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

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.