Comment by aestetix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aestetix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I highly recommend against watching the movie. The main figure, Tim Jenison, comes off as an arrogant know-it-all, reducing art to a technique, and insulting people along the way. In the movie, multiple times he said "I have never done this before, but how hard could it be?"

I'll note two parts of the movie that support my view. First, if his art is so great, then why is it not displayed all over the place? He has a few alleged experts giving praise without criticism, and in the end, it is on the wall in his bedroom. Surely, if the art were that easy to recreate, galleries would be demanding his piece?

Second, notice how they never actually show the real painting. In fact, at one point they make it out to be a conspiracy, that the painting is being kept in some back room nobody can access. I would loved to have seen the real painting side-by-side with Tim's alleged reproduction. I suspect they didn't push to hard for access, because it would have ruined their narrative.

I agree that Tim definitely comes off as a bit of a jerk. However...

> First, if his art is so great, then why is it not displayed all over the place? He has a few alleged experts giving praise without criticism, and in the end, it is on the wall in his bedroom. Surely, if the art were that easy to recreate, galleries would be demanding his piece?

I could be wrong but I don't think there's much demand for replicas of classic paintings even if they are incredibly high quality. A lot of the value of a Vermeer painting is that it was actually painted by Vermeer in the 17th century -- not necessarily the quality of the piece itself.

Regarding your second point, who knows?

I thought the point of the movie was to claim that Vermeer was nothing special, and Tim's effort to recreate the painting was supposed to prove that. I think the galleries would disagree with that point, otherwise they would not care whether Vermeer actually painted them.

And yes, both of my points are speculation, fueled by an immense dislike for the movie.

The point of the documentary was to show that Vermeer may have used optics.

That's it.

If the claims are true then Vermeer is absolutely exceptional, just in a different manner than is usually considered.

All painters must grapple with the technical nature of paint itself and its manipulation. Choice of type of paint, canvas, application, &c. is paramount. Rothko’s work, for instance, is only effective because he found a novel way to apply paint that lends his paintings a remarkable, nigh eerie depth of color. Spending roughly half an hour just staring at the Seagram murals in the “Rothko Room” at the Tate Modern is one of my all-time favorite experiences.

There have been posts about reproducing art and I always thinking maybe I could make a mini-Rothko room in spare room.

that would be cool! sincerely. post it here if you do.

i feel like the above comment might come across as sarcastic but i genuinely find it super cool when a layman can master a new discipline with force of will and publicly available writings. much like vermeer's much speculated-upon clever use of technology ;)

I think you are projecting. I don’t recall getting any of that from the movie, which I recall being very respectful of Vermeer’s legacy. The narrators (Penn and Teller) are themselves magicians and it would be immensely hypocritical of them to denigrate an artist by showing there’s an underlying trick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com