Value of Tim's Painting
Has anyone read anything on what Tim's painting would fetch at auction? He obviously spent an enormous amount of time on it and it is nearly identical to a real Vermeer.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Tim's Vermeer (2014) Discussion > Value of Tim's Painting
I would suspect that it would fetch A LOT of money at auction! I saw a documentary of a painting forger, who got caught, and now does reproductions that sell for Many thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
shareI would suspect that it would fetch A LOT of money at auction!why would you say that without knowing anything about this subject? share
It is an identical copy to the original, requiring experts to discern the difference. A perfect copy of a masterpiece would surely be sold for $US 150-200K I think.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
"It is an identical copy to the original, requiring experts to discern the difference."
No. Just no. It's not even close to a perfect copy. For Christ's sake I know most people don't look that closely at things, but it's VERY, VERY obviously a simplistic representation, it's not even close to the original.
High school art students or even children with an interest in art can EASILY see the differences. The major ones being that Vermeer's painting is very much more freeform, he didn't use all the perfect straight edges and tools that Tim drafted his out with. And even more obvious are all the light reflections and shadows that Tim's is missing, it's like REAL obvious, not subtle at all.
> And even more obvious are all the light reflections and shadows that Tim's is missing, it's like REAL obvious, not subtle at all.
I think Tim included all of the light reflections. He copied the scene exactly.
But, one big difference is that it is a different model in the picture!
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
It is an identical copy to the original, requiring experts to discern the difference. A perfect copy of a masterpiece would surely be sold for $US 150-200K I think.How bout no? share
This post is a joke, right? I refuse to believe someone could be this idiotic.
shareHaving precise geometry to a painting is NOT the only element to making an IDENTICAL copy of a painting. To even elementary art students, Tim's painting is a flat, lifeless representation of the original Vermeer.
In fact, it is SO different, Tim could give it a new title and call it a new painting as an homage to Vermeer.
I'm not sure whether to feel sorry or amused at those who can't tell the difference, but it's HUGE.
Therefore Tim's painting is a curiosity at best. But maybe the effort and promotion involved could give it some value, that depends on the critics, galleries, etc. But it's not a equal copy of an old masterpiece, it's not even a good modern copy, art forgers would do much better and a lot faster.
You seem to forget that he was not making a copy of Vermeer's painting. He was recreating Vermeer's studio as precisely as he could and painting that new studio composition in a manner that he speculates that Vermeer painted in. So you can get off your high horse about how stupid we all are and realize how obtuse you are being. Tim's creation was brilliant scientifically and damn good artistically. But he was not trying to match Vermeer brush stroke for brush stroke, he was trying to match the technique.
Downwards is the only way forwards.
Have a look here, they're actually quite different.
https://eocathcart.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/art-perfection/
Well, after seeing the side-by-side comparison of the two, I can see why they didn't do that in the film. It took my eye all of two seconds to disprove Tim's mirror theory for Vermeer's technique. He made a mistake. A few, actually, whereas, Tim's recreation is exact, no lighting or placement mistakes, because he copied EXACTLY what he saw in the mirror reflection. Vermeer's painting proves he didn't do this. If you look at the girl in the Vermeer painting, she is facing the virginal straight on. But Vermeer made a mistake when painting her reflection in the mirror. In the mirror reflection, she is facing sideways, at an angle, towards the teacher standing next to the virginal. If Vermeer was painting reflections, he would have painted the girl's reflection facing the proper direction and angle. And if he was being so precise as to use mirrors and paint exactly what was reflected, I'm pretty sure he'd be anal and obsessive enough to make certain his models always faced the same direction and stood in as close to the same position over several days, as every other day. Painting the mirror reflection wrong would seem to prove the high possibility that Vermeer WAS painting from sight and memory, and he simply didn't notice or realize he'd gotten the girl's reflection wrong. Furthermore, on TOP of that, he also painted the mirror's reflective surface in a duller and more yellowed coloring. Now, either the actual mirror was poor and really looked like that, or again, Vermeer painted what he THOUGHT the mirror reflection would look like. In Tim's Vermeer, the mirror reflection is crystal clear, no more dull or lacking clarity or crispness than any other object in the painting (or in the room), so, again, unless the actual mirror's surface that Vermeer was looking at reflected images that poorly and dimly (that's possible, if it was not a very good quality mirror?), then that once again shows the high likelihood that Vermeer was painting from what he saw with his naked eyes (and recreated in his mind), and although his painting IS rather remarkable in terms of lighting and reflection, accuracy and detail...it's not really anymore detailed than a lot of other artists. It was just Vermeer's particular style. Get over it. Vermeer's painting proves, because of the mistakes, that Tim's theory is flawed and I would say his "90 percent" surety that he is right is what is most flawed. It took me TWO SECONDS of looking at Vermeer's original to see those clues. And that "curved" pattern thing...was so subtle, it could just be a random coincidence, or more likely Tim seeing what he WANTS to see to prove his own theory. Furthermore, other things stated in the film tended to lean in a misleading direction, like them saying Vermeer couldn't have studied art or learned to paint, because there's no record of him ever having an apprenticeship. That's flawed logic. Just because there aren't any papers or documented proof of an apprenticeship, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and they actually glossed over further proof that it DID happen:
"A compelling mystery surrounding the painter some consider to be the greatest Dutch painter in history, is the lack of information about how he actually became a painter. There is no direct evidence that Johannes apprenticed with another painter, despite being surrounded by many accomplished practitioners in Delft. No record has survived of such an apprenticeship. If you wanted your son to be a painter in 17th century Delft, you had to choose an apprentice he would train with for four to six years beginning at the age of 15. Despite the lack of evidence of his apprenticeship, it must have occurred because he was accepted into the Delft Guild in 1653, six years after his fifteenth birthday. It was impossible to be received into the Guild without the required proof of such an apprenticeship."
And as Sherlock Holmes would say, "Elementary, dear Watson." If you can't find the first piece of evidence, but the second piece of evidence proves the existence of the first, then you don't need the first. The second piece couldn't exist without it. Vermeer DID apprentice with an artist, although, we'll never know who. And I doubt he used a mirror, since, ironically, his mistakes directly involve a mirror.
The film was entertaining, and I do think Tim's idea is pretty inventive. He was able to go from having no artistic or painting experience at all to creating a still pretty impressive copy of Vermeer's painting. But look how long it took him. If it took Vermeer even half that time using the mirror method (as the mirror method simply takes a TON of time, patience, and painstaking shading), I don't think Vermeer COULD have possibly painted using that method and still have finished all the paintings he did during his lifetime. He could only paint that fast if it was freehand, not copying mirrored reflections. Sorry folks, but the documentary, and Tim's theory are WRONG. I hate to tell you, but Vermeer simply painted that way. It's called talent. Why would anyone want or need to disprove that? Tim's method, while slightly ingenious in that it can take any average Joe and make them APPEAR to be a talented artist, simply doesn't count. It's glorified paint-by-numbers, matching shades bit by bit. That's not talent, although, I'm sure it takes a fair bit of patience. I give Tim kudos for that and even coming up with the mirror idea. He could sell the patent and package it to non-painters, the same way paint-by-numbers palettes are sold. I used to paint those when I was a kid.
call me a philistine, but I thought the one on the left to be genuine and the one on the right to be that flat fake.
The incorrect position of the girl in the mirror could simply be the model facing the wrong way on the day it was painted.
you can order professionally made copies of old masters for around 400 - 4.000 dollars, so his amateur painting will be worth maybe 100 dollars.
Look here to see the pricelist of a professional http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/
Considering the fame and awards that the documentary received, also the fact that the creation of the painting is documented in such detailed I would imagine that it would sell for a lot of money. Hey I had not even heard about Vermeer before seeing this documentary and I would be willing to pay at least a $1000 only because of the unique story behind Tim and his painting. I imagine that someone with a thick wallet and a passion for art, history and Vermeer in particular would easily pay 100 times that amount. I have seen paintings with much worse perspective and color rendition sell for several million just because it was painted by a somewhat famous person with an interesting story/background.
If the painting was sold without description and by an unknown painter it might not sell for that much unless a buyer is very interested works associated with Vermeer.
Considering the fame and awards that the documentary received
i love how people make up stuff on imdb. this never got any awards, or fame, the painting is not worth more than 100 dollars.
If the painting was sold without description and by an unknown painter it might not sell for that much unless a buyer is very interested works associated with Vermeer.
how bout no? anyone who knows the concept of art, or vermeer, would see that this is a copy, and even a bad one, so no to everything you said. share
For Tim at least, priceless. Especially considering all the dreadfully dull time he put into creating it.
share