Oh, I'm not disputing Vermeer may have used photographic techniques to aid him. There is definitely a very photographic look to his work that is unlike that of

Oh, I'm not disputing Vermeer may have used photographic techniques to aid him. There is definitely a very photographic look to his work that is unlike that of most of his contemporaries. What I am disputing, however, is that they were merely used as a shortcut and that the use of these aids is the be all and end all of Vermeer's talent. Even without his alleged use of photographic techniques Vermeer was a masterful painter: his handling of paint is otherworldly and that is something no photographic aid can help you with. It's also true that his work is much flatter than that of his contemporaries, but to my eyes there's still a lot of 3D construction lurking behind those dazzling light effects that is completely missing in paintings that we know for sure have been made as copies of photographs. Like I said, to me Vermeer is a much better painter than the grandparent gives him credit for.