vermeer

The point is that it has been long assumed that Vermeer used at least a camera lucida to construct his paintings.

> But the mysterious genius of Vermeer is exactly what's missing from Tim's Vermeer.

There is also an interesting scene at the end where Tim hangs his Vermeer on his mantle.

Anyone who has seen a Vermeer painting up close, knows how hypnotic the experience can be.

You do realise that Vermeer predates the patenting of the camera lucida by a hundred years?

The same could have been true of Tim's Vermeer if the story was told differently.

Saw the documentary which was enlightening, whether or not Vermeer actually produced his works like this, doesn't do it less good.

If you want to have a look at some Vermeer paintings in great detail, go to the Rijksmuseum (Dutch Royal Museum).

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.

Tim's Vermeer is probably a lot like watching a behind the scenes video.

So Vermeer certainly had access to state of the art techniques in optics.

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

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.

As for photo realism, have you seen the movie "Tim's Vermeer"?

"Inventor Tim Jenison seeks to understand the painting techniques used by Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer." Are you intentionally wasting my time?

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".

Vermeer and Van Leeuwenhok definitely knew each other: van Leeuwenhok was the executor of Vermeer's will.

But had Tim chosen his own subject matter freely, then comparison's with Vermeer's technique would have been almost impossible.

I also tend to like 17th century Dutch and Flemish art (Reubens, Hals, Rembrant, and of course Vermeer).