all 21 comments

[–]The_Original_Gronkie 18 points19 points  (3 children)

I don't recall seeing this painting before, but it is a very important Vermeer, one of my favorite artists. This one was very personal to him, and he never sold it. It is thought it be a self-portrait, of course, and the subject was his daughter. It was painted around 1665-75, but it was actually attributed to another artist for a long time, until it was authenticated in 1860, when Vermeer started becoming popular.

It is significantly larger than the Vermeers I've seen - 51" x 43". It is filled with all kinds allegorical and metaphorical elements for anyone who wants to take the time to work through all that stuff. I just like it because it is so detailed, and the blues pop out so beautifully.

It is displayed in the art museum in Vienna, and is in dispute with a family that sold it under the Nazi regime. The government claims it was sold voluntarily, the family disputes that. The litigation is still ongoing.

[–]Stogiesandsuds 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was one of my favorite pieces when I visited earlier this year. Since there are a lot of art museums in Vienna, this Vermeer is in the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Gorgeous grounds on its own.

[–]carolinese9[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Great info. I’m hoping to see it in Vienna soon!

[–]The_Original_Gronkie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Arent you lucky. Maybe someday for me.

[–]BetaGhost 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is another painting that coincides with my art history curriculum

[–]hcwells 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Vermeer’s blues are always amazing

[–]diegosmom9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He loved him some aquamarine, and damn the expense

[–]Ili- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For anyone that can read french in here, I recommend Daniel Arasse's interviews and book called "L'ambition de Vermeer" aka Vermeer's ambition (which was supposed to be called "Faith in painting" at first) . For those who can't, Arasse is an art historian who worked a lot on Vermeer, trying to investigate details in his paintings such as painting-in-a-painting, finesse/blurriness, space in time, the meaning of maps (like the one hanging on the wall in this piece), the use of the camera obscura and so on.

There's also a great book by Guillaume Cassegrain (also french eh, "La coulure" which literally means "run-out") about the way Vermeer used that effect of run-out with the paint as a material on his canvases to make our eyes believe that we see a particular thing while it is just a "stain" of paint, as the cushion laces are in the Lacemaker.

Also, I just wanted to point out that everyone knows that painting as "The art of painting" while in fact, its first title was "Painter in his studio". Many want to see Vermeer as the painter, painting an allegory of History while the costume and many other details don't add up with that theory/time period to identify the painter as Vermeer. It is such a great piece of art with so many things to see/read. My modern art teacher made it look like a crime scene to investigate and solve when he talked about it last time he mentioned Vermeer which sounds so cool because we've got to pay attention to everything to try to understand it fully.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)


    [–]carolinese9[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    What do you mean?

    [–]The_Original_Gronkie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I think he means the slits cut in the back of the artist's jacket.

    [–]carolinese9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Thank you, this makes sense

    [–]shades_of_cool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The detail in this is so incredible.

    [–]guiscard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Where is his mirror or camera obscura? /s

    [–]OhYeahWhatsHisName -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

    In the tradition of painting, Vermeer is complete bullshit. Watch the documentary Tim's Vermeer in which an engineer (Tim) who is a complete novice painter figures out Vermeer's trick involving mirrors and lenses to essentially create a paint-by-number. Respect for the cleverness involved in essentially inventing a manual camera, but as far as painting goes (in the tradition including Rembrandt, Leonardo, Michelangelo, etc) Vermeer was a faker who does not deserve the praise or elevated position in art history he gets.

    Edit: Downvote all you want, but please prove me wrong.

    [–]peshgaldaramesh 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Was Tim able to compose pictures this masterfully? Was he able to paint with the delicacy of Vermeer? I doubt it.

    [–]OhYeahWhatsHisName 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    A man with no skills is absolutely able to match the delicacy with which Vermeer painted, and if the ability to compose a painting constitutes being a painter, then every photographer is also by your definition a painter. You should definitely watch the documentary. It will change your perspective entirely on Vermeer.

    [–]peshgaldaramesh 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    If Vermeer made photographs, I would like them just as much. I have just as much artistic respect for photographers as for painters; the difference is just the medium and nothing else. The technique doesn't make someone a good artist. I care only about the outcome, about the work itself, whether it's the result of a snapshot or weeks of laborious painting.

    [–]OhYeahWhatsHisName -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    So you really know nothing about painting then. Duly noted. You're entitled to your opinion but in the tradition of painting Vermeer is a complete fraud and I would expect you to hold him in the same regard as Tim, as you only care about the outcome.

    [–]peshgaldaramesh 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Tim painted a copy of a Vermeer. My opinion of Vermeer as an artist stays the same. Calling him a fraud sounds to me the same as calling Picasso a fraud because "a child could paint that." I understand that you're talking about him "as a painter," but painting was his only option in the 17th century. If he truly did use this technique, he used it because it was the best way to do what he intended to do.

    [–]OhYeahWhatsHisName -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Technically Tim built an entire room to mimic a Vermeer painting, not copied a Vermeer painting itself. Again, you should really watch the documentary as it is necessarily informative to this conversation about said documentary which you nevertheless feel comfortable commenting on despite never having seen it.

    Comparing my criticism of Vermeer's clever trick (because that's all it was) to the ill-informed Picasso "my kid could paint that" strawman to me feels pretty dismissive and perhaps that's how you meant it. Nevertheless, you're ignorant of painting as a practice and are defending a fraud because that's what art history taught you to do.