MovieChat Forums > Tim's Vermeer (2014) Discussion > Enjoyable: But why no contrary views inc...

Enjoyable: But why no contrary views included?

posted 10 years ago by gortx
18 replies | jump to latest

Big Penn & Teller fan. TIM'S VERMEER is very enjoyable. Persuasive in many aspects.

But, why not include even one skeptic to the theories of Tim, Steadman and Hockney? It's only an 80 minute movie even with credits and long scenes of Tim building a replica room. Surely, there was time to include at least a perfunctory opposing view? And, of all the artists on the planet to get an expert opinion on painting, Martin Mull? Love the comedian, but, really?

David Stork and others have made strong arguments that Steadman and Hockney's theories have flaws, or, at the very least, exaggerate the impact of optics in Vermeer's art (and those of others).

Check these pieces out: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/20011205snapwednesday.htm l

http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/articles.html

All the folks in the documentary do try to give Vermeer his due, but, this comes off as too one-sided. While no Doc need be totally 'fair' to both sides, it would have been a fuller experience to have some opposing views expressed.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paris1 10 years ago

And why not show more comparisons between the original painting (or, at least detailed photos of it) and Tim's version. This deficiency became painfully obvious towards the end when he took days and days to paint the dots in the carpet. I kept wondering if the original had this same level of detail and would not this add even more weight to Tim's theory if it did!

[–] gortx 10 years ago

paris1

And why not show more comparisons between the original painting (or, at least detailed photos of it) and Tim's version. This deficiency became painfully obvious towards the end when he took days and days to paint the dots in the carpet. I kept wondering if the original had this same level of detail and would not this add even more weight to Tim's theory if it did!

I had the same thought. Of course, Teller does make the point that the authorities won't allow photos of the original any more except by themselves. And, that the current reproductions don't do the original justice.

Bigger issue still remains that there isn't a strong Vermeer supporter interviewed or allowed to really give an opposing view.

[–] haroldbishoplives 10 years ago

An opposing viewpiont would not have changed the outcome. What would be the point in having artists debunking Tim's theory when all the while he is successfully recreating a Vermeer in his lockup? To be fair, given the subject matter I couldnt think of anyone that would show themselves up in the face of such overwhelming evidence that Vermeer, although a skilled technician, was essentially a fraud.

[–] mebalzer-937-416766 10 years ago

Fraud

seems to be a little strong. How was he fraudulent? That he used a painting technique that added a new level of realism? If you think about, the masters, they were all extremely skilled technicians. As pointed out in the film: composition, arrangement of light and the use of color are all important in the creation of a striking painting. I think Vermeer had a great deal of talent and skill and I do not think he took months to create his paintings. Who knows, maybe he had apprentices assist him in the process to reduce the time to completion.

[–] uvl 9 years ago

Agree. Perhaps if modern cameras had been available to Vermeer, he would have been a photographer rather than a painter. So no, he was not a "fraud", he was driven to capture and document light, shadow, and subject and did so . . . quite, quite well.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> I think Vermeer had a great deal of talent and skill and I do not think he took months to create his paintings.

I agree. Perhaps when he began he wasn't a true painter, but as he created more and more pieces, he couldn't help becoming somewhat of an artist and could fill in whole areas with a couple of strokes instead of laboring for an hour.

> Who knows, maybe he had apprentices assist him in the process to reduce the time to completion.

Perhaps. But, the film said that no records or writings have ever emerged that describe his technique. I'd bet that one apprentice or another would leak the secret, especially after his first one became well known. Rival artists will kill to find out how he did it.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] gortx 10 years ago

I couldnt think of anyone that would show themselves up in the face of such overwhelming evidence that Vermeer, although a skilled technician, was essentially a fraud.

I already pointed out links to folks who have expoused opposing viewpoints. Do you really think Penn & Teller asked them to be in the doc and they ALL declined? Doubtful. It is a one-sided doc. Not that other docs aren't, but, I think this would have been stronger to have someone like David Stork included rather than Martin Mull???????

[–] vanerege 10 years ago

Have you ever watched another documentary on copying artists ? Many are much more convincing than what Tim has done. What the documentary shows is nothing extraordinary when you consider most assignments in art school end up with better paintings when copying old masters.

Also, what Tim has done is pretty much like copying from the original, since all his optical instruments do is essentially putting the thing flat.

As for your last sentence, you sir, are a retard. Composition is the key. What you see in the documentary is a possible (absolutely not as sure as they make it out to be) way Vermeer's apprentices worked.

[–] quirkyrecords 9 years ago

This film has absolutely nothing to do with trying to copy anything other than a technique. He had a theory, and he took it to the extreme to demonstrate his theory.

He was not trying to paint a vermeer per se, he was trying to show that the technology always you to paint in a similar way, and therefore by painting a mock up of the music room it should come out fairly similar. Which it did.

So why are you even talking about copying masters?

[–] rockmail 9 years ago

Wow, you are living proof of why an opposing viewpoint would have been good, but isn't going to happen in a Penn Gillette production.

1. Tim didn't create anything even CLOSE to an accurate, vibrant Vermeer.
2. Vermeer was neither a technician (the painting in this movie isn't THAT precise) nor a fraud.

Wow, you're probably a moon landing conspirator too?

[–] MarshallStax 10 years ago

The movie is about an inventor copying a painting, proving that this is a possible method the artist used to create his work.

It's not a discussion of Vermeer's work as much as it's a chronicle of one man's methodical obsession. If the director had decided to expand the scope of the film to make it a discussion of Vermeer's art, then opposing viewpoints would have been something that might have been included. But he did not, so they are not.

Some people also seem to think that, if Vermeer used this method, it makes him a fraud. So, no credit to his composition? His choice of colors and lighting in his subjects?

All Art is pretense.

[–] jab670 10 years ago

Yup. I'm with you Chuck, but for some reason people seem to be so provoked by the film that they are spiraling outward into different directions. They should just admit that the film was provoking and then go off in their tangents without having to devalue this film just to make their point.

Like the topic that Tim's painting was a lifeless reproduction without the life of Vermeer (which is a subjective and unsubstantiated claim) is an example where people miss the point just to find something to criticize.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

I agree, real documentaries are balanced. They should have invited at least one skeptic.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] MarshallStax 10 years ago

So this is not a "real" documentary? So it is a fake documentary?

All Art is pretense.

[–] jab670 10 years ago

What would the skeptic be balancing? The film had a clear theme and scope regarding Tim's obsessive problem-solving, not Vermeer's art. Vermeer is only the foil.

Plus, it's established that Vermeer didn't keep notes and that there isn't much known... so what would the skeptic do? The skeptic would be speculating on no more evidence than Tim is, but without the ability to physically prove Tim is wrong. And Tim repeatedly admits that he cannot be positive, but he has his opinion. Yes, I would find the opposing opinion interesting, but tangential to what I learned from the core message of the film.

It doesn't matter IF Vermeer actually did this technique, because that would be unknowable regardless what experts you bring in. It's that Tim could accomplish this.

[–] burnthebeautiful 9 years ago

Penn and Teller did a one hour Google Talk in August and one of the things they (well, Penn) talked about is why they chose to not have any "bad guys" (i..e people with opposing viewpoints) in the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5siSa4A9M_Q

The Vermeer stuff starts at 34:25

[–] olioz (3303) 7 years ago

Yeah, I was surprised that they used Gene Parmesan's opinion. What the hell was he doing there anyway? It's still a good doc. And it's not like they are 100% sure that Vermeer used this technique, but they believe it's a strong possibility.