4 ms·

OMG! Vermeer used a camera lucida! I'm surprised! ...Said no art historian ever.

by andrewliebchen 12y ago

modarts 12y ago
Do you have a background in art history? How do you know that wasn't the case?
- andrewliebchen 12y ago
  I don't, but I am a designer, with a graduate degree from RISD, if that qualifies for something. I don't think you understand sarcasm. The point is that it has been long assumed that Vermeer used at least a camera lucida to construct his paintings. This Guardian article has been mentioned on this thread, but it really gets to what bothers me about this "study." http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20... > 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. Edit: Added more for the downvoters to downvote.
kosievdmerwe 12y ago
You do realise that Vermeer predates the patenting of the camera lucida by a hundred years? 1807 vs 1675, respectively.
- andrewliebchen 12y ago
  Doesn't mean he didn't use something similar. David Hockney made this point in 2001 (if I recall). Besides, Brunelleschi used a mirror to demonstrate the effectiveness of his perspective drawings in the 1400s: http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunelleschi_mirror-perspective-tool.jpg?w=510 http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunellesch... Durer used string and moveable panel in his perspective studies: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer.gif https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer..... And of course, there was the camera obscura. I can't believe there wasn't any development in drawing aids in the 400 years since Bruneschelli's demonstration.

OMG! Vermeer used a camera lucida! I'm surprised! ...Said no art historian ever.

modarts 12y ago

Do you have a background in art history? How do you know that wasn't the case?

andrewliebchen 12y ago
I don't, but I am a designer, with a graduate degree from RISD, if that qualifies for something. I don't think you understand sarcasm. The point is that it has been long assumed that Vermeer used at least a camera lucida to construct his paintings. This Guardian article has been mentioned on this thread, but it really gets to what bothers me about this "study." http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20... > 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. Edit: Added more for the downvoters to downvote.

kosievdmerwe 12y ago

You do realise that Vermeer predates the patenting of the camera lucida by a hundred years? 1807 vs 1675, respectively.

andrewliebchen 12y ago
Doesn't mean he didn't use something similar. David Hockney made this point in 2001 (if I recall). Besides, Brunelleschi used a mirror to demonstrate the effectiveness of his perspective drawings in the 1400s: http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunelleschi_mirror-perspective-tool.jpg?w=510 http://zeiteye.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/c1450_brunellesch... Durer used string and moveable panel in his perspective studies: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer.gif https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit11/durer..... And of course, there was the camera obscura. I can't believe there wasn't any development in drawing aids in the 400 years since Bruneschelli's demonstration.