Tim's Vermeer

As a lifelong draw-er, painter and former professional visual artist, I have absolutely no problem with the idea that Vermeer used optical tools to create his masterpieces. Invention is creation every bit as much as art (maybe more). It does not diminish Vemeer's "genius" to think of him as more 'tinkerer' than virtuoso, it just redirects it a bit. I have to admit that before watching this film I had not given much thought to the tools that Vemeer may have used, other than assuming that camera obscura was employed at some point. After considering the level of detail involved, and the lighting intricacies that he so aptly caught, it seems entirely reasonable (but not proved) to believe that other assists were involved as well.

The one thing the film overlooks, and the reason I didn't give it 10 stars, was that Vemeer no doubt possessed tremendous drawing ability and training in other traditional skills which Tim did not. Such skills would have enabled him to bridge the gap between human camera and inexplicable genius. For example, he would have inherently caught things like broken perspective early on, and he would have wielded his tools with emotion and insight which Tim did not possess. He was, at heart, a true artist, and much more than just an eccentric millionaire with an odd hobby. So the answer to which tools he used, as interesting as it is to think about, is really little more than a bit of trivia. Because it doesn't matter if it's optics or inspiration, mechanics or expression, in the end if it's interesting to look at if it moves people, then it's great art.

What exactly is the relationship between science and art? Are they entirely separate domains or is there, Venn-diagram-like, some overlap between them?

The 17th Century Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer has long been considered the world's master of the "photographic" painting. So lifelike, in fact, are Vermeer's works that it has long been speculated that he may have used some kind of scientific device available at the time to help him achieve the effect. Well, filmmaker Penn Jillette, with the help of Tim Jenson - an inventor, NOT a painter - has decided to get to the bottom of the controversy. The result is "Tim's Vermeer," a brief (76 minutes), fast-paced and utterly absorbing documentary that provides an aesthetic and intellectual feast for art and science lovers alike.

Since this IS Penn Jillette we're talking about here - an illusionist who is also a tireless advocate for rationalism and empiricism - it's fitting that the movie would apply scientific precepts to its analysis of art. Tim hypothesizes that Vermeer may have used a device called a camera obscura combined with a small portable mirror to achieve an unprecedented verisimilitude in his paintings. It's pure speculation, since Vermeer left no notes behind documenting his creative and technical process. So Tim has decided to paint his own "Vermeer" using the technique he postulates the artist himself used, and to document that process on film.

To that end, Tim has chosen Vermeer's "The Music Lesson" as his subject to copy, going so far as to recreate the room, along with the people and objects contained therein, of the original painting down to the smallest detail, only utilizing (and even crafting, if necessary) lenses, mirrors, lighting and paints that were in existence in the 1600s. It is a project that would take five full years to complete.

If Vermeer did indeed use these optic "tricks" to achieve his effect, does that somehow diminish him as an artist? Does it make his skill as a painter less astonishing, even if it heightens his ingenuity as an inventor and problem-solver? Probably no more so than a second-rate painter being able to replicate (i.e., "forge") any art masterpiece diminishes the talent of the original artist. And why would it be considered "cheating" for an artist to incorporate all the technological devices available to him at the time to help him in his painting? Why must there exist an arbitrary and artificial dividing line between science and art? These are the questions that Teller's fascinating little movie brings to the fore.

But isn't it better just to keep it all as a mystery, to declare Vermeer an artistic genius of the first rank and leave it at that? Perhaps, but then we wouldn't have "Tim's Vermeer" to inspire and engage us.

"Tim's Vermeer" (2-13 release; 80 min.) brings the story of Tim Jenison, an inventor who has amassed a small fortune over his life time and now has become fascinated (obsessed may be the better word) with the 17th century Dutch master painter Johannes Vermeer. Tim examines in particular Vermeer's painting "The Music Lesson", which has an astonishing amount of details in it. Tim eventually comes to the conclusion that Vermeer used a variety of optical devices (mirrors, camera obscura, lenses), and to test his theory, he decides to recreate "The Music Lesson" from scratch, even though he is not a skilled painter by any means. To tell you more would ruin your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: first, this documentary is made (and narrated) by Penn, he of Penn & Teller. Turns out that Penn and Tim have known each other for many years, and it's easy to see why this particular topic would have peaked Penn's interest enough to make it into a documentary. Second, the feeling of the documentary is pretty much one of a crime caper, in that we get to find out in detail how Tim goes about testing his various theories and his recreation of "The Music Lesson". Third, if you don't care for art, in particular painting, save yourself the trouble and catch another movie, as obviously the entire 'raison d'être' of the documentary is the making of a painting. At some point during his recreation of the painting, Tim gives an exhausted look towards the camera and sighs "it's like watching paint dry", much to the delight of the theater's crowd, which exploded in laughter. Last but not least, there is a nice soundtrack to this movie, composed by Conrad Pope and I've made a mental note to myself to check that out as well. (Bob Dylan's "When I Paint My Masterpiece" plays over the documentary's closing credits, an obvious but nice choice.)

I saw this documentary this past weekend at the Landmark E Street Cinema and the early evening screening I saw this at was absolutely PACKED, which I think is great news. Facts always trump fiction, reason why I love a good documentary more than anything. If you are interested in art and you marvel at how Vermeer might've created some of his best work, you will absolutely love this. "Tim's Vermeer" is absolutely worth checking out, be it in the theater or on DVD. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

I found the DVD of this documentary sitting on the shelf of my local public library, just gathering dust. The brief description sounded very interesting so I brought it home and watched it. I recall maybe 30+ years ago visiting the New Orleans Museum of Modern Art, and seeing highly detailed old paintings and marveling at the artwork. Some may have been Vermeer, I don't recall.

The subject is the 17th century Dutch painter Vermeer. His works are known for their realistic, almost "photographic" qualities. But photography as we know it had not been invented yet. But the camera obscura was well know.

This caught the attention of inventor and wealthy Tim Jenison who had founded a company dealing in such things as video, broadcast graphics, special effects, and those sorts of things. He became interested in this subject and pursued it for several years. He first tried using a camera obscura directly but it didn't work well.

Not a painter himself, Jenison even went to Holland to see, study, and measure the room Vermeer had used for many of his paintings. Then back in San Antonio carefully built a replica in a warehouse. He devised a way to use optics and mirrors to allow him to see a scene and paint it on canvas.

The documentary is not too long, under 90 minutes, and is pretty fascinating. There will never be any proof, there are no old accounts or letters relating to the technique Vermeer, but they make a very strong case for Vermeer having used some sort of technique like this, with lenses and mirrors, to create his highly accurate paintings with a photographic look, not only the images but also the lighting and shadings.

It seems Vermeer was an early photographer, instead of film or digital imaging he captured detailed images with paint.

If you, like me, enjoy technology and creativity. This is a must see Documentary about a man who set off to make a 'Vermeer'. With no particular skills, but with time and money to spend, he reinvented and discovered the Artist's way. For me the 'revealing' of Vermeer was far from a disappointment. Instead for me it brings Vermeer straight into the age of Enlightenment.

Art, at it's best for me is always a combination of smart and ingenious, it has to do with craftsmanship, with guts and persistence and a bit of Eureka. During the Age of Enlightenment in the Netherlands of the 17th Century, the two disciplines - Science and Art - just had to meet. As Jenison points out in the Documentary, this is exactly what happened here. But maybe there is even more..

Born in 1632, Vermeer shares the same birth year with another famous man called Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza worked in The Hague, a city that is only a stone throw away from Delft, which being the city where Johannes Vermeer lived, worked and died.

As Tim Jenison so brilliantly shows, lenses and mirrors play an important role in the work of Vermeer. Not only on his paintings, but also in the way he produced these paintings.

Wouldn't it be a great thought that Baruch Spinoza, who worked as a lens maker for a living, contributed as such to the paintings of Johannes Vermeer. Maybe they even talked about light, perspective and geometry during the tedious grinding of the lens. And that picture just made my day :-)