Rational discussion of art

[James Shay]

Addendum: Rand herself abundantly used symbols of a type Jung would have called "archetypal": the whole Prometheus theme, the chain, Wyatt's torch... The Fountainhead...

She didn't invent the meanings she played on in using those symbols, the reasons why they reach deep in their evocational power. She was tapped into levels she was making use of -- and not fully consciously. No one could be fully conscious of the depth roots of such symbols.

Ellen

___

Ellen, Before getting too absorbed in this week's work I want to say thanks for your last email regarding some of the things I put up on this forum, and for the above comments about symbols. I agree with you that there exist deep and evocative symbols that have great unconscious impact on us. I remember that we talked about this a bit with regard to cave art.

I had no idea about the link between Caravaggio and Vermeer. It's fascinating, especially since they seem to be coming from such wildly different places. The link you mentioned between Matisse and Picasso is something that they played out their entire lives. I know they greatly respected each other, going so far as to trade work. I believe they corresponded occasionally, and Picasso visited Matisse during his last illnesses.

I think objectivism would be well served to admit that good things have come out of some of the mainstreams of 20th Century art. But, instead you get people like Torres and Kamli writing books extolling Ayn Rand's definition of art in which they go on for over 300 pages without mentioning Picasso, Cezanne, Braque or Matisse! As long as objectivism takes this weird - to me, anyway - and arrogant stance toward the founders of much of modern art, and will not even mention their names, apparently, in the same way characters in the Harry Potter series will not speak the name of Lord Voldemort, its ideas about art will stay marginalized.

Is the Horse Fair painting you refer to by Rosa Bonheur?

Your insight regarding Eastern European attitudes toward the abstract powers of shape, color and so on, seems right on. Especially, since it was the great Russian artist, Kandinsky, who wrote a lot about such things in his Conerning the Spiritual in Art. Lots of so-called mysticism there.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jim,

Thanks much for your reply. We seem to be on quite similar wavelengths about arts issues.

Re the link between Matisse and Picasso (thanks for confirming that it is Matisse I was thinking of), you wrote:

I know they greatly respected each other, going so far as to trade work. I believe they corresponded occasionally, and Picasso visited Matisse during his last illnesses.

Yes, he did, and there's a marvelous story about that. I was trying to find my notes on the lecture I referred to, but I've misplaced them. I'll keep searching.

I think objectivism would be well served to admit that good things have come out of some of the mainstreams of 20th Century art. But, instead you get people like Torres and Kamli writing books extolling Ayn Rand's definition of art in which they go on for over 300 pages without mentioning Picasso, Cezanne, Braque or Matisse! As long as objectivism takes this weird - to me, anyway - and arrogant stance toward the founders of much of modern art, and will not even mention their names, apparently, in the same way characters in the Harry Potter series will not speak the name of Lord Voldemort, its ideas about art will stay marginalized.

Amen. They don't even mention Escher or Georgia O'Keeffe, two names I've looked for in their index.

Re the Horse Fair painting, the name Rosa Bonheur doesn't sound right. I think it's a name I'll recognize as soon as I hear it.

Re the "Eastern European attitudes toward the abstract powers of shape, color and so on," I've become very interested by that issue, want to look into it further.

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

I was just revisting a long responce to ES I've been working on here and there as time allows, and came across a bit that I want to post as a brief, stand-alone observation.

I read an article the other day about Web 2.0, and it said, "Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."

For what it may be worth, I think the same basic idea and way of thinking about the problem of defining the set, can also be applied to "art" and "art appreciation".

RCR

[Jonathan]

Here's a reconstruction of Vermeer's "A Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window":

The black window frame is at 40 degrees, the red one is at 43 degrees, and the yellow at 48 degrees. There's enough variation in perspective, both horizontally and vertically, to account for Vermeer's errors.

Here's the scene from above, with the yellow frame now representing the window at the 40 degree position and the black one representing it at 48 degrees:

That's not a large distance for the wind or the weight of the curtain (or whatever) to have moved the window while Vermeer was drawing.

And here's a view which includes the girl's reflection, with the window at 43 degrees:

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I read an article the other day about Web 2.0, and it said, "Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."

For what it may be worth, I think the same basic idea and way of thinking about the problem of defining the set, can also be applied to "art" and "art appreciation".

<grinned> I like it...although, with an even futher complexity: instead of "a" gravitational core, a cluster of gravitational cores...

E-

Jonathan,

Neato! The third one comes out lovely to look at for itself, with the red frame and the shadowing on the girl, and the tip of her left breast just showing in the reflection....

___

Edited March 6, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

Jonathan, I'm not convinced. I've reproduced your reconstruction in a lighter version. In the original the window is so dark that you can hardly distinguish the different lines. In Vermeer's painting the lead strips are quite distinct however (see the larger reproduction, the first one is not good).

In your reproduction the difference between the horizontal lines for the different angles are relatively small. I've tried to draw the lines to their vanishing points, but I had to make a very long extension to the image to make the vanishing points visible, and then I had to reduce the image so much to make it fit on the screen that you couldn't see much at all. However, the point is that in Vermeer's painting the difference in convergence of the horizontal lines is considerable (it is easy to see without having to extend the picture to the right), so if you want to explain them by the fact that the window rotated in the meantime, you'l have to assume a large angle of rotation, and it's very unlikely that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed such a difference in orientation.

Moreover, even with the small rotations in your example the displacement of the vertical lines is significant, and it seems very unlikely that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed this as the image of the camera obscura would in that respect significantly differ from the parts he had already painted. Don't forget that another argument that is brought forward to support the hypothesis of the use by Vermeer of a CO is the fact that the maps in his paintings are quite accurate when compared with existing maps from that time, implying that the image of the CO was large and clear enough to render those tiny details of the map visible. My conclusion is, regardless of the question whether Vermeer used a CO for other paintings, that this painting doesn't support that hypothesis, on the contrary. Another point is that there are more examples of deviations in perspective in Vermeer's paintings of objects that don't move on their own.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read an article the other day about Web 2.0, and it said, "Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."

For what it may be worth, I think the same basic idea and way of thinking about the problem of defining the set, can also be applied to "art" and "art appreciation".

Christian,

This could apply to philosophy. Look at how it reads this way:

"Objectivism doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Objectivism as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of people who demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."

That may not be how the orthodoxy would like to see it, but that's how it works, even with them. I would also like to add that the pure core is not necessarily the best for each "planet," which uses the gravitational pull for stability, but also uses the orbiting room for its defining movement. (I am only talking philosophy here, too, not psychology.)

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, I'm not convinced. I've reproduced your reconstruction in a lighter version. In the original the window is so dark that you can hardly distinguish the different lines. In Vermeer's painting the lead strips are quite distinct however (see the larger reproduction, the first one is not good).

My reconstruction is based on the largest reproduction that you posted.

In your reproduction the difference between the horizontal lines for the different angles are relatively small. I've tried to draw the lines to their vanishing points, but I had to make a very long extension to the image to make the vanishing points visible, and then I had to reduce the image so much to make it fit on the screen that you couldn't see much at all. However, the point is that in Vermeer's painting the difference in convergence of the horizontal lines is considerable (it is easy to see without having to extend the picture to the right), so if you want to explain them by the fact that the window rotated in the meantime, you'll have to assume a large angle of rotation, and it's very unlikely that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed such a difference in orientation.

A large angle of rotation isn't required. The 8 degree rotation in the examples I posted is enough.

Here's the original with green lines tracing the horizontals (notice that some of them are actually slightly curved):

The pink lines are perfectly straight and vertical. Notice that the window's right side is not only off of vertical, but it is curved, as represented by the yellow lines. It's as if Vermeer traced it as it moved from 48 degrees to 43, as shown in my reconstruction (in this version I've overlayed the same green, pink and yellow lines that I've placed on the original above):

The green lines (representing Vermeer's lines) are within the 8 degree swing (well, mostly -- an even higher resolution scan might reveal that another 2 or 3 degrees of rotation might be needed in one or two spots). Look at the bottom two green lines. The very bottom one traces the bottom of the yellow window (48 degrees), and the second from the bottom traces the top of the red window's (43 degree) lower horizontal frame segment.

Moreover, even with the small rotations in your example the displacement of the vertical lines is significant, and it seems very unlikely that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed this as the image of the camera obscura would in that respect significantly differ from the parts he had already painted.

Have you ever looked at an image projected by a camera obscura? It's very faint. In order to trace it with any level of detail, you'd need to enclose the projection surface within a dark space. Under such conditions it can be very hard to see what you've already drawn. Have you ever traced an image projected through a cheap Artograph? It's very easy to miss sections and to lose track of where you are while tracing, and a cheap Artograph's projections are much less faint and dark than camera obscura projections. Vermeer could have very easily been unaware of how far off his tracings were, and how much something might have moved.

By the way, I don't think that Vermeer painted while using a camera obscura. It would be almost impossible to accurately gauge values and hues while enclosed within a space that's dark enough to see detailed projections. If anything, he most likely would have only created his initial cartoons by tracing the projections.

Don't forget that another argument that is brought forward to support the hypothesis of the use by Vermeer of a CO is the fact that the maps in his paintings are quite accurate when compared with existing maps from that time, implying that the image of the CO was large and clear enough to render those tiny details of the map visible. My conclusion is, regardless of the question whether Vermeer used a CO for other paintings, that this painting doesn't support that hypothesis, on the contrary. Another point is that there are more examples of deviations in perspective in Vermeer's paintings of objects that don't move on their own.

There could be any number of reason that Vermeer deviated from the camera obscura's projections, or that the perspective was not correct. The camera or painting surface might have been moved. The camera's point of view may have been intentionally altered after certain items had been drawn. Vermeer may have changed his mind after seeing his cartoon, then failed when trying to re-establish the same camera and painting surface positions for retracing. He may have traced some parts but not others. He may have used the camera on some paintings but not others. Etc.

J

Edited March 6, 2007 by Jonathan

[Dragonfly]

Look at the bottom two green lines. The very bottom one traces the bottom of the yellow window (48 degrees), and the second from the bottom traces the top of the red window's (43 degree) lower horizontal frame segment.

Then you suppose that between drawing those two bottom lines of the frame the window rotated, explaining the strong convergence of the lines. But that is highly unlikely, as it would be obvious that the previously drawn line would then clearly deviate from the line of the image. It is impossible that Vermeer wouldn't have seen that, if he could see one line, he could also see the other line quite close to it, and see that it deviated significantly from his previously drawn line. I think this whole theory of the window rotating just between his drawing those two lines is far-fetched, not to mention the idea that the window was also rotating while he was drawing the vertical line, to explain the curved line. After all, what is the evidence that he used the CO in this painting? One of the usual arguments is that his perspective is so accurate. Well, it's obvious that in this painting the perspective is far from accurate, so instead of thinking up improbable scenarios to explain the deviations, a much more simple explanation is that he did not use a CO for this painting, and that he just drew those lines "by hand". That would also give a simple explanation of the deviations from straight lines in the window (like the funny turning up at the right upper corner. The window jamb at the left is also rather irregular. Now it's interesting that the window sill and parallel lines in contrast are quite well defined and straight, and there is a plausible explanation for that: the vanishing point of these lines lies within the painting itself, approximately in the center. Now it's very likely that Vermeer in such cases used threads to draw such lines, as in many paintings tiny pinpricks are found exactly at such vanishing points, which can hardly be a coincidence. He couldn't use this method for the window itself, as the vanishing point lies far outside the painting. That would be a simple explanation of wobbly lines and poor perspective in the window and straight lines for the window sill and parallel lines. No need for complicated and unlikely scenarios. Thanks, Occam.

Have you ever looked at an image projected by a camera obscura? It's very faint.

That depends on the construction. A real pinhole camera gives a very faint image, but with a lens the image is much better, and all the proponents of the CO theory agree that it must have used a lens. When it's claimed that he drew the fine and complicated details of a map on the wall using the CO, the image must have been clear enough as the contrast on the map is very low (compared to the contrast in a window for example).

There could be any number of reason that Vermeer deviated from the camera obscura's projections, or that the perspective was not correct. The camera or painting surface might have been moved. The camera's point of view may have been intentionally altered after certain items had been drawn. Vermeer may have changed his mind after seeing his cartoon, then failed when trying to re-establish the same camera and painting surface positions for retracing. He may have traced some parts but not others. He may have used the camera on some paintings but not others. Etc.

But that is all putting the cart before the horse. The main argument for the theory that Vermeer used a CO was that his perspective is so accurate, and now to defend this theory all kinds of scenarios and excuses are suggested to explain why his perspective is not correct. Such reasoning makes me suspicious of the whole theory, it looks as if it has become a pet theory: the conclusion must be defended at all costs, while a much simpler explanation would be that he did not use the CO.

[Jonathan]

Look at the bottom two green lines. The very bottom one traces the bottom of the yellow window (48 degrees), and the second from the bottom traces the top of the red window's (43 degree) lower horizontal frame segment.

Then you suppose that between drawing those two bottom lines of the frame the window rotated, explaining the strong convergence of the lines. But that is highly unlikely, as it would be obvious that the previously drawn line would then clearly deviate from the line of the image. It is impossible that Vermeer wouldn't have seen that, if he could see one line, he could also see the other line quite close to it, and see that it deviated significantly from his previously drawn line.

No, it's not "impossible" that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed the deviation. I suspect that you've never used a camera obscura or balopticon to enlarge an image. I've used them many times when creating bas relief sculptures (it's a great way to blow up a sketch or a small maquette to full scale). As I said earlier, it's very easy to miss sections and to lose track of where you are. Depending on how lightly Vermeer may have traced lines, he might not have seen any of his previous lines as he was drawing new ones. And even if he was able to see them somewhat, he may not have been paying attention to them. An artist tracing a projection would have no reason to be making comparisons to previous lines. He wouldn't be gauging angles and proportions as he would while doing a life drawing. That's the purpose of using a projection: to avoid having to make those judgments and comparisons.

I think this whole theory of the window rotating just between his drawing those two lines is far-fetched, not to mention the idea that the window was also rotating while he was drawing the vertical line, to explain the curved line.

Vermeer may have drawn the image in any number of ways other than what you've apparently imagined. Since he would have been tracing a projection of light, he may have traced value contours rather than object shapes. He may have traced positive spaces or negative ones (he may have first drawn the verticals and then the horizontals of the frame and lead strips, or he may have drawn, rectangle by rectangle, the spaces that they divide). He may have started at the window's bottom, changed his mind about where to start on it, worked his way down from the top, and then remembered that he had already drawn the bottom line even though he couldn't see it. After he finished tracing, he might have exited his darkened booth, gone for a candle or lantern to shine on the drawing to see if he had missed any segments, discovered that he had indeed missed some, including one of the bottom lines, and by the time he reentered the darkened booth, the wind had moved the window again.

After all, what is the evidence that he used the CO in this painting? One of the usual arguments is that his perspective is so accurate. Well, it's obvious that in this painting the perspective is far from accurate,

The perspective is accurate if Vermeer was unknowingly tracing a moving window. That's been my point. You've implied that the distorted window is evidence that a camera obscura was not used. I disagree - it is not evidence that a camera obscura was not used.

so instead of thinking up improbable scenarios to explain the deviations,

An artist getting distorted results after tracing a window which is moving slightly is not an "improbable scenario."

a much more simple explanation is that he did not use a CO for this painting, and that he just drew those lines "by hand".

That Vermeer drew it free-hand is a possibility. Question: If you had free-handed Vermeer's window, would you have noticed that its perspective wasn't right, especially the bottom? Would an artist be more likely to fail to notice it if he had a good knowledge of perspective and an expert sense of proportion, or would he be more likely to fail to notice it if he had little knowledge of perspective and a mediocre eye for proportion and was the type who relied on a camera obscura for those things?

That would also give a simple explanation of the deviations from straight lines in the window (like the funny turning up at the right upper corner).

I have a calendar which includes a much better image of the painting. In it, the upper right corner is less upturned. It looks more like a smudge of paint than a bend in the wood. Perhaps pixelization has exaggerated it in the image that you posted. Also, the bottom horizontal of the window isn't quite so angled in appearance. In the image that you posted, the far right section of the bottom line is missing, where in my calendar image it appears that the line in that area is a little lighter and slightly covered with scumbled background paint. (It's still incorrect perspective, but not quite as bad as it seems in your image).

The window jamb at the left is also rather irregular. Now it's interesting that the window sill and parallel lines in contrast are quite well defined and straight, and there is a plausible explanation for that: the vanishing point of these lines lies within the painting itself, approximately in the center. Now it's very likely that Vermeer in such cases used threads to draw such lines, as in many paintings tiny pinpricks are found exactly at such vanishing points, which can hardly be a coincidence. He couldn't use this method for the window itself, as the vanishing point lies far outside the painting. That would be a simple explanation of wobbly lines and poor perspective in the window and straight lines for the window sill and parallel lines. No need for complicated and unlikely scenarios. Thanks, Occam.

It's not "complicated" and "unlikely" that a window moved a few degrees while Vermeer was tracing it, and that he may not have noticed it while looking at a faint image in a darkened booth.

Have you ever looked at an image projected by a camera obscura? It's very faint.

That depends on the construction. A real pinhole camera gives a very faint image, but with a lens the image is much better, and all the proponents of the CO theory agree that it must have used a lens. When it's claimed that he drew the fine and complicated details of a map on the wall using the CO, the image must have been clear enough as the contrast on the map is very low (compared to the contrast in a window for example).

Yes, but it still would have required a darkened enclosure. Even photographers using large-format cameras will hood themselves when looking at the camera's ground-glass viewing plane (which is about the same clarity and contrast that a camera obscura provides).

There could be any number of reason that Vermeer deviated from the camera obscura's projections, or that the perspective was not correct. The camera or painting surface might have been moved. The camera's point of view may have been intentionally altered after certain items had been drawn. Vermeer may have changed his mind after seeing his cartoon, then failed when trying to re-establish the same camera and painting surface positions for retracing. He may have traced some parts but not others. He may have used the camera on some paintings but not others. Etc.

But that is all putting the cart before the horse. The main argument for the theory that Vermeer used a CO was that his perspective is so accurate, and now to defend this theory all kinds of scenarios and excuses are suggested to explain why his perspective is not correct. Such reasoning makes me suspicious of the whole theory, it looks as if it has become a pet theory: the conclusion must be defended at all costs, while a much simpler explanation would be that he did not use the CO.

I haven't been defending a theory "at all costs." I've simply presented a very reasonable case in which the window's poor perspective could be the result of using a camera obscura.

J

Edited March 7, 2007 by Jonathan

[Dragonfly]

The perspective is accurate if Vermeer was unknowingly tracing a moving window. That's been my point. You've implied that the distorted window is evidence that a camera obscura was not used. I disagree - it is not evidence that a camera obscura was not used.

And you're missing my point, namely that I don't have to prove that Vermeer did not use a camera obscura, the burden of proof is not on me. I only point out that the arguments for his using a CO in painting this work are far from convincing, or in fact are absent. What I hear are arguments that if he had used a CO, the deviations in perspective would not contradict that supposition. But that is no evidence that he did use a CO. Moreover, I still think that the whole scenario is farfetched, with a wide open window moving unnoticed over a substantial angle, even while a heavy curtain is partially hanging over it and behind it, and that at a time between Vermeer drawing the two lower lines of the window and between his drawing the frame and the lead strips, and Vermeer not noticing any deviation.

That Vermeer drew it free-hand is a possibility. Question: If you had free-handed Vermeer's window, would you have noticed that its perspective wasn't right, especially the bottom? Would an artist be more likely to fail to notice it if he had a good knowledge of perspective and an expert sense of proportion, or would he be more likely to fail to notice it if he had little knowledge of perspective and a mediocre eye for proportion and was the type who relied on a camera obscura for those things?

That Vermeer was less skillful in handling perspective doesn't have to be explained by his relying on the CO. Correct perspective in art was then a fairly new phenomenon. Of course the theory of the vanishing point was already known for a long time, but a real consistent application over the whole painting was (and is) much more difficult. There is fairly convincing evidence that Vermeer did use threads for lines converging in a point visible on the painting (which raises the question why he should do that at all if he used a CO), so those lines pose no difficulties. But lines with vanishing points far outside the painting are more difficult, and it isn't at all surprising that Vermeer was not as experienced in that as we are nowadays, with thousands of photos to guide us for example. The "too strong convergence", for example in the lower part of the window is a typical beginner's error. And when we are constructing scenarios anyway... is it so unlikely that Vermeer went closer to the window to get the details right of the window that he'd sketched, without realizing that he would change the whole perspective by getting closer? Further a similar inexperience with perspective can be seen in the faces in some of Rembrandt's paintings. Does that mean that he also used a CO?

The funny thing is that I have become much more skeptical of the camera obscura theory in the course of this discussion than I was in the beginning. Somehow your arguments have an adverse effect...

[Jonathan]

The perspective is accurate if Vermeer was unknowingly tracing a moving window. That's been my point. You've implied that the distorted window is evidence that a camera obscura was not used. I disagree - it is not evidence that a camera obscura was not used.

And you're missing my point, namely that I don't have to prove that Vermeer did not use a camera obscura, the burden of proof is not on me. I only point out that the arguments for his using a CO in painting this work are far from convincing, or in fact are absent. What I hear are arguments that if he had used a CO, the deviations in perspective would not contradict that supposition. But that is no evidence that he did use a CO. Moreover, I still think that the whole scenario is farfetched, with a wide open window moving unnoticed over a substantial angle,

As I've demonstrated, it is not a "substantial angle."

even while a heavy curtain is partially hanging over it and behind it,

So, your theory is that a curtain which has been pulled to the right and placed over a hinged window will hold the window in place rather than exert a leftward force which might slowly overcome the resistence of the friction of the window's hinges? I just draped a curtain over a door in my home, at the same position and angle as in Vermeer's painting, and the curtain moved the door more than 8 degrees (I'd estimate it at about 20 degrees). And there was no air movement to assist it.

and that at a time between Vermeer drawing the two lower lines of the window and between his drawing the frame and the lead strips, and Vermeer not noticing any deviation.

I've explained that Vermeer would have been tracing a faint image in a darkened enclosure and may have traced the window in any number of ways other that what you have imagined.

That Vermeer was less skillful in handling perspective doesn't have to be explained by his relying on the CO. Correct perspective in art was then a fairly new phenomenon. Of course the theory of the vanishing point was already known for a long time, but a real consistent application over the whole painting was (and is) much more difficult. There is fairly convincing evidence that Vermeer did use threads for lines converging in a point visible on the painting (which raises the question why he should do that at all if he used a CO),

Norman Rockwell frequently used a projector and would go back and tighten up his perspective with vanishing points and a straight edge.

so those lines pose no difficulties. But lines with vanishing points far outside the painting are more difficult, and it isn't at all surprising that Vermeer was not as experienced in that as we are nowadays, with thousands of photos to guide us for example. The "too strong convergence", for example in the lower part of the window is a typical beginner's error. And when we are constructing scenarios anyway... is it so unlikely that Vermeer went closer to the window to get the details right of the window that he'd sketched, without realizing that he would change the whole perspective by getting closer? Further a similar inexperience with perspective can be seen in the faces in some of Rembrandt's paintings. Does that mean that he also used a CO?

Rembrandt's paintings don't have the precision that Vermeer's have. Rembrandt's spaces, objects, ellipses and patterns don't come close to properly conforming to perspective, where Vermeer's do. Look at just Vermeer's textiles and compare them to Rembrandt's. Vermeer's look as though they were mapped with the precision of modern computer software. Rembrandt's don't. In fact, most of Rembrandt's are quite awkward. Unlike Vermeer's foreshortening of limbs, Rembrandt's foreshortening isn't photographic, or even near-photographic. Rembrandt's characters don't operate in correct perspective. Vermeer's do. Rembrandt's don't consistently get large enough the closer they are to the veiwer, or small enough the farther away they are. Plotting out Vermeer's perspective, you can identify a specific, consistent lens length. Not so with Rembrandt's.

In short, there's no reason to suspect that Rembrandt used a camera obscura, where there are many reasons to suspect that Vermeer did. Rembrandt's work has consistent errors, so there's no reason to believe that his errors may have been due to his missing minor changes in something that moved while he was tracing it. With Vermeer, on the other hand, there are reasons to investigate how his errors may have been the result of changes that occurred while he was tracing a projection.

The funny thing is that I have become much more skeptical of the camera obscura theory in the course of this discussion than I was in the beginning. Somehow your arguments have an adverse effect...

Perhaps its because you haven't really considered my arguments. You keep repeating, for example, your opinion that the angle of the window's motion would have had to have been "substantial." That is not true. You also repeat that Vermeer would have noticed the difference in the window's positions or in the angles of his lines, ignoring that he would have been looking at a faint image in a darkened enclosure. You continue to assume that if he traced a projection, he must have traced it in the way that you think that you'd trace it. And now you apparently believe that the laws of physics operated differently on Vermeer's curtains than they do on mine.

J

[Edited to add the paragraph above which begins with "In short, there's no reason to suspect that Rembrandt..." which for some reason disappeared from my post as I was posting it.]

Edited March 14, 2007 by Jonathan

[James Shay]

Rembrandt's paintings don't have the precision that Vermeer's have. Rembrandt's spaces, objects, ellipses and patterns don't come close to properly conforming to perspective, where Vermeer's do. Look at just Vermeer's textiles and compare them to Rembrandt's. Vermeer's look as though they were mapped with the precision of modern computer software. Rembrandt's don't. In fact, most of Rembrandt's are quite awkward. Unlike Vermeer's foreshortening of limbs, Rembrandt's foreshortening isn't photographic, or even near-photographic. Rembrandt's characters don't operate in correct perspective. Vermeer's do. Rembrandt's don't consistently get large enough the closer they are to the veiwer, or small enough the farther away they are. Plotting out Vermeer's perspective, you can identify a specific, consistent lens length. Not so with Rembrandt's.

J

Jonathon and Dragonfly, The famous painter David Hockney has a recent book out, Secret Knowledge, in which he goes on for many, many pages about his conviction that a large number of painters from the Renaissance on used lenses and the camera obscura. It's a terrific account, whether or not one agrees with him. Although some did use primitive photographic means, I don't think many did. You will see in his analysis of many great painters work a terrific amount of distortion, done in order to make the painting really work. Generally, it's not really noticeable until you know its there. I think Hockney just cannot believe some people could paint so spectacularly well without a camera or Photoshop.

Check out the photorealism movement that got going in the sixties. A lot of those paintings could use some distortion! I believe it has seldom been the goal of a great figurative painter to exactly reproduce perspective or proportion. One of the most famous examples of figurative distortion is Ingres' Odalisque, who has 3 extra vertabrae! And one of her arms is way long, and it's pretty noticeable. As a figurative artist, he paints Vermeer completely under the table, for my money.

I visited a gallery last weekend some of you might be interested in, and may know, founded on Ayn Rand's principles, according to the co-owner. It is Quent Cordair, in Burlingame, California. It's on the net. She has some excellent paintings in perfect perspective of bridges being built, highrises, and spaceships. She is familiar with this forum and Michael and Kat.

I may not have used the quote feature correctly. The top paragraph is obviously yours, Jonathon.

(Note from MSK - Sorry to butt in, but I just fixed it for you. A tutorial on how to use the quote feature is on the way and should be up before too long.)

Jim

[Jonathan]

Jonathon and Dragonfly, The famous painter David Hockney has a recent book out, Secret Knowledge, in which he goes on for many, many pages about his conviction that a large number of painters from the Renaissance on used lenses and the camera obscura. It's a terrific account, whether or not one agrees with him.

Jim,

I haven't read Hockney's book, but I've seen some surprisingly angry responses to it. I think that most people, especially those who get upset about the idea that great artists of the past may have used optical aids, don't grasp how difficult it is to paint even when optical aids are used. They don't realize how much more is involved in painting than tracing a basic outline.

Albrecht Dürer heavily promoted this simple device (woodcut by Dürer):

An artist would look through a small hole mounted at the end of a staff (which would keep his eye in a single position while drawing), and he would trace onto a framed screen or sheet of glass the view that he saw through it. He would then transfer the drawing to a panel or canvas. (The advantages of using this method, as opposed to a camera obscura, would be that the image isn't upside down and backwards, the device is much easier to set up, the artist doesn't have to be inside a darkened enclosure, and he can very clearly see what he's doing).

Other artists used glass or prisms to trace a reflection, much like with the children's toy DigiDraw ( http://www.digidraw.com/ ).

I'd suggest that people try Dürer's method for themselves, or a DigiDraw, or trace a photograph or slide projection, and see if they can match Dürer's or Vermeer's level of quality.

I think Hockney just cannot believe some people could paint so spectacularly well without a camera or Photoshop.

That could be a part of it. I don't think that Hockney is all that gifted as a draftsman. I'd have to read the book in order to see how much of his theory I think is based on his imposing his own limitations on others.

One of the most famous examples of figurative distortion is Ingres' Odalisque, who has 3 extra vertabrae! And one of her arms is way long, and it's pretty noticeable. As a figurative artist, he paints Vermeer completely under the table, for my money.

I generally agree. I love Ingres' Bather of Valpinçon and many of his other works. Some of his stuff gets a little too stylized for my tastes, though. Some of his fingers, noses, bridges and foreheads kind of creep me out. They almost have a Tim Burton animation feeling to them.

J

Edited March 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[James Shay]

Jonathon and Dragonfly, The famous painter David Hockney has a recent book out, Secret Knowledge, in which he goes on for many, many pages about his conviction that a large number of painters from the Renaissance on used lenses and the camera obscura. It's a terrific account, whether or not one agrees with him.

Jim,

I haven't read Hockney's book, but I've seen some surprisingly angry responses to it. I think that most people, especially those who get upset about the idea that great artists of the past may have used optical aids, don't grasp how difficult it is to paint even when optical aids are used. They don't realize how much more is involved in painting than tracing a basic outline.

Albrecht Dürer heavily promoted this simple device (woodcut by Dürer):

An artist would look through a small hole mounted at the end of a staff (which would keep his eye in a single position while drawing), and he would trace onto a framed screen or sheet of glass the view that he saw through it. He would then transfer the drawing to a panel or canvas. (The advantages of using this method, as opposed to a camera obscura, would be that the image isn't upside down and backwards, the device is much easier to set up, the artist doesn't have to be inside a darkened enclosure, and he can very clearly see what he's doing).

Other artists used glass or prisms to trace a reflection, much like with the children's toy DigiDraw ( http://www.digidraw.com/ ).

I'd suggest that people try Dürer's method for themselves, or a DigiDraw, or trace a photograph or slide projection, and see if they can match Dürer's or Vermeer's level of quality.

I think Hockney just cannot believe some people could paint so spectacularly well without a camera or Photoshop.

That could be a part of it. I don't think that Hockney is all that gifted as a draftsman. I'd have to read the book in order to see how much of his theory I think is based on his imposing his own limitations on others.

One of the most famous examples of figurative distortion is Ingres' Odalisque, who has 3 extra vertabrae! And one of her arms is way long, and it's pretty noticeable. As a figurative artist, he paints Vermeer completely under the table, for my money.

I generally agree. I love Ingres' Bather of Valpinçon and many of his other works. Some of his stuff gets a little too stylized for my tastes, though. Some of his fingers, noses, bridges and foreheads kind of creep me out. They almost have a Tim Burton animation feeling to them.

J

Jonathon,

It's interesting what you say about Ingres, because it is true that there's a creepy aspect to some of his forms. Tim Burton - great! I've thought of them as being somewhat reptilian. Nevertheless, the portraits, especially, are great. There's one of a standing woman with a blue dress on, in which Ingres is telling us about her even in the folds and shimmer of the fabric. Wonderful work. Still, kind of reptilian, though.

I have not seen before the device the woodcut illustrates. Thanks for putting it up. The technique, if it worked well, does seem to be an improvement over the camera obscura. There is another famous woodcut, which you may have seen, showing a reclining woman with an artist apparently studying and drawing the area of her privates (which might be covered with a drape - I don't remember!) with the aid of a grid-like device. For those who paint by filling in the outline with color, any device that helps get the image onto a surface is a help. But, one of the many great things about Bonnard, as well as the color field painters of the fifties and sixties, is that they made the initial act of "drawing" the placement of color, rather than the delineating of an outline. I think de Kooning really expanded on the technique with his beautiful "landscapes" of the seventies and his godawful "women" of the fifties. Matisse's cut-outs were the great synthesis of the use of color and shape simultaneously to create an image. I think quite a few painters throughout history actually thought that way, and were not so much world-class outliners. Most of us today are taught the coloring book style of creating paintings.

I would still recommend Hockney's book as a kind of discussion of acccuracy and distortion in figure painting. There are many reviews in which the tone seems to be, "well, there goes David being David again, off on another wild goose chase". Respectful, but disagreeing. One of the most overrated artists on Earth. Except for his photocollages - brilliant.

When I was in the Quent Cordair Gallery mentioned in the last email the co-owner proudly said that there were very few still-life paintings displayed. It's as though the figurative work in her gallery always has so much more to say about what can be our best qualities. Do you know the flower paintings of Fantin-Latour? He absolutely knocks me out, and his work has plenty to say about the great things we can believe, see and do. It doesn't have to be a chiseled profile or a joyfully dancing nude, in my book anyway.

Jim

[Jonathan]

It's interesting what you say about Ingres, because it is true that there's a creepy aspect to some of his forms. Tim Burton - great! I've thought of them as being somewhat reptilian. Nevertheless, the portraits, especially, are great. There's one of a standing woman with a blue dress on, in which Ingres is telling us about her even in the folds and shimmer of the fabric. Wonderful work. Still, kind of reptilian, though.

Maybe Ingres' creepy little features were "cute" back in his day, much in the same way that flappers were hot in the 20s (the flapper look is also kind of creepy to me).

I have not seen before the device the woodcut illustrates. Thanks for putting it up. The technique, if it worked well, does seem to be an improvement over the camera obscura.

The image that I posted is from a Xerox that I had copied long ago, and I've lost the reference to which book it came from. I think that the accompanying text claimed that Leonardo had also described the device in his writings.

There is another famous woodcut, which you may have seen, showing a reclining woman with an artist apparently studying and drawing the area of her privates (which might be covered with a drape - I don't remember!) with the aid of a grid-like device.

I think that one may have also been done by Dürer.

Matisse's cut-outs were the great synthesis of the use of color and shape simultaneously to create an image. I think quite a few painters throughout history actually thought that way, and were not so much world-class outliners. Most of us today are taught the coloring book style of creating paintings.

Speaking of Matisse (while speaking of Vermeer), are you familiar with any of great-granddaughter Sophie's work?

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/wong/wong3-4-7.asp

and more:

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/wong/wong3-4-02.asp

I really like it. Not only is it fun, but the absense of the familiar characters makes them seem much more alive to me.

I would still recommend Hockney's book as a kind of discussion of acccuracy and distortion in figure painting. There are many reviews in which the tone seems to be, "well, there goes David being David again, off on another wild goose chase". Respectful, but disagreeing. One of the most overrated artists on Earth. Except for his photocollages - brilliant.

I agree with your assessment of Hockney. Very few of his drawings or paintings connect deeply with me, but his photo work is very good. And thanks for the recommendation -- I'll definitely read his book.

When I was in the Quent Cordair Gallery mentioned in the last email the co-owner proudly said that there were very few still-life paintings displayed. It's as though the figurative work in her gallery always has so much more to say about what can be our best qualities. Do you know the flower paintings of Fantin-Latour? He absolutely knocks me out, and his work has plenty to say about the great things we can believe, see and do. It doesn't have to be a chiseled profile or a joyfully dancing nude, in my book anyway.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Fantin-Latour's work, Still Life: Corner Of A Table being my favorite:

J

PS - Sorry for the tiger-striped posts recently. I know that some people find it very irritating, but I just haven't had time to post otherwise lately.

[James Shay]

It's interesting what you say about Ingres, because it is true that there's a creepy aspect to some of his forms. Tim Burton - great! I've thought of them as being somewhat reptilian. Nevertheless, the portraits, especially, are great. There's one of a standing woman with a blue dress on, in which Ingres is telling us about her even in the folds and shimmer of the fabric. Wonderful work. Still, kind of reptilian, though.

Maybe Ingres' creepy little features were "cute" back in his day, much in the same way that flappers were hot in the 20s (the flapper look is also kind of creepy to me).

I have not seen before the device the woodcut illustrates. Thanks for putting it up. The technique, if it worked well, does seem to be an improvement over the camera obscura.

The image that I posted is from a Xerox that I had copied long ago, and I've lost the reference to which book it came from. I think that the accompanying text claimed that Leonardo had also described the device in his writings.

There is another famous woodcut, which you may have seen, showing a reclining woman with an artist apparently studying and drawing the area of her privates (which might be covered with a drape - I don't remember!) with the aid of a grid-like device.

I think that one may have also been done by Dürer.

Matisse's cut-outs were the great synthesis of the use of color and shape simultaneously to create an image. I think quite a few painters throughout history actually thought that way, and were not so much world-class outliners. Most of us today are taught the coloring book style of creating paintings.

Speaking of Matisse (while speaking of Vermeer), are you familiar with any of great-granddaughter Sophie's work?

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/wong/wong3-4-7.asp

and more:

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/wong/wong3-4-02.asp

I really like it. Not only is it fun, but the absense of the familiar characters makes them seem much more alive to me.

I would still recommend Hockney's book as a kind of discussion of acccuracy and distortion in figure painting. There are many reviews in which the tone seems to be, "well, there goes David being David again, off on another wild goose chase". Respectful, but disagreeing. One of the most overrated artists on Earth. Except for his photocollages - brilliant.

I agree with your assessment of Hockney. Very few of his drawings or paintings connect deeply with me, but his photo work is very good. And thanks for the recommendation -- I'll definitely read his book.

When I was in the Quent Cordair Gallery mentioned in the last email the co-owner proudly said that there were very few still-life paintings displayed. It's as though the figurative work in her gallery always has so much more to say about what can be our best qualities. Do you know the flower paintings of Fantin-Latour? He absolutely knocks me out, and his work has plenty to say about the great things we can believe, see and do. It doesn't have to be a chiseled profile or a joyfully dancing nude, in my book anyway.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Fantin-Latour's work, Still Life: Corner Of A Table being my favorite:

J

PS - Sorry for the tiger-striped posts recently. I know that some people find it very irritating, but I just haven't had time to post otherwise lately.

Thanks, Jonathon, for the image of the gorgeous Fantin-Latour. And, Nighthawks with no Nighthawks! And a pitchfork on its own. At first glance, they're humorous; but, as you say, seeing them without the figures we are so very accustomed to helps us see them in other ways. Interesting - according to the what's said in the commentary accompanying Sophie's efforts, Matisse might like The Conversation more with her modifications in the long run, since in the original they were not so amiably chatting, perhaps, about his affair with a model in the original. No wonder Madame Matisse looks so pissed off.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I see you have learned how to use the Quote Feature. For the record, I just wrote a tutorial with images.

Inserting quotes from other posts

This might help if you have any further doubts (especially if you want to quote partial posts or multiple posts).

Michael

[James Shay]

Jim,

I see you have learned how to use the Quote Feature. For the record, I just wrote a tutorial with images.

Inserting quotes from other posts

This might help if you have any further doubts (especially if you want to quote partial posts or multiple posts).

Michael

Thanks, Michael.

Jim

[Newberry]

.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?Ellen___

Very perceptive to notice that. They didn't have clamp lamps then to adjust over their work in progress. If an artist is right handed and the light is coming from the right a cast shadow from his hand will cover the area he his painting. So it would ave been important for a right handed artist to have a window on his left side. Many of the Dutch homes are built connected in a row, with windows at the front and back, but not corner windows. I lived there for 8 years. If this were the case the easiest set up would light from the left.

[Jonathan]

I think that this was a hasty decision. They didn’t establish that Vermeer himself didn’t paint over the Cupid in his later years, but only that they felt that it was “unlikely” that he did. 

A Vermeer Restoration Reveals a God of Desire - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

An image of Cupid was covered over in “Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window” for nearly 300 years. Now...

 

[Peter]

Vermeer is one of the greatest artists ever. Years ago I think I told the story about how I was in DC, and saw one of Vermeer's paintings hanging slightly askew. I righted it and suddenly I was surrounded by guards . . . because I touched the painting. They let me stay and didn't arrest me after I explained. My wife was aghast. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I think that this was a hasty decision. They didn’t establish that Vermeer himself didn’t paint over the Cupid in his later years, but only that they felt that it was “unlikely” that he did.

Jonathan,

I agree.

For readers who want to get beyond the paywall and read this article for free (after all, this is the NYT fake news), here is the link from Archive: A Vermeer Restoration Reveals a God of Desire.

For the cautious, don't worry. This is legal. It's not even black hat. The intent of the Archive service is to help keep a memory of the Internet. Using it the way I just did deprives the media outlet (NYT in this case) of income and allows you to see the content for free.

(That's not Objectivish, some may say? Not capitalism? Well, think about the lobbying, fake news, censorship and coercive efforts to drive out alt media from the Internet, including banding together with the social media giants into a giant cartel, the NYT has been engaged in. So long as there is no remedy for you and me except to submit to the dishonest and authoritarian wishes of this corporate-government crony cartel, I say using Archive is one way to exercise the free market. The NYT and other crony corporations want to hog the Internet through collusion with the government and call that the free market. Well, Archive is perfectly legal and it's also on the free market.)

 

On another point, we are currently in an age where rewriting history and censorship are the norm. This includes the destruction of statues, eliminating standard literature from school, alterations of artworks, and so on. And the standard is always half-assed since it is political. But it is usually argued with a lot of scholarly-sounding blah blah blah to justify the destruction.

One of the effects of this is that the custom of using half-assed rationalized standards to permanently alter masterpieces is becoming accepted as the norm. 

I believe this is in the mix in the decision to alter the Vermeer painting. His “Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window,” has hung on walls in the public for several centuries and there was a blank wall in the painting's background.

Now his painting is, and will be, hung in museums with a Cupid on that background wall.

I don't want to compare this with the Taliban blowing up those giant Buddhist statues for blasphemy years ago, but the essence sure feels the same. Except I keep seeing the Mona Lisa with a mustache in my mind as I think about this.  

So I agree with you. "Conclusively proven" has to be the standard for altering a masterpiece that has been in public for centuries. "Unlikely" is a half-assed standard.

 

And, as a curiosity, as you know, I have been studying a lot about writing fiction. One of my tasks (which has taken longer than I expected) is to read through a lot of fiction to seed my mind with material so when I look at different techniques, I have examples in context to call on in my memory.

An author I have enjoyed for this is Daniel Silva. I have read all of his Gabriel Allon novels (there are 21). Gabriel Allon is an Israeli spy and assassin. He's also an art restorer. How's that for a cover?  But he loves his work and he restores old masterpieces, including paintings on ancient cathedral ceilings. But there are plenty of normal masterpieces on canvas.

From the way Gabriel Allon is portrayed in the thriller novels, I think if he were real, he would be outraged by the decision to permanently alter Vermeer's painting based on "unlikely."

Yup. I think he would agree with us. And it's always a good thing to have a spy and assassin on your side.

 

Michael