Whats interesting about this entire theory is that so many people involved in the art world have a vested interest in disproving/disparaging the idea. The closer art gets to paint by numbers, or an otherwise mechanical process, like a very large set of pixels, the less impressive, and therefore less valuable the art becomes. And who wants that?
But Tim's Vermeer makes extremely some compelling arguments about how certain features present in The Music Lesson would be impossible to recreate by eyesight alone, yet were trivial using the optical device.
Finally, if the painting is photorealistic, and the actual room was arranged like it is in the painting, isn't composition at least partially a property of the room itself?
- the room, subjects placement
- how they are lit
- camera position and angle
- focal length (strengthens or flattens the perspective effect depending on the room)
- other optical effects (depth of field, long time exposure, bokeh, flares, ...)
The last point probably wasn't relevant for Vermeer, but if he would have used a Camera Obscura, getting all the former points correct on a way that produces a compelling image is not easy.
I could also imagine that he used a camera obscura to study and understand perspective and light, but painted without it, simply because that seems a little bit more practical.
It is not impossible to recreate by eyesight, it requires more time. To accomplish this level of realism geometrically, you create a perfect perspective grid and place what you see in it.
To accomplish this level of tonal representation you patiently compare the values from the scene with values from your palette/canvas.
It is classical painting craftsmanship, lost in the collective mind in post-modernistic world without need of art culture and knowledge.
Using an optical device gives more time to concentrate on composition,execution and emotional message, that is the real point that becomes clear in the end of the movie.
But Tim's Vermeer makes extremely some compelling arguments about how certain features present in The Music Lesson would be impossible to recreate by eyesight alone, yet were trivial using the optical device.
Finally, if the painting is photorealistic, and the actual room was arranged like it is in the painting, isn't composition at least partially a property of the room itself?