You are spot on. I agree with all your conclusions. The NGA literally over-analyzed and over-thought this painting, clouding their vision of what was before their eyes.
Those "experts" make me angry. They honestly seem like pompus people who know nothing about art but think they can make claims about what art is and isnt and everyone else has to listen to them.
Bravo!!! It is so refreshing to hear the opinions of an excellent Realist painter, as opposed to those of dinosauric "experts" who don't paint and who simply parrot the writings of the even more dinosauric "experts" who preceded them. It's also refreshing to hear ideas clearly expressed as one's own instead of the usual art historians, non-painters' expressions of ideas that they claim "define" the artist's thinking. Thanks, too, for the marvelous close-ups-I'm sending this video to our students at the Angel Academy of Art, Florence. (Do you still live in Rome, by the way? Or was that in another lifetime?)
I was able to talk to various art historians at the recent Vermeer Symposium and did not find single one who supports the painting's de-attribution. The NGA looks very alone and I guess there is no really walking this one back for quite a time. What else can further scientific analysis reveal? I have gone to the current Vermeer exhibition many times and the painting convinces me every time more. At a reasonable viewing distance, the "anomalies" that the NG points out are invisible and the magic takes over. It's a fine piece. Very distinctive.
Thanks for this, Jonathan. Love your work and your excellent analysis of his painting. I saw this painting in Amsterdam and now I'm convinced - with a little bit of help from you - it is a Vermeer!
More than welcome! The painting is much more impressive from life, no? I was amazed how engaging she was, and yet so discreet...pure Vermeer. I actually found her more seductive than the Girl with Red Hat, which was always one of my favorites.
You have done great job with this video! I loved the consistent thought, the logical parallels and the human approach to understanding the performance of a genius ( even not at his best). Thank You!
That's just about one of the most welcomed compliment I can imagine. Thanks. You know, the whole ordeal of putting together text, voiceover and images, while maintaining an even keel and cohesion among the parts, is a somewhat gargantuan venture. It almost got the better of me a few times. But as usual, the reward of looking at Vermeer's pictures came to the rescue and convinced me to persevere. Hope the newer videos get better.
Yes, I love the way they made in nicely clear in the exhibition. Under the title of the picture is "Here as a work by Vermeer." As if to say, the NGA can think whatever they want but as long as it's in the Netherlands, it's a Vermeer.
Thanks. Is your "hats off" a pun? yes, the story of both paintings is a young girl wearing unusual head gear with mouth slightly open and a shadow covering the eyes, nd I guess, seated in front of a tapestry.
There are no "imperfections" - it is the end result that matters ; When you gaze at the finished painting for the first time, or even after a little while away from her, you will only see one thing; a Vermeer masterpiece!
Agree 110 %. As a painter, I could only wish that my works had the same "imperfections" that the National Gallery cites. I would have realized my every dream. I can't imagine a daughter or apprentice, much less a come and go art lover, making a painting so magical and then mysteriously retiring from activity. And please, give me the name of this magician. Let me confide to you that at the Amsterdam Vermeer exhibit I was actually more impressed by the Flute picture than the Girl with a Red Hat that had always been one of my favorites.
I first saw the girl with the flute when I was 15 at the national Gallery. She and the girl with the red hat have remained in my mind as charming Vermeers. I agree with your analysis that both paintings are likely by Jan Vermeer.
Smart 15 year old. I saw it in my first year of RISD (18) but got the same impression. And although it never looked like in perfect condition, it never crossed my mind that it wasn't by Vermeer.
Excellent. A refreshing, logical and considered analysis by someone who has a lifetime of painterly knowledge and experience of Vermeer's oeuvre. Jonathan must be one of the few people to have seen all 37 works in person and that gives a rather unique perspective. How can the NGA be so definitive given their analysis requires interpretation and consideration of many other subjective criteria as Jonathan highlights? There surely must be an element of doubt to any attribution of a 350 year old painting with no direct provenance? Watching the "Close to Vermeer" film, the NGA's stance came across as rather arrogant and inconsiderate. At worst it was a case of showboating prior to the 2023 Amsterdam exhibition. The Rijksmuseum and Mauritshuis experts' reaction said it all. If the NGA academics can't see the hand of Vermeer in the work then maybe they should remove their blinkers/ preconceptions and look at more of Vermeer's oeuvre? It certainly raises the profile of the work, which is a good thing, shame the NGA had to traumatise folks along the way.
Yes, it's barely painted (very few details) it it looks totally alive. Perhaps the NGA people got stuck in sort of echo chamber during Covid isolation. I think that happened to may of us. But I don't really know how they could have been so drastic in their conclusion. And I am wondering how they are dealing with the pushback on all levels. Did they expect that?
I agree. This is always the litmus test...if Vermeer didn't paint it, who did? I don't see any other Dutch painters of the time working in the same mode that could have done it. Standing in front of the real picture is even more convincing. Rembrandt, of course, was one of the greatest painting technicians of all times, but his style is completely different.
@@essentialvermeer I agree. Who else did this? This is not the casual work of an amateur who did one painting. This is the work of a highly skilled painter who worked in Vermeer's studio. The "lion chair" proves that. So, we are asked to believe someone else did one painting in the Vermeer style and then stopped. That defies common sense.
Thanks for the kind words of support. I can assure you, they are gas in my tank. I hope that after months of application I have finally devised a decent work flow for the videos. The first two were particularly difficult given their polemic nature. I am putting the finishing touches on the next one, Girl Reading Letter t an Open Window. Hope you enjoy that too.
Thank you, Jonathan. The case made by the NGA show contains, as far as I can see, only one scientific argument, which is the one concerning the grinding of the paint, which appears to be inconsistent with Vermeer's other work, but doesn't preclude that it was by him. The rest is just assertions of various supposed inadequacies--the treatment of the finial, the color of the highlight on the tooth, etc.--that don't withstand being separately examined, as you have done. My conclusion would be that, if the Girl With Flute was done by an artist we know nothing of, it instantly becomes the best piece by an unknown artist who was as good as Vermeer. Thoré-Bürger, you are needed again.
I am really content that the Rijksmuseum firmly pushed back. Luckily, perhaps we don't quite need Thore just yet--although he's always welcomed--because he inside people I talked to are utterly convinced it's Vermeer. I still can't figure out what happened in the NGA. So many people find their "enthusiasm" to have pulled an apprentice out of thin air unreasonable.
@@essentialvermeer The thing is, the NGA exhibit had the good idea to bring out of storage the discredited Smiling Girl and the Lacemaker--which I think were still up in 1969?--but they only made the Girl with Flute look better and better. Could the explanation be that a new generation of art historians wants to assert its independence?
you use a lot of common sense in your analysis, which i appreciate. i have always LOVED this painting, along with the girl with the red hat. to me they are much more compelling than the more celebrated girl with the pearl earring. i want to believe this is a Vermeer…so many elements are dead on. however, that hand is so horribly painted. not up to his standard at all. you offer a compelling theory that it is a Vermeer, but perhaps with another artist’s involvement. you have won me over. thank you. this was fascinating!
Great. Here's a little secret. I wen to the Rijksmuseum Vermeer retrospective and was a bit worried that I maybe overplayed my hand. You know what happened? The painting looked better than ever!
I very much liked the video. Being born in Delft, anything about Vermeer is of great interest to me. It seems to me that one, or more, so called experts went at great lengths to prove this not to be a Vermeer. Using, at least, questionable reasons in attempting so. To me, albeit not an artist or expert, this painting is authentic. Thank you for your effort.
You would be surprised how many times non-experts like yourself see things experts don't. Sort of like not seeing the forest through the trees. Say hi to Delft. I love it.
I made a copy of her. Maria Vermeer was a beautiful woman, and her father captured her grace perfectly. People who complain are usually not oil painters themselves, and are not privy to the conclusions that years of toil with the medium produces in the mind. This work has all the hallmarks of Jan. He uses different brush strokes for different materials, and handles shadows and their transitions into light identically to his other works. The chromatic chiaroscuro and the priority with which we as the viewer notice objects in the small painting is carefully thought out. Parts of this work look sloppy however, as if a restorer's hand touched it. I found that the parts of her tunic and that awful right hand are not consistent with Vermeer's careful edge control and his obsession with material copying. It is not enough that you paint the thing, you must also massage the material into the painting to make it lay down properly to the eye. This painting however, is the Ferrari of Tronies.
Edge control, yes, it's fundamental in Vermeer's oeuvre. It's hard to explain to one who does not paint, but Vermeer is one of the most accomplished "edge painters" in western painting. It's always varied, never systematic. Even with a great edge painters like ter Borch you can more or less intuit a system, a rational method: in Vermeer no. It's full of surprises. You gave me and idea...why not explore the edge painting in a video. But with which painting?
@@essentialvermeer A Maid Asleep. My favourite of all his works. Though maybe not the best example for edges, since the whole things is in darkness. I would, however, appreciate an analysis by you of said painting anyway. I learnt a lot from your critiques.
@@Splatterpunk_OldNewYork Ok. You will have to be a bit patient. I will eventually do every work by Vermeer, but I am moving randomly, whatever hits my fantasy. But you idea about edges will maker a good investigation.
It’s seems to be easy to blame a famous painter who worked 350 years ago, this in very poor conditions, due to all the suffering he died very young, very brave action !
This time I was surprised how good it looked when compared to the Girl with Red Hat the Rijksmuseum, which for many years I had always preferred. Now I think it's one of Vermeer's best.
I'm surprised you didn't say anything about the background. Aren't the backgrounds in The Girl With The Red Hat, and The Girl With The Flute, very atypical of the backgrounds in all of Vermeer's other works?
Yes, it's sort of atypical, but not too much. A while go the Frick discovered that Vermeer had originally set large tapestry with some standing women in the background of its Mistress and Maid, which would have changed the picture's appearance drastically. So then we would have three paintings by Vermeer with tapestries in the background. The Amsterdam retrospective makes it starkly apparent that Vermeer did quite lot of experimenting throughout his career. And who knows how many other paintings did not survive? To be honest, I didn't say anything about the tapestry because I don't know why. But I should have looked at the question closer.
Having just seen them side by side at the Rjiksmuseum, I have no doubt Vermeer painted "Girl with a Flute." It seems like the experts are trying too hard to dispute what seems intuitively obvious. And I am left with a single question: why is there no other work by this artist? Anyone this skilled would have produced works before and after this one. Sometimes the absence of something can prove the presence of something else: this is a work by Vermeer.
Singular : Phenomenon Plural: Phenomena A 'Milk Maid' does not work in the house. She tends to the cows and the milking. What we see here is a Kitchen Maid !
Thanks for the tips. Yes, we all know she's a kitchen maid, but that really wasn't much an an issue in this video and I believe the majority of viewers know the painting as the milkmaid.
@@essentialvermeer viewers know the painting as The Milk Maid because people keep calling it by that absurd name. I’m trying to counter the prevailing error.
It definitely has the sensibility of a Vermeer. The technicalities aren’t convincing evidence that he didn’t paint it. The unfinished finial is unfinished deliberately so it doesn’t compete with the face. The more coarsely ground pigments in the under painting were probably used to save time and/or money since this was a minor painting. You’re right - artists aren’t machines who do everything the same way.
Art historical research is largely based on finding consistencies, which can lead to bias. One is that a genius is always a genius. Some of Vermeer's paintings are much better and some largely ineffective, although interesting from a historical point of view.
Lol DC embarrassing themselves yet again. This is what happens when people with too much time on their hands sit around and stare at a picture for too long. Girl with a Flute is obviously Vermeer.
Old painting has a paper trail and it helps to say what the history is, however it has been known that the seller changed the signature or the painting in some way. It affects the market value, but people can still appreciate the work of art.
As a painter, authorship is not my greatest priority. I look at the pictures: colors lines and expression etc. If someone were to prove that beyond a shadow of doubt, the paainting is not by Vermeer, it would not diminish my admiration even a bit.
It's occurred to me before that art connoisseurs often assume that a particular artist always painted the same way and to a consistent standard. As a painter myself I know this is not remotely the case, and I don't see why considerably greater artists of the past didn't have the occasional off-day. I'm sure they also experimented with different styles, compositions and techniques. For this reason the expert reasoning for declaring a particular work genuine or otherwise often seems rather dubious, to me. Bizarre that these subjective and questionable opinions often make the difference between a particular artwork being valued in millions or hundreds.
Yes, I'm a painter too and find the same issues. I don't thing neither of us has to be a genius to understand as you say, there are good and bad days. Personally, I got quite a few horrible days, even weeks. Did some things I am almost ashamed of. But luckily, the great part of the art historical community does not follow the NGA's conclusions. They definitely did not expect the blowback, with the Rijksmuseum declaring unequivocally the painting is by Vermeer. The NGA will no doubt stick with their conclusion until we get some sort of personnel turnover
It is interesting how art critics confuse themselves with their own words about what they are looking at without actually JUST LOOKING. I have no doubt whatever that the girl with flute , is by Vermeer. and hearing the NGA's assessment of "wrong perspective on the Lion's head finials on the chair",... i just realized something. I had long noticed they both slightly face inward. and had thought well it's either just an artifact of how that chair was constructed or the legs had twisted or warped inward slightly without actually thinking it "out loud". And here with "the girl interupted in her music" from a side view we can see that the same lion head finials on the same chair are indeed pointed slightly inward. so its not some foolish painter. miss painting chairs,... it is some foolish art critic deciding that lions head finials on chairs have to be perfectly parallel. on the actual chair, and so in perspective the one further away should appear slightly more from the side view.... hahahaha ! QED
The newly retired head of the Rijks who knows Vermeer more than anyone thinks that Girl With The Flute is definitely by Vermeer. The curator from the National Gallery was so arrogant thinking that she knows more than this man.. what a cringer.
The only thing I see as outstanding in this is the fur breastplate. I am not understanding that. Seems like it is backed with wood and doesn't follow the repose of her body. Looks like it would only look right if she were sitting completely upright. Here she shifts her body and the upholstered fur thing doesn't move with her. Could be the way it is shadowed, or maybe that is the way it actually was, a breastplate or stiff bib rather than supple trim on her dress, meant to stand upright like that. I like it. It creates tension between her relaxed form and the stiffness of the dress; it is so much more interesting.
It's not actually a breastplate but two sepaarte pieces of fur trim on the openings of the jacket's front side. You can see the same garment in Vermeer's Concert. Vermeer' treatment of the fur trim is sometimes rather idiosyncratic, different in each painting. Never resorting to stock solutions, but always exploring new ways to see and painting familiar things. Glad you like it. Vermeer is not always an easy pinter.
This is so obviously a Vermeer….. the two paintings draw together when seen side by side….. . The Kaplan Picture on the other hand is a very mediocre copy of his style. I’m no expert and even I can see it. I remember in the documentary him holding it with his hands out of the frame…. Did he know them he had wasted all that money on a £500 painting? He’s a very decent man … he must know
Just one point. We should keep in mind thers is not a single document that connects Maria to her father's painting. As far as se know she could just as well have been completely uninterested in art. 😉
I think it´s obvious that both ”The girl with a flute” and ”Girl with a red hat” are made by the same painter, and that this painter is NOT Vermeer. Probably a forgery from the 1800-s.
I am not too sure which of the two, but I think that dendrochronological studies confirmed the panel’s seventeenth-century origins, determining that it is made of oak, likely felled between 1651 and 1661. Now it is possible that the century old panel was painted on only years after, but that doesn't seem too likely to me.
But it was never difficult to find old wood-panels in the 1800-s. Plenty of old paintings on wood. Also worth noticing that those two are the only once supposed to be by Vermeer that are not painted on canvas. The best argument, though, is the handling of the paint. And the confined space of the room, the same room in both pictures. Not Vermeer-esque in my opinion.
