4 ms·

If you're a basic techie with little appreciation for the fine arts, watch a film called "Tim's Vermeer". It will make you want to go to this exhibition.

alangibson 5y ago
Tim's Vermeer was directed and produced by Penn and Teller. While I loved it, I can't shake the feeling the whole thing was a hoax.
- willhinsa 5y ago
  This article [0] would seem to agree with that feeling you can't shake; not that it's a "hoax" per se, but that it's bullshit ;) > So what does it lack? The film implies anyone can make a beautiful work of art with the right application of science. There is no need for mystical ideas like genius. > But the mysterious genius of Vermeer is exactly what's missing from Tim's Vermeer. It is arrogant to deny the enigmatic nature of Vermeer's art. If this art looks "optical", it can also look abstract. It is an act of seeing nature, not a work of copying it. Whether or not he made use of optical instruments, Vermeer looked at the world with a uniquely penetrating eye. He was able to paint what he saw with a delicate hand. If you can't see the astonishing nature of his talent when you are standing in front of his paintings you should walk away from them – not make a film about how easy they are to replicate. > Tim's Vermeer is the equivalent of someone hanging a painting-by-numbers version of a masterpiece over the mantelpiece and claiming it's as good as the real thing. At last, an art film for philistines. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...
  - mlyle 5y ago
    I think the article and this comment misses the point. As far as "just use the right optical tricks and you can be Vermeer" -- sure, this is bullshit. As far as showing that an optical method was a real possibility for how Vermeer created his work-- sure! A layman using the tricks was able to get very close, but lacked the artistry himself to put in Vermeer's unique magic in: this establishes that the optical techniques were a plausible way for the works to be created.
- boppo1 5y ago
  I'm a painter, and it was bullshit. Camera lucidas suck and just get in the way and Hockney is a modernist hack of a painter.
Kaibeezy 5y ago
Exactly. That's what put Vermeer on my radar. Trailer here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pCNUu6qFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pCNUu6qFY
wodenokoto 5y ago
I appreciate the recommendation, but I don’t appreciate being called “basic”.
- toolz 5y ago
  Would you rather have unique tastes that make you relatable to no one or would you rather have preferences that put you in a category of people that makes you relatable and approachable? I've never understood this aversion to "basic" - it feels like vanity to me when people have a desire to be unique just for the sake of standing out. It seems like society would collapse if everyone was truly unique. Maybe you or someone else can correct me if this desire to be different isn't just vanity
  - tinco 5y ago
    Maybe if you were less basic you would understand, and you could join those unique individuals with a grasp on why humans are vain.
    - toolz 5y ago
      Maybe, but alas, I'm basic and wouldn't change it for the world. I value other humans too much to try and distance myself from them. We're social animals, it seems natural and good to embrace that.
  - wodenokoto 5y ago
    "Basic" means stupid, or at least simple minded. It doesn't refer to common, or normal, which would be the opposite of unique. Parent is saying "If you are a simpleton, who doesn't understand art, then ...."
    - toolz 5y ago
      That seems like a very uncharitable interpretation, especially since the word itself doesn't mean anything of the sort. Basic means fundamental or rudimentary. I take "basic techie" to mean a person with many of the fundamental things that make up typical techies. Even the most upvoted urban dictionary definition has the first definition as: "Used to describe someone devoid of defining characteristics that might make a person interesting, extraordinary, or just simply worth devoting time or attention to." Which says nothing about someones intelligence. Granted the next definition does mention being stupid, I hardly think it's fair to interpret a comment in this context as being hostile in the least.
unwind 5y ago
Thanks, that sounds really interesting. Really cool (to me!) that it connects Penn&Teller, Amsterdam (where this fantastic museum is), and NewTek which was very well-known back in my Amiga days. So cool!
fsloth 5y ago
"basic techie with little appreciation for the fine arts" Why would interest in technology negatively correlate with interest in art? That presumes a very specific correlation between chosen profession and cultural interests. The document is very fun! But just trying painting will quickly educate a person of the pragmatics. Starting painting is really simple nowdays with IPad, Apple Pen and Procreate. There are tons of resources and courses available - and the problematics in digital art if using traditional art analogues map quite far into oil painting (even though physical medium does have it's specificities).
- mikkelam 5y ago
  > Why would interest in technology negatively correlate with interest in art? OP didnt write any such thing. I think you're reading too much into his comment.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Because of the world, I have to wonder are people really this overly sensitive, or just trolls looking to stir trouble? However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer.
    - fsloth 5y ago
      "Because of the world, I have to wonder are people really this overly sensitive, or just trolls looking to stir trouble?" Poor sentence building on my part, I get caught up on petty linguistics. No harm intended. "However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer." No, really, modern digital tools are friggin awesome! What I intended to convey that a person should really try painting once in their life, but they don't need to set up a studio with good lighting, get solvents and paints and brushes and so on. I say this as a lifelong art enthusiast who loves his pens, charcoals, inks, acrylics and oils. And the IPad Pro with an Apple Pencil fits there actually really, really well. Similar experience can be had on a Wacom tablet and Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint, Krita or what ever program that takes into account artistic sensibilities in their tooling. 90% of the problematics constructing a painting can be investigated using a digital medium. Oils bring in the pigments and their interaction with each other and medium, but that's kind of an added layer of complexity on top of the artistically critical elements - shape, color, detail reproduction and so on. Because when you paint, it's not an act of photography, but a process where one needs to decide on lots of these issues. You can take what ever course or book that teaches oil painting, and apply it on a digital medium quite far. The key tools are 1. a brush that maps pressure to size 2. a brush that maps pressure to opacity 3. a blend tool to blend the colors. Layers help in keeping things tight. It's really nice if the software attempts to provide realistic blending of colors, but it's not necessary - all of these have been available for decades on digital paint tools. I totally agree a digital painting lacks the feeling of an actual oil painting, but the problematics are the same. As an example these include shape, tonal mapping from the scene to the canvas, choosing a palette, choosing which details to render and which not.

alangibson 5y ago

Tim's Vermeer was directed and produced by Penn and Teller. While I loved it, I can't shake the feeling the whole thing was a hoax.

willhinsa 5y ago
This article [0] would seem to agree with that feeling you can't shake; not that it's a "hoax" per se, but that it's bullshit ;) > So what does it lack? The film implies anyone can make a beautiful work of art with the right application of science. There is no need for mystical ideas like genius. > But the mysterious genius of Vermeer is exactly what's missing from Tim's Vermeer. It is arrogant to deny the enigmatic nature of Vermeer's art. If this art looks "optical", it can also look abstract. It is an act of seeing nature, not a work of copying it. Whether or not he made use of optical instruments, Vermeer looked at the world with a uniquely penetrating eye. He was able to paint what he saw with a delicate hand. If you can't see the astonishing nature of his talent when you are standing in front of his paintings you should walk away from them – not make a film about how easy they are to replicate. > Tim's Vermeer is the equivalent of someone hanging a painting-by-numbers version of a masterpiece over the mantelpiece and claiming it's as good as the real thing. At last, an art film for philistines. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...
- mlyle 5y ago
  I think the article and this comment misses the point. As far as "just use the right optical tricks and you can be Vermeer" -- sure, this is bullshit. As far as showing that an optical method was a real possibility for how Vermeer created his work-- sure! A layman using the tricks was able to get very close, but lacked the artistry himself to put in Vermeer's unique magic in: this establishes that the optical techniques were a plausible way for the works to be created.
boppo1 5y ago
I'm a painter, and it was bullshit. Camera lucidas suck and just get in the way and Hockney is a modernist hack of a painter.

Kaibeezy 5y ago

Exactly. That's what put Vermeer on my radar. Trailer here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pCNUu6qFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pCNUu6qFY

wodenokoto 5y ago

I appreciate the recommendation, but I don’t appreciate being called “basic”.

toolz 5y ago
Would you rather have unique tastes that make you relatable to no one or would you rather have preferences that put you in a category of people that makes you relatable and approachable? I've never understood this aversion to "basic" - it feels like vanity to me when people have a desire to be unique just for the sake of standing out. It seems like society would collapse if everyone was truly unique. Maybe you or someone else can correct me if this desire to be different isn't just vanity
- tinco 5y ago
  Maybe if you were less basic you would understand, and you could join those unique individuals with a grasp on why humans are vain.
  - toolz 5y ago
    Maybe, but alas, I'm basic and wouldn't change it for the world. I value other humans too much to try and distance myself from them. We're social animals, it seems natural and good to embrace that.
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  "Basic" means stupid, or at least simple minded. It doesn't refer to common, or normal, which would be the opposite of unique. Parent is saying "If you are a simpleton, who doesn't understand art, then ...."
  - toolz 5y ago
    That seems like a very uncharitable interpretation, especially since the word itself doesn't mean anything of the sort. Basic means fundamental or rudimentary. I take "basic techie" to mean a person with many of the fundamental things that make up typical techies. Even the most upvoted urban dictionary definition has the first definition as: "Used to describe someone devoid of defining characteristics that might make a person interesting, extraordinary, or just simply worth devoting time or attention to." Which says nothing about someones intelligence. Granted the next definition does mention being stupid, I hardly think it's fair to interpret a comment in this context as being hostile in the least.

unwind 5y ago

Thanks, that sounds really interesting. Really cool (to me!) that it connects Penn&Teller, Amsterdam (where this fantastic museum is), and NewTek which was very well-known back in my Amiga days. So cool!

fsloth 5y ago

"basic techie with little appreciation for the fine arts" Why would interest in technology negatively correlate with interest in art? That presumes a very specific correlation between chosen profession and cultural interests. The document is very fun! But just trying painting will quickly educate a person of the pragmatics. Starting painting is really simple nowdays with IPad, Apple Pen and Procreate. There are tons of resources and courses available - and the problematics in digital art if using traditional art analogues map quite far into oil painting (even though physical medium does have it's specificities).

mikkelam 5y ago
> Why would interest in technology negatively correlate with interest in art? OP didnt write any such thing. I think you're reading too much into his comment.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Because of the world, I have to wonder are people really this overly sensitive, or just trolls looking to stir trouble? However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer.
  - fsloth 5y ago
    "Because of the world, I have to wonder are people really this overly sensitive, or just trolls looking to stir trouble?" Poor sentence building on my part, I get caught up on petty linguistics. No harm intended. "However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer." No, really, modern digital tools are friggin awesome! What I intended to convey that a person should really try painting once in their life, but they don't need to set up a studio with good lighting, get solvents and paints and brushes and so on. I say this as a lifelong art enthusiast who loves his pens, charcoals, inks, acrylics and oils. And the IPad Pro with an Apple Pencil fits there actually really, really well. Similar experience can be had on a Wacom tablet and Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint, Krita or what ever program that takes into account artistic sensibilities in their tooling. 90% of the problematics constructing a painting can be investigated using a digital medium. Oils bring in the pigments and their interaction with each other and medium, but that's kind of an added layer of complexity on top of the artistically critical elements - shape, color, detail reproduction and so on. Because when you paint, it's not an act of photography, but a process where one needs to decide on lots of these issues. You can take what ever course or book that teaches oil painting, and apply it on a digital medium quite far. The key tools are 1. a brush that maps pressure to size 2. a brush that maps pressure to opacity 3. a blend tool to blend the colors. Layers help in keeping things tight. It's really nice if the software attempts to provide realistic blending of colors, but it's not necessary - all of these have been available for decades on digital paint tools. I totally agree a digital painting lacks the feeling of an actual oil painting, but the problematics are the same. As an example these include shape, tonal mapping from the scene to the canvas, choosing a palette, choosing which details to render and which not.