There are endless debates going on about whether Vermeer is the best or Rembrandt. We cannot dispute taste, but in the end of this documentary (to me at least) the mystery of Vermeer is partly solved, that of Rembrandt remains. Tim himself said it eloquently, that art should not have to be separate from technique. A painting is a document, regardless if it was made with optical help. Seeing Vermeer or Rembrandt in a museum, does that give us the sensation of cheating? No. Tim, an inventor, has the wonderful obsession to recreate a Vermeer with optical techniques that help him to paint details on canvas that would otherwise not be possible to discern. We see the whole process of reconstructing the room Vermeer used to paint, his techniques of mixing paint and all the way to the optics he very likely must have used. The obsession and love for Vermeer that Tim has is contagious and it makes it immediately one of my favorite documentaries in decades. What made me convinced Vermeer must have painted like Tim did, is the comment by an optical specialist made that no humans with super retina's exist. Well, Rembrandt did, but it made me doubt when it came to Vermeer. The thing is, there are no sketches to be found behind Vermeer's paintwork, as infrared research shows. Rembrandt, who actually also has many works of astounding detail in miniature form (paintings of his mother reading the bible for instance), always sketched outlines first, which he often erased and changed, like any drawing is made. Rembrandt probably had a staggering talent plus the obstinacy of Vermeer, while Vermeer might have just had the patience. Tim also discovered while painting his Vermeer that some crooked lines and patterns should have been straight and vice versa. This was probably caused by the fact that Vermeer made the same mistake as he did, while using the optical tools. What tipped the balance in favor of Rembrandt as the still unexplained mystery to me is that Vermeer used very often a similar style and composition, which might shed light on the fact he was more a Tim than a real artist. Rembrandt often changed style, getting more and more impressionistic, or less is more, which is also proof of his artistry and drawing talent.
Vermeer must have used mechanical devices to make his works. This explains his virtually unchanged style, but also the fact that he only made 35 works or so. They must have taken a lot of time! Interestingly enough, through Tim's records we get an indication it might have taken Vermeer three months at least to finish one painting. There is only one 'but' – it remains for instance a mystery how Vermeer painted his View of Delft, or the Street Of Delft, both scenes outside his home. I cannot see how mirrors would have done the job of changing clouds.
Of course no one of us were there, but it seems to me Vermeer (despite the stunning quality of this work) had "only" one repertoire – he stuck to the beautiful compositions before him, and rendered these scenes in photographic realism. Rembrandt went further than 'just' the view in front of him. He magnified aspects, and left others out, making a picture of reality that we cannot find in the world, but nevertheless recognize – real art to me. Just like a movie can be a meaningful slice out of life, but never is life. Like Shakespeare, Rembrandt used dark and light, as a metaphor for our short existence (flash in the darkness, life in the violent universe, you pick your metaphor). He also succeeded in painting mainly ugly people in such a grand way that they, just like in Shakespeare's plays, became just like mankind itself, somehow even more impressive, in all their hubris, flaws and limitations. Vermeer never reaches this level to me. Take Rembrandt's Batseba in the Louvre, her sad and serene expression go so much further in telling a story that is so much more than just the picture. Don't take me wrong, I consider Vermeer the absolute number two on the all-time artist list. Vermeer made time stand still. It is funny to know that probably the paintings you see of him actually really looked like that then. Comparing Rembrandt and Vermeer is like combining Wagner and Vivaldi in music, both skillful and both making great music, but Vermeer like Vivaldi seems to me not able to ever go further than the level of 'light entertainment'. With Vermeer art seems to perfectly imitate life, a stunning accomplishment for someone with only 17th century tools! But Rembrandt painted in superlatives to me. He gave human beings somehow a super reality, which to me is art being bigger than life. Rembrandt had not only skill like Vermeer, but also a vision, which for me raised the bar of what humans can do, how we see life, how in fact the universe reflexes on itself via our best art.
Trying to recapture the magic of old masters, the mystery of "how did they do it" remains. Take for instance the Danae by Rembrandt. When it was destroyed in St Petersburg, even after twelve years of restoring, no one could recapture the golden haze emanating from the original Rembrandt. But although Vermeer painted in light and not in gold and dark, Tim shows actually it can be done. Maybe all this documentary is, is an ode to Vermeer and any great artist that wants to do the impossible. The end result of Tim's painting is more than stunning and it makes us think: if a Vermeer can be made through plain perseverance with the help of mechanical means, would he indeed have cheated? In the end it might not matter, since both the sheer beauty of composition and detail will enchant us forever.
Vermeer must have used mechanical devices to make his works. This explains his virtually unchanged style, but also the fact that he only made 35 works or so. They must have taken a lot of time! Interestingly enough, through Tim's records we get an indication it might have taken Vermeer three months at least to finish one painting. There is only one 'but' – it remains for instance a mystery how Vermeer painted his View of Delft, or the Street Of Delft, both scenes outside his home. I cannot see how mirrors would have done the job of changing clouds.
Of course no one of us were there, but it seems to me Vermeer (despite the stunning quality of this work) had "only" one repertoire – he stuck to the beautiful compositions before him, and rendered these scenes in photographic realism. Rembrandt went further than 'just' the view in front of him. He magnified aspects, and left others out, making a picture of reality that we cannot find in the world, but nevertheless recognize – real art to me. Just like a movie can be a meaningful slice out of life, but never is life. Like Shakespeare, Rembrandt used dark and light, as a metaphor for our short existence (flash in the darkness, life in the violent universe, you pick your metaphor). He also succeeded in painting mainly ugly people in such a grand way that they, just like in Shakespeare's plays, became just like mankind itself, somehow even more impressive, in all their hubris, flaws and limitations. Vermeer never reaches this level to me. Take Rembrandt's Batseba in the Louvre, her sad and serene expression go so much further in telling a story that is so much more than just the picture. Don't take me wrong, I consider Vermeer the absolute number two on the all-time artist list. Vermeer made time stand still. It is funny to know that probably the paintings you see of him actually really looked like that then. Comparing Rembrandt and Vermeer is like combining Wagner and Vivaldi in music, both skillful and both making great music, but Vermeer like Vivaldi seems to me not able to ever go further than the level of 'light entertainment'. With Vermeer art seems to perfectly imitate life, a stunning accomplishment for someone with only 17th century tools! But Rembrandt painted in superlatives to me. He gave human beings somehow a super reality, which to me is art being bigger than life. Rembrandt had not only skill like Vermeer, but also a vision, which for me raised the bar of what humans can do, how we see life, how in fact the universe reflexes on itself via our best art.
Trying to recapture the magic of old masters, the mystery of "how did they do it" remains. Take for instance the Danae by Rembrandt. When it was destroyed in St Petersburg, even after twelve years of restoring, no one could recapture the golden haze emanating from the original Rembrandt. But although Vermeer painted in light and not in gold and dark, Tim shows actually it can be done. Maybe all this documentary is, is an ode to Vermeer and any great artist that wants to do the impossible. The end result of Tim's painting is more than stunning and it makes us think: if a Vermeer can be made through plain perseverance with the help of mechanical means, would he indeed have cheated? In the end it might not matter, since both the sheer beauty of composition and detail will enchant us forever.