
Vik Muniz Painstakingly Reconstructs the Backs of Famous Paintings - prismatic
http://hyperallergic.com/309086/vik-muniz-painstakingly-reconstructs-the-backs-of-famous-paintings/
======
owenversteeg
I was just at this exhibit a few hours ago, funny enough. This exhibit is the
first contemporary art to ever be shown at the Mauritshuis in the Hague, which
is a beautiful museum that has works by Rembrandt (including a great self-
portrait), Vermeer (including Girl with a Pearl Earring) and many more old
Dutch masters.

Here's a photo I took of my favorite work:
[https://www.instagram.com/p/BIgFNpXA53Q/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BIgFNpXA53Q/)

The exhibit is amazing and I highly recommend it. Vic Muniz is a very talented
artist and I think the Mauritshuis picked a fantastic first exhibition.

From the article: "When Muniz had the opportunity to bring his recreated frame
[of the Mona Lisa] to the Louvre and placed it side-by-side with the authentic
painting, technicians who have spent years caring for the original apparently
thought his was the genuine one."

~~~
SixSigma
ok, I accept it may be technically accomplished.

But is it interesting beyond that ?

~~~
owenversteeg
It was, at least for me. One of my biggest complaints with a lot of art
museums with no contemporary pieces is that people just walk through, not
actually looking at the art, just to say "I saw a (Vermeer|Rembrandt|Bosch)
today! In this exhibit, people were really interacting with the art. They were
trying to look behind the pieces to tell if there was art there; some people
just thought the room was unfinished and they shouldn't be there; some tried
to tell if the pieces were the actual backs or not. Others were more astute
and read the description on the wall, and almost everyone that did was still
intrigued by the art. Think of it as a 3D photograph of the actual artwork,
not only very interesting to look at but also exceedingly well-done. And,
while even professionals that worked with the Mona Lisa for years could not
tell the real Mona Lisa back from its replica, there were certainly fine
nuances in the work that made it more than just a pure photocopied version of
the "original". At the very least, there was nobody doing the very common
walk-through-the-room-spending-10-seconds-on-each-piece that fills traditional
galleries, and it made me very happy to see.

~~~
colinbartlett
If you enjoyed this, you might enjoy an exhibit currently on display at the
Met Breuer, part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art here in New York called
"Unfinished". It displays dozens of works of art that were never finished, for
varying reasons. Some are classified as intentionally unfinished (would that
make them finished?), but they are all fascinating to see and read about.

[http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/unfinishe...](http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/unfinished)

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> intentionally unfinished (would that make them finished?)

If memory serves, someone quipped "art works are not finished, merely
abandoned".

(I'll abandon this and omit searching ;-)

------
failrate
I was hoping that it was going to be famous paintings from the reverse
perspective. As if the painter had set up on the opposite side of the scene.

~~~
diiq
Tom Keating did this with a few of his forgeries -- took the location of a
known painting and then mentally turned 90 or 180 degrees.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyA8fkMJcDE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyA8fkMJcDE)

------
alternize
the current exhibitor (Mauritshuis in Den Haag) has produced a short "making
of" video providing some more insights how the frames were made:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM5SVKsP-
hg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM5SVKsP-hg)

