MovieChat Forums > Tim's Vermeer (2014) Discussion > Vermeer? I don't think so

Vermeer? I don't think so

posted 11 years ago by commanderjeltz
13 replies | jump to latest

First, I have not seen the movie, only read news stories about it. But as an artist I am extremely annoyed by the concept. True, Vermeer's techniques were perhaps exceptional. But to maintain that by copying those techniques some random geek could produce "a Vermeer" is laughable. A work of art is only in small part technique, however sophisticated. I often say that like real estate, where there are supposedly three watchwords ("location, location, location"), in art there are also three: composition, composition, composition. That means taking the various elements which go into a picture, such as color, tone, shape, texture, and putting them together in a unique manner which creates something which LIVES.

That is why someone could have poor drawing skills and use colors of pond slime and produce something beautiful and engrossing to the eye.

The whole enterprise reminds me of those pathetic guys who think that by studying female anatomy and memorizing pick-up lines that they are going to be successful with women, or make one happy for more than one minute. Well, that's another story....

[–] Dave_8675309 11 years ago

You should see the movie before criticizing it. In the movie, they make your point about the artistry of Vermeer's composition. The tone of the movie is very respectful to the genius of Vermeer and his apparent scientific inventiveness.

A major point made in the movie is that the use of technology (in this case, a lens and two mirrors) does not detract from the artistic value of works of art, it enhances it and makes it more human. It does detract from that terrible and false notion of super-human genius - that somehow certain people are just endowed with the inhuman ability to create nearly photo-realistic paintings.

Here's an article by Penn Jillette (narrator, producer of the film) that lays out his thoughts about this: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/29/opinion/jillette-creative-genius-beatles-vermeer/

[–] commanderjeltz 11 years ago

"Inhuman ability to create nearly photo-realistic paintings..." Photo realism is not the great technical achievement that you seem to think. It takes some skill of course and a great deal of tedious work. And an almost total lack of artistic temperment. People will be fascinated by this movie for the same reason the Vermeer imitator is: the attitude that there is some trick which if discovered, will provide the secret entrance to a world of understanding, whether spiritual or artistic, or merely life success, money making, etc. Thus we see hundreds of self-help books published every year, bought by people who are looking for short cuts to their goal--weight loss, relationships, and so on. Which remain unreachable.

[–] emvan 11 years ago

Really, could you just STF up about a movie you've never seen? You couldn't possibly be more wrong about it.

What "the Vermeer imitator" is fascinated by, and what people take away from this movie, is the complete deconstruction of the false dichotomy between art and technology. Vermeer's artistic genius is not the subject of the movie -- that's why Tim chooses to create a copy of one of Vermeer's compositions. The subject of the movie is how Vermeer achieved his photorealistic sense of color and light. The film makes it clear that the human brain is unable to paint an image that looks like a Vermeer simply via observation. Tim discovered a simple technological technique, using a lens and a mirror, that would allow an artist to paint such pictures, and decided to create a copy of a Vermeer to prove the plausibility of his hypothesis.

I almost wept from sheer aesthetic bliss when the movie showed us "Girl With a Pearl Earring." This movie does nothing to diminish Vermeer; it simple argues that he had a perfectly believable technological genius to accompany his artistic gifts, rather than a literally inhuman ability to perceive gradations of color and light.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] ineedafreakingusername 11 years ago

Still, it was patronizing to a great extend. Remember Tim mentioning that the purple shade along the edge of the cloth was from Vermeer copying the color fringe due to the chromatic aberration of the lens ? ( was Vermeer that mindless ? ). And the final statement that Vermeer is not an unfathomable genius now, but a fathomable one in condescending tone. Tim seemed more satisfied with managing his own Vermeer than understanding how Vermeer succeeded in bridging art and science. Even that final frame of the documentary, him standing in front of "a Vermeer" tells you that the documentary is about "Tim's Vermeer"

[–] Cartman401 11 years ago

If you'd spent a year creating a piece of art well beyond your capability, wouldn't you be proud of it, as the result of going through an incredibly challenging and laborious process?

What I got from that final frame was the exact opposite. He'd set out to prove a point and had apparently done so, but it had taken him a year of his life and cost who knows how much - and all that he had to show for it was a painting on his bedroom wall. That final frame showed to me anyway that it wasn't worth the journey, and that's quite sad tbh.

I don't think he was being condescending at all. In fact the note there is more in line with Penn & Teller's other work - they are giving you a glimpse behind the curtain. Lets not forget, the whole thing might be a hoax in any case.

[–] FossilFred 11 years ago

Don't be so quick to discount a film you have yet to see. You're making it something that it is not. And, in so doing, you come across not as "annoyed", but threatened; as though the techniques employed in this film will make the term "artist" less special and exclusive.

Tim's level of dedication and problem solving displayed in this film are every bit as awe inspiring as a work of art. True, it may not inspire you, but what work of art exists that resonates with everyone?

I'm employed as a technician; thus, problem-solving is a part of my job. It is also a part of my nature. And there is very much an art to it. Is not art a means of expressing one's nature and encouraging others to explore theirs? Tim is an artist. He may not be of your ilk, but he is an artist nonetheless.

I know very little about paintings and the grandmasters. This film certainly gave me an appreciation for Vermeer and his works that I never before had. It caused me to look at other of his paintings and research more about him. You express disdain for this film, yet it may very well be the doorway to a much larger and richer world for many people.

[–] sammie1863 11 years ago

See the film. Whether or not you agree with what is said, the process is intriguing and thought provoking.

[–] J-Huerta 11 years ago

First, I have not seen the movie

Then any thing that follows has no value. You are just writing bulls hit.

[–] dreamstate123 11 years ago

Yup, total bs. Tim's final painting Is proof that you have no idea wtf you're talking about. Tim proved that someone with no prior training, talent or experience can produce something so close to a Vermeer masterpiece that his hypothesis about Vermeer's way of producing his body of work should be amended. There's no doubt In my mind that Vermeer used this technique to great success.

[–] Cartman401 11 years ago

All your points are covered in the movie. Watch it with an open mind and you might enjoy it!

[–] jab670 11 years ago

Maybe you should watch the movie. He is not analyzing Vermeer's composition. He is exploring the other tools, which include how Vermeer might have accomplished certain technical aspects.

As an artist, you should be excited that people can take an interest in how an artist overcomes challenges. Stop whining.

[–] Orlando_S_Gondar 11 years ago

You haven't seen the movie but throw around your criticisms of it , AS AN ARTIST.
Well, MYSELF, AS AN ARTIST, don't talk out of my ass, i love to try things for myself, THINK FOR MYSELF, based on my experience and interpret things through which only my heart can see and understand. As a result AS AN ARTIST i have no idea how you can talk so much *beep* about something you have not given a chance or experienced for yourself. YOU SIR must then be one of those *beep* artists who make claim to things they no nothing about and call themselves an artist after one art class.

YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG ABOUT THE FILM, YOU ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS, as usual? I would guess of you, DON'T USE THE WHOLE "well I'm an artist therefore i know what I am talking about. ...NO YOU DON'T. You certainly don't think like an artist I'll tell you that much. Closed minded dummy.

I certainly enjoyed the respect they showed to Vermeer in exploring this idea, and loved that they recreated the scene he must of lived through to paint from which again certainly showed a respect for Vermeer process. They, unlike you, showed respect to the process of creating something, how much thought goes behind creating the composition etc. Much like the respect you lack, in respecting how they made this film. Because again, you pass judgement not having seen it. What an A-hole, And I say that, AS AN ARTIST.

My Website | www.osgfilms.com
My Vimeo | [url]https://vimeo.com/osgfilms

[–] megArnold 10 years ago

AS A FELLOW ARTIST, I can only add to this that you are only an artist IF OTHER PEOPLE think you're an artist.

OP, calling yourself an artist doesn't make yourself an artist.

I think I'm a genius. The problem is, nobody else does.

--
No, Schmuck! You are only entitled to your INFORMED opinion!!
-- Harlan Ellison