4 ms·

And: > Since lenses in the 17th century were less perfect than modern lenses, I decided to make my own lens using 17th century techniques. That's some serious

And: > Since lenses in the 17th century were less perfect than modern lenses, I decided to make my own lens using 17th century techniques. That's some serious dedication.

logicallee 12y ago
What's really amazing is that this -- all this -- was for rank speculation!!! There was not one scrap, not one scrap of evidence of any mechanical interest, or ability, or optical devices in Vermeer's life or among his possessions. It would be one thing if he thought Da Vinci had done it. But Vermeer? And yet he said, no, you can tell by the paint chips. That is an absolutely amazing amount of dedication to verifying something without looking at any evidence whatsoever but the end result. I couldn't have done it. I would have given up after a lack of any corroborating evidence.
- speleding 12y ago
  Although the article doesn't mention it, there is evidence that Vermeer had access to optical devices: Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, inventor of the microscope, born in the same year (1632) lived very close to Vermeer in Delft and was named the executor of his will, so they must have known each other well.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It's not too hard to be dedicated when you have a production budget to cover the cost of your ideas. He could have used various off-the-shelf technologies and most people would not have objected particularly - for example, anyone with a basic interest in science knows that Galileo was using telescopes to make astronomical observations several centuries before Vermeer, so the notion of moderately good lenses being available by the 17th century would not be strange. Indeed, the producers could probably have sourced lenses of similar vintage on the antique market or with the cooperation of a museum. But that would not be as interesting for the documentary. Recall that Penn & Teller were producing and directing, respectively, and they are, in the most literal sense, experts in the 'show' business. Your typical science documentary doesn't have access to a large production budget, which is why there's a lot more 'tell' from talking heads than 'show' of the subject material. There's a good parallel here or startups: Tim started with a 'minimum viable product' of a small mirror attached to a pair of cheap eyeglasses, and produced a high quality oil painting in a matter of hours despite lacking any special painting skills. But once you get the trick, the business of reproducing an image turns out to be the least interesting part. Think about P&T's stage act, where they're more famous for demonstrating how classic magic tricks are performed. If they just came out and said 'you've seen stage magicians saw people in half, right? OK, here's how it's done,' they wouldn't be so popular. Instead they do the trick, but then talk about the history, the secrecy of pro magicians, variations on the trick, and how it really works, and then they show how it's done. And then they usually do it again, but with Teller getting set on fire or otherwise endangered in the course of performance (which sometimes involves other tricks that are not explained or even mentioned to the audience).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    You'd be surprised. 'Shoddy' >> 'authentic'. As someone else pointed out, most wood lathes are built to handle things like turning a table leg, so it's not impossible that that whole thing was staged. Even if this one wasn't, it would make a lot more sense to do the leg in two pieces and attach them using a dowel than it would to cut the lathe into two pieces...but that's an awful more stylish :) It might well be home footage, but it is quite common to use lower quality for artistic effect, eg think of how many fictional films where childhood recollections are presented with blown-up super-8 footage, whose super-grainy texture evokes the technological past as well as the fuzziness and imprecision of memory. It provides aesthetic texture, and in a story about the mechanical underpinnings of creating hyperrealistic images, use of ugly or low-quality imagery is an implicit commentary on the subject matter.
- christudor 12y ago
  I'm not sure sure about the lenses point. I read a book once about how William Herschel (1738-1822) spent an inordinate amount of time making lenses for his home-made telescopes, polishing them for hours and hours. These were probably far bigger and more precise than the kind of thing that an artist would need, but it gives the impression that lenses may not have been as readily available in the 17th century as you think. (The book was called 'The Age of Wonder' by Richard Holmes, if you're interested)
  - GregBuchholz 12y ago
    I think that Herschel was more well know for reflectors, and he built one with a 1.2m diameter mirror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope ...although I'm sure that he probably ground his own tiny lenses for the eyepieces. This site says that: "He began by putting together refracting telescopes from lenses and tubes that he bought, but quickly decided that refractors were too long and clumsy to handle." http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/scopes/herschel/ http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/ground...

And: > Since lenses in the 17th century were less perfect than modern lenses, I decided to make my own lens using 17th century techniques. That's some serious dedication.

logicallee 12y ago

What's really amazing is that this -- all this -- was for rank speculation!!! There was not one scrap, not one scrap of evidence of any mechanical interest, or ability, or optical devices in Vermeer's life or among his possessions. It would be one thing if he thought Da Vinci had done it. But Vermeer? And yet he said, no, you can tell by the paint chips. That is an absolutely amazing amount of dedication to verifying something without looking at any evidence whatsoever but the end result. I couldn't have done it. I would have given up after a lack of any corroborating evidence.

speleding 12y ago
Although the article doesn't mention it, there is evidence that Vermeer had access to optical devices: Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, inventor of the microscope, born in the same year (1632) lived very close to Vermeer in Delft and was named the executor of his will, so they must have known each other well.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's not too hard to be dedicated when you have a production budget to cover the cost of your ideas. He could have used various off-the-shelf technologies and most people would not have objected particularly - for example, anyone with a basic interest in science knows that Galileo was using telescopes to make astronomical observations several centuries before Vermeer, so the notion of moderately good lenses being available by the 17th century would not be strange. Indeed, the producers could probably have sourced lenses of similar vintage on the antique market or with the cooperation of a museum. But that would not be as interesting for the documentary. Recall that Penn & Teller were producing and directing, respectively, and they are, in the most literal sense, experts in the 'show' business. Your typical science documentary doesn't have access to a large production budget, which is why there's a lot more 'tell' from talking heads than 'show' of the subject material. There's a good parallel here or startups: Tim started with a 'minimum viable product' of a small mirror attached to a pair of cheap eyeglasses, and produced a high quality oil painting in a matter of hours despite lacking any special painting skills. But once you get the trick, the business of reproducing an image turns out to be the least interesting part. Think about P&T's stage act, where they're more famous for demonstrating how classic magic tricks are performed. If they just came out and said 'you've seen stage magicians saw people in half, right? OK, here's how it's done,' they wouldn't be so popular. Instead they do the trick, but then talk about the history, the secrecy of pro magicians, variations on the trick, and how it really works, and then they show how it's done. And then they usually do it again, but with Teller getting set on fire or otherwise endangered in the course of performance (which sometimes involves other tricks that are not explained or even mentioned to the audience).

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You'd be surprised. 'Shoddy' >> 'authentic'. As someone else pointed out, most wood lathes are built to handle things like turning a table leg, so it's not impossible that that whole thing was staged. Even if this one wasn't, it would make a lot more sense to do the leg in two pieces and attach them using a dowel than it would to cut the lathe into two pieces...but that's an awful more stylish :) It might well be home footage, but it is quite common to use lower quality for artistic effect, eg think of how many fictional films where childhood recollections are presented with blown-up super-8 footage, whose super-grainy texture evokes the technological past as well as the fuzziness and imprecision of memory. It provides aesthetic texture, and in a story about the mechanical underpinnings of creating hyperrealistic images, use of ugly or low-quality imagery is an implicit commentary on the subject matter.
christudor 12y ago
I'm not sure sure about the lenses point. I read a book once about how William Herschel (1738-1822) spent an inordinate amount of time making lenses for his home-made telescopes, polishing them for hours and hours. These were probably far bigger and more precise than the kind of thing that an artist would need, but it gives the impression that lenses may not have been as readily available in the 17th century as you think. (The book was called 'The Age of Wonder' by Richard Holmes, if you're interested)
- GregBuchholz 12y ago
  I think that Herschel was more well know for reflectors, and he built one with a 1.2m diameter mirror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope ...although I'm sure that he probably ground his own tiny lenses for the eyepieces. This site says that: "He began by putting together refracting telescopes from lenses and tubes that he bought, but quickly decided that refractors were too long and clumsy to handle." http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/scopes/herschel/ http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/ground...