Tim's Vermeer

In case anyone hasn't seen/heard of this, over the holiday I watched a really cool documentary entitled "Tim's Vermeer" about an inventor who had an obsession with figuring out how Vermeer painted his paintings. He was convinced that Vermeer had an optical device of some kind to assist with painting, and he set out to prove it. I'd say he conclusively proved that a simple optical device capable of being made in the 17th century could be used to create a painting like a Vermeer. Since there is no historical documentation of Vermeer actually using such a device, records of construction of such a device or concrete physical evidence in the form of the device itself, we can't be sure that that's what Vermeer did. One of the cool aspects of watching Tim's studio setup that he used to recreate Vermeer's studio was that he used components from a Calumet 8x10 studio camera to build his device. You can very clearly see the front standard holding the lens that projected the image.

Tim is such a nut about this that he literally recreated Vermeer's studio, complete with matching window glass leading, north-facing window, harpsichord, Viola da Gamba, floor cloths, and furniture. He even made his own lens in the manner it would have been made in the 17th century to get as close as possible. As such, the film is as much about one man's obsession with the process of investigation and discovery as it is about the point in question - did Vermeer use an optical device to paint?

I highly recommend it.

Thanks for the recommendation. I saw that movie in a listing recently and wondered if it would be worthwhile.

Saw it a while back and really enjoyed it! Definitely a must see!

See this thread too:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

What was dispositive concerning whether Vermeer himself used an optical device was a surprising accident that Jenison discovered. Tim Jenison painted his version of "The Music Lesson" by using an optical device--a lens and a concave mirror--to project selected pixels of a scene he had set up in his studio onto a little mirror held close to the canvas which rested on a table while he painted. He constructed a harpsichord, checkerboard floor tiles, a rug, as well as costumes and other artifacts then placed these objects in the room and oriented them to the light in the manner of Vermeer's painting. Then he mixed the paint on his brush to match the color of the image he saw on the little mirror, trying to duplicate the shade of the brushstroke to the hue he saw at the edge of the mirror. The process was fairly mechanical.

When he finished his painting, Tim Jenison noticed that the design displayed on the harpsichord--a line of seahorses--curved slightly, forming a bow, concave upwards in his painting, although the pattern was not curved on the actual harpsichord. This curve was an aberration caused by his lens system.

When Jenison looked at Vermeer's original painting he noticed that the line of seahorses ALSO curved upwards in the same manner. It is unlikely that Vermeer intended this straight-line pattern to curve in his image. So it is pretty strong evidence that Vermeer and Jenison captured the same optical aberration by using the same kind of optical devices.

As already mentioned, it is well known that optical devices were employed in painting many hundreds of years ago. I would go further than this and suggest that some chemical method of recording could have been employed and used as a basis to paint over before it faded from view (secrets born and lost). I would also suggest Van Eyck could be top of the list for this lost process.

Tim's Vermeer is terrific. My wife and I watched it a few months back.

If you are interested in "the lens of the masters" be sure to also check out David Hockney's book "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters."

Well, the optical assistance claim is a fallacy that has been disproved.

There is a study that used computer 3D techniques to model to analyze the masterpieces. For example, van Eyck's famous Arnolfini wedding painting was suggested as an example of optical assistance. To human eyes the chandlier hanging from the ceiling was "too perfect". Yet in the 3D model it shows all kinds of "optical" imperfections. E.g., the lines do not converge to a single vintage point at all. If van Eyck really used an optical mirror/lens, those lines should have had a single vintage point.

You can check out David Stork's rebuttal to Hackney and Falco's conjecture at the following link. The "Examples" link on the left will bring you to many rebuttals piece by piece:

http://www.diatrope.com/stork/FAQs.html

In particular, on Arnolfini wedding Hackney and Stork had a long debate. At the end Hackney must retreat to the position that one part of the chandelier is hand painted and the other is optical traced.

It is not surprising, the technology to do that was very widely known at that time but no one bothered to document it in paintings. Decades ago I read optical books that discuss the mechanics of doing what he did with the technology of that time.

IMHO the bare composition is easy for painters to put on to paper. There are lots of 4 years old drummers , pianists and lots of incredible talented painters in this world today to past. I think if you give that device to someone , he could put only the traces. The trick is the grades , light on the paper. If you are not a very very good painter , you could not put the grades. And the colors and their layers. You must be very experienced , lot of teaching from the other masters to do that. And color balance , contrast and 3 d relief.

I bet tim or other guy painted their versions from single mixed color , not from may be 7 different layers.

May be someone gave the device to vermeer and he liked to use that , but I bet it helps for %1.

Art people or investors are not idiot , you dont give 50 ,100,200 million dollars because it looks good.

It must have a place in history and the process and it must be hard to master.

Look at picasso paintings , few lines only but you know he did the other way also and walked a long way.