Blog

Mirrors.  When I was a kid and asked my father how something worked, he invariably replied "mirrors."

Jacki: Would you like to go see Tim's Vermeer at the Laemmle in Pasadena Thursday afternoon (12:45pm or 2:50pm)?

Friend: I don't think I want to see the film.  After seeing the great documentary about Vermeer I just can't see the film since its premise conflicts greatly with what art historians know about Vermeer's life.  From the previews of the film it appears that Tim believed that one of the paintings (the one he reproduces) is of Vermeer's actual studio.  But researchers found that his studio was actually quite bare and that he never had the money to obtain any of  those items.

But thanks for thinking of me.

Jacki: I understand. I wish I had been able to see the documentary first. Then I might have strong feelings about "Tim's" film. I haven't read any reviews of this new film or any comments on the controversy that it may have created.  That would be interesting. 

Friend: I'll be very interested in hearing what you think of the film.  It will be playing in Claremont beginning this Friday.

Jacki: Well…I just saw the movie. 

First...to address your concerns:  The conclusion of the film is that it is likely that Vermeer used the technology of the day but that cannot be proven. The painting that was used was called The Music Lesson.  The film makers identified a room in Vermeer's house that they say was used for the painting. They never used the word "studio."  So, I do not know if he painted the picture in his studio or another room in his house. If the room was sparse, Vermeer had an amazing imagination. If the room was furnished with musical instruments and paintings, he probably used technology to capture the amazing detail. 

Second...Amazing is again the operative word.  Tim was a visionary and demonstrated that a disciplined non-artist can produce astounding work using a camera obscura, a lens, and a mirror.

Friend: Thanks for the information.  I am impressed about Tim's ability to create his copy of the Vermeer.   Were there any art historians in the film?

My memory  of the documentary was that it stressed how poor Vermeer was and that he never had the tapestries or musical instruments that appeared in his paintings.   That is partly why they found his work so unbelievably detailed.  They said that there was an inventory taken of the items in his house after he died and none of the items in his paintings were noted.  They believed that he might have seen many of those things in other places and then returned to his studio to paint.

I guess we'll never know the truth.  But we do know how to copy something that might be very detailed.

Did you enjoy the film?  It probably was a perfect thing to do on a rainy day.  I just went to the post office and grocery store.

Jacki: A man named Philip Steadman wrote the book which may have prompted this whole adventure.  He was in the film.  I think he was a professor of something, but not of art history.  http://www.amazon.com/Vermeers-Camera-Uncovering-behind-Masterpieces/dp/0192803026  David Hockney was also in the film and gave a credible nod to this hypothesis. I liked the film, but did find myself sleeping during parts.  I did not get all of the technical stuff and wish I could have really grasped how the painting was done with a mirror.  Maybe that was shown while I slept!

Without further addressing the Vermeer question, I am pondering the use of technology in my own paintings.  I use photos for my figurative work. Sometimes I crop the photos on the computer to clarify my composition.  Occasionally, but rarely, I will print a black and white version or adjust the color for the painting.  I print out the photo and hold it or post it while I paint. Without photos, I would not be able to do this work.  Nothing else. Although, I must admit, for my self portrait I did use mirrors.

Snapping. On our recent trip to southeast Asia, two of my significant travel activities were shopping…of course… and taking pictures. Each of these pursuits brought to mind an art related notion.  One is the art vs. craft debate and the other is my use of photos in paintings. 

Shop: Antique Puppets

Years ago I tried to read an erudite article distinguishing handcrafts and art.  Among the issues addressed were technique, functionality, and merit.  But I didn't find the article comprehensible, so I gave up.  Yet, I know handcrafts when I see it. And, on this recent trip, I saw mostly handcrafts.  Aside from a smattering of  tchotchke and T shirts, there was so much beautiful work by local artisans. For the most part, it was the jewelry, woodwork, and amazing textiles that were featured in the shops and markets. The selection of scarves, embroidered objects, wall hangings, and table linens was astounding.  There were stores that custom made clothes for tourists to pick up the following day.  Rather than participate in the art vs. crafts debate, I diplomatically concluded that we were treated to folk art, wearable art, and functional art.

Album: Halong Bay, Vietnam

On all of my trips and outings I take my camera.  I shoot the sights, the food, the scenery.   Beautiful or interesting travel photos find their way to my iPhoto, albums, frames, and friends.  Since I began painting, I have maintained that, for me, appealing travel photos should remain as such. 

Painting Reference: crowd

Unlike most artists, I resist using traditional vacation photos as painting references. However, in addition to my "album" photos, I point and shoot crowds of people gathering and walking.  If these shots were on your camera, you would most likely delete them. But they are precious to me. These haphazard images inspire my figurative paintings. 

Painting: Good Looking

So my travel habits will remain.  I will continue to snap up local stuff and to snap quirky pix.