Is this the first thread focused on this movie? I saw it on an airplane, so assume I am coming late to the show.
Wonderful movie. Directed by Teller and narrated by/featuring/produced by Penn Jillette, it tells the story of Tim Jenison, inventor of the Video Toaster and other later video technologies. A wide-rangingly curious guy, he loves Vermeer and wanted to understand how the artist may have used optics, as posited by artist David Hockney.
It is fascinating on some many levels - but ultimately the focus on Vermeer and the unique personality and intellect of Tim Jenison come shining through. The couple of really insightful advances that Jenison makes as he actually tries to use optics are wonderful, as is his focus on doing everything the same as Vermeer might have.
I know a bunch of you have seen this by the passing mentions I found in other threads. What didja think?
I’ve only seen the promotional video, but yeah, it is both fascinating and highly entertaining. I hope I’ll get to see the full version sometime soon.
It was astonishing to see Jennison turn out a painting of such high quality the first time he ever put his hand to it. I wish to hell I could paint that well!
I semi-watched it on TV; I was preoccupied with other things, but it seemed fascinating. I’m curious to see Jennison’s Vermeer painting and how it stacks up against his “normal” painting.
I think the movie puts forward the idea that that by using a device and setup like his, most anyone can - though completing a painting of that sort took him many, many hours of extremely tedious, “machine-like” work.
I saw it in the theater with my wife and loved it. The most surprising part was Tim testing his theory with a black and white photograph of his father-in-law, producing an oil painting like I’ve never seen. My wife thought it was BS, but I thought it proved it’s thesis admirably.
It’s funny, I met Tim back when he had just started NewTek, and he brought the prototype of his DigiView digitizer to the Kansas City Amiga user’s group meeting. This was a piece of hardware that plugged into the Amiga’s parallel port and had one RCA connector. You’d hook a monochrome security camera to it, and with the aid of a circle made of four Plexiglass quarters - red, green, blue and clear - could capture still color images. As lame as this sounds now, at the time the only competing technology was a drum scanner costing tens of thousands of dollars. Macintosh computers were still monochrome tubes, and there were Mac users who bought Amigas just to use a Digiview.
I worked for an Amiga dealer, and demoed and supported the Video Toaster when it came out. At every stage, he and his company seemed dedicated to making innovative stuff for a fraction of the cost of the competitors. Sadly, the company is now concentrating on higher-end broadcast video, and seems to have abandoned the lower end of the market while Tim plays with his hobbies.
I have to see this when I can. I’ve followed the Hockney hypothesis for some time, and don’t see any reason that Vermeer couldn’t have used a camera obscura – it certainly existed at the time, and has been used since by art students, just as they use the camera lucida. The arguments both for and against its use seem rooted in very difficult to prove fringe issues, though, and the assertions that An Arttist Just Wouldn’t Do That (which isn’t at all convincing). I’m pretty certain that he didn’t use a lucida, which was invented by Wollaston in the 19th century, and for which there is no evidence of prior use or invention (and the lucida was invented precisely because Wollaston couldn’t draw to save his life. Later on, William Talbot Fox helped invent photography because he couldn’t even use a camera lucida)
I saw Teller’s production of The Tempest at the ART in Cambridge, where the program mentions this film. Interesting guy, Teller.
If that’s boredom, you and I are operating off different definitions. He’s looking to crack a fascinating mystery.
As for art nerds, or the assertion that “real artists would never do this.” Meh - that’s as hollow as asserting there is no evidence. When you watch the documentary, you can understand why an “artist” would never admit to / acknowledge using those types of tools. But, as Hockney says throughout, the painting itself is a document and can be analyzed accordingly. Some of the things that Tim found during his efforts - won’t discuss here - seem pretty clear.
I love Vermeer’s work and still do, but it is pretty darn hard to imagine him NOT using these types of tools. As Penn says “okay, maybe Vermeer has gone from being an unfathomable genius, to a fathomable genius - but he is still a genius.”
YMMV. He seemed like an obsessed rich bored guy to us.
On the evidence front, it was more fact based. As I recall, he died in debt, and there were some fairly detailed lists of what he had and what was sold. This would have been expensive equipment and would have most likely been accounted for and it wasn’t listed anywhere.
That and he apparently didn’t express any interest in this type of gear when alive (and much less when dead I’d guess )
He could well have sold it off when he was still alive in a vain attempt to extinguish his debts before moving on to that great art studio in the sky.
As for the second point, would you give the world any reason to believe you weren’t the genius they thought you were by expressing interest in trick mirrors? :dubious:
Let the cat out of the bag, and pretty soon Europe would be flooded with artwork of the same caliber (or near to it).
)