Rational discussion of art


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

A question about Vermeer: Do any of his paintings of interiors have the light source on the right, or is it always on the left?

Vermeer's light sources are almost always on the left, but there are few notable exceptions:

"The Lacemaker" I should have remembered, considering that it's on the book cover of a portfolio volume we have of some of his work.

"Girl with a Red Hat" [correction: the title should be "Girl with a Flute"; see RCR's post #29 below] seems really dark for him. And "Girl Asleep at a Table" is...a drowsy scene; it seems like twilight. Interesting.

Another question: Do we know if any of his canvases were lost or if they were all preserved?

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window": her reflection in the glass. Also the window curtain and the hanging behind her seem almost to be moving in air currents.

And the letter she holds; what has been read, above the tension in her hands, nearly floats away out the window upon the same tepid currents...her hopes, expectations, and happiness along with it. Also the fruit-bowl is upset, disrupted and displaced...

Compare her with the woman in blue...she grips the top of the letter with breathless anticipation....there is possibility, fertility, her future is ahead, still stark and unknown, but held in vision with high expectations. Boundaries are drawn, and there are many well defined angles (compared to the somewhat claustrophobic, crushing heaviness of the bed-curtains, heavy blanket and even the deep red curtain in the window of the first woman's setting) .

481px-Jan_Vermeer_van_Delft_012.jpg

RCR

Edited by R. Christian Ross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare her with the woman in blue...she grips the top of the letter with breathless anticipation....there is possibility, fertility, her future is ahead, still stark and unknown, but held in vision with high expectations. Boundaries are drawn, and there are many well defined angles (compared to the somewhat claustrophobic, crushing heaviness of the bed-curtains, heavy blanket and even the deep red curtain in the window of the first woman's setting) .

Re the "possibility, fertility," etc.: It looks like her garment is a maternity garment. Is that what it's intended to be?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare her with the woman in blue...she grips the top of the letter with breathless anticipation....there is possibility, fertility, her future is ahead, still stark and unknown, but held in vision with high expectations. Boundaries are drawn, and there are many well defined angles (compared to the somewhat claustrophobic, crushing heaviness of the bed-curtains, heavy blanket and even the deep red curtain in the window of the first woman's setting) .

Re the "possibility, fertility," etc.: It looks like her garment is a maternity garment. Is that what it's intended to be?

I certainly think that is the suggestion, but I don't think anyone knows what Vermeer actually intended, since it could simply be a result of her wide coat, which was apparently "fashionable".

"Girl with a Red Hat" seems really dark for him. And "Girl Asleep at a Table" is...a drowsy scene; it seems like twilight. Interesting.

Another question: Do we know if any of his canvases were lost or if they were all preserved?

That one is actually "Girl with a flute". I corrected that and posted "Girl with a Red Het" as well. Funny you should mention the darkness of that painting, since although I think there is some speculation that Vermeer may have been influenced indirectly by Rembrandt early on, the author of the Vermeer book I have (Erik Larsen) actually contends that both "Girl with a Red Hat" and "Girl with a Flute" were not done by Vermeer, but rather by 19th century French fakers (there are about 10 of these commonly misattributed paintings, according to Larsen)...I was scanning the online catalog for light-sources only, and had forgotten about these contentions.

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/v/ve...c/27redhat.html

"It is assumed by some critics that this painting is not by Vermeer, but a later pasticcio. It, and the Girl with a Flute (in the same museum) are painted on wood, whereas all authentic Vermeer paintings are done on canvas. This work has been painted on an upside-down Rembrandtesque portrait of a man, and pigments considered to be older than the nineteenth century found in this painting come from the original and not from the modern pasticcio."

I don't know whether or not the museums that house the paintings still claim that they are by Vermeer...I'll have to check on that.

I don't think any of the known Vermeers (~40) are currently missing, btw.

RCR

Edited by R. Christian Ross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one ["Girl with a Red Hat"] is actually "Girl with a flute", I corrected that and posted "Girl with a Red Hat" as well. Funny you should mention the darkness of that painting, since although, I think there is some speculation that Vermeer may have been influenced indirectly by Rembrandt early on, the author of the Vermeer book I have (Erik Larsen) actually contends that both "Girl with a Red Hat" and "Girl with a Flute" were not done by Vermeer, but rather by 19th century French fakers (there are about 10 of these commonly misattributed paintings, according to Larsen)...I was scanning the online catalog for light-sources only, and had forgotten about these contentions.

HA!! That's interesting to me, since, upon looking at "Girl with a Flute," I thought that it didn't look like his work and wondered what had happened. At first I thought maybe it was early, before he'd developed his style, but the date is late (1666-1667) by comparison to most of the others you'd shown. So then I thought maybe his style was falling apart by then. But "The Lacemaker" is from the same time period -- and looks like Vermeer.

I also wondered about the "red hat" in the title, since I don't see any red in the hat itself in what's showing on my screen. Now that you post the real "Girl with a Red Hat," I recall that I've seen that, and heard of the controversy as to whether it is a Vermeer. It does seem to me unlike his characteristic style, not just in regard to the lighting but in regard to the seductive quality of the girl, and the way her eyes are done. To me it looks as if it's by someone French. Of course artists' styles can change. Look at Picasso's various style periods for an example. But, still, the "red hat" painting does seem to me attitudinally different enough from what I think of as being Vermeer's style, I wouldn't be surprised if it is misattributed.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote in post #25 -- addressed to Peter Reidy:

I for one do not accept [Rand's] definition, and I dispute quite a bit of her entire theory -- indeed I only agree with her in a sort of vaguely broadly-brushed way.

It might be useful to synopsize my objections, which appeared in scattered fashion strewn though other threads.

Briefly...

Rand defines art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

My basic objections are threefold:

(1) I think the first part is badly chosen wording which leads to all sorts of problems unless it's explicitly or implicitly reinterpreted to mean something other than the letter of what she wrote;

(2) I think the notion of "sense of life," intimately tied to her idea of "metaphysical value-judgments," is as fuzzy as it gets. All theories of art have an inherent fuzziness, but "sense of life" is suspect in its psychological accuracy and is an ultimate of nebulous in its meaning;

(3) In the development of her views, the idea of "metaphysical value-judgments," as well as being tied to her idea of "sense of life," leads straight to moralizing about certain art styles (themselves ad hoc categories in her theory) being better than others.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Vermeer question: Is "The Geographer" the only one which features a male's face?

In both "Soldier and a Laughing Girl" and the stolen work "The Concert" shown in the material Peter Reidy linked (post #32), there's a male figure from the back; but "The Geographer" is the only one I remember off-hand in which a male from the front is the focal figure.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In both "Soldier and a Laughing Girl" and the stolen work "The Concert" shown in the material Peter Reidy linked (post #32), there's a male figure from the back; but "The Geographer" is the only one I remember off-hand in which a male from the front is the focal figure.

The astronomer:

26.jpg

There are several paintings with one or more male figures, like the procuress:

14.jpg

The male figure at the left is possibly a self-portrait of Vermeer.

The glass of wine:

the_glass_of_wine.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Dragonfly.

He was SO incredibly good. The amount of psychological subtlety as well as the luminous and sumptuous style and the compositional skill. How anyone could fault him for his "subjects" (in the sense AR meant when she faulted him) boggles my mind. There are those occasions when I think she just enjoyed being perverse. This is not proposed as the actual explanation; but it is an hypothesis which can tempt me.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In both "Soldier and a Laughing Girl" and the stolen work "The Concert" shown in the material Peter Reidy linked (post #32), there's a male figure from the back; but "The Geographer" is the only one I remember off-hand in which a male from the front is the focal figure.

The astronomer:

There are several paintings with one or more male figures, like the procuress:

The male figure at the left is possibly a self-portrait of Vermeer.

The glass of wine:

Interestingly, as I recall from reading last night, "The Procuress" is also on Erik Larsen's list of paintings which have been misattributed to Vermeer.

RCR

Edited by R. Christian Ross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been examining all the paintings shown on an art site which RCR linked earlier:

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/v/vermeer/

Some observations/surmises:

"A Lady Drinking and a Gentleman" and "A Lady and Two Gentlemen" are in the same room, a room with checkerboard black-and-tan floor and a stained glass figure central in the window.

"A Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window," and most of the subsequent paintings are done in a different room -- I assume a room in his house -- a room with black and white tiles (a marbling on the white tiles), with various selections of furnishings included or left out.

There's a map of the Netherlands which appears on the wall of several paintings, though with the scale changed in some, and with an elaborate border added in some.

The painting on the wall in "The Astronomer" is the same as in "Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid," but the scale of the painting has been changed.

I expect the globe is the same in "The Astronomer" and "The Geographer."

I think the man in "A Lady at the Virginals with a Gentleman" is the same man as in "The Astronomer" and "The Geographer." Hard to tell for sure from what shows on the computer screen.

The "Lady Writing a Letter" is wearing the same dress as "Woman with a Pearl Necklace" and looks like she's probably the same woman. Likewise the "Lady with Her Maidservant Holding a Letter" and the lady in "The Love Letter." The dress looks like the same fur-bordered dress in "The Guitar Player," but the woman looks younger though the painting is later.

The maidservant looks like she's probably the same woman in the three paintings where a maidservant appears.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The painting on the wall in "The Astronomer" is the same as in "Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid," but the scale of the painting has been changed.

I expect the globe is the same in "The Astronomer" and "The Geographer."

They are actually different, but still a pair....

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/cat_about/astronomer.htm

The globes in the paintings, one celestial, one terrestrial, were a pair marketed by Jodocus Hondius in 1600. The book lying in front of the astronomer has been identified as the 1621 second edition of a work by Adriaen Metius, On the Investigation or Observation of the Stars, and it is open at the beginning of Book III, where not only knowledge of geometry and the aid of mechanical instruments are recommended for this research but also "inspiration from God". The painting that hangs on the wall behind the astronomer has for its subject the Finding of Moses, and perhaps acknowledges the same need for divine inspiration.

Moses was described in the Acts of the Apostles as "learned in all the wisdom of Egypt" -a body of wisdom that would have included astronomy - and was also considered to be "the oldest geographer", because of his leadership of the Hebrews during their travels in exile. (As we have seen for some contemporaries, the United Provinces were the new Israel, the promised land.) Did Vermeer paint this Finding of Moses? It would be one more picture by Vermeer to add to the list of his missing works, and has been suggested as possibly 'the large painting by Vermeer' that the baker Hendrick van Buyten had -along with "two little pieces by Vermeer" -in his collection of pictures by mostly local painters.

RCR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand defines art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

My basic objections are threefold:

(1) I think the first part is badly chosen wording which leads to all sorts of problems unless it's explicitly or implicitly reinterpreted to mean something other than the letter of what she wrote;

(2) I think the notion of "sense of life," intimately tied to her idea of "metaphysical value-judgments," is as fuzzy as it gets. All theories of art have an inherent fuzziness, but "sense of life" is suspect in its psychological accuracy and is an ultimate of nebulous in its meaning;

(3) In the development of her views, the idea of "metaphysical value-judgments," as well as being tied to her idea of "sense of life," leads straight to moralizing about certain art styles (themselves ad hoc categories in her theory) being better than others.

Ellen,

Your observations bring up some others in my own mind. It has been some time since I examined the nature of art itself. For years, I found Rand's definition broad and vague enough to make it universal. Now I have been questioning some of this by looking at it from different angles and I am seeing a lot that is not explained, even with the vagueness. Your comments are getting some juices flowing, but it is late. So here are a few quick thoughts.

(1) I more or less agree with what your wrote in your Point 1, but I would invert the end to state: "reinterpreted to mean something other than the intent behind what she wrote." This is because I find the "letter" so vague that it can be reinterpreted.

(2) Your Point 2. Here we come to the philosophy/psychology dichotomy again. Before, I used to think that philosophy played a fundamental role in all art, even when it was not obvious. I thought at the weakest, philosophy was implicit, since it is implicit in a sense of life. Now I am starting to realize that much of psychology (not all, of course) impacts thinking and feeling without involving philosophy at all (or, better, to such a small extent that its impact is not important). Then there is that sticky issue of human nature and what comes already built into the mind.

Some art I see as predominantly psychological. It is an attempt to present a psychological state for the experience of others. This is not a means to any other end. It is a value in itself, just like all aesthetic experience is. On the other end of the spectrum, I see design and I see it arising from the same impulse in man: a desire to impose man-made mental forms on natural objects and nothing more. People derive a pleasure from this that I am hard-put to call anything except aesthetic pleasure. What pleasure do people get from having a dish-towel with squares and lines on it? If no value at all is gained, why do it? I think aesthetic pleasure is gained. In earlier times this was called beauty, but art (including design) goes beyond beauty.

I know you like Jung and I think some of his work is pertinent to my view. He presents the idea of innate subconscious symbols that exist in the mind irrespective of volition. I believe in the primitive organizing power (mental-wise) of some of these symbols, but I really need to read more before I can talk about this properly. There certainly is an automatic capacity in the mind for grouping visual images, like those Gestalt pictures where two propellers come in and out of focus and, when you stare at them, you can't stop them from switching back and forth once it starts. Here is a typical picture:

Gestaltrubindisk.jpg

Here is a real cute one of a sax player and a lady:

Gestaltfigura_sfondo.jpg

Here is a site mentioning the Gestalt principles of visual grouping in a very simple form. For the record, the principles are given below (quoted from the link at the start of this paragraph, but I highly suggest going to the linked site and seeing these principles illustrated with figures):

1. Proximity/Contiguity: Visual elements tend to be grouped together according to their nearness.

2. Similarity: Visual items similar in some respect tend to be grouped together. (Examples are given for shape, color and size.)

3. Closure/Good continuation: Visual items are grouped together if they tend to complete some entity.

4. Simplicity: Visual items will be organized into simple figures according to symmetry, regularity, smoothness, ..., easy labeling (unambiguous).

5. Area/smallness: Smaller areas tend to be seen as figures against a larger background.

6. Figure and Ground: Similar elements (figure) are contrasted with dissimilar elements (ground) to give the impression of a whole.

So I think design functions to provide the pleasure man gets from imposing on reality the way he organizes visual percepts in his mind—reality reflecting his mind, so to speak. This, to me is a difference in degree from what we normally call art, not kind. Thus it covers traditional art, design and modern art. Man recreates his inner mental life externally by recreating reality with elements of reality itself according to the forms within his mind.

I would put philosophy-based art in-between design and psychology-based art, running as a sort of scale. Thus, in this conception, all art runs from simple perception (design) to value-based (add philosophy) to subconscious/purely emotional (psychological). All three categories are present at all levels, so this scale is more for what is emphasized, not what is exclusive, i.e., some eliminated. They are all present, always, but to varying degrees.

The implication is that philosophy is present in design and psychological art. I believe it is, but it can be to such a small extent (depending on the work) that its influence is not even important.

There are two other scales I would include that bear on the scale above (but calling it all "art"): (a) entertainment/ contemplation, with light fun on one end and heavy art on another, and (b) competence/originality, with incompetent/unoriginal art on one end and great art on another.

Like I once said about morality, black and white do exist, but also there is a full range of grays, and even more than that, there is a full spectrum of colors.

(3) Your Point 3. The concepts of "metaphysical value-judgments" and "sense of life" do lead to moralizing and setting some art forms over others, but that is proper with a defined morality for a particular style of art where philosophy is added. That is not valid for art as a whole, nor is it valid for the psychological branding of a person and/or his soul. However, within the confines of that particular style of art (where philosophy is added), one can make some fairly correct deductions about a person's philosophy and even "sense of life" based on how he responds to certain works.

Incidentally, I do not consider "sense of life" to be a purely psychological phenomenon. I consider it to be a joint emotional phenomenon that has elements of both psychology and philosophy present. Thus it is not an indication of a person's entire outlook on life, but it does exist and it is an emotional reaction to existence.

As with other places where I disagree with Rand, I find her definitions to be correct and insightful within the boundaries of part of a subject, but wrong when imposed on the entire subject.

It really is getting late. Please do not take these comments as written in stone. I am chewing right now. Still, my thinking has been running along these lines for some time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCR, you're a veritable goldmine of links and information on these art threads.

I've spent the last several hours killing my eyes while purusing this link you posted:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/cat_about/astronomer.htm

There's lots of material on that site, including little pop-up screens which show when the cursor is moved over the surface of a pictured work.

I'm glad to learn what the painting is on the wall in "The Astronomer" and "Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid." I'd been able to discern that it had a central woman holding an infant and surrounded by other figures, the two in the front nude, but I wasn't able to guess who the woman and child supposedly were. I presumed that they were not Mary and Jesus, given the nude figures. ;-) "Finding of Moses" makes sense. So far I haven't come upon a comment in either the main text or the pop-ups on the linked site indicating the change of scale -- and also a difference in cropping -- of the Moses painting as shown on the wall in the Astronomer and in Lady Writing a Letter.

Re: Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window

Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window. c.1657. Oil on canvas. Alte Meister Gallerie, Dresden, Germany

brieflesendes_maedchen_offene_hi.jpg

You showed that and other Vermeers with comparison works by de Hooch in post #22 and asked for thoughts. I commented (post #23) that one of the things I noticed was the reflection in the glass (pane of the window). I didn't mention, though I noticed and was puzzled by it, that the reflection falls differently from the way it should fall given the girl's position; the angle is wrong.

Here's a tidbit which pops up if you move your cursor over the reflection on this link:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/catalogue/...open_window.htm

 

While painting the Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window and other early paintings, Vermeer made many significant changes in composition. As can be seen in x-ray images, the head of the young girl was placed slightly in front and below its present position. In the original profile, the head was turned away from the viewer. That position accounts for the comparatively full faced reflection we now see in the window.

Re the male figure in The Astronomer and The Geographer, I wrote (post #38),

"I think the man in 'A Lady at the Virginals with a Gentleman' is the same man as in 'The Astronomer' and 'The Geographer.' Hard to tell for sure from what shows on the computer screen."

According to expert opinion, it's pretty clear the astronomer (or astrologer) and the geographer (or scientific gentleman) are the same person -- some think possibly Leeuwenhoek. I'm not the only one who sees the resemblance to the man in "A Lady at the Virginals" -- or "Music Lesson," as it's also called.

If you position your cursor on the face in this link to The Astronomer, a pop-up shows which has a closeup of all three faces:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/catalogue/astronomer.htm

Speaking of Leeuwenhoek, there's much discussion on the site about issues of science in Vermeer's day, including discussion of Leeuwenhoek, born in Delft the same year as Vermeer and a neighbor of his at the time The Geometer and The Astronomer were painted (also, when Vermeer died, the executor of Vermeer's non-existent estate).

Here's a quote which I like a lot by Leeuwenhoek; this came up on an associated link:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/dutch-pain...leeuwenhoek.htm

 

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723)

  . . . my work, which I've done for a long time, was not pursued in order to gain the praise I now enjoy, but chiefly from a craving after knowledge, which I notice resides in me more than in most other men. And therewithal, whenever I found out anything remarkable, I have thought it my duty to put down my discovery on paper, so that all ingenious people might be informed thereof.

Antony van Leeuwenhoek (Letter of June 12, 1716)

That site shows, side by side, close-ups of the faces in The Astronomer, The Geographer, and in a 1686 portrait of Anthony van Leeuwenhoek by J. Verkolje.

1686 is about 18 years later than the two Vermeers were painted -- thus Leeuwenhoek was 54 at the time of the portrait rather than the about 36 he'd have been in 1668 -- and faces do change in dimension with age, often becoming broader. Still, from what I can tell on the computer screen, I'm with those who doubt that Leeuwenhoek was the model for the two Vermeer companion paintings.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window. c.1657. Oil on canvas. Alte Meister Gallerie, Dresden, Germany

brieflesendes_maedchen_offene_hi.jpg

You showed that and other Vermeers with comparison works by de Hooch in post #22 and asked for thoughts. I commented (post #23) that one of the things I noticed was the reflection in the glass (pane of the window). I didn't mention, though I noticed and was puzzled by it, that the reflection falls differently from the way it should fall given the girl's position; the angle is wrong.

Here's a tidbit which pops up if you move your cursor over the reflection on this link:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/catalogue/...open_window.htm

 

While painting the Girl Reading a Letter by an Open Window and other early paintings, Vermeer made many significant changes in composition. As can be seen in x-ray images, the head of the young girl was placed slightly in front and below its present position. In the original profile, the head was turned away from the viewer. That position accounts for the comparatively full faced reflection we now see in the window.

I don't agree. If the window would be opened under an angle of 45° relative to the plane of the painting, we would see the face in the reflection in full face position, and with larger angles we would see it even somewhat turned to the right. Now it is difficult to estimate the angle of the window from this reproduction. It even seems that the perspective is not consistent: the lower part of the frame seems to converge too strongly to the right whereas on the other hand the lines of the two lowest lead strips (including the one against the frame, or the frame itself, I can't see that on the reproduction) even seem to diverge to the right, which would imply a quite distorted window. I wonder if someone has tampered with the painting, as you'd hardly expect that Vermeer would be that sloppy. Nevertheless my impression is that the window angle is not much less than 45°, which would be consistent with a nearly full face reflection. Even if the window angle would be only 30°, the reflected face would still be turned towards us over 60°. Another problem is that I'd expect the reflection farther to the left, unless the girl is standing fairly close to the wall. The lighting and the shadows suggest otherwise, however. I'll look whether I can find a better reproduction, to see the details of the window better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree [about the reflection in "Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window"]. If the window would be opened under an angle of 45° relative to the plane of the painting, we would see the face in the reflection in full face position, and with larger angles we would see it even somewhat turned to the right. Now it is difficult to estimate the angle of the window from this reproduction. [....] Even if the window angle would be only 30°, the reflected face would still be turned towards us over 60°. Another problem is that I'd expect the reflection farther to the left, unless the girl is standing fairly close to the wall. The lighting and the shadows suggest otherwise, however. I'll look whether I can find a better reproduction, to see the details of the window better.

The way the reproduction looks on my computer screen, the girl looks as if she's standing too close to the window pane to give the reflection shown. However, this might just be because the shadows don't show well on my screen and I'm not getting the intended illusion of perspective. I dug out my little portfolio folder which used to contain 14 Vermeer prints. It now contains only 4, the others having been walked away with. "Lady Reading a Letter..." is among the missing. But the portfolio includes small black-and-white photos of all the originally included plates. In the photo, the girl looks enough forward from the window plausibly to give the reflection shown.

The portfolio set I have was part of a series produced by Knowledge Publications called "The Masters" (© 1963 Fratelli Fabbri Editori; © 1965 Purnell & Sons Limited). Excerpts from the included "Critical Appreciation" by Sir Herbert Read would probably be of interest. I'll type those in the next post.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing...

The portfolio set I have was part of a series produced by Knowledge Publications called "The Masters" (© 1963 Fratelli Fabbri Editori; © 1965 Purnell & Sons Limited). Excerpts from the included "Critical Appreciation" by Sir Herbert Read would probably be of interest.

He's talking about Vermeer's having not been a big favorite until modern times, and he's inquiring what "qualities in his work [...] appeal to the modern sensibility [...]." He writes:

I would suggest that possibly there are three such qualities, and that these are precisely the qualities that combine to make Vermeer unique. They relate to (1) design (2) colour and (3) a spiritual or metaphysical quality [te-he; O'ists will like that!] which for the moment we might call serenity.

By design we mean something more than the arrangement or composition of a painting. Subjects are selected and composed as single figures or as groups, as figures in a landscape or as the varied features of a landscape. But to design a painting means much more than this--it means in the first place to situate the subject within a credible space, and to give the various elements in the composition a stable structure, a configuration that allows the spectator's vision to rest meditatively on the scene or subject presented. At its simplest (but by no means its easiest) this effect is obtained by light alone--by so modulating the play of light or shade on an isolated form that it occupies an imaginary space without support from other objects in the same visual field.

[He discusses as examples "Head of a Young Girl" and "A Maidservant Pouring Milk" at greater length than I want to type.]

A comparison of this painting ["Maidservant"] with the "Woman in Blue Reading a Letter" will take us a little further into the secrets of Vermeer's design, and since the subject is more 'refined', the textiles [...] are rendered more smoothly and with subtle gradations of light and shade [allowing] Vermeer to achieve a harmonious contrast between the lively texture of the brunette's complexion and the background of 'dead' parchment.

What, however, distinguishes this picture from those preceding it, and links it with Vermeer's most sophisticated masterpieces, is the GEOMETRICIZATION of the design. [my emphasis] The horizontal rectangle of the map divides the vertical rectangle of the canvas harmoniously; the rectangular chairback to the left echoes the edge of the map, while the long edge of the chairback to the right balances the shorter verticals to the left.

That this 'geometricization' of the picture-space is deliberate is evident from several other paintings by Vermeer [...] and more obviously but most efectively in the famous "Street in Delft", which is a complex design of rectangles and rectilinear motives 'developed' from the small bricks and window-frames to the larger windows, doorways and facades of the houses.

Geometry in painting is of no interest unless it serves an aesthetic purpose (as it does most exclusively in a modern Dutch painter such as Piet Mondrian). Straight lines in a painting can have the following functions: they divide the rectangular surface of the canvas into harmoniously proportionate areas; they give clear differentiation to determined areas of colour; and they build an architecture into the occupied space of the picture. This latter purpose is obvious enough when the subject is architectural, as in the "Street in Delft"; but the same purpose is served in artificially posed figure compositions such as those of "A Painter in His Studio" and "The Love Letter." In both these paintings a very complex geometrical structure sustains the drama in a theatrical framework: a stage is built upon which the figures can perform with dramatic credibility. [....] Of such spatial realism Vermeer remains one of the supreme masters.

Vermeer is also one of the supreme masters of colour harmony. The choice of a particular gamut of colours is no doubt determined by the unique sensibility of the painter: a personal preference in colours is as arbitrary as a personal taste in food or wine. But the harmonization of the preferred colours, their disposition in proportioned areas within the picture-space, their degree of saturation, their modulated tones--all these subtleties of application are achieved by skill, skill in the preparation or mixing of colours and in the manipulation of brushes. Vermeer's colour-harmony is sometimes described as 'cool', and there are certain combinations of lemon yellow, pale blue and pearl grey (as in the "Head of a Young Girl" or the figure of Clio in "A Painter in His Studio"), just as there are certain phrases in the music of Mozart or Debussy, which are uniquely characteristic of the man Vermeer.

But Vermeer was also master of richer and more solemn harmonies, as in "A Maidservant Pouring Milk, "The Music Lesson," "The Love Letter," and above all, in the two views of Delft. The large "View of Delft" has evoked many critical and poetic tributes and it is probably the best-loved landscape in the Westrn world. Its beauty may partly be expalined by the subtle combination of three contrasted textures--the horizontal sheen of the water, the grained texture of the boats and the buildings in the middle distance, and the infinitely soft gradations of the clouds above. Only Vermeer is master of such a chromatic scale, so resonant and yet so stilled.

Every painting of Vermeer's is bathed in this particular kind of serenity, and this is the intangible element in his work to which I have already referred. There is no violence in his work, of thought or action. There is an eternal stillness, of music that dies on the echo, of the mind entranced by a message of love, of fingers that gently guide a thread of lace, of a tiny pearl suspended in delicate scales. Even Clio's eyes are downcast, as if embarrassed by the symbols of Fame which she is compelled to hold.

We know little or nothing of Vermeer's personality, and it is dangerous to generalize from the evidence of his paintings. He left behind him a large family and many debts, and his life may have been sordid. But a mind that is troubled may seek a peaceful refuge in art. Vermeer is almost as much a mystery as Shakespeare, but he is perhaps nearer to another British poet, his contemporary Thomas Traherne (1637-74) whose work was also lost for centuries and then recovered.

Traherne was possessed by the same "Pure and Virgin Apprehensions", in which "all things abided Eternally as they were in their proper places. Eternity was manifest in the Light of the Day, and something infinite behind everything appeared: which talked with my Expectation and moved my Desire. The City seemed to stand in Eden, or to be built in Heaven. The Streets wre mine, the Temple was mine, the People were mine, their Clothes and Gold and Silver were mine, as much as their sparkling Eyes, fair Skins and ruddy Faces. The Skies were mine, and so were the Sun and Moon and Stars, and all the World was mine, and I the only Spectator and Enjoyer of it."

This is the vision of an innocent eye, and though there is one painting possibly by Vermeer that is concerned with what Traherne called "the Dirty Devices of this World ("The Courtesan" [also called "The Procuress"]) we are confident that he, too, lived to unlearn these devices, and to see the beauty of the world in a clear and familiar light.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points I'd like to emphasize from the preceeding discussion by Herbert Read.

His talking about Vermeer's sense of design as being a reason why Vermeer would appeal to moderns I very much resonate with. In fact I've been thinking for the last couple weeks that significant amongst the reasons why I like Vermeer so much are factors which are just why I also feel attracted to Kandinsky's work, and to the Mondrian abstract work which was shown on another thread. Notice that Read specifically refers to Mondrian in reference to Vermeer's geometricization.

And, for those who didn't have time or desire to read the whole preceeding excerpt, I'll single out this paragraph to repeat:

Every painting of Vermeer's is bathed in this particular kind of serenity, and this is the intangible element in his work to which I have already referred. There is no violence in his work, of thought or action. There is an eternal stillness, of music that dies on the echo, of the mind entranced by a message of love, of fingers that gently guide a thread of lace, of a tiny pearl suspended in delicate scales. Even Clio's eyes are downcast, as if embarrassed by the symbols of Fame which she is compelled to hold.

I think that's a lovely description.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime I've found a better reproduction of the Vermeer painting with the girl reading a letter:

06gread.jpg

As I already suspected when I saw the smaller reproduction: the perspective of the window is not consistent. To illustrate that I've drawn some lines along some of the relevant parts of the window:

vermeer3b-a.jpg

The upper two lines are less accurate, as only a small part of the window is there visible, and the frame seems to be bent upward a bit at the end (that part I ignored). As I already observed in my previous post, the lines of the lower part of the window frame converge much stronger to the right than all the other lines, the vanishing point lies approximately at the right edge of the painting. If the window and the lead strips were perfectly rectangular, all the yellow lines should have one single point of intersection. This is far from the case. Neither can the deviations be explained by irregularities in the window. The lines of the lower part and the upper part of the frame themselves have the strongest convergence to the right (with a larger margin of error for the upper part). The convergence of the lines of the upper part and of the lower part (for example the upper line and the lower line of the total window) is much less; the vanishing point lies about 3 times farther to the right. The lines of the lead strips deviate even more: the lower two (and the upper two separately) are practically parallel (with the vanishing point infinitely far to the right),while the upper two and the lower two combined converge very slowly.

It has often been suggested that Vermeer used a camera obscura for his work. However, it seems very unlikely to me that at least for this painting such a device was used, because then the perspective of the window would have been correct. There are more Vermeer paintings in which the perspective is suspect. The form of the table in the Maid pouring milk is strange and can only be explained if the table has a trapezoid form. I wonder if such tables did exist at the time. I've also my doubts about the foot stove in that painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly, thanks for finding a better reproduction of "A Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window," and for drawing in and discussing the perspective lines. Interesting.

I've been looking up material about the debated possibility of Vermeer's having used a camera obscura for at least some of his paintings.

In three following posts, I've copied material on that issue, all of this -- and much, much more -- to be found on a website Christian linked earlier:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com

The website is extensive and full of information. There are many copyediting and language-stylistic errors, all but one of which I've left as is. (I corrected one error which might mislead as to meaning.) I almost feel like offering my services to clean up the prose, insert missing words, correct punctuation mistakes, etc., but I haven't the time for doing this.

In a fourth post, I've copied remarks about details, respectively, of "A Girl Reading..." and "The Milkmaid."

In a fifth post, I've quoted a description I like of the mood of Vermeer's paintings.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's part of a discussion pertaining to the possibility of Vermeer's having used a camera obscura:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/camera_obscura/co_one.htm

Before eyes had been entirely accustomed to the modern photographic camera's way of seeing, in 1891 Joseph Pennell, American lithographer, etcher and friend of Whistler, was the first to suppose that Vermeer may have employed an optical device as an aid to his painting.  Pennell noted, for example, an evident discrepancy in scale of the two figures in the Officer and Laughing Girl. Even though the officer in Vermeer's painting is very close to the seated girl, he appears disproportionately large. The perspective is correct in a mathematical, optical sense, but the effect seems exaggerated due to the closeness of the view point to the soldier.

For centuries painters had both a working and theoretical knowledge of perspective and understood very well that, to create a believable three dimensional space, figures which appeared far from the viewer had to be represented smaller while those which were nearer had to be proportionately larger.  However, when the figures were relatively near to one another as in the case of  the Officer and Laughing Girl, there was an instinctive tendency to compensate for the difference in size and render what the artist knew rather than what he saw: mainly, that the two figures are almost equal in size. An excellent example of this kind of compensation can be seen in a very similar composition the Dutch contemporary, Gerrit van Honthorst, in his Procuress. Here the figures are placed in an almost identical positions as those of Vermeer's painting but they appear to be the same size.

 

[The paintings are shown at the site.]

Charles Seymour ("Dark Chamber in a Light Filled Room," in Art Bulletin 46, 1964)  tested the hypothesis that Vermeer might have been guided by the images he saw in a camera obscura. By observing similar objects (he carefully chose the props)  in similar lighting conditions to the ones found in Vermeer's painting through a real 19th century camera obscura. Seymour found that the resulting image exhibited qualities much like those seen in Vermeer paintings.

In particular, the characteristic lion head finial of a Spanish chair appeared surprisingly similar to the one seen in the Girl with a Red Hat (right). They both glimmer with the so called disks of confusion or pointillè as they are also called. These pointillès, a conspicuous feature of many of Vermeer's paintings, cannot be perceived with the naked eye and do not seem to be a likely stylistic invention. Rather, they seem characteristic of the image produced by the camera obscura. The fuzzy rendering of the tapestries in Vermeer's Lacemaker and Girl with a Red Hat recalls quite strongly parts of image produced in Seymour's experiment.

[Girl with a Red Hat, as has been pointed out by Christian, might not be by Vermeer.]

Since then, a great number of studies have investigated the subject and, although most scholars now agree that Vermeer did in fact use a camera obscura, there is still great debate to exactly to what extent he did so.

For those who wish to investigate this fascinating topic beyond these three web pages, the resources listed on page four should provide a wide range of facts and interpretations."

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further about rendering perspective and the possibility of Vermeer's having used camera obscura techniques:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/camera_obscura/co_three.htm

Many Dutch painters possessed at least a working knowledge of perspective. In reality however, the implied three dimensional spaces in their many of their paintings, with the exception of perhaps ornate church interiors, could be easily achieved without resorting to complicated mathematical calculations usually associated with the study of perspective. Early interior genre scenes display only incidental application of perspective to resolve isolated  problems such as checkered floor tiling. However, when painters such as De Hoogh, De Witte and Vermeer began to investigate the possibility of representing elegant upper middle-class house  interiors in a coherent and rational way, a more detailed knowledge of the theory of perspective became indispensable.

Such complicated perspectives were first worked out in preparatory drawings on paper. The drawing could then be transferred efficiently to the painter's canvas with the pouncing method. [....] However, since not even a single preparatory drawing of Vermeer exists, just how he solved perspective is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, two other methods were available for solving more rapidly perspective. The first, was extremely practical and well know to painters of the time, including Vermeer. Jørgen Wadum reveals that a pinhole, rarely visible to the naked eye but evident in x-ray images, which is found in place of the vanishing point of 13 of Vermeer's interior paintings, "contains evidence of Vermeer's system, by which he inserted a pin, with a string attached to it, into the grounded canvas at the vanishing point. With this string he could reach any area of his canvas to correct orthogonals, the straight lines that meet in the central vanishing point." [....]

The second method, even more practical, involved the camera obscura. [....]

Philip Steadman (Vermeer's Camera: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Masterpieces), who has to date conducted the most detailed and rigorous study of the camera obscura's relation to Vermeer's painting, has come to the very interesting hypothesis regarding the rendering of perspective in Vermeer 's painting.  According to Steadman, not only did Vermeer use the camera obscura as a device to explore visual phenomena and adjust his compositions, but he also traced the camera obscura's image by projecting it directly onto his canvas automatically resolving any problems related to perspective. 

Steadman's theory has been debated by such notable Vermeer scholars such as Arthur Wheelock who believes that Vermeer used the camera obscura in a more occasional and less systematic way. Jørgen Wadum believes that the evidence of the pin hole method in Vermeer's paintings offer sufficient proof of how the artist worked out problems of perspective.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now