Its easy to copy a master and make a cheap imitation...
This guy has proved it !
Of all the things you can say about Tim's accomplishment "Cheap" is not one of them.
shareAnd "easier" is the other one.
share
MovieChat Forums > Tim's Vermeer (2014) Discussion > Its easy to copy a master and make a che...
This film proves that Vermeer wasn't the master painter people have made him out to be. This proves that Tim was just as much a master.
shareTim's result is what I expected. Nothing exceptional at all. Very similar to thousands of art school exercises where an old master is copied. He spent a ton of time and effort to recreate the actual subject matter and optical equipment, but at the end of the day, he was copying a visually flattened image, which is pretty much like painting from a photo of the painting, which is visually flattened. What impresses the layman in the insane amount of detail that was copied. Jenison certainly was driven to discover and confirm Vermeer's specific optical methods, and I think he has done so brilliantly. But as a painter, he remains very inferior to Vermeer. One has to keep in mind that Vermeer chose his models, costumes and props. He arranged these into a masterful composition of shape, light, and color. Tim is like a musician that does a good job of playing a Mozart composition. Playing it is one thing, writing it is another.
shareAt no point did he claim to be an artist, or compare his creativity to Vermeer's, in fact he said many times that he was interested in the process of capturing the image and light in paint and acknowledged that the composition is key. He didn't try to make an original composition. Maybe that's coming in the sequel!
shareAnd you missed the point entirely. The OP and other in the thread were saying that Tim created a credible copy and he didn't. The posting above yours explains why very nicely.
shareMy observation as well. The thought went through my head was how long did it take Vermeer to create this? As you mentioned, without arrangement, choice of colors, lighting, and the use of mirrors (her reflection), this all adds power to this painting. However, the thing that struck me was how long Tim took in creating this. Somehow I do not think this was the case with Vermeer. I imagined him being many times faster applying his brush strokes, or even have multiple apprentices, which would really upset people. As Tim stated, anyone could do this, why not have help. Maybe that is the lost chapter in Vermeer life -- he ran painting sweatshop.
shareHe wasnt really prolific so its doubtful he was that much faster, especially if did it all himself, which was probably the case since his method seemingly was seldom imitated, which it would be if someone had seen it done.
He seemingly actually put even more nuances in the painting than tim, which would mean MORE time, not less even if he was faster.
Exactly, nice write up. I have education and experience to readily tell the difference, but Tim's painting seems blatantly flat and missing all kinds of lighting and shadow cues, but apparently many people aren't very discriminating.
shareSome of 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 horses 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.
Oh for God's sake no. If you really wish to, spend a few years in Art History study, visit a lot of galleries, try some painting yourself.
Then you MIGHT have a microgram of experience and expertise to figure out why your statement here is ridiculous.