In 1891, American artist Joseph Pennell was the first to note that Vermeer's paintings displayed techniques similar to those of a camera obscura. Joseph Pennell was an American etcher, lithographer and illustrator. Pennell's suggestion was revolutionary at the time and was ignored or rejected by many art historians and artists. However, Joseph Pennell's contribution was important because he was the first to open the discussion and recognise the photographic qualities in Vermeer's work, at a time when people were not yet accustomed to the way a camera “sees”.
The question of whether the famous Delft painter Johannes Vermeer used a camera obscura is still a topic of debate. There are arguments for and against this theory. Let's take a closer look at the arguments that have been put forward.
Arguments for the use of a camera obscura
Optical effects in Vermeer's paintings:
- Blurring (bokeh): parts of the painting that would be out of focus when viewed through a lens are rendered blurred. This blurring, which is also used in photography, suggests the use of a lens. An example of blurring can be seen in the rolls on the table in “The Milkmaid”.
- “Light spots”: these are small, blurred circles of light created by highlights in an out-of-focus part of the image. These spots of out-of-focus light are painted so accurately on the bread and metal jug in “The Milkmaid” that they correspond exactly to the optical effects produced by a camera obscura.
- Exceptionally realistic perspectives: Vermeer is known for his highly accurate rendering of perspective and spatial relationships, something a camera obscura can assist with. The accuracy and depth of perspective in his interior paintings are so perfect that they suggest the use of an optical aid.
- Contrast and soft focus: Paintings such as Girl with a Red Hat show soft edges and a sharp contrast between the subject and the background, an effect similar to that of a camera obscura.
LINK: read the blog post on the website of the Rijksmuseum with Gregor J.M. Weber about his book “Vermeer: Faith, Light and Reflection”, in which he discusses, among other things, how Johannes Vermeer may have come into contact with the camera obscura.
Arguments against the use of a camera obscura
- Lack of evidence: this is the strongest argument. There is no written document, letter, inventory or testimony from Vermeer's time that indicates that he owned or used a camera obscura. This makes the theory, however convincing the visual arguments may be, purely hypothetical.
- Limitations of a camera obscura: the projected images were often very dark and could only be seen properly in a darkened room. Painting the bright colours and rich details that Vermeer used would have been extremely difficult in such an environment. The images were not perfectly sharp everywhere. Although the blurring in Vermeer's work is seen as evidence, it is also possible that a painter with such an eye for detail would see the projected blurring as a flaw and correct it manually. Furthermore, a camera obscura shows a static image, while many of Vermeer's scenes contain lively figures in apparent motion (for example, “The Milkmaid” pouring water). It is unlikely that a model could remain perfectly still in the same pose for hours on end.
- Vermeer's genius: critics sometimes point out that the use of a camera obscura would negate Vermeer's genius as an artist. Even with the use of a camera obscura, Vermeer would still have to make the most crucial artistic choices: composition, lighting, colours and the emotional expression of his characters. It is his mastery of these elements that makes his work so exceptional, not just his technical precision. Moreover, the use of a camera obscura would reduce Vermeer to someone who merely copied what he saw. This fails to recognise the enormous skill, knowledge of materials and artistic vision required to achieve such a result. His paintings are not literal copies of reality, but carefully constructed idealizations.
Multiple optical devices?
Some experts suggest that he may have used other methods, such as a string and nail, or developed techniques without a camera obscura. In Vermeer's case, such holes have been discovered in at least 13 of his paintings. The debate about Vermeer's use of the camera obscura and the use of nails and strings are closely linked, but they represent two different aspects of his alleged working method. They are not so much alternative theories, but rather complement each other. Nails and strings are a method of determining perspective lines on a canvas. By piercing a small hole in the canvas (a pinhole) and attaching a string to it, a painter can draw straight lines that converge at a vanishing point. This technique has been used for centuries to create a convincing sense of depth.
It is therefore possible that Vermeer used both techniques. A camera obscura was used to project an image and the correct perspective, often vague and dark. The nails and strings would have been a way of accurately marking the central perspective lines of the projected scene on the canvas, after which Vermeer could fill in the details by hand.
And so the debate continues, because there is no conclusive evidence for or against the theory. The camera obscura theory provides an interesting explanation for Vermeer's unique style, but it is important to recognise that it remains a hypothesis and that it does not diminish his immense talent as an artist.
At the Vermeer Centrum Delft, we have a camera obscura in the “Vermeer studio” so that you can see how it works. We also explain how Vermeer dealt with perspective.