 |
| Vermeer's "The Music Lesson" |
The other evening I finally got to see the film "Tim'sVermeer". In short, this is the story of Tim Jenison, an inventor and
entrepreneur who became interested in the "photographic" quality of the Dutch painter Johanne Vermeer's work, and
wanted to see if technology aided the artist. His theory is that a primitive
(by our standards) optical device, the "camera obscura", which was
well known at that time, was used for drawing. He did not understand, however,
how this would have aided in the color. Bit of a spoiler, a mirror was also
required.
Jenison, an art novice, finds he can make an almost perfect
replica of a photograph using his technique. He then moves on to the next step,
working as he believed Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675) did.
The film takes us through the process of recreating the
physical setup of the studio arrangement, including replicating the items
appearing in the painting "The Music Lesson".
There are two art experts and authors appearing in the film.
Philip Steadman, author of Vermeer’s Camera, examined the paintings of
Vermeer and through geometry believes he has proof that the painter used a
camera obscura to create the drawing/composition.
Artist David Hockney wrote Secret Knowledge, where he is
convinced the use of technology (in terms of lenses, etc.) was in use by a
number of artists, and earlier than believed.
I found this all intriguing, and like any modern person,
found myself "googling" into the night to learn more.
As contrasted with the "Vermeer" replica in the
film, it doesn't seem that these two authors actually put their theories to the
test to create a painting. There were also some interesting comments in some of
the reviews and articles below. The film comments that there was no underpainting
or drawing in Vermeer's work - but this is contradicted by critics, as there is
evidence of underpainting, and the fact that drawing done in chalk would be
obliterated during the painting process. The film oddly enough shows Jenison's
painting having a drawing marked on the canvas.
Another quibble was the selection of the work; probably for
dramatic effect, the work selected is in the Queen of England's collection, and
much was made of the fact that it was not available, but that Jenison was given
an opportunity to see it privately, when in fact, the work is on view for
special exhibitions, including the National Gallery.
So, still not conclusive. Did Vermeer rely on this
technology? Use it in portions of paintings or only certain paintings? Or did
he simply have a unique "eye" and a repertoire of artistic
"tricks" to create illusions. When I look at images of all the known Vermeers, they seem to vary in
their "photographic" appearance, with some looking decidedly
"painterly".
 |
| Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, ca. 1662. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Marquand Collection, Gift of Henry G. Marquand, 1889 (89.15.21) |
 |
| Study of a Young Woman, ca. 1665–67, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in memory of Theodore Rousseau, Jr., 1979 (1979.396.1) |
Perhaps more people will be inspired to experiment with
these theories (or maybe Vermeer's equipment will turn up at a yard sale) and
we will have a more conclusive ending to this story.
Some additional resources.
You can find just about everything we know of Vermeer here. See a page of this website dealing with Vermeer's possible use of a camera obscura here.
Some additional reviews, commentary and interesting stuff:
