Both of those were probably done by his daughter, Elizabeth. Look at the hand of those compared to The Music Lesson. The latter is obviously done by the master, Vermeer. These two look like “paint by number” in comparison. He taught his daughter his method of using mirrors. Tim is correct in his acclimation. Vermeer’s style had a soft and highly detailed stroke using chiaroscuro even akin to Leonardo. The Milkmaid is phenomenal to that of the guitar players.. no comparison. The worst is The Girl in Front of the Pianoforte. The model is the same girl at the same age that is the other portrait of a young girl.. Anne, his other daughter. This proves that there was another painter in his studio. That person did the leg work of preparation. The Girl With The Flute is definitely by Vermeer because of its masterly style, despite the ground being different. The curator of the National Gallery should listen to the greatest authority of Vermeer, the newly retired head of the Rijks Museum. His swan song was the greatest exhibition in the history of art and we should all bow down in gratitude.
Thanks for this interesting comment. All of this is way above my pay grade (I am a volunteer) but I am so glad my little video is prompting serious discussion.
The Kenwood house painting looking at it with the right eye and the other looking at that with the left eye combining them makes the background picture sink back, the figure pull forward and the knee pop forward. There's a nice 3D effect happening.
Far fetched to think that is a Vermeer. It simply lacks the quality one sees in authenticated Vermeers. In addition it is highly unlikely Vermeer would have copied his own painting, but changed various details. A non issue.
Thanks. I really am not qualified to have an opinion about who painted this. However, the argument that it is Vermeer requires a lot of assumptions. None seems to me unreasonable in itself, but how likely is it that they are all true?
rubbish work… i saw it in royal academy gallery show, they are really big canvas, but to me such rubbish work, the mind is an interesting thing, simply madness..
I had to write a comment. The reading of these canvases is brilliant. I couldn't have done better myself😅. But I just wanted to ask a question. I always keep in mind my first reading of a painting or in this case, paintings. I thought it was a study of an attack of a man out of control on a vegetable garden. And please allow me to express what I saw in these paintings. The tomatoes seemed to have got the worst blow by the angy carrots.
Whoops. Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately, once a RU-vid is posted, one can't change it. There are a couple of other problems in some of my other RU-vids but I just have to live with it.
There’s no way that is a Vermeer … notwithstanding possible damage, it just lacks the subtlety and refinement of his work. Also, there’s no other examples of Vermeer duplicating one of his compositions
Yes.. You are correct. That painting is no where near his ability. What has always amazed me is that faker of Vermeer having any credence whatsoever. Vermeer is one of the world's top masters and that should be always be so.
As always John, you pack so much information into a short video--you are a master teacher. I've never loved the Kenwood painting, and actually like the Philadelphoia painting more. Here the suggestions seems to be that she is indeed playing for an udience of one, a lover. Music was commonly a symbol of love, illicit and otherwise. This is certainly a most interesting painting, and how sad that the overcleaning has impacted a definitive attribution.
Thank you for the great narration. Personally I think the music is not necessary. it's a little distracting to the efforts getting into the details of the paintings.
Ang galing talaga sa marketing ng amerikano. Parang mansanas lang yan na pinaniwala tayo pinaka espesyal na prutas. Kung titingnan ko c Twombly ay para syang sicko at isip bata. Kayo lang naman ang nagbigay ng malalim na kahulugan sa masterpiece ng isip bata
@@dasmowilkins since they changed the meaning of the word 'art', then anything can be called art - that, in fact, means the word 'art' itself has become redundant. You seem to be an 'anything' lover.
@@ilsinco whos they lmao art has always been subjective. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. what you're describing has always been the case because anything can be art.
@@dasmowilkins do your homework - art was always subjective in whether you like it or not, as in, whether it's to your taste. BUT, what 'art' was, wasn't always subjective. The actual dictionary definition of art changed. Once it was 'a skill or craft (esp one involving chemicals)', then with the ideologies of Kant and Hegel this led to a different perspective on what an 'art' and an 'artist' actually should be. Modernism adopted these philosophies which has led to scribbles, blank canvases and shit in a can all being called great 'art'. People aren't to judge art themselves on merit, but are now told what art is and how good it is. Sorry if I don't allow my opinions to be spoon fed to me by 'experts'.
@@ilsinco words and their definitions are also subjective. i don't care what a dictionary thinks about art. ;let me ask you a question g what do you think about trans people?
