I disagree with you. I believe that Vermeer used photographic techniques to aid him. It is very obvious to me (imho) that Vermeer's works is of a wholly different character than any other Dutch masters working at the time. His paintings are incredibly flat and tonal, and very, very photographic.
I also think that his compositions are his true genius. His compositions are beyond masterful. They are brilliant. This is hard to describe to a non-artist, but the way that he uses tight negative spacing along with his use of large spacious gradations is magic. He had the eye of a master photographer. This is where the question comes in for me. Did he set up his scenes and then limit himself to what he was able to manage there, just tracing what he saw? Or did he allow himself the freedom to change and modify the spaces and proportions to what looked right to him. I personally believe the latter.
To me, Vermeer is one of the greatest photographers thats ever lived. Every 2D design class should devote long study to his compositions.
Oh, I'm not disputing Vermeer may have used photographic techniques to aid him. There is definitely a very photographic look to his work that is unlike that of most of his contemporaries. What I am disputing, however, is that they were merely used as a shortcut and that the use of these aids is the be all and end all of Vermeer's talent. Even without his alleged use of photographic techniques Vermeer was a masterful painter: his handling of paint is otherworldly and that is something no photographic aid can help you with.
It's also true that his work is much flatter than that of his contemporaries, but to my eyes there's still a lot of 3D construction lurking behind those dazzling light effects that is completely missing in paintings that we know for sure have been made as copies of photographs. Like I said, to me Vermeer is a much better painter than the grandparent gives him credit for.
Something else to consider for this post and parent. Using photographic techniques to make a painting does not guarantee a photographic "look." If you look at Warhol's traced drawings, the only clue is an even, utilitarian line, he was clearly not interested in copying visual reality (or he gave up on it when he realized it wasn't that easy to do from a projection). As counterpoint to that, you can look at Ingres' drawings, which are a world apart (it's likely he used a camera lucida, judging from the small size of the drawings and type of line). There is ample opportunity for the artist to bridge the "technological" gap with their own effort and ability, and it's likely this would happen to different degrees.
If using unconventional tools is part of your assigning value to artwork/artists or not, is another question.
I disagree with you. I believe that Vermeer used photographic techniques to aid him. It is very obvious to me (imho) that Vermeer's works is of a wholly different character than any other Dutch masters working at the time. His paintings are incredibly flat and tonal, and very, very photographic.
I also think that his compositions are his true genius. His compositions are beyond masterful. They are brilliant. This is hard to describe to a non-artist, but the way that he uses tight negative spacing along with his use of large spacious gradations is magic. He had the eye of a master photographer. This is where the question comes in for me. Did he set up his scenes and then limit himself to what he was able to manage there, just tracing what he saw? Or did he allow himself the freedom to change and modify the spaces and proportions to what looked right to him. I personally believe the latter.
To me, Vermeer is one of the greatest photographers thats ever lived. Every 2D design class should devote long study to his compositions.