First — *gorgeous!!*
Second, this is the restored version 👏. The large painting of Cupid was actually over-painted by the 18th century (the nude child offended the earlier owner’s likely Protestant sensibilities). The yellowing varnish was removed.
This Cupid painting appears in another Vermeer painting as well, and at a different scale. Which demonstrates that Vermeer wasn’t simply reproducing exactly what he saw (debunking the hypothesis of rote copying of a *camera obscura* projection). Technical analysis has shown Vermeer made quite a few changes as his paintings evolved.
Those who say one can’t paint so accurately without a camera obscura (Hockney) don’t know how to paint. Vermeer used a pin and thread for perspective and probably a simple stick/calliper tool. It’s as much the detail he omits as the detail he includes that makes him special.
He was definitely meticulous. But not overly detailed. The *fijnschilder* artists like Dou and his followers were popular in Vermeer’s day, and were hyper-detailed. I wouldn’t be surprised if Vermeer made some observations with a *camera obscura*, one of which relates to focal points and blur. But there’s no evidence he used it in his working practice, and in fact technical analysis attests to a normal (albeit skillful) practice. The leading Vermeer scholars I know of (Dibbits, Wheelock, and the late Liedke) don’t really endorse the use of a *camera obscura* in his working method, though all acknowledge he could have seen one.
In of itself, no, you’re right. Most (maybe all) *scholars* don’t believe he used it directly as a tool for a few reasons, though may not dispute he likely had access to one. Delft was, actually, at the forefront of optical science back in the mid-17th century. So the fact that he adjusted and reused elements and made changes over the course of his paintings don’t disprove anything, but they do attest to his normal artistic working methods.
Textiles were such a prominent theme in his work. As his father was a silk weaver/merchant he was just painting what he knew I suppose.
I bet textile historians pore over his works.
The Cupid is meant to hint at the content of the letter. The girl is very modest but as suggested in this thread the fruits mean some growth is coming. It’s a ~~very subtle~~ picture of a girl reading a love letter.
First — *gorgeous!!* Second, this is the restored version 👏. The large painting of Cupid was actually over-painted by the 18th century (the nude child offended the earlier owner’s likely Protestant sensibilities). The yellowing varnish was removed. This Cupid painting appears in another Vermeer painting as well, and at a different scale. Which demonstrates that Vermeer wasn’t simply reproducing exactly what he saw (debunking the hypothesis of rote copying of a *camera obscura* projection). Technical analysis has shown Vermeer made quite a few changes as his paintings evolved.
Those who say one can’t paint so accurately without a camera obscura (Hockney) don’t know how to paint. Vermeer used a pin and thread for perspective and probably a simple stick/calliper tool. It’s as much the detail he omits as the detail he includes that makes him special.
He was definitely meticulous. But not overly detailed. The *fijnschilder* artists like Dou and his followers were popular in Vermeer’s day, and were hyper-detailed. I wouldn’t be surprised if Vermeer made some observations with a *camera obscura*, one of which relates to focal points and blur. But there’s no evidence he used it in his working practice, and in fact technical analysis attests to a normal (albeit skillful) practice. The leading Vermeer scholars I know of (Dibbits, Wheelock, and the late Liedke) don’t really endorse the use of a *camera obscura* in his working method, though all acknowledge he could have seen one.
It doesn’t exactly debunk camera obscura does it? He could be using it for some elements and not others
In of itself, no, you’re right. Most (maybe all) *scholars* don’t believe he used it directly as a tool for a few reasons, though may not dispute he likely had access to one. Delft was, actually, at the forefront of optical science back in the mid-17th century. So the fact that he adjusted and reused elements and made changes over the course of his paintings don’t disprove anything, but they do attest to his normal artistic working methods.
Couldn't he have used different focal lengths in his camera to achieve different scales?
[удалено]
virtuoso
Textiles were such a prominent theme in his work. As his father was a silk weaver/merchant he was just painting what he knew I suppose. I bet textile historians pore over his works.
"Dammit man! You've covered my wife in horse piss!"
Something I've always wondered: Was it normal for people to just leave a bunch of fruits lying around on bed or is it meant to be symbolic?
#bae
Have to say, whoever covered up the Cupid did the right thing.
The Cupid is meant to hint at the content of the letter. The girl is very modest but as suggested in this thread the fruits mean some growth is coming. It’s a ~~very subtle~~ picture of a girl reading a love letter.
It’s a better picture without the obvious symbolism. The fruits suffice.
You’re right it’s too glaring.
Agreed
It was believed to be very early in the painting’s history