Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Balog on June 12, 2014, 06:53:08 PM
-
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html?utm_content=buffer4c3b0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is a fascinating look at a guy who sought to figure out how Vermeer managed to paint in a way that should have been impossible. Amazing what a little obsession can accomplish.
-
Holy obsession, Batman!
-
Interesting .....
But I wonder if any consideration has been given to the idea Vermeer might simply have been a very talented artist with an unusual "perspective" on the world.
One can also point out how unusual Van Gogh was .... or that he had an eye disorder that lent him a bizarre talent .... [popcorn]
-
This is what happens when one has enough tools, knowledge and resources and too much time. :O
-
I have negative art talent.
But I occasionally used to put a B&W portrait negative in my enlarger and project it onto a plain sheet of paper (not photographic paper). Then I'd take a soft pencil and darken in the light areas with the pencil until the sheet of paper was more or less uniformly gray. These penciled-in portraits (while not photographic) looked like excellent hand-done pencil drawings.
Nothing near Vermeer, of course, and in black-and-white, but people who saw these pencil sketches thought I was a great artiste until I told them how I'd done it.
But I really have no or less-than-no art talent otherwise.
Terry, 230RN
-
ART mit Science!
-
Interesting .....
But I wonder if any consideration has been given to the idea Vermeer might simply have been a very talented artist with an unusual "perspective" on the world.
One can also point out how unusual Van Gogh was .... or that he had an eye disorder that lent him a bizarre talent .... [popcorn]
In any case, he was some sort of genius.
Either he had an unusual perspective that let him see things as a camera does, OR he was brilliant enough to create another perspective (that no one else has ever thought of).
Impressive in both cases. (Though I'd be more impressed by the latter.)
-
I guess this has nothing to do with ditch diggers ???
;/
=D
-
Just how new does anybody think the camera obscura is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
The first surviving mention of some of the principles behind the pinhole camera or camera obscura belongs to Mozi (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism. Mozi correctly asserted that the image in a camera obscura is flipped upside down because light travels in straight lines from its source. His disciples developed this into a minor theory of optics.[2][note 1]
....
Camera obscura, from a manuscript of military designs. 17th century, possibly Italian.
The 17th century Dutch Masters, such as Johannes Vermeer, were known for their magnificent attention to detail. It has been widely speculated that they made use of such a camera, but the extent of their use by artists at this period remains a matter of considerable controversy, recently revived by the Hockney–Falco thesis.
....
stay safe.
-
Just how new does anybody think the camera obscura is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
stay safe.
Someone didn't read the article.
It's common knowledge that you can trace the images projected on the screen of a camera obscura, which is basically a black box with a lens mounted on one side. This helps you get the size and shapes of things established on the canvas. Intuitively it seems that you could paint colors right on the projected image and get a photoreal result.
In fact, this does not work. If you try it, you'll see why. The light projected by the lens obscures the color of the paint you are applying to the canvas. It makes the paint look too dark and too colorful. You must constantly turn on the light to see what color you have actually painted. There is simply no way to accurately compare the paint color to the projection. They interfere with each other.
-
This seems relevant.
http://www.dose.com/lists/2739/These-21-Pictures-Are-Not-What-You-Think-They-Will-Blow-Your-Mind
-
I'm confused. Why couldn't he of have just set up the scene, and painted it? ???
-
The kids loved it when I covered the front window with Al foil except for a 1in hole. The street scene, in full color, with cars passing by, appeared on the opposite wall. Upside-down, of course.
-
Someone didn't read the article.
And yet I know folks who place a sheet of white paper to cover the painted part to check color/tint as they go from sketching in the basic framework to the completed scene. I'm pretty sure they did not "invent" that technique in the last 25 years.
Again - the issue seems to be that nobody is sure if he did or did not, or if he did just how he did it.
stay safe.
-
*raises hand*
We don't know what the scenes and subjects actually looked like, so how do we know they were photographic in quality?
Couldn't Vemeer just said "well, when I look at a wall, it's not all uniform in color, texture and the way light hits it, so why don't I fiddle with this paint until the wall on my painting looks real?
-
This seems relevant.
http://www.dose.com/lists/2739/These-21-Pictures-Are-Not-What-You-Think-They-Will-Blow-Your-Mind
In the national art museam in DC is (was? IDK if it's still there or still on display) a black and white ink "drawing" of an old woman that looks like a black and white photoghraph. It's all fingerprints.
I have a postcard print of it, but you can't see the fingerprints on the little postcard. The real thing will blow your mind.
-
sounds like a Chuck Close
http://enpundit.com/up-close-and-personal-chuck-close-fingerpaints/
-
A little more modern (1935), but this one always fascinated me:
http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Collection/art-object-page.47949.html
On the other hand, Jackson Pollock's "Number 5" always repelled me... mainly because I could do better even though I have art talent in the negative region.
-
sounds like a Chuck Close
http://enpundit.com/up-close-and-personal-chuck-close-fingerpaints/
Yes. That one.
-
I guess this has nothing to do with ditch diggers ???
;/
=D
Stump
-
Couldn't Vemeer just said "well, when I look at a wall, it's not all uniform in color, texture and the way light hits it, so why don't I fiddle with this paint until the wall on my painting looks real?
Because a normal human brain gets in the way with preprocessing.
-
Because a normal human brain gets in the way with preprocessing.
What about an abnormal human brain?
-
^
Nyuck-nyuck-nyuck. :rofl:
"Abnormal" human brains are arguably the cause of most of human progress. (Yes, and problems, as well.)
Terry
-
That guy certainly went all in, but I'm just not understanding how the mirror on the stick worked...
-
Oh, he just got stuck on the idea that what Vermeer did "should have been impossible" and failed to examine that underlying premise.
It was possible, given the later examples noted above --see link in Harold Tuttle's Reply #16 --without gadgetry beyond an artists' thumb for sizing.
It probably just takes a good eye and attention to detail... he probably would have made a world class rifle shot nowadays. :D
-
That guy certainly went all in, but I'm just not understanding how the mirror on the stick worked...
Guessing he was looking at the photo in the mirror with one eye and the drawing surface with the other. Think occluded eye sight. The trick would be having the mirror compensate for the dramatically different focal lengths in the case of a real object, whereas his photo copying rig had both at pretty much the same distance. Ideally, a semi-transparent reflector making a Pepper's Ghost image apparently at the location of the drawing surface would do the job even better.