Still LIfe - or Not?

[StephenC]

Using optical aids can make work easier and possibly can play a part in shaping an artist's vision. Vermeer could not have escaped knowledge of camera obscuras.

Van Leeuwenhoek was not the only lensemaker in Delft and it is unlikely that the news of lucida and obscura use among artists did not spread like wildfire. Historians like to say that no such devices were in Vermeer's estate but some would probably deny he used them even if they were. There is a lot of protectiveness of Vermeer over the matter where none is needed. He is still great.

There are also no drawings reliably attributed to him, but we can safely assume he did them. There is no reliable identification of a teacher for Vermeer, but we can assume he most certainly had one.

The Hockney-Falco thesis is considered on shaky ground when the Renaissance era is discussed with respect to artists using optical devices. However, the use of such devices by Vermeer's time is too well documented to argue with. Simply because an artist didn't need to use them does not rule out their use.

Strangely enough, when I built my own camera obscura as an art student I was shocked at how much it was like a slide projector. It also was in full color. I realized that early photography (1839- ~) did not even provide this whereas Vermeer ( circa 1660) could have seen his two rooms and their occupants in full color and study his scenes in real time.

[caldwell.brobeck]

Originally Posted by Black Spot

Exactly. Just because I'm not up to that level, doesn't mean I shouldn't try and push myself. It doesn't cost much to set up a few random objects to paint from - look around your house, there's a myriad of stuff waiting to be painted. I spent many a month planning meals around vegetables I wanted to draw.

One of my favourite drawings was done when my son was around 7. He had grabbed several slices of white balloon bread (so shoot me, I do occasionally have such toxic substances in the house ), proceeded to eat out the centers, and left the remains sitting in the sunlight on a white plate on the kitchen table. The perfect study for pen and ink! (and while we are on the subject of kitchen paintings, my old man was an egg tempera painter. So there was never any shortage of meringue and pavlova. Yum)

And I quite agree re. pushing yourself, it's one of the reasons I quite like working with people, particularly fairly animated ones. (After that it's animals, and after that landscape). Sometimes things work, and often they don't; but it's always such a workout; a good session leaves me feeling like I've been through a wringer.

[caldwell.brobeck]

Originally Posted by StephenC

Using optical aids can make work easier and possibly can play a part in shaping an artist's vision. Vermeer could not have escaped knowledge of camera obscuras.

Nobody is arguing that he did. 17thC Holland was a hotbed of optical research and production as well as being quite open to amateur activity. Leeuwenhoek was a draper by trade. Spinoza, the philosopher, ground lenses for a living. Science and scientific curiosity were part and parcel of the society. Anatomical dissection was popular entertainment.

Originally Posted by StephenC

Van Leeuwenhoek was not the only lensemaker in Delft and it is unlikely that the news of lucida and obscura use among artists did not spread like wildfire. Historians like to say that no such devices were in Vermeer's estate but some would probably deny he used them even if they were. There is a lot of protectiveness of Vermeer over the matter where none is needed. He is still great.

There are also no drawings reliably attributed to him, but we can safely assume he did them. There is no reliable identification of a teacher for Vermeer, but we can assume he most certainly had one.

The Hockney-Falco thesis is considered on shaky ground when the Renaissance era is discussed with respect to artists using optical devices. However, the use of such devices by Vermeer's time is too well documented to argue with. Simply because an artist didn't need to use them does not rule out their use.

The issue isn't one of protecting Vermeer, but one of protecting logic. You can't, for example, even assume that he had a teacher (see Walter Liedtke, who is the curator of European paintings at The Metropolitan Museum of Art).


And again, just to make things clear, no one is arguing that these things weren't in use, or they didn't have a profound impact. Because steroids are common, and because some great athletes have used them, can we then assume that all great athletes are on steroids? This is what (in effect) the Hockney-Falco thesis amounts to.

Originally Posted by StephenC

Strangely enough, when I built my own camera obscura as an art student I was shocked at how much it was like a slide projector. It also was in full color. I realized that early photography (1839- ~) did not even provide this whereas Vermeer ( circa 1660) could have seen his two rooms and their occupants in full color and study his scenes in real time.

And he could have studied his scenes in real time just by looking at them, rather than going to all that bother.

[StephenC]

It is no bother to experiment. In Vermeer's case he may have satisfied his curiosity over optical devices and found he could learn something about seeing by comparing his customary vision with that of the camera obscura.

I suspect the genie was out of the bottle for Vermeer at any rate, once he did compare. Perhaps there was no going back once his interest had been piqued. He seems to have taken something from the camera obscura that no other genre painter of his time had to the same degree.

His name is now, permanently and correctly I think, linked to the camera obscura in a way that trancends most artist's later use of photos and other aids. It takes nothing away from his achievement but helps us see the underpinnings of his unique approach to perspective and composition.