This movie documents Tim Jenison's attempt to reproduce Vermeer's painting "The Music Lesson." There had previously been speculation about Vermeer's use of optical devices to produce his photo-realistic paintings, most notably by British artist David Hockney in his 2011 book "Secret Knowledge." (Hockney makes short appearances in this movie.) Hockney proposed that many 17th century artists may have used such techniques and even suggests that Da Vinci may have used such devices as early as the 15th century. Hockney's thesis was that the artists were using camera obscuras to project images as guides for paintings. Jenison takes Hockney's thesis one step further to show how optical devices can be used to precisely match the colors on projected images. His insight was to insert an additional mirror allowing him to simultaneously view the projected image directly over his canvas.
In order to prove his theory Jenison undertakes the reproduction of Vermeer's complex painting, "The Music Lesson." There is little suspense as to Jenison's success, since there would probably have been no movie if he had failed. One of the takeaways for me was to see how obsessively Jenison approached his project, actually constructing a room similar to the room in the original painting, down to the windows, carpet, chair, and viola da gamba. He also limited himself to paints of the time and ground his own lenses. Jenison frequently points out that he is no artist and that pretty much anybody could do what he did. I think not. For one thing his task required incredibly detailed work lasting for several years. Very few people would have the patience for that amount of tedious work. For another thing, even though he may not be a talented painter, Jenison definitely is a talented sketch artist. He is able to draw intricate lines and shapes with a steady hand. His optical devices may have pointed the way, but drawing straight lines in single strokes, as he does, is not easy. Also, trying to mix paints to match an existing color would take some skill.
Being an expert in computer graphics Jenison has some interesting observations to make. For example, he points out that the gamut of color gradations on the lighted wall in the painting could not be distinguished with the human eye, but would be captured by a mirror. I found that one of the most interesting facts was Jenison's noticing that his optics were introducing a certain curvature in some of the lines. When viewed edge-on Vermeer's painting illustrated similar curvature.
If indeed Vermeer were using similar techniques to those of Jenison, then I think it does not take away from appreciating his work. Vermeer died at the age of 43 leaving behind some 34 paintings (including "Girl With the Pearl Earring" that was the inspiration for the movie of that name). To produce over a painting a year using the illustrated techniques would mean that Vermeer must have had the techniques down pretty well. In any case Vermeer must have had the same obsessiveness and patience as Jenison--the detail on the scroll-work on the virginal and the pattern on the rug would test anyone's patience and determination. And what is to be made of Vermeer's meager output compared to, for example, over 900 painting for Van Gogh and 2500 for Monet?
In order to prove his theory Jenison undertakes the reproduction of Vermeer's complex painting, "The Music Lesson." There is little suspense as to Jenison's success, since there would probably have been no movie if he had failed. One of the takeaways for me was to see how obsessively Jenison approached his project, actually constructing a room similar to the room in the original painting, down to the windows, carpet, chair, and viola da gamba. He also limited himself to paints of the time and ground his own lenses. Jenison frequently points out that he is no artist and that pretty much anybody could do what he did. I think not. For one thing his task required incredibly detailed work lasting for several years. Very few people would have the patience for that amount of tedious work. For another thing, even though he may not be a talented painter, Jenison definitely is a talented sketch artist. He is able to draw intricate lines and shapes with a steady hand. His optical devices may have pointed the way, but drawing straight lines in single strokes, as he does, is not easy. Also, trying to mix paints to match an existing color would take some skill.
Being an expert in computer graphics Jenison has some interesting observations to make. For example, he points out that the gamut of color gradations on the lighted wall in the painting could not be distinguished with the human eye, but would be captured by a mirror. I found that one of the most interesting facts was Jenison's noticing that his optics were introducing a certain curvature in some of the lines. When viewed edge-on Vermeer's painting illustrated similar curvature.
If indeed Vermeer were using similar techniques to those of Jenison, then I think it does not take away from appreciating his work. Vermeer died at the age of 43 leaving behind some 34 paintings (including "Girl With the Pearl Earring" that was the inspiration for the movie of that name). To produce over a painting a year using the illustrated techniques would mean that Vermeer must have had the techniques down pretty well. In any case Vermeer must have had the same obsessiveness and patience as Jenison--the detail on the scroll-work on the virginal and the pattern on the rug would test anyone's patience and determination. And what is to be made of Vermeer's meager output compared to, for example, over 900 painting for Van Gogh and 2500 for Monet?