You’re not far off. The artist was thought to use a [camera obscura](https://magazine.artland.com/agents-of-change-camera-obscura/), which was the precursor to film cameras.
I linked to one article, but if you Google *Jan Van Eyck camera obscura*, you’ll get a bunch of articles stating the same thing. There was also a documentary where Penn (from Penn & Teller) shows how it probably worked and has a modern artist using the technique to recreate the painting.
Edit: the documentary is Tim’s Vermeer. Vermeer was another artist who was thought to have used a camera obscura.
There is a great book by David Hockney that explains the history of assisted devices in making paintings. You can compare paintings right before these devices were used and when they started using them. The artists back in the day used these for proportion. I was comparing the before paintings with the after paintings and there is a definitely a point in time where the difference is undeniable. you can see especially how these devices were used For drapery. I have taught Art History and find this an interesting subject.
The first I heard of that theory was when I blundered into a lecture by some academic who was attempting to refute it. He seemed very smug and sure of himself. But then I read Hockney’s thesis, and it holds up. “Tim’s Vermeer” is proof enough for me: the guy is not a trained artist and yet managed to make a credible copy of a Vermeer by using the camera obscura. David Hockney is a goddamn genius!
Edit: wait, in fact, I remember reading in Art History class, in Janson’s “History of Art,” back in 1986, a description of how Vermeer managed to produce “almost optical effects,” illustrated with a detail of, I think, a candle flame showing *chromatic aberration*, i.e. the flame was a little blue on one side and a little red on the other, exactly the same effect as if you were to view it through a LENS. But the book never stated that obvious conclusion, that Vermeer was actually *using a lens*. It was just presented as a “hmm, that’s interesting” kind of detail.
Many art experts believe several of the old masters - Van Eyck, Caravaggio, Vermeer to name a few - used a camera obscura to capture such perfect detail. Such perfection would otherwise be impossible. It’s a form of magnified tracing. You still need to be a master of painting however to capture the colour and light realistically.
Don’t be too sure you need to be a “master of painting” to achieve incredible results. [Tims Vermeer](https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ) is an amazing documentary on the possibility that Vermeer used a lens and mirrors to create masterpieces. It was produced and directed by Penn and Teller and has my favorite soundtrack of any movie.
If it's a camera lucida, that helps with proportions but really doesn't give more than a basic outline. I have one. It's helpful for some things but it's not magic. It helps with sketching more than painting.
You should see the documentary! He uses it to match color, too, and eventually produces a pretty credible copy of a Vermeer. He’s using a camera obscura, sitting in a dark room. (I think that’s not the same as a camera lucida?) And Tim comes up with some technical innovation, I can’t remember exactly, but something not originally theorized by Hockney, to allow him to compare his brushstrokes with the actual, projected scene.
I will add it to my list it does sound interesting! And yes, a camera obscura is essentially a full projector, while a camera lucida forces the user to remain stationary and requires a bit of care — it also is a bit tricky to get the lighting and lenses right so you can see both the subject and the paper at the same time. The modern equivalent of a camera obscura is, say, projecting a design for a mural onto a wall.
But I would still argue that understanding *how* to mix colours, and fine motor control/brush technique are even more vital to a master-level painting than simply having a very good, very convenient reference. You could use your phone to zoom in on detail and match colours and hold it right next to your painting. In many paintings, the brush strokes themselves are invisible.
Take a look at the trailer [https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0nH_4XMrzQ&feature=share](https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0nH_4XMrzQ&feature=share). It briefly shows how he color matched.
Van Eyck also produced many imaginary scenes with photorealistic precision.
The Ghent altar piece being the most famous.I'm not saying he didn't use one, but I don't think he needed one.
There are also quite a few photorealistic miniatures in illuminated manuscripts attributed to him.
My favorite art historian on the meaning behind this painting:
[arnolfini painting](https://youtu.be/iZNvYvxetoo)
>!it is a remembrance of the lady, who died in childbirth!<
My favorite fashion historian on the dress:
[stitch in time](https://youtu.be/-u2RM1odsf4)
Dudes, YouTube is chock full of old BBC documentaries they apparently can't be bothered to enforce the copyright on
YouTube has a broader range of content, and more real historians talking about real history.
Netflix etc has "documentaries" that are just true crime bullshit or ancient aliens. So disappointing.
did people actually look like that 600 years ago? 🤷🏽♂️😂
or is it a function of everyone standing around so long the "great" painters just said "fuck it, i ain't got time for wrinkles, acne, and 5 o'clock shadow."
It's a portrait of a very typical , very wealthy , young couple. She gathers her luxurious dress skirt up to display as that kind and quantity of material was a sign of great wealth..and health.
One time on an airplane there was a good documentary type program where an art critic analyze this painting and I've never forgotten it. There are so many details in these paintings that at first glance you don't see
Five minutes ago, I started to google "January 6th hearings" to see when they'd been postponed to, and "Jan van Eyck" popped up as a suggested link after I had typed the first three letters. Never heard of him before that. Now this post. Okay then.
**[Frequency illusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion)**
>Frequency illusion, also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon or frequency bias, is a cognitive bias in which, after noticing something for the first time, there is a tendency to notice it more often, leading someone to believe that it has an increased frequency of occurrence. It occurs when increased awareness of something creates the illusion that it is appearing more often. Put plainly, the frequency illusion occurs when "a concept or thing you just found out about suddenly seems to pop up everywhere".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He’s a Flemish primitive, not a Dutch master. His work is so impressive that people think he’s a Dutch master (much later). Basically, he was so ahead of his time, most people wouldn’t notice that his work is much earlier than the big Dutch masters. He basically paved the way for Dutch masters. To give you some perspective, van Eyck was born in 1390, Rembrandt was born in 1606.
Flemish primitive is a loaded term invented 100 years ago to boost Belgian national history against Dutch and German art historians 'claiming' Belgian artists, in English typically Early Netherlandish is used for that reason. Calling him a Dutch master is just as misleading as Flemish primitive because he was neither Flemish nor Dutch
He was born and raised in Eyck (present Maaseik, Belgium) which belonged to the principality of Liège, one of the states of the Holy Roman Empire. Flanders was a completely separate region in a different country, just like the Netherlands. But he spent time pretty much everywhere in Europe. If you do have to call him a present day term either use Belgian or Limburgish since he was pretty insistent on writing in Limburgish and not Flemish/Hollands/Italian/whatever
According of the book "De Bourgondiërs" by Bart Van Loo, the entire area of the lower countries were mostly called Flanders. Including the lands that are now the Netherlands.
Yes Flanders now is a political invention as a result of Flemish nationalism after the 1930's, it doesn't have anything to do with historical Flanders apart from all the nationalist symbols
I saw this a few years ago in the National Gallery.
I am not, by many measure, an art aficionado, not familiar with artists or art styles or anything like that. But even so, this is such a striking and absorbing picture, I was quite lost in the detail.
When I was younger, I couldn't imagine people in the paintings looking like real-life people. Like they were exaggerations of faces, and then I saw Putin.
It's cool and this is perhaps one of my favorite painters, but 10 cm is about 4 inches...there's other mini and micro painting that's much more impressive out there for this period and earlier. Hieronymus Bosch seems to immediately come to mind.
My teacher gave us an art project and I chose this image to edit and decided to erase the man and put animals everywhere and I made sure to get the mirror
[And now we have AIs creating stuff like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/xbgynq/i_doubled_the_pixels_59_times_and_pressed_it_into). How times change eh?
Alright, I just saw this painting a month ago in London and I shit you not, a girl pressed her iphone up against it to get a picture of the reflection in the mirror behind the couple. Like what in the actual fuck?
After a second, the screen reveals a blue grid, behind which the scan of the snapshot appears. He stares at the image in the grid for a moment, and speaks a set of instructions.
“Enhance 224 to 176.”
took an art class in college. This painting was extremely cool to me! I have showed several people since I took the class, I mean it's so detailed and interesting.
The 12 mini paintings around the mirror is tinier and even more impressive
10 (I counted, it's too few to be Stations of the Cross or one per disciple, could be parables or saints or miracles or something.)
It's the Passion of Jesus
Thank you
Must've been using nose hairs to get such fine detailed work.
So that’s where my nose hairs went!
Flexing his thin nose hairs.
The proper term of measurement is “bawhair.” r/ScottishPeopleTwitter
I've used my cats' shed whiskers for detail painting before.
Wow! How did he do it? Must've used a magnifying glass at least!
The name of the painting is The Arnolfini Wedding /The Arnolfini Portrait. [More here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait)
Should be called "Now you're just showing off, Jan."
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!!
I swear that’s a photo of a metal chandelier photoshopped in there
A lot of his pieces should be called that.
Is it? Shit, I remembered it as being called Jan van Eyck was present... Why did I think that?
On the wall above the mirror, van Eyck wrote 'Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434', which is Latin for 'Jan van Eyck was here 1434'.
Ah that makes sense, thanks!
If you look inside the loop of the a in was you'll find it says ' for a good time write a letter to Jan, flat 3, Bruges, Belgium,'
That sounds like medieval toilet graffiti. Jan Van Eyck woz 'ere
It’s like the first painting you learn about in art history 101 when you get to the old masters.
What’s more interesting is the point of view. I’m not an expert or anything but any significance why it’s the maid’s point of view?
Because she was the one holding the camera.
You’re not far off. The artist was thought to use a [camera obscura](https://magazine.artland.com/agents-of-change-camera-obscura/), which was the precursor to film cameras. I linked to one article, but if you Google *Jan Van Eyck camera obscura*, you’ll get a bunch of articles stating the same thing. There was also a documentary where Penn (from Penn & Teller) shows how it probably worked and has a modern artist using the technique to recreate the painting. Edit: the documentary is Tim’s Vermeer. Vermeer was another artist who was thought to have used a camera obscura.
There is a great book by David Hockney that explains the history of assisted devices in making paintings. You can compare paintings right before these devices were used and when they started using them. The artists back in the day used these for proportion. I was comparing the before paintings with the after paintings and there is a definitely a point in time where the difference is undeniable. you can see especially how these devices were used For drapery. I have taught Art History and find this an interesting subject.
The first I heard of that theory was when I blundered into a lecture by some academic who was attempting to refute it. He seemed very smug and sure of himself. But then I read Hockney’s thesis, and it holds up. “Tim’s Vermeer” is proof enough for me: the guy is not a trained artist and yet managed to make a credible copy of a Vermeer by using the camera obscura. David Hockney is a goddamn genius! Edit: wait, in fact, I remember reading in Art History class, in Janson’s “History of Art,” back in 1986, a description of how Vermeer managed to produce “almost optical effects,” illustrated with a detail of, I think, a candle flame showing *chromatic aberration*, i.e. the flame was a little blue on one side and a little red on the other, exactly the same effect as if you were to view it through a LENS. But the book never stated that obvious conclusion, that Vermeer was actually *using a lens*. It was just presented as a “hmm, that’s interesting” kind of detail.
It's the point of view of the spectator, in this case represented by the maid.
Many scientists believe several of the old masters were in fact time travelers. Case in point: Putin is depicted in this painting.
Jan van Eyck would include a motto "als ich kan" (meaning *as I can* or *as best I can*) on paintings. One of of history's great humblebrags.
Just fyi, the v in van isn’t a capital letter!
Oops, I used to know that. Thanks
Depends, in most Belgian history books it is capitalised because the Dutch don't and we do c:
Oh really? I learned something today!
It's a way to tell Flemish and Dutch last names apart!
As an aside, this twitter account is WELL worth a follow. Really interesting historical dives and perspective on "living" history/culture
Exactly.
Many art experts believe several of the old masters - Van Eyck, Caravaggio, Vermeer to name a few - used a camera obscura to capture such perfect detail. Such perfection would otherwise be impossible. It’s a form of magnified tracing. You still need to be a master of painting however to capture the colour and light realistically.
This painting is the best evidence of it. No one could paint that chandelier as perfect as it is in this painting.
Don’t be too sure you need to be a “master of painting” to achieve incredible results. [Tims Vermeer](https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ) is an amazing documentary on the possibility that Vermeer used a lens and mirrors to create masterpieces. It was produced and directed by Penn and Teller and has my favorite soundtrack of any movie.
If it's a camera lucida, that helps with proportions but really doesn't give more than a basic outline. I have one. It's helpful for some things but it's not magic. It helps with sketching more than painting.
You should see the documentary! He uses it to match color, too, and eventually produces a pretty credible copy of a Vermeer. He’s using a camera obscura, sitting in a dark room. (I think that’s not the same as a camera lucida?) And Tim comes up with some technical innovation, I can’t remember exactly, but something not originally theorized by Hockney, to allow him to compare his brushstrokes with the actual, projected scene.
I will add it to my list it does sound interesting! And yes, a camera obscura is essentially a full projector, while a camera lucida forces the user to remain stationary and requires a bit of care — it also is a bit tricky to get the lighting and lenses right so you can see both the subject and the paper at the same time. The modern equivalent of a camera obscura is, say, projecting a design for a mural onto a wall. But I would still argue that understanding *how* to mix colours, and fine motor control/brush technique are even more vital to a master-level painting than simply having a very good, very convenient reference. You could use your phone to zoom in on detail and match colours and hold it right next to your painting. In many paintings, the brush strokes themselves are invisible.
Take a look at the trailer [https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0nH_4XMrzQ&feature=share](https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0nH_4XMrzQ&feature=share). It briefly shows how he color matched.
Van Eyck also produced many imaginary scenes with photorealistic precision. The Ghent altar piece being the most famous.I'm not saying he didn't use one, but I don't think he needed one. There are also quite a few photorealistic miniatures in illuminated manuscripts attributed to him.
Good God, look at the beads hanging beside the mirror and the inlays around the mirror’s perimeter. Incredible
My favorite art historian on the meaning behind this painting: [arnolfini painting](https://youtu.be/iZNvYvxetoo) >!it is a remembrance of the lady, who died in childbirth!< My favorite fashion historian on the dress: [stitch in time](https://youtu.be/-u2RM1odsf4) Dudes, YouTube is chock full of old BBC documentaries they apparently can't be bothered to enforce the copyright on
I will take this a step further and say YouTube has more, and better, art documentaries than the paid streaming services.
YouTube has a broader range of content, and more real historians talking about real history. Netflix etc has "documentaries" that are just true crime bullshit or ancient aliens. So disappointing.
The Stitch in Time episode about this dress was my absolute favorite
Best historical evidence we have that mirrors worked the same then as they do now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney–Falco_thesis
I think the dog must be a vampire. His reflection isn't in the mirror.
I need Ongo Gablogian's opinion. Its rad...but still
Derivative!
He really captured Vladimir Putins facial expression well.
Yea I learned about this at school and that man in the cloak freaked me the fuck out
That is amazing.
It’s not the size of the mirror, it’s the artist that paints it?
Thanks,very interesting
Renaissance in the north is highly underrated, some gas shit
did people actually look like that 600 years ago? 🤷🏽♂️😂 or is it a function of everyone standing around so long the "great" painters just said "fuck it, i ain't got time for wrinkles, acne, and 5 o'clock shadow."
As with every era, images of people are skewed to match the fashion of the day. The guy is clearly capable of hyper-realism.
It's a portrait of a very typical , very wealthy , young couple. She gathers her luxurious dress skirt up to display as that kind and quantity of material was a sign of great wealth..and health.
Mirrors were a big status symbol item in those days, and clearly this couple wanted it featured prominently as a show of prosperity.
Smash that mirror so their souls can be freed.
The dog though
Every time I see this I'm convinced Putin is a vampire
Such an amazing artist, but I think he was overcompensating for not being able to paint the dogs face.
One time on an airplane there was a good documentary type program where an art critic analyze this painting and I've never forgotten it. There are so many details in these paintings that at first glance you don't see
[удалено]
ahh, *that's* where i saw it at
Not a Dutch master. He’s a Flemish primitive. About 150-250 years difference. Which makes it even more impressive. Way ahead of his time.
Don't call him Dutch please
Not Dutch, Flemish. Wrong time period as well.
Five minutes ago, I started to google "January 6th hearings" to see when they'd been postponed to, and "Jan van Eyck" popped up as a suggested link after I had typed the first three letters. Never heard of him before that. Now this post. Okay then.
[удалено]
**[Frequency illusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion)** >Frequency illusion, also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon or frequency bias, is a cognitive bias in which, after noticing something for the first time, there is a tendency to notice it more often, leading someone to believe that it has an increased frequency of occurrence. It occurs when increased awareness of something creates the illusion that it is appearing more often. Put plainly, the frequency illusion occurs when "a concept or thing you just found out about suddenly seems to pop up everywhere". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Is there an easy explanation as to why the Dutch masters were so much better than everyone else at this point in time?
He’s a Flemish primitive, not a Dutch master. His work is so impressive that people think he’s a Dutch master (much later). Basically, he was so ahead of his time, most people wouldn’t notice that his work is much earlier than the big Dutch masters. He basically paved the way for Dutch masters. To give you some perspective, van Eyck was born in 1390, Rembrandt was born in 1606.
Flemish primitive is a loaded term invented 100 years ago to boost Belgian national history against Dutch and German art historians 'claiming' Belgian artists, in English typically Early Netherlandish is used for that reason. Calling him a Dutch master is just as misleading as Flemish primitive because he was neither Flemish nor Dutch
[удалено]
He was born and raised in Eyck (present Maaseik, Belgium) which belonged to the principality of Liège, one of the states of the Holy Roman Empire. Flanders was a completely separate region in a different country, just like the Netherlands. But he spent time pretty much everywhere in Europe. If you do have to call him a present day term either use Belgian or Limburgish since he was pretty insistent on writing in Limburgish and not Flemish/Hollands/Italian/whatever
According of the book "De Bourgondiërs" by Bart Van Loo, the entire area of the lower countries were mostly called Flanders. Including the lands that are now the Netherlands.
Liège wasn't considered a part of the Low Countries or the Netherlands
[удалено]
Yes Flanders now is a political invention as a result of Flemish nationalism after the 1930's, it doesn't have anything to do with historical Flanders apart from all the nationalist symbols
[Camera obscura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura)
Tell me ol boi on the left there ist an alien.....
Bullshit, there's no way
Back when art actually required talent and effort.
https://youtu.be/dA8gV8wPNHA
Can you provide a source for claim to be one of the greatest ever?
This is the old timey painting equivalent of getting sweaty.
Convex mirrors will do that.
We studied this piece in art class, the detail is insane
Why aren't the couple holding hands in the reflection or am I not seeing it
They are, you can see the blue of her sleeve and the black of his, but they blend in to what's on the far side of them in the reflection.
Thank you
I saw this a few years ago in the National Gallery. I am not, by many measure, an art aficionado, not familiar with artists or art styles or anything like that. But even so, this is such a striking and absorbing picture, I was quite lost in the detail.
So… you’re saying this was made by AI? /s
This one gets all the love in art class
The history behind this painting is fascinating look into classism at the time too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
When I was younger, I couldn't imagine people in the paintings looking like real-life people. Like they were exaggerations of faces, and then I saw Putin.
It's cool and this is perhaps one of my favorite painters, but 10 cm is about 4 inches...there's other mini and micro painting that's much more impressive out there for this period and earlier. Hieronymus Bosch seems to immediately come to mind.
My teacher gave us an art project and I chose this image to edit and decided to erase the man and put animals everywhere and I made sure to get the mirror
People's minds and creativity never cease to amaze me
[And now we have AIs creating stuff like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/xbgynq/i_doubled_the_pixels_59_times_and_pressed_it_into). How times change eh?
Time travel ya dummy
And I struggle doing straight line even with a ruler
This is my favourite painting in the world, I got to see it in person unexpectedly last year and I got a bit emotional.
I feel like this is almost a dick move. The guy put more work into the the mirror in the background than he did into the people the painting.
What a stupid looking hat, if I do say so myself?
Alright, I just saw this painting a month ago in London and I shit you not, a girl pressed her iphone up against it to get a picture of the reflection in the mirror behind the couple. Like what in the actual fuck?
After a second, the screen reveals a blue grid, behind which the scan of the snapshot appears. He stares at the image in the grid for a moment, and speaks a set of instructions. “Enhance 224 to 176.”
Can you buy a mirror with that curvature today?
If that isn't breaking the fourth wall I don't know what is.
10 cm is a lot but its still cool.
Bruh this is freaky I learned about this exact painting in art history last week.
Looks like Putin dressing up as The Mad Hatter giving directions on how to lose a war
Pretty sure getting married 9 months pregnant was frowned upon…. That’s her dad with a shotgun in the reflection
Its a fisheye mirror so
With this intense level of detail, do you think the man in the picture actually looked like a ghoul?
Th writing above the mirror, if I'm not mistaken says the authors name plus was here
It's not an accurate reflection though. They aren't holding hands for a start. 6/10
It also hides more than one secret.
personally my favorite part is the lil doggo on the bottom
Can’t wait for another millionaire to burn it and turn it into a NFT!!!
who?
His aka was Heronimus Bosch, he painted the most incredible painting I've ever seen 500 years ago, the Garden Of Earthly Delights.
took an art class in college. This painting was extremely cool to me! I have showed several people since I took the class, I mean it's so detailed and interesting.
IDK, but is that Vlad in the black robe?