After watching this documentary I showed it to a friend of mine who is a professional oil painter. Just thought I'd pass along his thoughts by way of 'review' as I think they're enlightening.
"I agree he used something like this as a tool because it was possible and it's smart, but I'm 0% that it's the source of his genius. I've seen probably 50-60% of Vermeer's pictures in person and more than once; they are not possible without an amazing knowledge of paint and they are not consistently good."
"They follow a learning curve that's obvious to an oil painter, which betrays something that contradicts what this movie is saying. Also they simplify a lot of the information on Vermeer to cater to this project."
"I'm glad they didn't heavy-hand the accomplishment because the amount of knowledge required to paint like Vermeer in astronomical. Having that knowledge plus that device could very likely equal a Vermeer. What I find interesting is that very few of Vermeer's people are actually painted with accurate proportions."
"Did you notice that despite having such an accurate device, the people not very good for this guy either? I've always wondered that about Vermeer. Only in his close, individual portraits are the people painted with any life. In most of his paintings the interiors are the star of the show."
"Also, Hockney is hardly a person to be asking about figure painting. Carravaggio and the like definitely did not use a device--only perspective grids."
"The lack of an under painting or sketch doesn't mean much because x-rays are such an inexact science when it comes to paintings, rarely allowed on priceless paintings and more likely, the process could just as easily not involve a detailed drawing underneath or the drawing could've been so light and inconspicuous that it didn't show up because the pigments were the same and layers fused together."
"Only complicated pigment analysis and other ridiculous and expensive tests can yield anything and they don't bother to talk about those things with a professional conservationist who would know about them. They just make a blanket statement about x-rays which means nothing, ultimately."
"That's part of what I meant about tailoring the information to the project's goals. The other part is when he insinuated the girl with the red hat was the "first." That is definitely way off unless he means the first with the device. 'Christ in the House of Martha and Mary' is generally acknowledged as Vermeer's existing first painting."
"Also Vermeer's lack of existing preliminary drawings isn't unique to Art either, Velazquez never did sketches of anything either, along with a slew of others. The 20th century thinks that painting straight onto a canvas is unique to the Impressionists first, which is absurd."
"I agree he used something like this as a tool because it was possible and it's smart, but I'm 0% that it's the source of his genius. I've seen probably 50-60% of Vermeer's pictures in person and more than once; they are not possible without an amazing knowledge of paint and they are not consistently good."
"They follow a learning curve that's obvious to an oil painter, which betrays something that contradicts what this movie is saying. Also they simplify a lot of the information on Vermeer to cater to this project."
"I'm glad they didn't heavy-hand the accomplishment because the amount of knowledge required to paint like Vermeer in astronomical. Having that knowledge plus that device could very likely equal a Vermeer. What I find interesting is that very few of Vermeer's people are actually painted with accurate proportions."
"Did you notice that despite having such an accurate device, the people not very good for this guy either? I've always wondered that about Vermeer. Only in his close, individual portraits are the people painted with any life. In most of his paintings the interiors are the star of the show."
"Also, Hockney is hardly a person to be asking about figure painting. Carravaggio and the like definitely did not use a device--only perspective grids."
"The lack of an under painting or sketch doesn't mean much because x-rays are such an inexact science when it comes to paintings, rarely allowed on priceless paintings and more likely, the process could just as easily not involve a detailed drawing underneath or the drawing could've been so light and inconspicuous that it didn't show up because the pigments were the same and layers fused together."
"Only complicated pigment analysis and other ridiculous and expensive tests can yield anything and they don't bother to talk about those things with a professional conservationist who would know about them. They just make a blanket statement about x-rays which means nothing, ultimately."
"That's part of what I meant about tailoring the information to the project's goals. The other part is when he insinuated the girl with the red hat was the "first." That is definitely way off unless he means the first with the device. 'Christ in the House of Martha and Mary' is generally acknowledged as Vermeer's existing first painting."
"Also Vermeer's lack of existing preliminary drawings isn't unique to Art either, Velazquez never did sketches of anything either, along with a slew of others. The 20th century thinks that painting straight onto a canvas is unique to the Impressionists first, which is absurd."