Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reverse Engineering the Technical and Artistic Genius of Painter Jan Vermeer

timothy posted about a year ago | from the now-just-reconstruct-his-time-machine dept.

Technology 70

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Kurt Anderson has an interesting read at Vanity Fair about Dutch painter Jan Vermeer, best known for 'Girl with a Pearl Earring,' and the search for how he was able to achieve his photo-realistic effects in the 1600s. Considered almost as mysterious and unfathomable as Shakespeare in literature, Vermeer at age 21, with no recorded training as an apprentice, began painting masterful, singular, uncannily realistic pictures of light-filled rooms and ethereal young women. 'Despite occasional speculation over the years that an optical device somehow enabled Vermeer to paint his pictures, the art-history establishment has remained adamant in its romantic conviction: maybe he was inspired somehow by lens-projected images, but his only exceptional tool for making art was his astounding eye, his otherworldly genius,' says Anderson. To try to learn how Vermeer was able to achieve such highly realistic painting, American inventor and millionaire Tim Jenison spent five years learning how to make lenses himself using 17th-century techniques, mixed and painted only with pigments available in the late 1600s and even constructed a life-size reproduction of Vermeer's room with wooden beams, checkerboard floor, and plastered walls. The result has been a documentary movie, Tim's Vermeer, by magicians Penn & Teller that may have resolved the riddle and explains why it has remained a secret for so long. 'The photorealistic painters of our time, none of them share their techniques,' says Teller. 'The Spiderman people aren't talking to the Avatar people. When [David] Copperfield and I have lunch, we aren't giving away absolutely everything.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Sunday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562301)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Tim Plays Bloody Viol deGamba (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45562397)

That's a 17th century Bootsy Collins in the making!

Re:Happy Sunday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562399)

Personally, I find it comforting to know that this troll is in every Slashdot thread. I feel anxious when I can't find it.

Re:Happy Sunday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562521)

Idiot. It's not "cosmonaut", it's "condiment".

Re:Happy Sunday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562637)

It's not "thank you for being a friend", it's "fuck you for being a fraud".

Jealousy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562317)

My cheeks are covered with graveyard fog, and you're all jealous of me! Look at them! Look at my milky white cheeks and succumb to your feelings of inadequacy!

Re:Jealousy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562393)

My cheeks are covered with graveyard fog, and you're all jealous of me! Look at them! Look at my milky white cheeks and succumb to your feelings of inadequacy!

That ain't "graveyard fog".

Andersen (4, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about a year ago | (#45562407)

Kurt Andersen. With an "e."

Re:Andersen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562515)

Go to war for Israel America! Iran bad! Jews good!

lol art is for pussy liberal arts faggots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562471)

pass the anime bro i wanna watch some floppy cartoon boobs on my linux! yeaaaahhh!

" ... his otherworldly genius ..." (1)

fygment (444210) | about a year ago | (#45562635)

We are not alone, just saying.

Re:" ... his otherworldly genius ..." (1)

laejoh (648921) | about a year ago | (#45562819)

Of course not, the AIVD is here with us! Ik weet dat jullie meeluisteren! [xkcd.com]

I'm not an artist... (4, Interesting)

thephydes (727739) | about a year ago | (#45562669)

and don't pretend to be one, but I don't believe this "discovery" in any way belittles the talent of Vermeer. He was the artistic nerd of his time and his discovery is quite extraordinary - how many people today would think to do that?

Re:I'm not an artist... (4, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45562745)

This "discovery" may not even be a "discovery" about how Vermeer actually worked. While the hypothesis has been around for a long time (this is far from a "new discovery") --- and sounds appealing to the technologically-minded --- there is also moderate counter-evidence to Vermeer having actually worked in such a fashion. While Andersen succeeded in re-creating a Vermeer-like style in this manner, this isn't a unique, unheard-of capability: any painter who goes through the traditional "classical" art education, learning techniques the old-fashioned way with lots of practice, will be able to re-create paintings in Vermeer's (or anyone else's) style. Learning to copy the "great masters" is a standard part of formal art education. Andersen was able to short-cut some of this process (of learning painting technique the "old-fashioned" way) by technological means potentially accessible in Vermeer's time, but that doesn't prove what actually happened.

Re:I'm not an artist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45562847)

It does prove it to the pathologial pseudoscepticals though.

Captcha: rephrase

Re:I'm not an artist... (3, Interesting)

Darth Cider (320236) | about a year ago | (#45562881)

Then too, there are savants like Alonzo Clemons, whose sculptures are strikingly realistic but made entirely without tools, just his two bare hands. We know this because we have film of him doing it. Was Vermeer a savant? He certainly could have been. Finding a way to fake the work of a master using mechanical means does not prove the master used the same techniques, even if he could have. Penn Jillette, ever the blowhard, is merely hyping the documentary he helped finance. Unless someone finds Vermeer's camera obscura in an old barn, nothing has been proven so far.

Re:I'm not an artist... (1)

arobatino (46791) | about a year ago | (#45564441)

From the article:

Much later, he did a computer analysis of a high-resolution scan of a Vermeer interior, and discovered “an exponential relationship in the light on the white wall.” The brightness of any surface becomes exponentially less bright the farther it is from a light source—but the unaided human eye doesn’t register that. According to Jenison, the painting he digitally deconstructed shows just such a diminution from light to dark.

This suggests that his unaided eyes wouldn't have been physically capable of seeing this exponential dropoff, even if he was a savant.

Re:I'm not an artist... (4, Interesting)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#45564847)

No, it doesn't suggest that. There are ordinary people from which statistics are derived and which have no real information about our limits, and then there are people who learn how to use their senses properly or are fortunate enough to have been born that way.

Read DaVinci's work on light and optics. Once you get a field view, working out a palette is trivial.

Re:I'm not an artist... (3, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45565849)

Furthermore, while it might be difficult to perfectly match light levels while standing behind the canvas, cutting-edge artists of the era (of which Vermeer was certainly an example) were quite focused on, and capable of, understanding the effects of light to the next level. Vermeer might well have walked over to the wall and closely compared brightness levels in cleverly quantitative ways in order to get the lighting right --- it's the kind of stuff cutting-edge people were really concerned with at the time, and the reason deeply insightful light and color relations appeared in the best artwork of the era. Such paintings were not slapdash works from untrained-eye impressions; Vermeer was known for painting slowly, giving plenty of time for meticulously studied naturalistic results.

Re: I'm not an artist... (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579379)

The unaided eye does actually have limitations. No amount of skill or intelligence can overcome that. Also, one objection had been that no such method had ever been demonstrated. Now it has. It's not proof, but it does diminish the opposing arguments.

Re:I'm not an artist... (1)

Slayer (6656) | about a year ago | (#45569661)

Doesn't light fall off from a point source follow an inverse square law? It's certainly not an expoential law unless you have a very lossy medium.

Looks like Vermeer knew more than the editors of Vanity Fair ...

Re: I'm not an artist... (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579467)

What you're saying is true. What the article is referring to is actually the nature of perception. When we see light, we perceive differences in brightness linearly when the actual energy difference is exponential. This is something that cameras take into account when converting from raw. With paintings and photographs you're taking a huge range of brightnesses and compressing it into a very small range that depends on the lighting at the time of viewing. I don't doubt that an optical aid would give you a much more accurate brightness curve.

Re:I'm not an artist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45566361)

Unless someone finds Vermeer's camera obscura in an old barn, nothing has been proven so far.

You're right, unless we have Vermeer's paintbrush in an old barn, we can assume he applied the paints using his fingers. Obviously, we should ignore the relative probabilities of various theories and focus solely on extant physical evidence.

Re:I'm not an artist... (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | about a year ago | (#45573323)

I trust you've found Vermeer's fingers in an old barn with the paint still on them.

Re:I'm not an artist... (4, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45562979)

It's like the scientists who figure out practical ways the pyramids could have been built, or ancient stone flake knives chipped, or the gears of the ancient Antikythera Mechanism cut, I suppose. Reasonable techniques, but just a guess without more evidence.

Re:I'm not an artist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45564039)

Andersen didn't recreate anything, Jenison did.

Evidence To The Contrary (5, Informative)

dynamator (964799) | about a year ago | (#45562823)

I had a chance to hear David Stork present his counter arguments to the 'Secret Knowledge' theory expoused by David Hockney and Charles Falco. He was focusing on Van Dyke, who's work is not as objectively realistic as Vermeer. His two main pieces of evidence were:
1. If you attempt to re-create the perspective in the a Van Dyke painting in the computer, it never quite lines up with spacial reality, even accounting for the distortions of the lenses or mirrors which might have been used to project the or image the scene.
2. If you put a capable artist to the task, they can create a highly realist scene, with better geometric accuracy than the 15-16th century artists using no optical aids whatsoever.

Vermeer is definitely a standout. I don't believe that any of his contemporaries were producing work remotely similar to what he was doing. So I almost believe he might have had something up his sleeve. It is know that he took a really long time to complete a painting. I wonder if he could have used optical techniques out in the open, and it would have been so unusual that others wouldn't have even understood what he was doing, and so not think it worth noting it down.

Check Out the counter-arguments at : http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.php [artrenewal.org]
(Warning: drawings of naked people done without optical aids)

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#45562947)

They seem a bit too passionate to be taken that seriously.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45563037)

Yes, it is well known that artists and art experts are never passionate loonies, but always the most dry and sober of professionals. Oh, wait, I think I misread "artists" for "actuaries." I'm afraid you may not have much left in the art world if you flippantly dismiss all the egotistical assholes; however, they sometimes do manage to be a tenth as brilliant as they think they are, which turns out to be a quite respectable amount of brilliance.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

fluxmov (519552) | about a year ago | (#45563681)

I'd encourage everyone to read the two letters by Thomas Hauge and Fred Ross and form your own opinion.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45563043)

It is know that he took a really long time to complete a painting.

And that he specialized in painting interior scenes which would be more accessible to optical aid techniques.

I have to say that given how precise his paintings were, it's not a surprise that they took so long, with or without optical aids.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45563263)

I think the postulated optical aids are really a less interesting part of all this. What makes his paintings start out aren't that they have lots of accurate detail - they do, but that's not that rare - but that they have very accurate color. The rooms look realistic because the color values are right: they all have the same lighting temperature, to remarkable accuracy.

Getting the color palette just right is what impresses me about paintings from Vermeer to modern artists in the same style, but the modern guys have a very mature science to work from and just need to make the colors match precisely to the calculated ideal.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (3, Informative)

DrJimbo (594231) | about a year ago | (#45563435)

Parent:

I think the postulated optical aids are really a less interesting part of all this. What makes his paintings start out aren't that they have lots of accurate detail - they do, but that's not that rare - but that they have very accurate color. The rooms look realistic because the color values are right: they all have the same lighting temperature, to remarkable accuracy.

FTFA:

[Tim Jenison] was in no rush. His R&D period lasted five years. He went to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. "Looking at their Vermeers," he says, "I had an epiphany" -- the first of several. "The photographic tone is what jumped out at me. Why was Vermeer so realistic? Because he got the values right," meaning the color values.

The point of using an optical aid was to get the colors right.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45564093)

Yes, but a skilled artist doesn't need an optical aid for that. Matching color on canvas accurately to the color you see is a skill all it's own, especially when you're making your own paints from raw materials. Today there are tools and Pantone color #s and so on, but having a good eye for color was just one part of the skill required back then.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45566943)

Without directly contradicting you, it's not as if artists work randomly over the canvas. First you start with a sketch, then a value study, then build up layers of color, leaving the fine gradients for last. More to the point, I don't know what tools you're referring to, but paint still comes in tubes, which generally do not have pantone colors on them. Pantone colors are only used for checking spot colors, like when you're screen printing a logo and need to make sure all the fills are the exact right shade.

So, generally speaking, the task is not quite as hard as you are making out, and also the modern tools for painting are not terribly different. You'd have fewer options for red maybe, but I can assure you the exact palette you have available isn't a huge deal one way or another. Whether it took more or less skill then, I have no opinion.

Re: Evidence To The Contrary (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579551)

Actually, getting tone right requires an awful lot... people need theory and practice. The fact is, we perceive color relative to surrounding color. The light in the local area will affect the actual color value, but affect our perception of that color much less. Getting actual tone rather than a good relative tone is probably impossible for the unaided artist.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about a year ago | (#45566063)

It took 5 years, including an epiphany while looking at their Vermeers in Amsterdam, to come up with that. And lgw (121541) came up with it within 3 hours of the story posting.

We're going to need help reverse engineering the tech that lgw used to post that comment.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45563421)

I'm not an art expert, but I look at two significant aspects of Vermeer's career:
1) his work was ignored for several centuries until rediscovered in the mid-1800s
2) only 34 paintings are acknowledged to be Vermeer's.

Now does it seem logical that if he had an imaging tool his output would be so sparse? Wouldn't such a tool enable him to generate more art more quickly?
And it seems that Vermeer's use of an imaging tool is picking on Vermeer by later-day critics. Why?

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (4, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45563447)

One of the points that severely diminishes the credibility of "Secret knowledge" optical theories, in my eyes, is that they are simultaneously presented as being so secret as to never be recorded and transmitted to the present day, and as being in such wide-spread use that there is evidence to be found in major works over many centuries and continents. As a closely-guarded guild secret for one small, local, and ephemeral school of painters, which died off before being transmitted to the present day, perhaps the hypothesis is plausible. However, the sheer weight and volume of "evidence" presented by Hockney et al., in which optical techniques are a ubiquitous foundation for every vaguely photo-realistic painting since the early 15th century, is impossible to reconcile with those techniques being absent from historical commentary and received tradition.

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#45564863)

But we have to believe that people in the past were less inteligent, less talented, less human, or else what's the point?

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45563457)

Thank you for this! As an aspiring artist (HA! I have to laugh at that... ), I wasn't aware of this discussion around Vermeers work and technique. I'll read this with keen interest!

Re:Evidence To The Contrary (1)

mikael (484) | about a year ago | (#45564873)

The greatest advancement in the art world was during the Renaissance period, when they finally understood how perspective worked. Before then, it was a mystery how objects became smaller the further away they became. Until they had algebra, it wasn't possible to really formulate how inverse distance laws or explain concepts like perspective lines. Then all sorts of new techniques became possible. Some methods included pinhole cameras projecting onto tracing paper screens.

Re: Evidence To The Contrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45566619)

No, as perspective limits painting to photorealism. I have a camera to do photorealism, so no thanks.

Here's what's wrong with this sort of thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45563253)

It's a bit like von Daniken's claim that the pyramids were built by aliens: "it looks hard, and I can't work out how they did it, so it must have been some kind of secret thing."

The problem is, it looks hard to people who haven't been trained, have no innate talent, haven't been motivated strongly to do it, and haven't worked at it for a long enough to figure out how to get it done. People who have done those things are able to do it.

Re: Here's what's wrong with this sort of thing (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579591)

No. People have pointed out details that are practically impossible for a master to acheive, let alone a 20 something with no training.

How does that work, again? (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about a year ago | (#45563293)

After reading the article I still don't quite get how this technique works.

From the article: âoewhen the color is the same, the mirror edge disappears."

Come again? One of the accompanying photos shows Mr. Jenison with a mirror near his eye and a paintbrush in his hand.

But I still don't understand what's happening here.

Re:How does that work, again? (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45563317)

The mirror splits his field of view, so he can see the canvas where he is painting and the subject being painted at the same time. Instead of having to move his eyes between them and "remember" the correct color (hard to do with extreme accuracy), the mirror allows a direct side-by-side comparison of the paint and subject. "The mirror edge disappears" when the paint color matches the subject (seen in the mirror) color at the edge between.

Re:How does that work, again? (1)

mikael (484) | about a year ago | (#45564943)

The human retina actually does some pre-processing before the pixel data (input from rods and cones) goes further along the visual circuits. One of the most basic tasks is edge enhancement and based on red-green, blue-yellow and intensity values based on a large sample of input data:
http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/ganglion.html [webexhibits.org]

In image processing speak, these are called edge detection and contrast detection. If there is an intensity difference between two areas, then one is darker than the other, and vice versa. This difference gets amplified close to the border between the two edges. So the human eye can immediately tell there is some kind of edge. For the application of painting, having a split view would allow the artist to immediately tell when the source color (the scene) and the destination color (the painting) matched. Professional cameras use a similar mechanism for perfecting focus:

http://www.diyphotography.net/files/images/3228644_6c2e9a2ba1_m.jpg [diyphotography.net]

So the artist could just start off with a very basic poster paint color scheme, then gradually add the shadows and the highlights.

They don't talk, huh? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | about a year ago | (#45563305)

The Spiderman people aren't talking to the Avatar people

Bullshit. Clearly someone knows nothing of the VFX industry and has never heard of SIGGRAPH.

Re:They don't talk, huh? (1)

Cloudy Wheat Beer (3402263) | about a year ago | (#45563597)

The Spiderman people aren't talking to the Avatar people

Bullshit. Clearly someone knows nothing of the VFX industry and has never heard of SIGGRAPH.

Wait, what? Are you actually taking that statement literally?

Re:They don't talk, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45566779)

"The photorealistic painters of our time, none of them share their techniques," says Teller.

Yeah, right. Everybody knows Teller doesn't talk.

Re:They don't talk, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45563697)

I worked on both Spiderman and Avatar. You do the math.

Re:They don't talk, huh? (1)

narcc (412956) | about a year ago | (#45565479)

Well, they are magicians. Cut 'em some slack.

Just look at this:

Tim’s device is Vermeer’s device! I have no doubt. Tim can give you all the doubt you want, but I have none.

It's pretty clear that we're not dealing with rational people here. Which is fine, as they're entertainers, selling to an audience composed of irrational people.

This bit is particularly telling:

The idea of an amateur coming in and understanding things experts can’t see—that’s a very American kind of plotline.

The amateur, outsider, the autodidact -- if they're only smart and clever enough -- can outwit or otherwise make a major contribution to a field they're interested in. It's their very standing as an uneducated amateur that imbibes them with insight far beyond that of the average expert.

It seems silly at first, but there's a lot of money to be made pandering to the egos of the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.

So relax. Their viewers don't care about silly details. The magicians don't care either. The audience doesn't want to question what they're told, and the performers don't want to bother fact-checking everything. It's just not that important to them.

Re: They don't talk, huh? (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579619)

You may be right. But one objection to the camera obscura theory was that such a technique had never been demonstrated. Now it has. It's far from proof, but it sure is interesting.

Re:They don't talk, huh? (1)

taylorius (221419) | about a year ago | (#45566941)

You're right to mock that, although in the late 1990's I worked at a London post production agency. We developed a human hair / fur system for Softimage and Mental Ray, which was quite advanced for the time. So we took it to Siggraph and showed it around different stands, trying to drum up some interest. However when we came to a company that had developed a similar product, initially they refused to talk to us. They saw our badges, literally cried out "Aaah, The Enemy!", and retreated back into the rear of their stand. It sounds crazy, and we became friendly after we talked them round - but they genuinely thought we were somehow trying to steal their secrets, or something.

So it can happen, though as you say, it's certainly not the norm.

Not just an artist (2)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#45563525)

Vermeer makes some damned fine heavy equipment - the digging Dutchman!

Just kidding - I know the difference.

Why? (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about a year ago | (#45563747)

Because Adobe can release Vermeer Photoshop plugins that make boobs and LOLcats look photorealistic. That's why.

What about Jew 'modern' art? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45564083)

What will the poor, talentless Jews say about this?
The poor Jews couldn't paint properly, so they invented 'modern' art, and SOME of the public (useful idiots) lapped it up. The Jew hates and destroys beauty.

There's nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45564203)

Speculation that Vermeer used a camera obscure goes way back. We also know that he used some very traditional techniques, including sticking a pin in the vanishing point and drawing lines strings radiating from the pin to get the right perspective.

Bogus (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45564465)

""" ... and discovered â€oean exponential relationship in the light on the white wall.†The brightness of any surface becomes exponentially less bright the farther it is from a light sourceâ€"but the unaided human eye doesnâ€(TM)t register that.
"""

False, and false. The eye compensates for the *inverse square law*, which is different from not registering it. Were it not to be followed, the eye would certainly notice something is wrong. So by accepting the gradation as not worthy of attention, the brain has noticed and approved it.

Re: Bogus (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579653)

No, they're referring to the way we perceive exponential differences in light linearly. An example of this is the way digital cameras adjust for this behavior when concerting from raw.

You never took an art class? (2)

Alcanazar (879920) | about a year ago | (#45564553)

I am Appalled at the lack of art knowledge at Slashdot! Certainly camera obscura has been know for centuries but many artists can do as well without it. In second grade, I had a friend with who could copy any picture by hand from memory. He had a game where he would see how long it would take for someone to figure out which picture it was while he drew the lines randomly. He had a photographic memory and the ability to freehand a straight line or circle. . . . Now he's a dentist.

Film doesn't really exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45564819)

Added to Couchpotato this morning. Just checked; I still don't have it. Sound like bullshit.

A bit of an enigma (1)

lw54 (73409) | about a year ago | (#45564865)

Vermeer was a bit of an enigma, even to his contemporaries. Most of the information we have on him is largely speculative but it's very clear Johannes Vermeer did make an impact on the art community of his time.

Oh for goodness sakes (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#45564919)

The end result should prove that Vermeer didn't use something like this. This persons end result looks like a flat 2d photograph. Vermeers paintings have depth because they are painted from a person accurately viewing the 3d scene. The reason that non-focus elements are fuzzy is not because he was looking through a lens but because our brain does EXACTLY the same thing if you pay attention. Most people probably don't notice that saccades involve changes in depth as well, because our brain is meant to hide the 'glitches in the matrix'. However, you can seperate depth changes (lens) from x-y movement (occ. muscles). If you do so, you can traverse a scene at a single focal point and if you can 'see' it you can paint it.

I guess it's probably more obvious to those of us who were or are unable to change depth of focus.

Re:Oh for goodness sakes (1)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#45573447)

One the arguments postulated against the proposed "Vermeer technique" by art historians is that Vermeer's paintings had architectural features that were largely unknown (eg, Italian tile in Dutch buildings) and structures which were architecturally or structurally difficult to build at the time.

They use this to claim that the scenes he painted weren't renderings of actual places, so the "technique" couldn't have been used as described or was only a partial inspiration that was used as a sort of foundation for the painting.

 

Re: Oh for goodness sakes (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year ago | (#45579685)

Blurring from saccades is uniform in angular degrees. Blurring from lens effects isn't. The difference is measurable. In a picture it'd translate to less blurring near the center of the painting as opposed to the closest to the painter.

The art of "seeing" (1)

Ozoner (1406169) | about a year ago | (#45565049)

This is a ridiculous article.

The whole point of training as an artist is to acquire the art of "seeing" the subject.

To a normal person the action of the eye (focus, colour balance, brightness compensation) is invisible and transparent.
But a trained artist learns to incorporate the effect of the eye's processing into his painting.
Some do it instinctively, some use photographic aids.

Many early artists used a camera obscura and/or mirrors to help them "see" the subject when creating the first draft of a painting.
These days an artist will often use a colour photograph for the same purpose.

Google Jobs (-1, Offtopic)

Rosie Amber (3449935) | about a year ago | (#45566259)

just before I looked at the paycheck 4 $6482, I didnt believe that my neighbour woz like they say realie earning money parttime online.. there best friend has been doing this 4 only about eight months and recently took care of the dept on their home and bourt themselves a Lotus Elan. navigate to this site============> www.blue48.com =============
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?