#I know the argument can be made that optical devices like camera obscura have been used throughout the history of painting but cmon

[breadclipp]

it can be hard to fashion a critique of contemporary painting without accidentally coming across as somewhat conservative. Having said that, learning that a lot of painters project photographs onto their canvases and trace them rather than sketching stuff out breaks my heart a little bit

[mermaidsirennikita]

I kept feeling like this AI conversation was reminding me of something... and I just realized what it was.

My grandparents knew that I majored in art history, and so in an attempt to connect (no shade, it was nice) they watched this documentary with me called Tim's Vermeer (2013). It's been a while since I've seen the doc, but the basic premise was that Tim Jenison was "attempting to prove that Johannes Vermeer used optical devices like a camera obscura to create his masterpieces".

Which, both as an art history major and a Vermeer fan (his work is probably my favorite, visually) didn't make sense to me. Even as a kid reading books about Vermeer, I'd seen it theorized, many times over with evidence, that Vermeer used aides like the camera obscura to assist in his process. In fact, the film adaptation of Girl with a Pearl Earring, released in 2003, shows Vermeer using this equipment because that was something art historians had been speculating about for quite some time, 10 years before the doc came out.

While we may not have the documentation to conclusively prove that Vermeer used such devices, it's fairly likely based on the work, what little we know of him, and what we know of the art production of his era, that he used it. I mean, it's kind of hard to "prove" anything when you're discussed a centuries-dead subject, but I don't think many Dutch Golden Age-focused art historians in 2013 were like... dying on the hill that Vermeer didn't use any optical devices or specific techniques to create his pieces (though they may debate to what extent they were used, and which ones were utilized and for what pieces). Because at the end of the day, artists have always used tools to assist them in creating their vision. Sometimes, they've literally used assistants, as was the case for many Renaissance maestros like Raphael, who had an entire workshop of assistants and apprentices creating collaborative works.

What the doc was really trying to prove was whether or not Tim could make a "Vermeer". Whether he could, essentially, create a work that was just like Vermeer--and no matter how much he tried to deny it in the doc, it felt like... If not Tim, then perhaps those making the doc itself, were trying to prove that Vermeer was tricking us. That his artistry wasn't artistry or talent or ability, but a sleight of hand that any old dipshit could replicate.

Which is why I'll add now that the documentary was directed by Teller, and written by Penn Gillette, of Penn and Teller fame. They're essentially illusionists, and often remark on the tricks of the trade, hoaxes, etc. They create things to be skeptical of, and are professional skeptics. It's a part of the brand. That's fine. But when you add that perspective to Tim's Vermeer, it feels a lot like they were trying to disprove that there was something unique or special about Vermeer and his work. Anyone can do it--look, Tim just made a Vermeer!

Except... Tim doesn't create an original work with techniques like those Vermeer may have used. He copies The Music Lesson, a piece by Vermeer. A piece Vermeer not only painted, but composed and presumably conceived with the collaboration of a patron. There's this implication that Vermeer is tricking you, that what you thought was God-given (which like, contemporary art historians aren't running around saying talent was God-given and just appeared without practice and equipment and technique) was actually made with the help of this thing, and anyone could do it with this thing, this cheat.

And maybe if Tim had made an original composition, with an original style, with the techniques Vermeer may or may not have used, I'd see the argument more. But he copied Vermeer's technique, his style, and his composition. The things that were unique to the piece were all Vermeer, all something Vermeer thought of or was involved in thinking of. As Jonathan Jones (who I disagree with on a lot of shit, but this was a good line) said, ""The technology Jenison relies on can replicate art, but it does so synthetically, with no understanding of art's inner life. The 'Vermeer' it spits out is a stillborn simulacrum."

Vermeer came to his compositions based on how he grew up, what he knew of symbolism, his history, the individuals he was painting for, even things as individual and minute as the way he perceived light and color. It was unique to him. So while Tim replicated the piece, he did not replicate the art. What he created was not art.

And basically, what I'm saying is, that's what AI "art" (not-art) is doing right now. It's replicating art, it's copying things artists have conceived, but it's doing so without an inner life of any kind, without an individualized sensibility. And an individualized perspective, good or bad, is part of what makes art... art.