May be so!But the.n thee image had to have been there!So are you telling me thae the milkmaid was there outside the black box In any case Vermeer has a beautiful perspective!

@@poonambhatia8867 Yes, he did use models, and the bulk of his works show the same window along with objects appearing in more than one painting. A man called Tim Severin reproduced “Girl With a Pearl Earring” using this technique.🖤🇨🇦

the device he used is called a 'camera obscura'.

"The Geographer" is mine.

"The little street" makes me nostalgic and I don't have the slightest clue why that is.. maybe it's the two little children (possibly vermeer's) playing or the maid in the left performing chores.. or maybe it's the woman sitting solemnly. I just feel as though I had looked across the street and saw this exact painting playing out.

He is among the best but Caravaggio is the best he influenced most 17th century painters

I like them all. I never realized how good he was until I visited the Met Mus of Art. Close up viewing the carpet intricacies in The Maid Asleep. What talent!

The book 'I Was Vermeer' is about Van Meegeren and it is excellent.

Vermeer is my favorite painter. The Dutch Masters are superior to the Italian Renaissance Artists in my opinion.

@@dewayneweaver5782 - van der Meer is wonderful for sure. My very best favorite is Valasquez's "Juan de Pareja" (I am a push-over for portraiture). I have been fortunate enough to see the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Vermeers and Velasquezs. They also have Rembrandt along MANY others.

Pauline…the experts can’t see past their stuck up noses! They love hearing their own voices. You know, there are many Rembrandts which were painted by his students, and this was discovered by some critic/s…so some know their craft. A painting by a student is worth 1/10 of a true Rembrandt (this was discussed upon finding the students’ pieces.

I don't think a forger which was an addict could have integrity or honesty, he had talent though

That's an interesting take given Van Meegeren was more than willing to sell to Nazi collectors for his own profit during WW2.... and the only reason he came clean about his rampant fraud was because it was less of a crime than being charged as a Nazi collaborator. Make no mistake - he was a criminal, he profited from dealings with war criminals. He defrauded the art world, and was happy to crap on Vermeer's artistic legacy to enact his egotistical revenge on the people in the art community that he felt had slighted him. Integrity & honesty were not traits Van Meegeren possessed.

@@medea27 Luckily we don’t require integrity nor honesty in artists. Otherwise we’d be in considerably different circumstances with our great works throughout history. If we required them to be rapscallions and whoooremongers -we’d get a great percentage!

For real.

There is... "A Real Vermeer" (2016, non-english) and also "The Last Vermeer" (2019, english) Also check out "Tim's Vermeer" which goes into the way Vermeer likely painted, by use of a camera obscura.

@@Ddub1083 Vermeer didn't need to use a camera obscura.

@@demi3115 how on earth would you know? Vermeer wasnt even a known artist until like 200 years after his death. There is VERY little at all known about his life while he was painting so there isnt any contradictory evidence of how his art was made. And the evidence from the paintings themselves shows quite clearly (in my opinion) that a camera obscura was used... notably the lensing artifacts present in his paintings which presumably would not have been there if he painted without a lens.

Which is exactly why this story is so interesting - especially considering the historical context.

I think van meegran was tryin to exploit a hole in vermeers career. He didn't have any "early" works kind of showing his progression as an artist. So van meegran capitalized on this and made paintings that were supposed to represent this time of his career (and would also explain his paintings lower skill).

@@jeffarmfield2346 Yep. After the hole in his career, Vermeer didn’t paint religious subjects. ‘The Forger’s Spell’ by Edward Dolnick is an excellent book about van Meegeren. The most interesting part of the story is how so many people were duped. Even in the little images in Dolnick’s book it’s very obvious that they were fakes. It’s a truly fascinating story of believing what we want to believe.

I don't know how the experts were blinded by van Meergeren's work.... his paintings are AWFUL....

@@alisonvanschoor730 van Meegeren !!!!!! Miss EXPERT 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Because this was the 30s and 40s. Vermeer's work in now ubiquitous - we all know it. Back then, he didn't command the world wide fame he does now. Yes, he was known, but not in the way his work is known today - by everyone! After the war, with so many paintings and owners separated, it was far easier to dupe so-called experts (who also didn't have access to the technological expertise we have today...) You viewed the fake through the lens of both time and knowledge and other people's expertise. So yes, to us now, it doesn't look like a Vermeer, back then no one knew just how few of his painting survived...

vM showed skill in choosing the subjects experts expected to find in early (missing) work by Vermeer. That was probably what had the largest influence. But agree it is hard to understand why anyone looking objectively would think they were by Vermeer

Fully agree !The original Vermeer"s paintings are more diffuse more subtle !The outlines are almost SUFMATO!The shadows on tje neck of The Guitar Player are so soft ! How could anyone ,leave alone an art critic be fooled!Maybe a judge or a prosecuter could be taken in ! In a lot of Vermeer's paintings,the model does not look directly at the artist!They are all looking elsewhere absorbed in the milk poured into the thick pan(the dutch oven) or reading a letter or writing one!The "Girl with the Pearl Earring "is an exception! Vermeergan's forgeries lack this diffuse effect !

Well it was more how few true vermeers were known at the time. Van Meegeren's forgeries were never of "known" pieces of art... he found references to pieces of art that were either lost or unavailable, and then he painted a picture that would match the description. Since this would be the only art piece that would match the description, people bought it because they did not have the actual vermeer work to compare it to. It wasnt until later when the original pieces were found that the forgeries really were seen as such.

how does that feel, having 2 braincells?

Lol. Yes, because there are no other safety measures in use other than supposts. In what age do you live 😂

maybe the question it begs is not whether its real but rather whether you are in fact truly aware of the security...

If the painting touched you, and transported you by its beauty…does it really matter if it was painted by Vermeer, or not?🖤🇨🇦

I would feel grateful that I was in a very secured room and that I had the privilege of being alone with a masterpiece, because the security is so supportive that I don't even feel it.

Yes, Sid. Big bucks take the beauty from us. Even the view of the ocean.

@@clairestaffieri4398 - If it weren't for those wealthy private collectors in Delft that paid Vermeer commissions, there would be NO paintings. It takes people willing to pay artists in order for artists to be able to paint and eat.

@Ddub1083 - The film "Girl with a Pearl Erring" was highly fictionalized. Do not take it as fact with its camera obscura.

@@MossyMozart that part isnt fictionalized. you can tell by the various lens artifacts in Vermeer's paintings that he used a camera obscura.

He certainly did, better than your spelling of his name. 🎨😎Hi from Australia.

@@justinthyme5382 Good Day, Mate. For the sake of your surname, were you to fasten sprigs to your belt, then would it be a waist of thyme.

@@trukeesey8715 very true keesey. You said it just in time.

@@justinthyme5382 LA laughter abounds.

@@trukeesey8715 Thunder from down Under. 😷🤪

very few people had seen vermeers at that time.... so its quite easy to not know.

Much of it is a money laundering scheme. Just look at Hunter Biden’s artistic shenanigans.

VERY WELL SPOKEN . SAD BUT TRUE . 🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑

It's snobbish. But did you think of painting it all white? No. And if you'd do it now, you'd be a copiest.

They are distinguishable. You can see it yourself. They are less refined and looks off. Then, you may ask. If it is so distinguishable, then why made the mistake of calling them Vermeers? There are two main reasons. One, the people at those times are just so desperate for more Vermeers. It is this desire made them psychologically vulnerable. And two, an artist does undergo a time when they aren't that good at their craft yet. It is these where the fakes is able to fall into. These forgeries are labeled as early Vermeers. Especially the religious ones. There are rumors going around that Vermeer painted many religious works in earlier in his career. Mistaken attribution as a sign of lack of originality is just a non sequitur. Seriously, his works are mistaken for works of other great masters. Just think of that for a moment. And also, there is more than just originality when it comes to artworks. And as for the value of his forgeries. Of course his would be less valuable. For one, they are really new, merely a few years, and thus lacks historical value. They are also just unoriginal. They are forgeries after all. He just mainly imitating old masters and never really achieve the high skills of the old masters, Vermeer in the case of his forgeries. And last, he scammed people. Imagine if you are fooled into losing thousand of dollars for buying an antique only to find it was actually just an imitation, how would you act? Would you actually value the imitation highly as if it was an actual priceless antique?

@Syd McCreath Indeed. His comment sounded "off". :)

@@veropsagel8374 Are you sure they're the ones who were psychologically vulnerable? Experts say it's Vermeer, the public goes, "Wow, true masterpieces, just look at that depiction of light and how the subjects are caught in the moment." The experts scratch their heads and say it's not actually Vermeer, the public goes, "We knew it all along! It's clearly inferior, you can see it yourself." Doesn't that kind of judgement seem questionable to you? [Mistaken attribution meaning lacking in originality is just a non sequitur.]

@Syd McCreath This is youtube comment, dude. You want me to write an essay here? And then you will still mock me for that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

@@mikeyoung9810 Oh. Poisoning the well. You resort to fallacies instead of making proper discussion. What do you expect? That is internet for you.

It clearly matters to those who pay millions

@@randybackgammon890 People pay millions because someone told them it makes a difference.

Believe it or not there are other people making art documentaries...

@@rockets4kids ...believe it or not those "other documentaries" SUCK!!!!! More people agree with me than you. You KNOW "Waldemere" is the BEST! (I think I misspelled his name)

@@BrandonClark-StocksPassports Here's a radical suggestion for you: If you don't like this one then go find something else to watch.

@@rockets4kids what does your answer even do with the question. The guy likes Waldemar. Why come here just to be a prick. I’m sorry for anyone who has to be around you in real life.

@@Will-ge7ri You seem to have missed the point that @Brandion Clark was the one who came here complaining about this show. I like Waldemar too, but there is only so much content one person can make. If you've already watched everything that Waldemar has made and you can't bare to watch anything else then I suggest you turn off your device and go outside.

He was told his Vermeer was a fake shortly before his death and it was said that he finally accepted there was evil in the world.

@@heraldeventsandfilms5970 So the theif got cheated !Ha ha !

what's his most famous one, then? :)

@@demi3115 The painting is not THE Girl with a Pearl Earring but rather Girl with a Pearl Earring and it is doubtless his most well known and instantly recognizable. The point I was trying to make was that the portrait is incorrectly titled which made me skeptical of the entire documentary. ;)