ESSIE SPEAKS OF ART - PART 2 - RECREATING A UNIQUE MASTERPIECE IN "TIM’S VERMEER"

Art and science. In our modern day, they almost seem like two polar opposites. It is rare to imagine anyone doing more than dabble in both – if you’re actually good at one or the other,  that means, well… You’re either “scientific” or “artistic” you can’t very well be both… Or can you?... Tim’s Vermeer is all about art and scientific method coming together, forming a rather beautiful whole – or several beautiful wholes that adorn the walls of the world’s museums today. As the makers of the documentary point out on numerous occasions, there was a time when science and art were not so sharply separated, and that inventors and artists were essentially the same person. I mean, think Leonardo Da Vinci, inventor, anatomist, painter and sculptor. And in a funny kind of way, while the artist who also invents is “multitalented” the inventor who wants to dabble in art is a kind of cheat. You know, he or she is not “creating” it from the gut; he is probably using “inventions” and things so it “doesn’t count”. Well, Tim Jenison is one inventor who asks the question “well why the heck not?”

Tim Jenison  is a scientist and technician in every sense of the word; he has built entire businesses on the back of his ideas and won awards for his inventions. Given this context, it may seem a tad odd that Tim wants to paint a Vermeer. But he does.  And I don’t mean he wants to take art classes and paint a copy of an original picture. He wants to paint the exact same, identical thing. Why? Well… 

See, Vermeer’s painting techniques have been a matter of excited discussion in art history circles. The way he captures light; the fine detail present in his technique that is not present in the work of any of his contemporaries… The way he did it is widely discussed. There are some that claim he was merely talented, that he picked up a brush and paintings came forth as we know them today naturally.

Well that’s one possibility. But there are several schools of thought that point out that as a wonderfully romantic idea as this may be, there is a greater possibility that Vermeer had a significant amount of ocular and technical help in composing his paintings. Now Tim’s no “pick up a brush and create a masterpiece through inspiration” kinda guy. But if there is a technical riddle to be puzzled out, well… Now you’re talking. With his close filmmaker friend Penn Jilette looking on (thorough his lens, obviously)Tim begins to puzzle out how on earth Vermeer achieved what he achieved. He is very strict about how he does it – nothing short of 17^thcentury technology is allowed. Tim even grinds his own pigments and makes his own paint when the time comes to actually start on the work itself. But will Tim be able to “recreate” a Vermeer? And if he does, what does this say about the nature of this theoretically “inimitable” work of art?

Now first of all, rest assured. If Tim wasn’t a multi-millionaire with nothing but time and money on his hands, this endeavor would not be possible. So there is no danger of the mystique of the arts being dissipated through the mass reproduction of the work, down to the original pigments. I think there are two issues here. And this is one of them. Art and artistic creation is by nature surrounded by a certain “mystique”. But the question is why should it be? Anyone who has truly got stuck into any creative endeavor will know that like any craft they all have their hard and fast rules, techniques to learn. Of course there is a certain “je ne sais quoi” added by the artist and that makes an artistic craft different from, say, carpentry. But if an artist is good at their craft, yes techniques have been learnt. Yes there has been blood sweat and tears all over the “boring stuff”. So why, on earth should the idea of hard work and technical advancement coming together with art be such an alien concept? If you find the idea that Tim has almost “recreated” a Vermeer strange and bothersome, do bear in mind that it is a “recreation”. Not a creation. Tim is not trying to “be” Vermeer. He is not trying to claim he is “better” than Vermeer or that Vermeer was some sort of cheat. He is exploring the technical aspects of the artistic work of Vermeer. You know the old adage about creation being 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Yep. It’s that 99% Tim is looking at. If it weren’t, if you think about it, Tim would be a painter by trade not an inventor.

And then there are those that take offence at the claims that Vermeer used anything other than raw talent to paint his pictures. By “anything else”, don’t get me wrong, I mean hand ground lenses, camera obscuras and mirrors (it’ll make more sense when you watch the documentary) . Somehow, again “it is cheating” if he didn’t just pick up a brush and the painting didn’t just flow out of it as it were. Ok, you may subscribe to this point of view. I would respect you for it. But I would like to point out that you are opening a whole can of worms here. What of, to give but one example, graphic designers? Yep, those guys creating beautiful works of art using computers. Are we going to say they are NOT artistic or creative because they use computer programs?   Ok, take it one step further – photographers. What will we do about them? I mean sure we all have cameras but even if we learnt the nitty gritty of the machines involved, would we have the dedication and inspiration to get the same results as an award winning photographer? Yeah, I don’t think so. I mean sure, you could RECREATE a picture. Could you create an equal but different one from scratch? Yeah.  I’m not even getting into the whole concept of cinema and, God help us MOVING pictures… Try and create those with no technical help if you can – and let the rest of us know if you succeed!

And another thing – ok so Vermeer used lenses and mirrors etc. to create his works. His ability, through the use of these techniques to capture details (he could even zoom in on details ladies and gents! Yes he could!) was unparalleled in his day. His ability to capture the subtleties of light and shadow are second to none, they are that close to reality. To the best of our knowledge (after all the actual details of these techniques were closely guarded you need to remember) it was his use of mirrors and lenses that made his perception so sharp, so close to real life… Much like… A camera. Vermeer, the 17^th Century photographer? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as nuts as it sounds…