[aestetix]

I thought the point of the movie was to claim that Vermeer was nothing special, and Tim's effort to recreate the painting was supposed to prove that. I think the galleries would disagree with that point, otherwise they would not care whether Vermeer actually painted them.

And yes, both of my points are speculation, fueled by an immense dislike for the movie.

[daseiner1]

If the claims are true then Vermeer is absolutely exceptional, just in a different manner than is usually considered.

All painters must grapple with the technical nature of paint itself and its manipulation. Choice of type of paint, canvas, application, &c. is paramount. Rothko’s work, for instance, is only effective because he found a novel way to apply paint that lends his paintings a remarkable, nigh eerie depth of color. Spending roughly half an hour just staring at the Seagram murals in the “Rothko Room” at the Tate Modern is one of my all-time favorite experiences.

[resize2996]

There have been posts about reproducing art and I always thinking maybe I could make a mini-Rothko room in spare room.

[daseiner1]

that would be cool! sincerely. post it here if you do.

i feel like the above comment might come across as sarcastic but i genuinely find it super cool when a layman can master a new discipline with force of will and publicly available writings. much like vermeer's much speculated-upon clever use of technology ;)

[colonelspace]

The point of the documentary was to show that Vermeer may have used optics.

That's it.

[adastra22]

I think you are projecting. I don’t recall getting any of that from the movie, which I recall being very respectful of Vermeer’s legacy. The narrators (Penn and Teller) are themselves magicians and it would be immensely hypocritical of them to denigrate an artist by showing there’s an underlying trick.