighting effects that would not be seen with naked I, but show up using the equipment described in the film.
No, you misunderstood the point of the movie. Vermeer used a similar technique as the one Tim discovered. The point of the film was to say that technique does not impact what art is.
No, it doesn't prove it... and they even say as much. It's a hypothesis as to how it MAY have been done. They admit they'll never know for sure. But from the result... seems a pretty darn good guess.
And I can understand thinking it's bias confirmation... but his ideas changed over time. With a documentary, you are only seeing an edited form of the journey. Maybe he only discovered a method to replicate the style, but it wasn't what Vermeer originally did. That's okay... but I look at it and feel like it makes Art more accessible. That someone who feels like they don't have artistic talent can make something beautiful if they have some readily-accessible tools and a willingness to do the work? That seems pretty special to me.
Art is not beautiful because only a relatively few people in history can do it well... but that everyone can. And we need more of it in this world.
IF THIS IS INDEED TRUE THEN A PERSON COULD PAINT AN EXACT DUPCLATE OF ANY WORK OF ART.
Well, to an extent. Unlike, say, a printer, paint itself, has texture. This texture is usually defined by the materials used to make it at the time and the technique or painting of the artist. Yes, you can duplicate the image, but duplicating the paint composition, the texture, and the degree of pigmentation decay would be a bit harder.
BY THE WAY THERE IS A JAPANEESE GENTALMAN ON THE INTERNET THAT HAS DONE JUST THAT HE REPODUCED A VERMEER ACCURATLY.
@@ectogeoszethip136 this guy did it as well lol
Yes. And its called a digital laser ink jet print and is a lot quicker than in the 17c. But it doesn't smell of turpentine and you didn't get to have sex with the maid.