y va marquer wrote:True Biggus.
As Klaus said painting does not have to be done a certain way to be considered genuine.
Vermeer created those scenes, chose the setting, colour, composition, lighting, subject - that's part of the art just as much as the methods used to produce the finished work.
Well the closest thing today to what you've just described would be a film director I suppose.
That is a hilarious effort from Jenison. Amazing, impressive, but hilarious. His reasoning is pretty thin, I don't buy the whole "impossible wall" theory. Vermeer could've just painted it with contrast if he wanted to...humans aren't laser cutters or lenses, they don't necessarily "paint what they see" and what they "see" is subjective anyway. Replication by one method doesn't prove or necessarily even suggest the original method of creation either.
A fascinating exercise, but its so technical it feels utterly pointless.
Just watched the movie. The dedication and effort by Jenison is absolutely astounding, and the level of 'madness' involved in the project becomes much more palpable than the article can portray IMO. For my money, I feel pretty confident Vermeer used this, or a very similar, method.
It doesn't really take anything away from Vermeer's paintings, but I just can't fathom why he or anybody else would want to put oneself through something like this! From Jenison's description, since you completely remove the artistic and creative element, it gets extremely boring. Fast. You literally just paint what you see; there is absolutely nothing creative about the actual painting at all. Whatever creative or artistic element there is, it ends with the disposition.
Whatever Vermeer did was clearly art, and Jenison's attempt to deconstruct the entire scene of the painting is a form of artistic endeavour in itself in my opinion.
Of course it's art. What is this, 1875? 
Not so sure about Damien Hirst's dot paintings.
Rex is being awfully modernist.
Let's take it continental: Art is anything of which the question of Artness (Kunstlichkeit?) can be asked. 
Turns out "Kunstlichkeit" means artificiality, not artiness. Not quite what I had in mind, but ... works?
I like it. My definition of art is basically any human undertaking that doesn't stem from our two most basic instincts: survival and reproduction. But even then the line becomes blurry. Invention is one of the finest art forms we have for instance, and a lot of great inventions have sprung out of a need to sustain a way of life. Then in the other end of the scale you've got beautiful (but ultimately not very useful) things of artful ingenuity such as Benjamin Franklin's glass harmonica.
No need to broaden the discussion that much in this particular case, though. If we accept that photography is an artform, then why wouldn't Vermeer's painting be a work of art?
Rex wrote:It doesn't really take anything away from Vermeer's paintings, but I just can't fathom why he or anybody else would want to put oneself through something like this! From Jenison's description, since you completely remove the artistic and creative element, it gets extremely boring. Fast. You literally just paint what you see; there is absolutely nothing creative about the actual painting at all. Whatever creative or artistic element there is, it ends with the disposition.
Is that not the case with all photo realistic still lifes?
Does the method employed to create the finished work take from the work itself?
Do you think the four years Michelangelo spent painting the Sistine Chapel were anything but gruelling and exhausting?
Creating great art is generally desperately hard work.
sorry lads and lasses!
Burnwinter™ wrote:Of course it's art. What is this, 1875?
What about Ramsey's goal V Norwich?
Worthy of the Turner Prize!
Klaus wrote:Whatever Vermeer did was clearly art, and Jenison's attempt to deconstruct the entire scene of the painting is a form of artistic endeavour in itself in my opinion.
Certainly is, its both more and less obvious because the deconstruction is of what is easily recognized as an artwork. I enjoy it, but its a bit empty in the end mostly, for me, because his premise is kind of ridiculous. Don't mean to belittle the achievement or any wonder at what he accomplished.
I never said that Vermeer's paintings were NOT art. I just said that the artistic and creative element stopped after the disposition.
You could say the same about painting a photorealistic still life using traditional methods as well then.
If you've ever attempted such a still life you'll know that it's all about reprsenting exactly ever detail in line, shape, tone and colour.
I understood your position the first time, Yves. I just see things differently. No biggie.
I don't think you do but I don't know how to explain myself any better
Imagine spending all that money on a bloody snake.
My brother had a python when I was in my teens. Was absolutely gross him feeding that thing with mice and rats.
Should've starved it to death?
No point they can survive on starvation rations for ages, they're the Arsenal fans of the animal world.
More like Newcastle.
Suicidal Sex Marsupial!
I want to change my moniker to Suicidal Sex Marsupial. 8)
If anyone feels like having an existential crisis:
The probability that we live in simulation is not negligible.
I don't care if reality is real as long as we sign Vidal and Benzema.
Look up the villages of Shere and Burrows Cross in Surrey on Google Maps then go to the aerial photography. You can see a plane in mid year. This must happen quite regularly I suppose but I've never seen that before.
Hmm, I'm surprised I didn't see you post this when you did Bandy, because I read it around the same time.
Pretty interesting given how important a figure he's become to the "classical liberals" that now infest the commentariat.
Dolphins gently chew on puffer fishes and pass it around between them to get high. Puffer fishes have a defense system where they, when in danger, release a nerve toxin 180 times stronger than marijuana. Dolphins have crack parties.
I find that quite interesting.
stoner Dolphins. Cool.
That explains so much.
Why haven't people started buying more puffer than tilapia?
Rex wrote:Dolphins gently chew on puffer fishes and pass it around between them to get high. Puffer fishes have a defense system where they, when in danger, release a nerve toxin 180 times stronger than marijuana. Dolphins have crack parties.
I find that quite interesting.
Dolphins have a better pr agency than Fabregas, people think they are so cute and intelligent but they are badass, they have been known to hunt and corral seals and even sharks out to sea just for fun they've also been known to try to sexually assault human swimmers (whilst possibly after smoking puffer fish) who thought they were just playing .
In short they are just like us, and people don't realise how really big they are the males can get up to 3-4 metres.
Hmm, they're really not that badass. I've swum with dolphins a few times and they're placid and anything but scary—probably because they're smart.
That case about the woman who got assaulted (in Sydney was it?) was damn creepy though.
The most sinister cetacean is the killer whale, just check this shit out:
Yeah I've swum with them (err dolphins not orcas) ....and dived with reef sharks too, once you get over the original shock they're like puppies.
But yeah orcas are the badess cats in the ocean.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/great-white-killed-by-killer-whales-in-sa/6069168
Amazing. Like that video above. I've heard that killer whale pods each have their own distinct culture, vocabulary and hunting methods. Let's hope they never develop opposable thumbs.
