3 ms·

Doesn't need to be censorship, maybe just personal preference of the owner who didn't like the comparibly explicit allegoric theme of Vermeers earlier work, com

by mxfh 7y ago

Doesn't need to be censorship, maybe just personal preference of the owner who didn't like the comparibly explicit allegoric theme of Vermeers earlier work, compared to the "open" interpretation of the letter without the cupid. Full statements are here by the museum https://www.skd.museum/en/besucherservice/press/2019/a-new-vermeer-in-dresden/ https://www.skd.museum/en/besucherservice/press/2019/a-new-v... There are even some overpaintings done by Vermeer himself, like the tilt of the head and a wine goblet, which wont be restored. https://youtu.be/sFH8vhOI1Ck?t=536 https://youtu.be/sFH8vhOI1Ck?t=536

Hoasi 7y ago
Now I suppose we'll all need to get used to this "new" original version; not sure which one is best.
- mxfh 7y ago
  Since most see the picture as well documented reproduction I don't think anything is inherently lost, only gains into the "final" intent of the work as by the artist. So we have a very well documentent historic state and restored state. Also the colors will be closer to the original intent, since the non-original muting varnish will be removed too. Still there is an ongoing aging process on the organic original pigments used, so it's always not the exact state in appearance as when the painting was completed.
  - Hoasi 7y ago
    I agree that nothing is inherently loss. This is more like a rediscovery. Still, the covering of that painting, which had artistic merit on its own, is now a thing of the past. I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it.
    - acqq 7y ago
      > I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it. I can tell you I'd hate that somebody overpaints with nothing a part of the picture that I've spent so much energy to paint exactly with what I wanted. I see no excuse for that.
      - Hoasi 7y ago
        Thank you for your opinion, it might be different from the painter's though. But ultimately, we don't know.

by mxfh 7y ago

Hoasi 7y ago

Now I suppose we'll all need to get used to this "new" original version; not sure which one is best.

mxfh 7y ago
Since most see the picture as well documented reproduction I don't think anything is inherently lost, only gains into the "final" intent of the work as by the artist. So we have a very well documentent historic state and restored state. Also the colors will be closer to the original intent, since the non-original muting varnish will be removed too. Still there is an ongoing aging process on the organic original pigments used, so it's always not the exact state in appearance as when the painting was completed.
- Hoasi 7y ago
  I agree that nothing is inherently loss. This is more like a rediscovery. Still, the covering of that painting, which had artistic merit on its own, is now a thing of the past. I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it. I can tell you I'd hate that somebody overpaints with nothing a part of the picture that I've spent so much energy to paint exactly with what I wanted. I see no excuse for that.
    - Hoasi 7y ago
      Thank you for your opinion, it might be different from the painter's though. But ultimately, we don't know.