What a pearl!

[Bartc]

Why that girl and that pearl appeals? An analysis of art that speaks volumes.

 

[Bongo]

The part about responding to the original vs a reproduction is flawed. A high-quality reproduction presented side-by-side to the original, framed and lit in the same manner, viewed from ten feet away would be considered just as favorable. And if the reproduction was on the right side and 20% larger than the original, would probably be viewed as superior. Venue, context, and preconditioning play a huge part.

Many reports of disappointment seeing Salvador Dali's 9.5" by 13" original "Persistence of Memory", compared to the 3ft by 4ft poster hanging on their dorm wall.

 

[stlukesguild]

I'm not certain just how original the discovery of the so-called "Sustained Attentional Loop" is. The idea of leading the eye through a triad of focal points is nothing new when it comes to composing an image. This also ignores just how seductive the surface of Vermeer's paintings are.

 

[Bongo]

I'm not certain just how original the discovery of the so-called "Sustained Attentional Loop" is. The idea of leading the eye through a triad of focal points is nothing new when it comes to composing an image. This also ignores just how seductive the surface of Vermeer's paintings are.

my thoughts, thank you, SLG. Something I've considered -- A.I. distinguishes between faces by analyzing the micro variations of size and arrangement of facial features. A tiny weenie (technical term) variation is enough for Ai to make the call. So perhaps Vermeer by chance and/or design hit upon such an exacting combination of features that was so true and enchanting it has captivated viewers all these years.

Way back in the day I played around with Poser - a 3d app - that centered around the human form and facial features. It was amazing how just the smallest tweak of the head or an eye, nose, mouth, just a slight touch on a dial, could change a face from handsome to average to grotesque.

 

[stlukesguild]

I've been aware of how just one more brush stroke or pine of a given color in a painting... no matter how big... can totally change and undermine it. I was schooled in Formalist theory and came to think of composing a work of art as not unlike composing a work of poetry in which every single word matters.

Speaking of how a single tiny shift can completely change an image of the face I cannot help but think of John Singer Sargent's famous quote: "a picture in which there is just a tiny little something not quite right about the mouth". Again, I am ever amazed at how artists like Velazquez, Rubens, Rembrandt, Degas, etc... could perfectly capture the "anatomy" of a face or hand with the most fluid and gestural marks. This is true of Vermeer as well. I was lucky enough to have seen the big Vermeer Retrospective in Washington D.C. a good many years ago. I was floored by the "abstraction" in his paintings: fluid marks, large flat areas that read as 3-D forms, and of course his colors.

The Girl with the Pearl Earring is a marvelous painting... but I don't feel it is necessarily his best painting any more than the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's finest. Like the Mona Lisa there has been a lot of "publicity" around this painting that makes it recognizable and a favorite of the larger audience who may not be the most knowledgeable of the rest of his oeuvre. Personally, I prefer these:

 

[Bongo]

The Girl with the Pearl Earring is a marvelous painting... but I don't feel it is necessarily his best painting any more than the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's finest. Like the Mona Lisa there has been a lot of "publicity" around this painting that makes it recognizable and a favorite of the larger audience who may not be the most knowledgeable of the rest of his oeuvre. Personally, I prefer these:

YES!. But you can see how (to the layperson) Pearl and Mona make a personal connection with the viewer, they see a young girl, the other examples are "paintings"

To the other point, whereas a minute change can alter a face, a crude description of a few salient features - often used by cartoonists - can nail a character's description. So it works both ways in a way.

This one gets me...

most recognize this as Andy Warhol, just seeing the back of his head. But wait! That's actually the back of a wig! Back of a wig enough to identify one of the most famous artists of the last century.

 

[Artyczar]

I don't buy the triangle science, but that's me. To tell you the absolute truth, I never really noticed the pearl the first few times I saw the painting...I didn't know the name of it; it was just a famous painting I saw around in the world. To me, it's the striking light and color. But that's just one moron's opinion.

 

[Bartc]

I don't buy the triangle science, but that's me. To tell you the absolute truth, I never really noticed the pearl the first few times I saw the painting...I didn't know the name of it; it was just a famous painting I saw around in the world. To me, it's the striking light and color. But that's just one moron's opinion.

Ayin, not "one moron". You're an accomplished artist and each of our opinions counts.

I find the painting striking and refreshing, not because of the pearl at all. Her eye's, her expression, and the way she seems to be looking right at you grab my attention. Historically, this is a highly modern painting from a Renaissance artist, something you might see in a gallery in Amsterdam today, more than one you would expect back then, even from the very same artist.

As a portrait of an individual - a person - as opposed to his other excellent "portraits" of Dutch life, it's that distinct from the rest of his oeuvre to my thinking.

I do prefer this to the Mona Lisa, a painting of great technical skill from an extraordinary artist, but of no great appeal to me personally.

As to scientific dissection of perception and appreciation of art, well, that's still an open question, isn't it?

 

[Artyczar]

I agree about it being contemporary, and I, too, prefer it over the Mona Lisa. I'm not a huge fan of that one, honestly. There's no comparison at all. No one paints light like Vermeer. One of the first artists I fell in love with when I was a teen was Maxfield Parish because of how he captured light. I wasn't exposed to much art, but had I not seen his work, I may not have wanted to try my hand at painting seriously or want to practice.

Thanks for disagreeing that I'm a moron. That's just my self-deprecating humor that a lot of people don't find funny.

 

[Bartc]

I agree about it being contemporary, and I, too, prefer it over the Mona Lisa. I'm not a huge fan of that one, honestly. There's no comparison at all. No one paints light like Vermeer. One of the first artists I fell in love with when I was a teen was Maxfield Parish because of how he captured light. I wasn't exposed to much art, but had I not seen his work, I may not have wanted to try my hand at painting seriously or want to practice.

Thanks for disagreeing that I'm a moron. That's just my self-deprecating humor that a lot of people don't find funny.

Oh, I got that part! Same humor, though I don't display it here I see.

Another "modern" way ahead of his time: El Greco.

BTW, really worth watching David Hockney's YT vids about how Vermeer undoubtedly used a camera obscura in his work on his domestic scenes.

 

[Artyczar]

I've seen Hockney's vids. They are awesome.

 

[stlukesguild]

Acck! Not the Hockney camera obscura crap again! Two of the facts that Hockney failed to mention:

1. The scale of the camera obscura needed to simply “project” an image on the scale of Vermeer’s Allegory of Painting… not a particularly huge painting… would have been immense…

So what of Caravaggio or Holbein or Velazquez or other painters who were masters of “realism” working on a huge Baroque scale. Without the projection of electric light such paintings could never have been the product of a camera obscura.

2. Today we have far more powerful means of projecting images onto a painting surface… and yet I have yet to see us overwhelmed with paintings on the level of those by Vermeer.

I quite like Hockney’s paintings… and some of his writings… but the abilities of the “old masters” cannot be reduced to some secret use of early projection techniques.

 

[Bartc]

Acck! Not the Hockney camera obscura crap again! Two of the facts that Hockney failed to mention:

1. The scale of the camera obscura needed to simply “project” an image on the scale of Vermeer’s Allegory of Painting… not a particularly huge painting… would have been immense…

View attachment 43955

So what of Caravaggio or Holbein or Velazquez or other painters who were masters of “realism” working on a huge Baroque scale. Without the projection of electric light such paintings could never have been the product of a camera obscura.

2. Today we have far more powerful means of projecting images onto a painting surface… and yet I have yet to see us overwhelmed with paintings on the level of those by Vermeer.

I quite like Hockney’s paintings… and some of his writings… but the abilities of the “old masters” cannot be reduced to some secret use of early projection techniques.

Disagree.

First of all, you needn't have a lens for the effect. The "pinhole" camera works on that principle. You don't need to project it on a large surface either. It suffices for drawing the basis of a composition to have it projected onto any flat surface, perhaps one with a grid, of any appreciable size. From there the sketch can be enlarged by simple mechanical means we all know.

The effect was known and documented centuries before Vermeer, and was in use as the camera obscura during his lifetime.

Regardless of how Vermeer developed his sketches, it takes nothing away from him or any other masters who may have used this device or principle, because they still needed great compositional vision and skill and great painting skill to implement the design.

 

[Bartc]

Additionally, since the camera obscura projects upside down, that's actually an advantage in drawing. The brain works with the lines it sees, rather than with its prior perception of objects and light.

 

[brianvds]

Speaking of how a single tiny shift can completely change an image of the face I cannot help but think of John Singer Sargent's famous quote: "a picture in which there is just a tiny little something not quite right about the mouth".

Whenever I attempt a portrait, at least half the time I spend on it is spent on the mouth, and when the portraits fails to be a likeness (something which happens depressingly often) it is almost invariably because I simply couldn't get the mouth right.

 

[brianvds]

Acck! Not the Hockney camera obscura crap again! Two of the facts that Hockney failed to mention:

1. The scale of the camera obscura needed to simply “project” an image on the scale of Vermeer’s Allegory of Painting… not a particularly huge painting… would have been immense…

So what of Caravaggio or Holbein or Velazquez or other painters who were masters of “realism” working on a huge Baroque scale. Without the projection of electric light such paintings could never have been the product of a camera obscura.

2. Today we have far more powerful means of projecting images onto a painting surface… and yet I have yet to see us overwhelmed with paintings on the level of those by Vermeer.

Indeed - none of the folks who proposed that the old masters used such methods have ever been able to produce anything remotely like those old master paintings using a camera obscura. I doubt if you could do it even with modern equipment, because the moment you start painting, the projected image kind of disappears. All you can do with such equipment is get the line drawing about right, and it will require the poor model to be either dead or be able to sit very still indeed.

Add to that the fact that contemporary realist painters do not need such equipment, and Hockney has a theory which explains something that does not actually need any explanation. How did the old masters do it? Probably pretty much the same way as today's masters do it.

 

[stlukesguild]

I’ll need to look around for it, but I just recently came upon an article that notes that a good number of Vermeer’s paintings have pin-holes at the vanishing point… which would seem to suggest that he used the string technique in establishing linear perspective… an optical aid that certainly predates the camera obscura. There’s a print by Albrecht Dürer that illustrates the use of string and a grid in creating a drawing/painting. If there was some secret to the incredible skills of the old masters I suspect it comes down to practice. These guys were apprenticed at an early age and spent endless hours drawing and later painting from observation. They didn’t have the disruption of TV, movies, smart phones, or the internet.

 

[Bartc]

I’ll need to look around for it, but I just recently came upon an article that notes that a good number of Vermeer’s paintings have pin-holes at the vanishing point… which would seem to suggest that he used the string technique in establishing linear perspective… an optical aid that certainly predates the camera obscura. There’s a print by Albrecht Dürer that illustrates the use of string and a grid in creating a drawing/painting. If there was some secret to the incredible skills of the old masters I suspect it comes down to practice. These guys were apprenticed at an early age and spent endless hours drawing and later painting from observation. They didn’t have the disruption of TV, movies, smart phones, or the internet.

One device does not exclude the possibility of use of others. When you make your living from paintings that you produce maybe one or two per year, you use whatever you can to make them salable.
I'll stick with Hockney's premise, as I think if you watch the videos, he has shown to be highly plausible.
As to linear perspective devices, of course these would also have been used, since linear perspective was highly valued in the Renaissance.

 

[Bongo]

Indeed - none of the folks who proposed that the old masters used such methods have ever been able to produce anything remotely like those old master paintings using a camera obscura.

Except there is a documentary about a complete novice who did, - "Tim's Vermeer"

In "Tim's Vermeer" he builds a set matching "The Music Lesson" and paints a copy of Vermeers from it - even though he has no painting experience.

HE show's how Vermeer's presumed setup would produce the same perspective and a painting of the exact size as Vermeers, and how the set up lets you match VALUE AND HUE - exactly!

 

[brianvds]

Except there is a documentary about a complete novice who did, - "Tim's Vermeer"

In "Tim's Vermeer" he builds a set matching "The Music Lesson" and paints a copy of Vermeers from it - even though he has no painting experience.

HE show's how Vermeer's presumed setup would produce the same perspective and a painting of the exact size as Vermeers, and how the set up lets you match VALUE AND HUE - exactly!

Well, I'll have tom watch the documentary. Reading about it online it appears that they didn't actually use a camera lucida, but some other kind of setup - I cannot work out from written descriptions how it works.

Still seems to me like a hypothesis explaining something that requires no explanation. The idea seems to be that the work of the classical masters is way too accurate to be possible without such mechanical aids, but such accuracy is routinely achieved by contemporary classical painters. You can see them doing demos all over YouTube, so I find the whole thing peculiar.

Unless it is perhaps only specifically Vermeer that they are on about?