
Vermeer's paintings might be 350 year-old color photographs - famousactress
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html
======
lisper
Wow, this guy is seriously hard-core:

> I needed a CNC lathe to make the legs for the harpsichord and the blue
> chair. I couldn't find a CNC lathe large enough to make these parts so I
> came up with the simple hack of bolting a cheap wood lathe onto the bed of
> the milling machine. Then, I programmed the mill to trace out the contour of
> the leg while the lathe spun the wood underneath the mill head.

...

> The legs of the instrument turned out to be a few inches too long for my
> wood lathe so I pulled the lathe out of the milling machine and cut it into
> two pieces on a band saw. I then bolted both pieces back into the mill,
> separated by a few inches. Now the lathe could accommodate a longer piece of
> wood.

Adam and Jamie would be proud.

~~~
tlrobinson
And:

> Since lenses in the 17th century were less perfect than modern lenses, I
> decided to make my own lens using 17th century techniques.

That's some serious dedication.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's not too hard to be dedicated when you have a production budget to cover
the cost of your ideas. He could have used various off-the-shelf technologies
and most people would not have objected particularly - for example, anyone
with a basic interest in science knows that Galileo was using telescopes to
make astronomical observations several centuries before Vermeer, so the notion
of moderately good lenses being available by the 17th century would not be
strange. Indeed, the producers could probably have sourced lenses of similar
vintage on the antique market or with the cooperation of a museum. But that
would not be as interesting for the documentary.

Recall that Penn & Teller were producing and directing, respectively, and they
are, in the most literal sense, experts in the 'show' business. Your typical
science documentary doesn't have access to a large production budget, which is
why there's a lot more 'tell' from talking heads than 'show' of the subject
material.

There's a good parallel here or startups: Tim started with a 'minimum viable
product' of a small mirror attached to a pair of cheap eyeglasses, and
produced a high quality oil painting in a matter of hours despite lacking any
special painting skills. But once you get the trick, the business of
reproducing an image turns out to be the least interesting part. Think about
P&T's stage act, where they're more famous for demonstrating how classic magic
tricks are performed. If they just came out and said 'you've seen stage
magicians saw people in half, right? OK, here's how it's done,' they wouldn't
be so popular. Instead they do the trick, but then talk about the history, the
secrecy of pro magicians, variations on the trick, and how it really works,
and then they show how it's done. And then they usually do it again, but with
Teller getting set on fire or otherwise endangered in the course of
performance (which sometimes involves other tricks that are _not_ explained or
even mentioned to the audience).

~~~
christudor
I'm not sure sure about the lenses point. I read a book once about how William
Herschel (1738-1822) spent an inordinate amount of time making lenses for his
home-made telescopes, polishing them for hours and hours. These were probably
far bigger and more precise than the kind of thing that an artist would need,
but it gives the impression that lenses may not have been as readily available
in the 17th century as you think. (The book was called 'The Age of Wonder' by
Richard Holmes, if you're interested)

~~~
anigbrowl
While it's circumstantial evidence, Vermeer lived only a few streets away from
Anton van Leeuwenhoek (known as the father of microbiology, and who made
numerous innovations in microscope design) in the tiny Dutch town of Delft -
which also manages to famous for its university and fine china, despite having
only ~25,000 people. Vermeer and Van Leeuwenhok definitely knew each other:
van Leeuwenhok was the executor of Vermeer's will.

So Vermeer certainly had _access_ to state of the art techniques in optics.
Delft is a lovely place, by the way, well worth a visit if you are in the
Netherlands and like history.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek)

------
m0nty
It's interesting to see David Hockney there, since he made a documentary many
years ago (the 90s?) about how Vermeer might have used lenses and mirrors to
create his paintings.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynrnfBnhWSo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynrnfBnhWSo)

He points out that the intricacy of Vermeer's paintings, and peculiarities of
perspective, strongly suggest the use of a camera obscura (or other optical
device) to aid his work.

This is not to detract from the investigation in the OA, just point out that
others have been this way before.

~~~
kencausey
I've not seen the film but I have heard Penn discuss it to some extent and I
believe he has made it clear that the idea in a general sense and certainly in
particular to the use of a camera obscura well predate Tim's interest. Where
Tim goes further than any example I'm aware of is in actually implementing and
spending a significant amount of time testing a specific implementation to
which Vermeer can reasonably be expected to have had access.

~~~
justincormack
Hockney did that sort of test too, I believe, although as an artist so perhaps
saw it differently eg he knew how to paint first so could perhaps work with
less.

------
11001
There is so much more to Vermeer's art than just clever use of tools. I like
this article much better (it got completely ignored on HN):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7254447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7254447)

~~~
aw3c2
I took a look, read the subtitle, the first paragraph, scrolled to the bottom
and closed the tab. I would like to at least remotely know what the topic is
before reading something this long and dense.

~~~
aw3c2
Sorry for sharing an honest reaction as to why that article might not have
worked on HN...

------
freshyill
I've been waiting for this to come out on DVD. Time to add it to the Queue.

Is it wrong for me to think that Tim's Vermeer is better than Vermeer's
Vermeer?

Vermeer: [http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/xl_mu...](http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/xl_music.jpg)

Tim: [http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/ML2s....](http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/ML2s.jpg)

~~~
Brakenshire
FWIW, I saw this painting (The Music Lesson) when it was on exhibition at the
National Gallery in London last year, and that photograph doesn't do it
justice.

There's an issue about the quality of the photo, and its colour reproduction,
for instance compare these three photos:

[http://historicartgallery.com/store/media/catalog/product/ca...](http://historicartgallery.com/store/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/V/e/Vermeer-
Pic0012.jpg_4.jpg)

[http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vermeer/i/music-
lesson....](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vermeer/i/music-lesson.jpg)

[http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/xl_mu...](http://media.boingboing.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/xl_music.jpg)

Also, part of the exhibition was about various painting and materials
techniques he used to achieve effects like opalescence, and I suspect things
like that (which work by reflection of light as you move past the photograph)
are difficult to capture using photography.

Having said that, the reproduction is extremely impressive. I wonder if the
process could be automated. I wouldn't mind a fake, almost-as-good-as-Vermeer
hanging in my room.

~~~
anigbrowl
There's a village in China where they've made an industry out of producing
good quality hand-painted reproductions of famous works. The cheap ones
probably don't look that great up close, but I'm sure if you were willing to
pay more (like $500) you could get something very nice.

[http://www.dafenvillageonline.com/](http://www.dafenvillageonline.com/)

------
rquantz
_The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not
consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer
painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white._

For an untrained eye casually glancing at the wall, sure, the brain edits out
variations. But a big part of training to be a painter is learning to see, and
even with an untrained eye, if you stare at a wall long enough you'll start to
see color and texture variations. Not saying he couldn't have used a camera
obscura or some other machine, but this in itself is hardly evidence that he
had mechanical help.

~~~
pcurve
I studied art for many years and I agree. I also wouldn't consider his
paintings particularly photographic-like, and you certain don't need
mechanical aid to paints that are far more photo-like that Vermeer's
paintings.

John Singer Sargent's work demonstrates that it's more about the lighting and
selective details.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Sargent_Lady_Agnew_of_Lochnaw.jpg

37.media.tumblr.com/a815602d0a7437c561817b5153e59bc9/tumblr_mjdy7uWvkL1s6fgo9o1_1280.jpg

------
famousactress
FYI, the trailer for the documentary at the bottom of this article has a clip
that makes it clearer what exactly he does with the mirror to help him paint
photo-realistically. It wasn't super clear to me until seeing that.

~~~
devb
I'm guessing a mirror pointed at the subject over one eye with the other eye
looking at the blank canvas? Then it would just be a matter of filling in
paint on the canvas where it should match up with the original.

~~~
Anjin
No, the mirror is on a stick and doesn't move. When Tim is looking down at the
mirror from above he can see the reflected image he wants to paint, and also
the paint surface he is going to paint on. He keeps adding color until the
edge of the mirror disappears at which point he knows that he got the color on
the surface to match the color in real life.

Here's a screenshot. The mirror is on the top, and the painting surface is
below: [http://i.imgur.com/Uk7vSQ5.png](http://i.imgur.com/Uk7vSQ5.png)

Or on the painting of his father-in-law:
[http://i.imgur.com/WP2ls3A.png](http://i.imgur.com/WP2ls3A.png)

------
huxley
There was a Kickstarter done to build a modern camera lucida, they are still
building batches of them (they even have DYI including prescription lucidas):

[http://neolucida.com](http://neolucida.com)

(not affiliated, just an art geek)

------
bane
It's really clever, and I enjoyed the process involved immensely. The whole
project is a work of art IMHO. I'm looking forward to watching the documentary
of it all.

I also like this conclusion.

> My experiment doesn't prove that Vermeer worked this way, but it proves that
> he COULD have worked this way.

I _do_ take issue with the hypothesis.

>The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not
consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer
painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The
retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of
light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than
it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it.

Then you can't see it through this device either.

I'm not an artist, but I've taken a few art classes, and one of the
transformative things that happens during formal art training is that you
learn to look at things in non-intuitive ways. For example, when most people
are told to "draw a dog", even if they're looking at one, they reach back into
their semantic memory, look up the mental function for "draw dog" and
reproduce that.

The same thing is true for colors, brightness values, etc. A great deal of
formal art education is learning to detach your visual stimulus from the
semantic association you would otherwise naturally make...and perhaps reattach
it to new semantic associations like "negative space" and "comparative
brightness" and "relative white value". When you get really good you can even
start reprocessing a scene or a model, deconstructing it in your mind and then
reconstructing it via some other technique. You can go from photorealistic
reproduction to complete abstraction.

[http://www.etsycreative.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/vince...](http://www.etsycreative.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/vince-low-portraits-550x660.jpg)

[https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_94URbVj_t8A/SZ7v2Iw28qI/AAAAAAAAA...](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_94URbVj_t8A/SZ7v2Iw28qI/AAAAAAAAAs0/KtyBdLmQohg/s320/tina+marker+on+canvas.jpg)

[http://uploads2.wikiart.org/images/vincent-van-gogh/the-
star...](http://uploads2.wikiart.org/images/vincent-van-gogh/the-starry-
night-1889\(1\).jpg)

[https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/e8b99...](https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/e8b9914990f75a949b1dbb9b1724ab6b/tumblr_mie7raQqj91ql98k2o1_1280.jpg)

[http://www.mde-art.com/art-blog/wp-
content/uploads/2009/02/a...](http://www.mde-art.com/art-blog/wp-
content/uploads/2009/02/abstract-portrait-face-lines-color.jpg)

I think a better hypothesis might have been "techniques at the time weren't
suited to such exact reproduction of scenes, even great artists slightly
distort objects and subjects in their work. Yet these paintings don't appear
to suffer from such distortion, the shape and color reproduction is as exact
as a tracing or photograph. There must have been a technique or tool used to
assist the artist in not only tracing the shape, but reproducing the colors."

~~~
murbard2
There is neurological evidence for your
thesis:[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22SAVANT.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22SAVANT.html)

Savant like drawing skills can be induced in ordinary people by selectively
disabling the part of their brain responsible for semantic interpretation. See
the shape of the cat, not the cat.

Perhaps Vermeer was a savant.

~~~
stan_rogers
Not likely. There is a reason why the rather nasty _Supper at Emmaus_ van
Meegeren forgery was able to fools the experts, and that's that Vermeer wasn't
a particularly good draughtsman early on. Good colourist for the most part,
yes, but not much cop at getting things straight or in proportion. His early
works show distinct signs of painting things iconically; that is, he was
drawing and painting what he "knew" things looked like rather than what they
actually looked like. So he learned something in mid-career to change
_everything_ , and an optical device is a likely aid. I'm not convinced that a
lucie was necessary. It's easy enough to create contour lines for tone using a
_camera obscura_ while you're tracing edges; it's something you can accomplish
in a few minutes' work, and it's much less likely to be remarked upon by your
sitting clients. (Let's remember that Vermeer took commissions; not everything
could have been kept "in the family".)

~~~
rquantz
_So he learned something in mid-career to change everything, and an optical
device is a likely aid._

Do you have evidence to suggest a mechanical aid rather than just improvement
in skills? Artists often change the way they produce art midway through their
career. Ever listen to juvenalia by Beethoven, Brahms, or Strauss? Ever listen
to early Stravinsky and compare it to what he was writing in the 1960s? Ever
look at what Picasso was doing before his primitivist paintings? They all
completely changed over the course of their careers, and they all had a moment
in their career when they starting making art that was in their voice.

So seeing someone get better at something like painting mid-career doesn't
indicate to me some deus ex machina, just the gradual accumulation of skill
and judgement, until it finally clicks and a mature artist is born.

This is not proof that you're wrong, I just want to know why you jump to that
conclusion when there seems to be a perfectly normal explanation.

~~~
stan_rogers
There are no transitional fossils, so to speak. That is, there are no examples
where he got the perspective right but the lighting was a bit rough, or the
general proportions correct with foreshortening a bit off. As a man who needed
to earn a living, he couldn't afford to take a couple-three years off to learn
how to draw. Picasso (who was never much of a draughtsman, even in his youth)
was working in an era where photography had largely supplanted painterly
realism; his concern was not with middle-class portraiture or advertising his
skills in creating it.

~~~
kirsebaer
Picasso was skilled at drawing as a child, and he started formal art education
at age 10. But maybe you mean he wasn't that impressive at drawing perspective
and architecture?

Childhood drawings by Picasso:
[http://drawingatduke.blogspot.no/2012/02/drawings-of-
pablo-p...](http://drawingatduke.blogspot.no/2012/02/drawings-of-pablo-
picasso.html)

~~~
stan_rogers
No, I don't think it's particularly remarkable, even for a ten-year-old. (At
that age, I had been attending an atelier myself for three years, fancying
myself a draughtsman and painter, and being told repeatedly that I had some
skill. There were kids there who were immensely better than I was, and the
differences in direct comparison were _extremely_ subtle -- fractions of
millimetres here and there -- but made all kinds of difference.) Nor was there
anything convincing or compelling about his blue period paintings. Hell, even
his cubism was inferior to Braque. Picasso was merely successfully audacious.

------
gojomo
Sci-fi author Greg Egan has a disturbing short-story on similar themes, 'The
Caress', part of the collection _Axiomatic_. (The full collection is just
$2.99 via the author's self-published ebooks:
[http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Ebooks...](http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Ebooks.html#Axiomatic))
It could make a great _Blade Runner_ -like movie, and then that movie would be
a perfect double-feature with _Tim 's Vermeer_.

And in digging up links about 'The Caress', I came across a cool word,
_ekphrasis_ , that also applies to _Tim 's Vermeer_:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekphrasis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekphrasis)

------
avani
Pablo Garcia and Golan Levin at CMU reconstructed the Camera Lucida, which was
a common artists' tool up until the last century, and describe the history of
it here: [http://neolucida.com/history/lucida-
history/](http://neolucida.com/history/lucida-history/)

Basically, it's a tiny prism on a stick that projects what is in front of you
to your drawing surface.

(disclaimer: I have no financial connection to these guys, but I did buy one
of their Neolucidas, and it is a lot of fun)

------
jacquesm
Very interesting article but this:

"I couldn't find a CNC lathe large enough to make these parts"

Makes absolutely no sense. I've worked on CNC rigs that would turn shafts for
ocean liners and wheels for cranes, a couple of table legs should not have
been a problem.

As for the theory, very interesting.

Here is the artist painting himself in his studio:

[http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/image-
paintings/ar...](http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/image-
paintings/art_of_painting.jpg)

I don't see anything like lenses, mirrors or other tricks, mostly just
brushes, paint, canvas, the artist and the subject. There is that little black
stick on the top right of the canvas, wonder what that is? Maybe there is a
mirror at the end of it ;) It would be funny if the evidence for all this was
sitting in plain view for a few hundred years but likely there is a more
ordinary explanation for that stick, maybe someone with more experience in
painting can chip in about what that is.

The about box at the bottom lists Tim as the guy behind DigiPaint of Amiga
fame, and his company is also the one behind LightWave 3D.

~~~
qbrass
>There is that little black stick on the top right of the canvas, wonder what
that is? Maybe there is a mirror at the end of it ;)

You mean like that round, brass colored thing that would otherwise look like
his hand?

~~~
jacquesm
No, the black stick that appears to protrude from his hand. Note that it is
not the brush and that at the top right part of the black stick there is
something round (near the canvas).

~~~
qbrass
I was referring to the "mirror on the end of it" part and just quoted the
preceding line.

Compared to the hands of the girl in the picture, the color and the shape of
his own hand looked odd. It's too round and looked kind of brassy.

------
roschdal
I tried to buy the video, and got this error message from Amazon: "We could
not process your order because of geographical restrictions on the product
which you were attempting to purchase. Please refer to the terms of use for
this product to determine the geographical restrictions."

Where can I buy this in Europe? In today's globalized world, online videos
should be available everywhere at once.

~~~
lstamour
It's apparently for sale via Amazon, iTunes and Vudu. E.g.
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tims-Vermeer-Tim-
Jenison/dp/B00K2YVA...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tims-Vermeer-Tim-
Jenison/dp/B00K2YVAUI/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1402436584&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Tim%27s+vermeer)
It's not yet on Netflix (streaming) anywhere in the world.
[http://www.moreflicks.com/titles/movies_tim-s-
vermeer_2014](http://www.moreflicks.com/titles/movies_tim-s-vermeer_2014)

~~~
roschdal
However, I'm not able to buy it on Amazon, due to "geographical restrictions
on the product". Searching for it on iTunes gives 0 results. So it's clear
that they don't want me to buy it in Europe.

~~~
lstamour
Last I checked the UK was a part of Europe, but since you didn't specify
further I can't help ya. Call or complain to Sony Pictures Classics. Or find
ways to buypass regional restrictions. I do it all the time to get Spotify
which has yet to make it to Canada.

------
mzs
This will be a neat documentary and the idea clever to recreate the painting,
but the camera obscura idea has been pretty well know for a while. Here is
some evidence due to the quality of 17th C lens:
[http://www.essentialvermeer.com/camera_obscura/co_three.html](http://www.essentialvermeer.com/camera_obscura/co_three.html)
I can't find a link but there was also good evidence of how the image shifts
as focus changes in another painting. Some people even claim it's visible
here:
[http://www.archiviobolano.it/img/arnolfini_SPECCHIO.JPG](http://www.archiviobolano.it/img/arnolfini_SPECCHIO.JPG)

~~~
mzs
Shoot it was a van Eyck painting that I mentioned, sorry, good explanation
here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney%E2%80%93Falco_thesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney%E2%80%93Falco_thesis)

------
jwallaceparker
Norman Rockwell painted over projections of photographs to achieve his photo-
realistic results.

This article shows his paintings and photo sources side-by-side:

[http://petapixel.com/2012/12/27/the-photographs-norman-
rockw...](http://petapixel.com/2012/12/27/the-photographs-norman-rockwell-
used-to-create-his-famous-paintings/)

------
awestley
I am going to add my own useless commentary and say that I absolutely love
things like this. It is the idea of applying a scientific approach to
something for fun and because why not? This is Having Fun + Learning = Win in
its purest form.

------
mgr86
did anyone else notice the photo/painting's caption read "Click to Embiggen"?

Could this be a subtle nod to the animators who painstakenly produce live
cartons at the sacrifice of their wrists?

~~~
jbenz
I, for one, am hoping this word slowly seeps into public consciousness and
then into dictionaries. If it is a subtle nod, it's a perfectly cromulent one.

------
emmelaich
If you want to have a look at some Vermeer paintings in great detail, go to
the Rijksmuseum (Dutch Royal Museum). They digitised all their paintings (not
just Vermeer) in great detail.

You can zoom in and see the flecks of paint.

[https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/explore-the-
collection/overvie...](https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/explore-the-
collection/overview/johannes-vermeer)

------
cabirum
Every year some ancient artist becomes a photographer. The last time it was
Caravaggio using mercury salt and a pinhole camera setup.

[http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/mar/11/caravagg...](http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/mar/11/caravaggio-
art-studio-photography-first)

------
cinitriqs
Saw the documentary which was enlightening, whether or not Vermeer actually
produced his works like this, doesn't do it less good. An artist is still an
artist, no matter which tools he uses (of course, printing a photograph with a
3d-printer to get some relief i still a 3d-printed photograph, reproducing it
by hand however is still a wholly diff thing, and if you can see how much time
"Tim" spent on his Vermeer, you can only applaud the fact that he persisted in
his try to copy one of the greater works in history).

Nice docu and a fun way to get acquainted with some artsy work. In the end,
"photorealists" are just that, "photorealists" who like to get as close to the
real deal as they possibly can, whatever means necessary. (what or what isn't
"photograph" is not up to discussion here at all)

------
ludwigvan
Here is some criticism from the Guardian:
[http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...](http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-
vermeer-fails)

~~~
deltaqueue
_The technology Jenison relies on can replicate art, but it does so
synthetically, with no understanding of art 's inner life_

What a bunch of rhetorical diarrhea. This was nothing more than an exercise in
curiosity, an exploration and evaluation of a hypothesis. This was not an
attempt to disprove Vermeer's creativity, disprove artists in general, or
disprove art.

~~~
anigbrowl
Indeed. For the historical investigation that forms the backbones of the
story, they _had_ to do an imitation of the original work.

The paint strokes on the canvas are literally the superficial aspects of the
painting. There is much more 'art' in the choice of subject, perspective,
layout and so on. But had Tim chosen his own subject matter freely, then
comparison's with Vermeer's technique would have been almost impossible.

------
taternuts
I just finished this movie and I have to say it was awesome. The near
obsessive lengths he took to re-create this painting was amazing to watch - it
was probably some of the worst burn-out that veteran software engineer ever
experienced

------
acomjean
I saw the documentary. Its good, I enjoyed it.

I'm involved in arts (open studios board and website operator) in
massachusetts and have been talking to painters about this (none had seen the
documentary yet). Generally they don't see it as changing things, unless a lot
of people start doing this. Also painters enjoy the freedom to create stuff
that doesn't exist, where is this technique is kinda like a photograph where
what you capture has to exist.

Makes you question art and its valuation (a lot does these days). No matter
how its done the end result is what should be judged.

------
zedshaw
I had been waiting to see this movie forever and finally did right when it
came out, and I can tell you it is awesome. It's a fantastic example of
science and technology being used to solve a problem that just happens to be
art. It's also a very compelling theory about the possible ways Vermeer did
his more photorealistic paintings. Pretty much after this and spending the
last year teaching myself to paint I can safely say if it looks like a photo,
it's from a photo.

Another great book to check out is David Hockney's "Secret Knowledge", which
covers how this is done in other ways, how projection devices were used by
Kepler and others, how it could have been considered a guild secret among
painters, and how when the photograph first came out people remarked how much
the looked like "finished" paintings. His latest exhibit at the De Young was
actually based on the research from this book where he cranked out a metric
ton (quite literally) of art using various projection devices.

Another fun thing to do is "spot the laptop". You know how people are doing
impressive hyperrealistic paintings like this:

[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pictured-eloy-
morale...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pictured-eloy-morales-
stunning-self-portraits-3166130)

These are amazing, until you realize he's getting the fidelity he needs by
making the paintings huge, then taking pictures of them from farther away.
Can't tell a painting's size on the internet, so it looks super realistic
until you see it in person. Next, if you look carefully at that first photo,
he's looking off in the distance at....a laptop most likely, or a projection.
If you look in youtube or at various artist's blogs you start to catch them
with a laptop sitting right there, or an ipad stuck to their easel with the
image right on it.

If you check out these hyperrealists (they don't say photo 'cause that's a bad
word) you can sometimes catch them with a laptop, image on it squared off,
sometimes even zoomed in.

What modern "Vermeers" are doing is they're using computers and screen
technology to get very exacting details and color harmony using combinations
of large size projections (you can see Eloy's pre-drawn lines), gridded
images, and zooming on a computer screen. So the awesome thing about Tim's
Vermeer is he shows that if someone's using enough technology to make art then
they become just a mechanical photo printer. Might as well be a photographer.

Here's another artist you can see copying a photo:

[http://www.littleobservationist.com/2013/05/22/artist-
interv...](http://www.littleobservationist.com/2013/05/22/artist-interview-
francoise-nielly/)

Françoise Nielly at least interprets them, but I bet if you looked she
probably uses the hell out of computers at first to get studies right.

What's interesting is many artists use technology like this, and many of them
get into this "cheating" when they run into disabilities or time constraints.
The problem isn't the technology though, it's whether they pretend they don't
use any, which is what a lot of these hyperrealists try to get away with. But,
take an artist like Richard Schmid and you find he started using a computer
after a major back injury and he freely admits he uses photos and computers to
do painting.

What I liked about Tim's Vermeer is it's at least proof that someone with zero
talent can use technology to create an equivalent to what's considered a
masterpiece. David Hockney's book also demonstrates that much of the art we
consider painted using pure skill is actually just clever uses of technology
to do photo reproductions with oil paint.

~~~
pothibo
The way you explain this, it seems you share the same concept of "cheating" as
Jack White
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AJ...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AJgY9FtDLbs#t=1355))

I am left wondering if this isn't cheating per se, but a balance between
skills and intelligence. What do you think?

~~~
zedshaw
Well, artists are fond of saying "there's no rules in art", that is until you
violate all the ones they've set down as acceptable art.

So, if three's no rules, then there's no way to really cheat. Do whatever you
want to make whatever art you feel like making, and hell just calling yourself
an artist is all it takes to be one these days.

However, if you're pretending that you have an innate ability that's actually
the result of technology, or if you're teaching people a topic and lying to
them about the tools you use, then yes you're cheating.

I can understand a painter not admitting she uses computers to help her paint
if she's selling the paintings and doesn't want to ruin the mystique. But,
I've ran into teachers that pretend to not use tech and then you find out they
totally do, and that's just wrong. The French Salon era was full of this kind
of con artistry where teachers would run schools full of cast painting and
boring exercises and then the teacher would go off and use projection to make
their paintings anyway. David Hockney points out a few like this.

So I think if you're lying to people about the tools you use, or downplaying
the significance of tools, then you're full of crap. Otherwise, rock on and do
what you do.

------
tubelite
Reminds me of Teller's article: [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-
culture/teller-reveals-hi...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-
culture/teller-reveals-his-secrets-100744801/?no-ist)

"..You will be fooled by a trick if it involves more time, money and practice
than you (or any other sane onlooker) would be willing to invest."

Teller's friend Tim appears to have taken the same attitude towards checking
out his Vermeer hypothesis. Amazing effort.

------
brianmcdonough
I was recruited to work as editor on this project about two years ago. My
reason for not taking the job at the time was that it would be hard to make
the ending interesting enough to justify the effort. Two years have passed and
now that I see the reproduction, I've changed my mind, it was impossible to
make the ending interesting enough. Would have made a good magazine article in
the Smithsonian though.

"what a sweep of vanity comes this way!" \- Shakespeare

~~~
anigbrowl
That's a pretty cheap shot - I think you owe it both to us and to the
participants to say what you think the problem is. As it is, you comment comes
off very much as sour grapes.

~~~
brianmcdonough
Just my humble opinion, but it doesn't matter how the artist achieved the
results. The work speaks for itself.

Tim's Vermeer is probably a lot like watching a behind the scenes video. If
you enjoy consuming information for information sake, you might find it
interesting, but a lot of work and money goes into making a feature
documentary and it should be a work of art itself. If it doesn't have broad
appeal, it's referred to as a vanity project.

The Cove is a good example of a documentary that is also a work of art. The
story has a beginning a middle and an end and they are all made big through
the story telling. The same could have been true of Tim's Vermeer if the story
was told differently.

I apologize if my original comment came across as negative. I sometimes feel
let down if stories are told in lazy or inexperienced ways and the article
makes the story play like an episode of this old house.

~~~
tbirdz
The article doesn't quite give the film justice. While there are certainly
some "behind the scenes" like material, the documentary is more than just a
"How to paint like Vermeer" type instructional video. It delves more into
Tim's obsession with completing the project, showcasing both the "1%
inspiration" and especially the "99% perspiration" moments. There is also some
great subtext, it's a story of a man whose daughter goes off to college, and
then he takes on this big project to fill the hole in his life (which also
helps bring him closer to her, as she models the girl in the painting when she
comes home for break). There is also an interesting scene at the end where Tim
hangs his Vermeer on his mantle. Proud at his accomplishment, and yet it feels
hollow, as Tim has not gained the artistic skill of Vermeer, he's only acted
as a very, very slow human camera, taking many months to capture what a modern
camera (even those used to film the documentary) could capture in seconds. I
haven't seen Cove, and I don't know if this elevates Tim's Vermeer to your
standards of art, but there's more to it than "an episode of This Old House".

I don't know if it will have broad appeal, but it only had a limited
theatrical release, and I think it will be suited better to DVD and VOD like
Netflix.

As far as vanity goes, I mean it certainly seems like Tim painted the Vermeer
more to scratch his own curiosity than to make a big profit. Making the
documentary might also have been a way to help him give himself incentive to
finish the project, indeed in one part of the film he says "If the cameras
weren't filming right now, I would just give up."

~~~
brianmcdonough
Thanks for the information. Sounds like they took the personal journey
approach and it also sounds like you enjoyed it, which would indicate that
they did a good job, including the ending. I'll look forward to watching when
I get a chance, but thanks for filling in the blanks. I'm willing to say, I
stand corrected.

------
atiffany
This is getting philosophical, but even if this was incontrovertible proof
that Vermeer used these techniques to produce his works, it wouldn't detract
from my appreciation. It would reshape my appreciate a bit, but I think that
discovering these methods (by both Jenison and potentially Vermeer) is
remarkable in itself. All artists use tools to produce their work - Vermeer
may have just been innovative to find some really unique ones in his time.

------
malloreon
This post reminded me of Adam Savage's "Obsession" TED talk.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEg-
ZNB3qyI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEg-ZNB3qyI)

"...maybe, then maybe! I will have reached the end of the exercise. Except, if
I'm being honest with myself, reaching the end of the exercise was never
really the point of the exercise, was it?"

------
grondilu
If that's true, and after having watched the documentary it's hard for me to
believe it's not, then Vermeer was kind of like a magician : his paintings
were made with a trick that he kept secret. On one hand the whole story is
charming but on the other hand I have the feeling Vermeer was kind of a dick
not to reveal this technique to the World.

------
mknappen
Perhaps if art were taught in US schools with the systematic rigor of
mathematics and rhetorical essay composition, as it should be, people would
cease being surprised that artists exploit technological advances like
everyone else. The LAX International Terminal features digital installations,
not frescos.

------
Splendor
Here's an hour long interview with Tim Jenison where they discuss some of
this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0AMvdt11g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0AMvdt11g)

------
kyleowens10
Another interesting post on the topic from awhile ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6823528](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6823528)

------
userbinator
Having not seen any of Vermeer's paintings before, I was astonished for a few
moments as I thought the very first picture in the article was a painting.
Then I scrolled down...

------
shmerl
While the theory works fine for static objects, how can it work for people?
Did they have to precisely repeat their position while posing? Wouldn't it
ruin the copying aspect?

~~~
ecubed
He's using mannequins in the main picture at the top of the article, so I
assume one technique would be to use mannequins as placeholders until you
needed to do the distinctly human parts of the painting (hands, faces), then
you could substitute a person into place and paint that part.

------
ssdfsdf
For what it's worth, for all the people I never told that I thought this to be
true. I told you so :)

------
kauphy
Hmm, wonder how Johannes Vermeer did all of his self portraits ...

------
NAFV_P
Tim did a damn good job of the rug on the table.

------
mavdi
Just watched the film, absolutely mind blowing.

------
autokad
this was really i^3 (interesting, informative, and innovative). thanks!

------
Marinlemaignan
he's so cool, clever and can do anything

------
JustSomeNobody
Good grief, talk about yak shaving.

------
andrewliebchen
OMG! Vermeer used a camera lucida! I'm surprised!

...Said no art historian ever.

~~~
kosievdmerwe
You do realise that Vermeer predates the patenting of the camera lucida by a
hundred years? 1807 vs 1675, respectively.

~~~
andrewliebchen
Doesn't mean he didn't use something similar. David Hockney made this point in
2001 (if I recall).

Besides, Brunelleschi used a mirror to demonstrate the effectiveness of his
perspective drawings in the 1400s:
[http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunellesch...](http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunelleschi_mirror-
perspective-tool.jpg?w=510)

Durer used string and moveable panel in his perspective studies:
[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer....](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer.gif).

And of course, there was the camera obscura. I can't believe there wasn't any
development in drawing aids in the 400 years since Bruneschelli's
demonstration.

------
spacecadet
Tim's is better. ;D

------
kelvin0
Bis? This story has already ran ... I guess this is fine for the 'new' crowd
at HN

~~~
kelvin0
My self-esteem just took a serious hit. I guess I should blame my bluntness
and my ability to recall old stories.

Seriously though, is there some type of algorithm on HN which 'discourages'
posting the same story within an allotted time period (say 2-6 months)?

------
Htsthbjig
I love the process he follows, but Vermeer the biggest painter of all time?.
He must be kidding.

Vermeer painting is ok, but there are better paintings and certainly better
painters.

Rembrandt or Velazquez run circles around Vermeer in photorealism, but if you
consider other things Vermeer is not even in the top ten, probably in top 100.

