Visitors examine a painting in a Vermeer exhibition
Add Some Colour
Synaesthesia and grief; and a life distorted by secrets and lies. Our April book is Astonishing Splashes of Colour.
Know what you like?
From its influence on fashion to the shady behaviour of Vermeer: Ever wondered... about art?
Dress for success
The design of fashion calls for a mastery of science, an understanding of society, and more than a dash of high art on the high street.
Viewers' responses
Great craftsmen
Does it really matter if Vermeer did use all visual aid available to him within his time like Jason Brookes today he still had incredible colourization and painting skills. If we asked children to paint any image straight over the top of a photograph would they all be identical? I don’t believe they would, therefore it is surely the individual’s interpretation of an image that matters not the tools used to assist in its production. Why do we label these great craftsman and artists as cheats?
Your Respectfully
Tim Serle
The evidence is irrefutable
Clearly the controversy surrounding the use (or not) of the Camera Obscura by artists such as Vermeer (and Leonardo and Canaletto, among others) is not going to go away. Those who refute the use of the Camera Obscura however seem, thankfully, to be losing ground. I say this because what is important both then, now and in the future is that we keep our minds open to each and every possibility. Those who continue to deny the importance of the Camera Obscura in the History of Art and Science seek to preserve the mystique of "the Artist", not the truth.
In the Mauritshaus next to the "View of Delft" is a plaque claiming that Vermeer did not use a Camera Obscura because "the height of the Nieuw Kerk has been reduced to emphasise the horizontality of the composition". However, only three miles away, in Delft is another plaque, in the porch of the Nieuw Kerk itself, telling us that the "addition to the height of the building" was done over 50 years after Vermeer died! Arthur K Wheelock in his biblical study of Vermeer goes to great lengths to disprove the use of the Camera Obscura, using complex arguments concening his use of perspective, all of which are equally flawed. He argues also that Pieter de Hooch changed the rules of perspective to suit various compositions, and uses two paintings by example. Simple observation of these works show how mistaken he was. A more convincing case of ignoring the obvious would be difficult to find, even at the time of a General Election! There are too many references to the use of the Camera Obscura by artists and scientists from 1000 A.D. onwards for the significance of the instrument to be denied any longer. If using the Camera Obscura was good enough for Leonardo da Vinci, then it should be good enough for us lesser motals. The evidence is there if one cares to look for it and it is irrefutable. Those Art Historians who feel such antipathy to this evidence are vainly attempting to deny the facts, perhaps to preseve their own misguided sense of superiority. They stand condemned. Their small minds preventing them from seeing what really matters.
The Truth
Making a Camera Obscura
I watched this morning’s debate, about Vermeer and his possible use of a Camera Obscura, with great interest. There was a series on 2 where a professor trundled about the UK in a weird suit and on a bicycle with a trailer. One of his editions concerned the Camera Obscura. I would love to be able to sketch my house and garden, but my artistic skills are very poor and my sense of perspective even worse. Is it possible to make a simple Camera Obscura and where would I obtain plans?
Many thanks
Brian McNicholas
You might find some ideas on the following websites:
The Magic Mirror of Life
Vermeer's Camera
Great craftsmen
Does it really matter if Vermeer did use all visual aid available to him within his time like Jason Brookes today he still had incredible colourization and painting skills. If we asked children to paint any image straight over the top of a photograph would they all be identical? I don’t believe they would, therefore it is surely the individual’s interpretation of an image that matters not the tools used to assist in its production. Why do we label these great craftsman and artists as cheats?
Your Respectfully
Tim Serle
The evidence is irrefutable
Clearly the controversy surrounding the use (or not) of the Camera Obscura by artists such as Vermeer (and Leonardo and Canaletto, among others) is not going to go away. Those who refute the use of the Camera Obscura however seem, thankfully, to be losing ground. I say this because what is important both then, now and in the future is that we keep our minds open to each and every possibility. Those who continue to deny the importance of the Camera Obscura in the History of Art and Science seek to preserve the mystique of "the Artist", not the truth.
In the Mauritshaus next to the "View of Delft" is a plaque claiming that Vermeer did not use a Camera Obscura because "the height of the Nieuw Kerk has been reduced to emphasise the horizontality of the composition". However, only three miles away, in Delft is another plaque, in the porch of the Nieuw Kerk itself, telling us that the "addition to the height of the building" was done over 50 years after Vermeer died! Arthur K Wheelock in his biblical study of Vermeer goes to great lengths to disprove the use of the Camera Obscura, using complex arguments concening his use of perspective, all of which are equally flawed. He argues also that Pieter de Hooch changed the rules of perspective to suit various compositions, and uses two paintings by example. Simple observation of these works show how mistaken he was. A more convincing case of ignoring the obvious would be difficult to find, even at the time of a General Election! There are too many references to the use of the Camera Obscura by artists and scientists from 1000 A.D. onwards for the significance of the instrument to be denied any longer. If using the Camera Obscura was good enough for Leonardo da Vinci, then it should be good enough for us lesser motals. The evidence is there if one cares to look for it and it is irrefutable. Those Art Historians who feel such antipathy to this evidence are vainly attempting to deny the facts, perhaps to preseve their own misguided sense of superiority. They stand condemned. Their small minds preventing them from seeing what really matters.
The Truth
Making a Camera Obscura
I watched this morning’s debate, about Vermeer and his possible use of a Camera Obscura, with great interest. There was a series on 2 where a professor trundled about the UK in a weird suit and on a bicycle with a trailer. One of his editions concerned the Camera Obscura. I would love to be able to sketch my house and garden, but my artistic skills are very poor and my sense of perspective even worse. Is it possible to make a simple Camera Obscura and where would I obtain plans?
Many thanks
Brian McNicholas
You might find some ideas on the following websites:
The Magic Mirror of Life
Vermeer's Camera
Living in times gone-by
Hi,
On this morning’s programme you asked if we have any questions about living in times gone-by. Why is it that as we get older we regard our childhood days as the best times of our lives. My father did this when I was a child, and I find myself saying exactly the same thing to my daughters. We have so much more technology that our lives should be so much easier. But take me back, just for a few hours, to those heady summer days of my childhood. I am a 42 year old mum of 2.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Sainsbury
The BBC and the Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites
< previous Page 2 of 2
Bookmark with:
Comments
Please wait while loading. You must have JavaScript enabled to view comments.
