Hacker News Reader

Comment by ludwigvan | Hacker News Reader

Here is some criticism from the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...

Here is the same critic a year ago sneering that Vermeer is wildly overrated, and that people just like him because his slavish attention to detail is more accessible to people who are used to looking at photographs.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...

And here's the same critic going on about how Vermeer's paintings are full of mystery and eroticism: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...

Jones is a prime example of why I find most art critics insufferable.

The technology Jenison relies on can replicate art, but it does so synthetically, with no understanding of art's inner life

What a bunch of rhetorical diarrhea. This was nothing more than an exercise in curiosity, an exploration and evaluation of a hypothesis. This was not an attempt to disprove Vermeer's creativity, disprove artists in general, or disprove art.

Indeed. For the historical investigation that forms the backbones of the story, they had to do an imitation of the original work.

The paint strokes on the canvas are literally the superficial aspects of the painting. There is much more 'art' in the choice of subject, perspective, layout and so on. But had Tim chosen his own subject matter freely, then comparison's with Vermeer's technique would have been almost impossible.

FTFA: The film implies anyone can make a beautiful work of art with the right application of science. There is no need for mystical ideas like genius.

The film implies no such thing. I saw the movie a few months ago and it was pretty clear they believed that a Vermeer was more than simply technique.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com