Tim's Vermeer

[dallasjustice]

This movie is about a guy from Texas with zero art training that teaches himself to paint a Vermeer without any modern technology. This movie is a fertile breeding pond for the subjective vs objective tensions inherent in this forum. At the conclusion of this film, I wondered whether Vermeer was really an artist. Was Vermeer really a scientist or technologist who merely used art as an expression of advanced 17th Century technology? Here is a trailer:

 

[jazdoc]

This looks really cool. Thanks for the heads up. Anything with David Hockney is going to be entertaining.

 

[GaryProtein]

We saw that several months ago.

It was a fascinating documentary.

The guy is definitely anal and has CDO.

 

[JackD201]

Vermeer is one of my favorite painters EVER. I almost got arrested in Amsterdam when in some sort of trance, I stepped over the red velvet ropes to get a closer look (his paintings are small). In the movie about his life (The Girl with the Pearl Earring) it showed his use of the Camera Obscura as well as his own way of making his own paints. Yeah, he was a technologist/futurist. maybe a lesser Galileo or Leonardo.

I do think people are artists when they create. They are not when all they choose to do is copy somebody else's vision, even to perfection. Now this guy Tim, didn't copy the painting in the same medium. He did something different altogether. In other words it isn't a forgery but rather a new piece of art (sculptural installation) based on and inspired by another. Whether this Tim thinks he isn't an artist or not. In my view I say emphatically that he is.

While almost everything can be quantified, I don't think human soul, passion and spirit should. The world would be a lot less beautiful if everything around us was built purely around utility.

 

[dallasjustice]

I agree that Tim is an artist. And I think he would probably say that he is as well. In fact, I think he probably discovered that he was an artist when he had a gut feeling something was wrong with his Vermeer. I don't want to spoil the movie so I won't go on about it.

I agree with John Taylor Gatto; "Genius is as common as dirt."

Vermeer is one of my favorite painters EVER. I almost got arrested in Amsterdam when in some sort of trance, I stepped over the red velvet ropes to get a closer look (his paintings are small). In the movie about his life (The Girl with the Pearl Earring) it showed his use of the Camera Obscura as well as his own way of making his own paints. Yeah, he was a technologist/futurist. maybe a lesser Galileo or Leonardo.

I do think people are artists when they create. They are not when all they choose to do is copy somebody else's vision, even to perfection. Now this guy Tim, didn't copy the painting in the same medium. He did something different altogether. In other words it isn't a forgery but rather a new piece of art (sculptural installation) based on and inspired by another. Whether this Tim thinks he isn't an artist or not. In my view I say emphatically that he is.

While almost everything can be quantified, I don't think human soul, passion and spirit should. The world would be a lot less beautiful if everything around us was built purely around utility.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This movie is about a guy from Texas with zero art training that teaches himself to paint a Vermeer without any modern technology. This movie is a fertile breeding pond for the subjective vs objective tensions inherent in this forum. At the conclusion of this film, I wondered whether Vermeer was really an artist. Was Vermeer really a scientist or technologist who merely used art as an expression of advanced 17th Century technology? Here is a trailer:

I think this is completely different from the subjective/objective audiophile debates. Audio reproduction systems reproduce art (the performance/recording) that was created on stage or in the studio. That debate is over whether or not that reproduction can be further from the recording, yet closer to the art. It is a pretty dubious debate even when talking about live recordings, because almost all commercial live recordings use mic and mixing techniques that don't really even attempt to capture the natural ambience of the performance space. It is a fairly ridiculous debate when applied to studio recordings, in which the recording, processing, mixing and mastering are a part of the art, and therefore, any distance the reproduction system puts between the recording and the listener inarguably distances him further from the art. This requires no technical knowledge. Simple logic is enough.

Whether or not reproduction can measure less accurately, but actually be more faithful to the recording is another question, and one I'll leave to those in posession of better liquor than I.

The question of whether or not Vemeer was really an artist? The same question can, and has often been, applied to photography and other forms of realism. And I think the answer is in another question: Do you believe art is the communication of passion, emotion, beauty, humanity, through media? Or do you think the art is the media?

Tim

 

[dallasjustice]

I definitely think Tim's Vermeer IS art. However, I think the human emotion and passion Tim expressed through HIS Vermeer is entirely different from the real thing. But it's art nonetheless.

I thought it was interesting that Teller didn't seek to interview any art historians with a conflicting view on Tim's findings concerning Vermeer's scientific method to image reproduction. I mean Tim basically claims that Vermeer was merely reproducing live images no different than a photographer does. That's a pretty bold claim (albeit supported with lots of solid evidence) and I wished Teller would have interviewed some other folks with a different viewpoint.

I think this is completely different from the subjective/objective audiophile debates. Audio reproduction systems reproduce art (the performance/recording) that was created on stage or in the studio. That debate is over whether or not that reproduction can be further from the recording, yet closer to the art. It is a pretty dubious debate even when talking about live recordings, because almost all commercial live recordings use mic and mixing techniques that don't really even attempt to capture the natural ambience of the performance space. It is a fairly ridiculous debate when applied to studio recordings, in which the recording, processing, mixing and mastering are a part of the art, and therefore, any distance the reproduction system puts between the recording and the listener inarguably distances him further from the art. This requires no technical knowledge. Simple logic is enough.

Whether or not reproduction can measure less accurately, but actually be more faithful to the recording is another question, and one I'll leave to those in posession of better liquor than I.

The question of whether or not Vemeer was really an artist? The same question can, and has often been, applied to photography and other forms of realism. And I think the answer is in another question: Do you believe art is the communication of passion, emotion, beauty, humanity, through media? Or do you think the art is the media?

Tim

 

[JackD201]

For me the medium is just that, the medium. It is the human element in it's molding that makes it art. It need not even be appreciated by more than one person to be. One is enough and that one doesn't even have to be its creator.

This quote from Michael got me wondering. Not so much about the topic but how Michael views people.

"Was Vermeer really a scientist or technologist who merely used art as an expression of advanced 17th Century technology?"

He also says this

"I agree with John Taylor Gatto; "Genius is as common as dirt.""

Mike, where does one draw the line? If geniuses are as common as dirt, so must be polymaths.

The way people are being made out to be in audio debates is that on one hand there are a bunch of Mr. Spocks running around and on the other a bunch of fairy godmothers. We all know none of us are either. The true fallacy in the objectivist/subjectivist debate is one of false dichotomy.

 

[dallasjustice]

I think the dichotomy is really not so black and white. When it comes to measurements as applied to music reproduction, I sort of agree with Tim. The music reproduction can never be totally perfect. And the studio reproduction is entirely something else. I would argue that the recording engineering work is also a form of art because it relies heavily on subjective choices and intuition/experience. However, I strongly believe the objectivists have it right in that science MUST be used to guide the art. That's exactly what Vermeer did. We WAS an artist. However, he figured out how to use real modern scientific methods to make his art advance far beyond his contemporaries; so much so that we are only now figuring out how he did it.

As to Gatto: I think geniuses like Tim Jenison are living proof of Gatto's perspective on how true knowledge can ONLY be acquired from personal effort is correct. I think there are fewer so called geniuses in the world because most folks are never taught to learn for the pleasure of self-exploration. Instead, we are taught one can only learn from the experts at universities and such. There's no such thing as collective understand or knowledge. "Self-knowledge is the only true basis for real knowledge." Gatto.

For me the medium is just that, the medium. It is the human element in it's molding that makes it art. It need not even be appreciated by more than one person to be. One is enough and that one doesn't even have to be its creator.

This quote from Michael got me wondering. Not so much about the topic but how Michael views people.

"Was Vermeer really a scientist or technologist who merely used art as an expression of advanced 17th Century technology?"

He also says this

"I agree with John Taylor Gatto; "Genius is as common as dirt.""

Mike, where does one draw the line? If geniuses are as common as dirt, so must be polymaths.

The way people are being made out to be in audio debates is that on one hand there are a bunch of Mr. Spocks running around and on the other a bunch of fairy godmothers. We all know none of us are either. The true fallacy in the objectivist/subjectivist debate is one of false dichotomy.

 

[JackD201]

I strongly believe the objectivists have it right in that science MUST be used to guide the art. Gatto.

Mike, I'm singling this out because I pretty much agree with everything else. I don't even totally disagree so much with this but have a different perspective.

I think there is room for what should be quantifiably correct and what can be perceived as flawed but beautiful. As it stands, and I agree with you, nothing is perfect and we are all living in shades of gray. It becomes a matter now of goals or purpose. Science can be used for either extreme purpose and anything in between. The use of science isn't even really a choice it is a necessity.

If I have any misgivings it would be the implication that by science guiding the art, the purpose MUST be the attainment of quantified perfection.

 

[dallasjustice]

As long as it's perfect for the artist, nothing else matters. It just so happens that art lovers often appreciate genuine technological advancement when appropriately applied to art. Vermeer is very popular partly for this reason.

Mike, I'm singling this out because I pretty much agree with everything else. I don't even totally disagree so much with this but have a different perspective.

I think there is room for what should be quantifiably correct and what can be perceived as flawed but beautiful. As it stands, and I agree with you, nothing is perfect and we are all living in shades of gray. It becomes a matter now of goals or purpose. Science can be used for either extreme purpose and anything in between. The use of science isn't even really a choice it is a necessity.

If I have any misgivings it would be the implication that by science guiding the art, the purpose MUST be the attainment of quantified perfection.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mike, I'm singling this out because I pretty much agree with everything else. I don't even totally disagree so much with this but have a different perspective.

I think there is room for what should be quantifiably correct and what can be perceived as flawed but beautiful. As it stands, and I agree with you, nothing is perfect and we are all living in shades of gray. It becomes a matter now of goals or purpose. Science can be used for either extreme purpose and anything in between. The use of science isn't even really a choice it is a necessity.

If I have any misgivings it would be the implication that by science guiding the art, the purpose MUST be the attainment of quantified perfection.

Not sure I agree that science guides art, but I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I think the dichotomy is really not so black and white. When it comes to measurements as applied to music reproduction, I sort of agree with Tim. The music reproduction can never be totally perfect. And the studio reproduction is entirely something else. I would argue that the recording engineering work is also a form of art because it relies heavily on subjective choices and intuition/experience. However, I strongly believe the objectivists have it right in that science MUST be used to guide the art. That's exactly what Vermeer did. We WAS an artist. However, he figured out how to use real modern scientific methods to make his art advance far beyond his contemporaries; so much so that we are only now figuring out how he did it.

As to Gatto: I think geniuses like Tim Jenison are living proof of Gatto's perspective on how true knowledge can ONLY be acquired from personal effort is correct. I think there are fewer so called geniuses in the world because most folks are never taught to learn for the pleasure of self-exploration. Instead, we are taught one can only learn from the experts at universities and such. There's no such thing as collective understand or knowledge. "Self-knowledge is the only true basis for real knowledge." Gatto.

Some art might be created using science as a starting point, and maybe Vermeer was one of those artists who's interests in that area produced the paintings he did. However, to make a unilateral claim that all art must be guided by science is preposterous and ridiculous to the core.