| FALSE THEORY THAT REMBRANDT USED MIRRORS REMBRANDT'S SELF PORTRAITS WERE NOT PROJECTED BY MIRRORS, THEREFORE, NOT TRACED. On September 7, 2016, I conducted practical testing of Francis O'Neill's theory in my art studio. Please see the photos and text below, as part of this investigative essay. After several hours of testing over two days, my tests failed to produce his claims. Francis O'Neill's theory is not workable, and false. His theory has two parts. Because part one is false, it automatically invalidates part two. O'Neill's theory claims Rembrandt POSSIBLY and PROBABLY used mirrors to project his image and then traced his face in creating his self portraits. THE CLAIM IS ACADEMICALLY DISTURBING BECAUSE as of September 7, 2016, O'Neill has never once painted his own self portrait with his theory to prove it works. Additionally, It is deplorable that a journal would approve a “THEORY” without it first being proven. O'Neill should have conducted his own tests in his studio as I did. This would given him the opportunity to PROVE his theory is WORKABLE. He should photograph or film the procedure with full transparency and post it for individual evaluation by artists. If he cannot demonstrate that his mirror theory is workable, he should withdraw his published paper, and apologize to the public. It is possible that Mr. O'Neill may never make that test - In a letter to me, he said it is a low priority. I fear that if his actual test fails- he will remain silent and the public may never hear about it. This motivated me to conduct my own investigation into his theory. My reason for investigation is to find out for myself whether or not O'Neill's theory is workable. O'Neill's theory has a second component. The "evidence" he has presented is subjective, selective, incomplete, with biased opinions, and more. The theory is dated July 2016 co-authored by Mr. Francis O'Neill (artist) and Sofia Palazzo- Corner ( physicist) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| REMBRANDT'S LARGEST SELF-PORTRAIT Universally held to be authentic Signed and dated 1658 [ Rembrandt age 52] Collection of the Frick Museum, NYC, USA SIZE: Two sources: One from 1999, says 51.6 inches tall X 40.2 Inches wide [ 131 X 102 Centimeters] The other from 1982, says 52.6 Inches tall X 40.5 Inches wide [ 133.7 X 103.8 Centimeters] |
| My investigation includes examples of Rembrandt's work, examples of my work as a professional artist, diagrams and photographs, historical references and testing of optical equipment. I HAVE SENT ALMOST ALL OF THIS INFORMATION TO O'NEILL. O'Neill's full text of his paper can be located on Google, or contact him on Facebook. |
| The first aspect of my investigation will be to test the practical steps Rembrandt would have encountered - IF- O'NEILL'S mirror arrangement was used in painting Rembrandt's largest self-portrait shown here. Rembrandts head in this painting is "life sized", calculated to be 9 Inches high as is the actual size of a mature human head. [ 22.86 cm]. O'Neil has claimed these "life sized" faces, in Rembrandt's late self portraits as "evidence", "suggesting" the use of projections that Rembrandt then traced. Please note that Rembrandt's eyes are NOT looking straight ahead, but are glancing off to his side. The fact that in SOME--not all- Rembrandt self portraiots, the eyes look off to one side, is claimed by O'Neill, to be more evidence "suggesting" that Rembrandt was tracing the projected image that was located to his side. I DISAGREE. I will argue against both ' claims'- the head size and the eyes - in due course. |
| IF Rembrandt did use O'Neill's theory and mirrors, this is the position the PROJECTION would look like AS REMBRANDT TRACED THE IMAGE. IT WOULD BE UPSIDE DOWN O'Neill's theory requires Rembrandt to use a CONCAVE MIRROR used in conjunction with a FLAT MIRROR. According to O'Neill's theory, The Concave mirror projects the image of Rembrandt's face... onto the flat mirror- ...the flat mirror then relays the projection onto the canvas. IMPORTANT : The projected image and the final painting are both MIRROR REVERSED. This means that the lighted part of Rembrandt's face appears to be his RIGHT side, but in reality, it is his LEFT SIDE. I calculated that the top of Rembrandt's head begins at about 9 inches from the top of the canvas. [ 22.86 cm]. |
| PHOTOS SHOW SCALE The buff colored board is the exact size of Rembrandt's painting. The tape measure hangs alongside it. The area of Rembrandt's life sized head is shown, as is the position from the top of the canvas to the top of his head. MIRROR REVERSED IMAGE The finished painting is a mirror reversed image of reality. In one photo, my eyes are looking towards my right shoulder ... because the canvas was placed next to my right shoulder. as IF I were painting on the canvas. Rembrandt's eyes in the FRICK painting are IN ACTUALITY, looking to his LEFT shoulder - but in the mirror reversed painting, they falsely appear to be looking at his right shoulder KEEP THIS IN MIND: Rembrandt's eyes always look towards the light. IF we use O'Neill's mirror arrangement, this means Rembrandt placed the large canvas next to his LEFT shoulder- NOT next to his right shoulder as my photo shows. |
| THE NEXT TWO PHOTOS COMPARE PLACEMENT OF THE CANVAS Rembrandt could easily change the position of the canvas to be on his right side or on his left side. The only requirement for the FRICK painting is that the light illuminate the left side of Rembrandt's face. Rembrandt was right handed. IF the canvas was placed on his left side, his right arm would have to cross over his body to trace the image. This means his face must be closer to the canvas. IF the canvas was placed on his right side, his arm had more room to extend. My extended right arm is about 26 inches [ 66 centimeters]. Shortly, I will discuss the OPTICS LAW that O'Neill cites is needed in order to project a LIFE SIZED image of a head that is 9" tall. |
| DETAILS OF THE EYES, IN 22 OF REMBRANDT'S SELF PORTRAITS. PHOTOS BELOW I will research more of Rembrandts PAINTED eyes, and will add them here , in time. Some sources say there might be 33 authentic PAINTED Rembrandt self-portraits ( list does not include etchings or drawings) . For the moment- study the eyes. Are they looking off to one side? To the other side? or are they looking straight ahead ? Or all three?.Does it matter? O'Neill claims that because Rembrandt's eyes look "LATERALLY" ( off to one side) this suggests Rembrandt used projections to trace. O'Neill allows himself some ' wiggle out" room by claiming that for unknown reasons, when we see eyes looking straight ahead, Rembrandt MIGHT HAVE "corrected" the position of the glance of his eyes. O'Neill claims this does NOT disprove his claimed " evidence" ...that side looking eyes are "suggestive of Rembrandt using and tracing a projection of his face AND EYES. |
HOW MANY PAINTINGS OF SELF PORTRAITS DID REMBRANDT PAINT? Even after centuries of study, no one knows for sure. My investigation is only on Rembrandt's PAINTINGS.It is not including the study of Rembrandt's self portraits in etchings and drawings. The 1982 book by Christopher Wright has a list of the self portraits . Much research has been done since 1982. Paintings: He lists a total of 59 paintings. Of this list 23 he said are not considered authentic.This leaves approximately 36 that " might" be authentic. Etchings: 28. Unknown of any are contested . Drawings: 11. Unknown if any are contested. THE 1999 book, "Rembrandt by Himself" lists possibly 33 authentic self-portrait Paintings. |
| YOUTUBE VIDEO: PROJECTING AND TRACING WITH A CONCAVE MIRROR https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wY4G77-4Xn8 THIS VIDEO IS ON YOUTUBE. IT DEMONSTRATES THE DIFFICULTY OF TRACING A CONCAVE MIRROR PROJECTION This video shows how an original drawing by Jan Van Eyck was traced onto a separate piece of paper using a concave mirror. ( PLEASE NOTE: To show the steps, the author used clear acetate to show how it will be moved ). The tracing is done in a room that is completely dark. The original drawing is placed horizontally on a stand covered with a black cloth. Next to it is a thin wall-like barrier. In this barrier is a small square cut out, appearing like a small window. There is an electric spotlight above the original drawing, so that the light beam illuminates only the original drawing. On the other side of the wall-like barrier, the blank paper is placed in the dark on the floor. The moderator explains that for the traced drawing to be the same size as the original, it must be placed at a level below the original drawing. This side of the barrier is completely dark, but the small window in the barrier is important . The concave mirror is placed on the dark side of the barrier, at the exact angle so that it can reflect, and then project, the original drawing onto the blank paper on the floor. The moderator explains that the entire original drawing - which appears to be about 9x12 inches- cannot be projected at high resolution, all at once , onto the blank paper. He says that the circular shaped lighted projection by the concave mirror is only detailed at the central axis and for only a small area. The projected image loses definition and becomes fuzzy as the image size expands from the central axis. This required the artist to move the original drawing four different times, and to flip it one time, in order to see the entire projection in sharp focus. IMPORTANT NOTE: all projected images made by a concave mirror are projected upside down ( inverted) ...BUT, THEY ARE NOT MIRROR REVERSED. This means that a person's right ear will remain in the same place in both the original drawing and the traced drawing. IMPORTANT NOTE: If a concave mirror is used ( as in O'Neill's theory) to project an image first to a FLAT MIRROR, so that it will be relayed onto a canvas, THEN, the image on the canvas will be a mirror reversed image. The person's right ear will now be seen by the viewer, as appearing to be on the left side of the face. The video is 2:19 seconds long, and moves very fast. I played it at least five times, stopping it at sections, to fully understand how the artist made the tracing. |
| #2 FALSE CLAIM: Oneill has never once made actual studio tests to prove his theory is workable |
I have made it a point that the average height of a mature person's head, is about 9 inches tall. Please see the photo where the ruler is held alongside and next to my head I have also said that when a person looks into a FLAT MIRROR, at arms length, the reflection of the head is reduced to about half size. Please see the photo taken at arms length. |
| O'NEILL'S has never made a self-portrait to PROVE his theory works. This is deceitful. His published paper includes several LINE diagrams. One claims to be the one Rembrandt could have used to project a LIFE SIZED image of his head and face. 1:1 ratio. I redrew O'Neill's LINE drawing, I drew it from a birds eye view looking down. O'Neill said that all the items MUST be forward and in front of Rembrandt's body. O'Neill said that the surface of the FLAT MIRROR can hardly be seen by Rembrandt because of its angle. The angle of the flat mirror and the canvas are almost parallel to each other. The CONCAVE MIRROR is placed facing Rembrandts head and including the Flat mirror. O'Neill says the flat mirror relays Rembrandts head and face onto the canvas MY DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE DISTANCES ARE NOT RECORDED Only an actual test of the equipment IN PLACE would allow any artist- including O'Neill to record that data. This is why it is very important for O'Neill to demonstrate that his theory is workable. |
| THE LAW OF OPTICS PROJECTION WITH A CONCAVE MIRROR as stated by O'NEILL. O'Neill said that in order to project a LIFE SIZED head and face onto the canvas, specific measurements are required IN THE DIAGRAM ON THE LOWER PART is O'Neill's instructions as he told me. The distance from Rembrandt (A) to The concave mjirror (B) MUST BE EQUAL to the combined distances between B to C plus C to D That is to say: The distance from the concave mirror to the flat mirror added to the distance from the flat mirror to the canvas MUST BE EQUAL to the distance from Rembrandt to the concave mirror. |
| O'Neill argues that Rembrandt's LIFE SIZED HEAD and FACE seen in many of his late self-portraits, is ' suggestive" of Rembrandt using a projection to trace. MY PAINTINGS are proof that O'Neill's claim is false. The photo to the near right, is of my self portrait that I painted in 1959, when I was age 15. I painted it from looking into a flat mirror. I did not use a camera, nor a photo, nor a projector, nor did I trace, nor did I use a grid. No one had a computer nor an iPhone in 1959. I painted my self portrait because I loved to draw and paint, and it did not matter that my reflected image in the flat mirror was only about 4 inches tall. I made the 'enlargement' visually". THE SECOND PHOTO (far right) is my self portrait in 1962 at age 18. It was also painted from a flat mirror, under the same conditions as in 1959. Both of these photos were sent to O'Neill. |
| REMBRANDT WAS A CREATIVE GENIUS. TO EVEN THINK HE WOULD TRACE AND COPY IMAGES DEMONSTRATES GREAT IGNORANCE. O'Neill CLAIMS that Rembrandt's side looking eyes, are "suggestive" of Rembrandt using a projection to trace. To counter O'Neill's claim, I made a ten minute self-portrait pencil drawing from looking at myself in a flat mirror. I MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT to draw my head at exactly the same size as it was being reflected in the flat mirror. You can see I drew two horizontal lines , one on top of my head and the other at my chin. THEN, once finished, I erased my eyes and repositioned them ...NOT AS A CORRECTION... but as an act of CREATIVE FREEDOM. I made several changes to the eyes only, to demonstrate that a creative artist can create mood, or mystery, or to elicit some emotion from the viewer--SIMPLY BY HOW THE EYES ARE RENDERED. I sent all of these drawings to O'Neill. |
| IN O'NEILL'S PAPER he cites ONE and ONE ONLY of Van Gogh's paintings as an EXAMPLE of an artist who" may have" painted his self portrait from a FLAT MIRROR--and NOT from use of a projection. The large painting to the right is the one O'Neill cited VINCENT VAN GOGH committed suicide in1890 at age 37. He only painted for ten years.In his short life he painted about 35 self portraits. Most are reproduced here. O'NEILL's Van Gogh choice shows an OBVIOUS self portrait made from a flat mirror reflection. Van Gogh's "right" arm is holding the palette--falsely showing he was painting with his left hand. Van Gogh was right handed. This painting shows the MIRROR REVERSAL of reality. O'NEILL also claimed that Van Gogh's head is very small, claiming it "suggested" that because one's reflected head is about 1/2 size of a real head- again, it "suggested" that Van Gogh painted this from a flat mirror. O'NEILL also claimed that the FACT that the canvas is close to his head it is another reason to believe it was painted from a flat mirror FINALLY, O'Neill claims that Van Gogh's eyes are looking straight ahead- another reason he claims "suggests" that it was painted from a flat mirror. |
| .#6 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt could draw more accurately when he traced optical projections!!!!!!! |
| Study the EYES in the Van Gogh self portraits. Some are looking to the left, others to the right, and some are looking straight ahead! IN SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY, O'Neill offers a biased, selective, personal OPINON in order to continue supporting his unproven hypothetical theory. |
| O'Neill has said Rembrandt could draw well with or without use of projections.. BUT ADDS THIS CLAIM, that when Rembrandt DID use mirrors to project images for TRACING... he could draw better..and that he was : "THE BEST OF THE BEST". O'NEILL'S CLAIM is utterly and totally ridiculous. Later I will post a scholarly article by the renowned scholar Jakob Rosenberg, on WHY REMBRANDT drew with such freedom, abandon and with an ABBREVIATED method and sketchy style. The two 17th century paintings here were painted by Dutch artists, contemporaries of Rembrandt. UNDOUTEDLY they used LENSES...NOT CONCAVE MIRRORS.. to project the images in a VERY DARK room. This is the CAMARA OBSCURA that Vermeer also used to trace images. These were NOT CREATIVE ARTISTS like Rembrandt was. These artists were TRACERS without any imagination. They ran BUSINESSES, in "picture making". Their highly detailed photo realistic paintings are marvelous to see in the original. They hired many talented copyists, just like what today's CHINESE 'picture making factories" do. Rembrandt was a great CREATIVE ARTIST and technician. Rembrandt had no need to PROJECT AND TRACE. IF REMBRANDT had used mirrors and lenses...his paintings would look EXACTLY like these two. DULL, BORING, mechanical copies of nature. |
| O'NEILL SENT ME this drawing made by Rembrandt, ( on your lower left side) showing how Rembrandt would manipulate the LIGHT FROM THE UPPER WINDOW, by use of some curtains ( visible and attached to the ceiling). Yes, it is true that Rembtrandt was a master at controlling light to illuminate his subjects he would paint. HOWEVER, O'Neill made the claim that THE EASEL IS IN SHADOW! A concave mirror an only project an image ONTO A SHADED SURFACE IN SHADOW. This, O'Neill claimed it was "suggestive" that rembrandt was PROJECTING the image of the nude model onto his canvas in order to trace it. In the 20th century, Rembrandt's home in Amsterdam, was REFURBISHED and turned into a museum { Now called The Rembrandthuis) and this drawing was used as a guide on placement of Rembrandt's easel, chair for the model, and the curtains on the upper windows. Here below are photos of Rembrandt's actual studio as seen today. It shows the curtains for the windows, the easel, and the chair for the nude model. NOTICE HOW REMBRANDT'S EASEL IS FULLY ILLUMINATED. |
THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT REMBRANDT PAINTED ALL HIS SELF PORTRAITS BY LOOKING AT HIMSELF IN A FLAT MIRROR - NOT BY PROJECTING AND TRACING. XRAYS show how he AT FIRST...copied what he saw in the mirror...THEN, how he covered up his hands. Here are examples of artists who used a flat mirror, and NOT A PROJECTION, to paint self-portraits. They are from different eras. One is from 1646, Rembrandt's era by a Dutch artist-- Why didn't the Dutch artist use a PROJECTION, if that knowledge was so common? Notice how Daumier in 1848, uses the opportunity to BE CREATIVE, and to distort his face purposefully, as he INTERPRETS it for creative reasons. Norman Rockwell, America's primier ILLUSTRATOR of the 20th century admitted he used photographs in producing his work. The last one is an unknown artist I found on the web. He is using his brush to make measurements - a time honored and effective method to insure accuracy! |
| GARY SCHWARTZ is a world renowned Rembrandt scholar. He has expressed disapproval of O'Neill's theory in blunt words. Schwartz' book has reproduced all of Rembrandt's etchings ( not in all STATES) in ACTUAL SIZE. The "STATE" of an etching is nothing more than Rembrandt's 'STEPS" that he took to "COMPLETE TO HIS SATISFACTION" the etching. Rembrandt was a tireless experimentor. Some of his etching have several states. It is clear that rembrandt began an etching in a very rough sketchy manner. He would then rework it until it was just the way he wanted it to be. Keep in mind that the only way Rembrandt coulkd see the progress of an etching, was to ETCH IT IN ACID, then PRINT IT, then evaluate it to see if it needed more work. O'NEILL cites one small self portrait etching of Rembrandt ....." REMBRANDT WITH A SURPRISED LOOK ON HIS FACE".. O'NEILL, claims that to HOLD THAT POSE...is suggestive that Rembrandt used a projection that he traced! ( read O'Neill's actual statement in his paper- that will in time be added to this essay). O"NEILL'S problem in evaluatiing facts is that he is LOWERING REMBRANDTS EXTRAORDINARY GENIUS LEVEL ABILITY , to match O'Neill's common artistic ability. Extraordinary persons like Rembrandt can do extraordinary things. One would ask "Why could Mozart compose as he did, while others could not? Why was Mohammed Ali's boxing ability a superior one? Why is Michael Jordon ability so superior ..and Michael Phelps also?? I made a five minute pencil drawing of my face that was reflected in a large flat mirror, placed at the end of my be (see photo). ITS NOT as great as a Rembrandt, but it shows how easy it is to HOLD A POSE and that no projection mirrors are needed. Soon, I will post a picture of Rembrandts huge painting THE ABDUCTION OF GANYMEDE, that will prove O'Neill's " HOLDING OF THE POSE" difficulty claims are false. |
| IN A LETTER, O'NEILL said he recognized Rembrandt's great drawing ability, but claimed... that Rembrandt could draw better WHEN HE USED A PROJECTION DEVICE. ..ONEILLS statement displays his ignorance of Rembrandt's STYLE of drawing. See my post below written by a highly respected Rembrandt scholar Jakob Rosenberg describing the great beauty of Rembrandt's drawings. I will repeat: I AM NO MATCH FOR REMBRANDT. Not in painting and not in drawing. I am a professional artist and I have painted since age 13 in 1957. The next two photos show that any competent professional artist can simply DREAM UP any object, and can create a drawing of it. IN THESE PHOTOS, I drew the mother and child from pure imagination. I USED NO MODELS for this original drawing I made in 1978. |
| SEPTEMBER 8,2016 THE ONLY photo that I have seen of ONEILL demonstrating the use of a CONCAVE MIRROR is the one on his Facebook page. The same photo is also seen on the Research paper. It is a confusing photo and most deceiving, regarding his theory. This deception is possibly without intent. In order to analyze his DEMONSTRATION photo I got rid of that ANGLE, and made it level. On September 20, 2016, O'Neill wrote to me with updated information that he HOPES will explain and clarify the set-up of this photo. |
| The photo shows me lying in bed. my face in the distant mirror is very small in size, like my fingernail. |
ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2016, I CONDUCTED ACTUAL STUDIO TESTS OF O'NEILL'S MIRROR ARRANGEMENT THEORY , TO DETERMINE IF IT WOULD BE WORKABLE BY ANY COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL ARTIST. AT NO TIME WAS I ABLE TO PROJECT AN IMAGE OF THE MODEL ONTO THE CANVAS BY USING O'NEILL'S THEORY.... REGARDLESS OF WHAT VARIATIONS OR CHANGES I MADE IN POSITIONING OF THE MIRRORS, THE CANVAS, THE PLASTIC FIGURE, OR THE LIGHTING. Having said that, I will say that I am not infallible. Perhaps there is something I do not know or did not try. I am a careful research tester, I do not take things lightly. I made a sincere effort in testing O'Neill's theory , without bias or prejudice. I began my tests In the afternoon of September 7, 2016, when the large concave mirror I had ordered arrived in the mail. It has a 5 and 1/4 inch diameter [ 13.5 centimeter] and has a FOCAL LENGTH of 100 centimeters [ approx. 39 inches]. O'Neill has claimed that he used a 3 inch diameter concave mirror that had a focal length of 100 centimeters. I USED A CONCAVE MIRROR WITH THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS. He said with that equipment he was able to PROJECT A LIFE SIZED IMAGE. However, he did not photograph that sample . Also, there is no indication he had placed a ruler next to it to determine its exact size. In a letter, he said to me that it would not have photographed well. IN MY TESTS, I was unable to project an image, either small or life sized , onto a canvas by following his instructions. THE MOST DISCONCERTING aspect of O'Neill's claim, is that HE DID NOT CLARIFY THAT HE HAD USED HIS MIRROR ARRANGEMENT .....THAT REQUIRED THE USE OF THE CONCAVE MIRROR TOGETHER WITH THE FLAT MIRROR ...to make that projection. I was unable to project a life sized image onto the canvas ...when I tried to use the concave mirror TOGETHER with the flat mirror. It now appears to me that O'Neill, might have made a simle projection onto a wall, by use of the concave mirror, but without use of the flat mirror. A simple projection , in which a concave mirror is used solely, is easily made by anyone. O’neill has told me he has not yet made a practical studio demonstration of his theory ( as of August 20,2016). O’neill claims his theory is a " mathematical certainty" to work. After I spent several hours testing the theory in the afternoon, I waited until late night for a total dark studio, and I repeated the tests. Again, I had no success. During the daylight tests, I darkened the studio except for a high window that allowed natural day light to enter. Even after those tests failed, I used a high power electric light that Rembrandt obviously never had. In the nighttime tests, I used the high power electric light. In my tests I used the new concave mirror ....and I also used my older smaller concave mirrors that have a 3 inch diameter and focal lengths of about 12 inches ( 30 centimeters). None of them were able to project an image onto the canvas when the flat mirror was used as the relay. For my model, I used a life sized plastic head and bust to pose as Rembrandt . IN FAIRNESS, O'Neill should demonstrate on film, with complete transparency, TO SHOW IF HIS THEORY IS WORKABLE. PHOTOS OF MY TESTS WILL BE INCLUDED BELOW . FIRST, I will discuss other claims of conjecture ' evidence' by O'Neill. |
| The main problem O’neill will face if he attempted to duplicate this very large painting with his mirrors, is that even the very largest concave mirror would not project Rembrandt's full body onto the canvas in any detail The most that could be expected would be to project Rembrandt's face and head. However, only the small area of the circular shaped central axis of the projection would be in high resolution focus . The areas outside of the central axis would become faint, blurred and too indistinct for accurate tracing. O'Neill argues that ANY BLURRING SEEN in Rembrandt's paintings is CAUSED by this optics distortion. That rembrandt COPIED the blurring.That is pure rubbish! O’Neill may argue that Rembrandt would only project and trace the face and head, and then freehand paint the rest of the body from a mannequin dressed in the clothing. This would be similar to how today's Photoshop digital artist would transpose any head ... on a body. |
| O'NEILL ignores a basic freedom of CREATIVE ARTISTS of Rembrandts stature. A CREATIVE artist is in full control of every brushstroke and pencil line. FREEDOM of expression is the cornerstone foundation of GREAT ARTISTS LIKE REMBRANDT. ONLY tracers and copyists are inhibited from lack a of creative imagination. Perhaps O'Neill opinions are reflective of his own creative limitations. |
IMPORTANT NOTE: O'NEILL submitted his research for review in late 2015. It was published in early July 2016. OVER ONE YEAR LATER, HE STILL HAS NEVER MADE ONE TEST TO PROVE IT WORKS. |
| The drawing shows the setup in the video. The room is COMPLETELY DARK. The only light is the SPOTLIGHT illuminating the drawing. The concave mirror projects the image onto the paper on the floor. This TRACING required the paper to be moved 4 times because of the blurring outside the central axis. |
| #11 FALSE CLAIM: IT SHOULD BE REPEATED, That never once has Oneill made a painting to PROVE his theory is workable |
| Rembrandts very large painting : "The abduction of Ganymede" is in Dresden. An authentic work dated 1635 it is 177 cm X 129 cm [ 69 inches x 50 inches] Oneill claims that for Rembrandt to make the very small etching of himself "WITH SURPRIZED EYES", the difficulty of HOLDING THAT POSE, suggests that it was traced..therefor Rembrandt did NOT have to glance back and forth from the etching plate and the flat mirror. I CALCULATE [ roughly] that the child's head is about 3 inches [ 7.6 cm] tall in the painting. ALL INTELLIGENT ARTISTS AND SCHOLARS ...AND THAT OPTICS JOURNAL should ask Oneill: HOW DID REMBRANDT HAVE THE CHILD "HOLD THAT POSE"? They should also ask Oneill : Can a child be told or made to "HOLD THAT POSE"? And also ask Oneill: Can you trace that moving child with your theory of a mirror projection? Somehow I feel like saying: " I REST MY CASE! " |
| MY INVESTIGATION is limited to the self portrait PAINTINGS Rembrandt made. I do not include the study of Rembrandt's ETCHINGS nor his DRAWINGS in this investigation. There is no need for me to spend any extra time on the etchings and the drawings, because Oneill will make the very same claims as with the paintings. ONEILLS THEORY HAS TWO PARTS: PART ONE STATES: " That it is POSSIBLE that Rembrandt used projections in his self portraits". Those who read his full published paper will note that his theory includes a second part: PART TWO STATES: "That it is PROBABLE that Rembrandt used projections in his self portraits" SUFFICE TO SAY: I believe that the information I present her will prove that PART ONE of O'Neill's hypothetical mirror theory is false, because it is UNWORKABLE. By simple logic, when part one is false, then Part two is automatically false. FOLLOWING IS A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT about Rembrandt's drawings, made by the world renowned Rembrandt scholar of the 20th century, Mr. Jakob Rosenberg. I am proud to include his words here. It allows us to clearly evaluate O'Neill's very weak, unscholarly, biased, and personal subjective analysis of Rembrandt's EXTRAORDINARY drawing ability that has been recognized since his lifetime, to today. MY PHOTOS OF MY TESTS WILL FOLLOW |
| REMBRANDTS "SHORTHAND" DRAWING STYLE : BY THE EMINENT REMBRANDT SCHOLAR JAKOB ROSENBERG O'Neill claimed that WITHOUT the use of projections to TRACE, Rembrandt could not draw nature as accurately. This is one of the most misleading statements by O'Neill, and one that must be responded to. O'Neill's comments display his ignorance about how and why Rembrandt drew the way he did. O'Neill's overly zealous agenda to support his false theory, at all costs, is a warning to take his " evidence" with a large grain of salt. I offer a scholarly review that demonstrates the true greatness of Rembrandt's drawings, and why they are one of the most important art treasures in history. Please view the website for the complete text, and a delightful display of Rembrandt's drawings and etchings. http://www.artistdaily.com/blogs/learn-from-the-masters/masters-rembrandts-shorthand-drawing-style OBTAINED FROM THE INTERNET: Masters: Rembrandt’s Shorthand Drawing Style October 15, 2015by Artist Daily ARTICLE WRITTEN by Joseph C. Skrapits [ Rembrandt], The greatest of Dutch masters used a rapid, abbreviated technique in drawing to record visual impressions from the world around him and his own cornucopian imagination, foreshadowing developments in modern art more than two centuries later. SHORTHAND: In describing his mature drawing style, critics and historians have often resorted to the word “shorthand,” which suggests handwriting or calligraphy, in particular the system of abbreviated writing that enables stenographers to take dictation “in real time.” This, in fact, conveys fairly accurately the essence of Rembrandt’s approach to drawing— although he was, of course, recording visual impressions not sounds. JAKOB ROSENBERG: Many modern artists, from Matisse to Warhol, have developed shorthand techniques of drawing. With that in mind, it’s worth quoting Rembrandt scholar and art historian Jakob Rosenberg (1893–1980) on this surprisingly modern aspect of the master’s work: “Shorthand in itself is not an admirable quality unless it combines brevity with suggestiveness, unless the brevity is the result of sensitive selection, with an emphasis upon significant features and an appeal to the spectator’s imagination. Rembrandt’s shorthand meets this test; it often recalls the achievement of Far Eastern draftsmen, and it foreshadows 19th-century Impressionism. It also proves the point that artistic economy and power of expression are interdependent qualities.” OSCILLATION : The outstanding characteristic of Rembrandt’s line is what curator Andrew Robison of the National Gallery of Art calls “oscillation,” its instantaneous, delightful shift from the descriptive stroke that renders form to the abstract stroke that freely expresses its creator’s aesthetic sensibility (these strokes are often one and the same). As Daniel M. Mendelowitz remarked in his classic book, Drawing(Henry Holt & Company, New York, New York): “Perhaps no one has combined to as great a degree as Rembrandt a disciplined exposition of what his eye saw and a love of line as a beautiful thing in itself.” MATERIALS : During his 44-year working life, Rembrandt created more than 2,000 drawings, the majority in ink with pen and brush. Early on, however, he often drew in chalk, usually black but sometimes with red, and occasionally used a combination of black and red. DRAWING: Seated Old Man 1630, black chalk, 6? x 5¾. Collection National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Seated Old Man, initialed by Rembrandt and dated 1630, exhibited at the National Gallery of Art. This delicate modeling in the head contrasts strikingly with the rough, seemingly crude handling of the lines and shading in the cloak and the hands. After sketching the outlines lightly, Rembrandt quickly established the mass of the body by making a series of parallel shading marks, generally running diagonally from upper right to lower-left. ... This gives the halftones an airy, atmospheric quality and was used with brilliant purpose to convey the effect of reflected light in the shadow on the right side of the head. OPPOSITION TO THE RULES OF CLASSICAL ART: Most disturbing for those with a taste for the classical ideal was Rembrandt’s neglect of linear and plastic clarity. Joachim von Sandrart, who knew the master personally and was on the whole a sympathetic biographer, wrote that Rembrandt “did not hesitate to oppose and contradict our rules of art, such as anatomy and proportions of the human body, perspective and the usefulness of classical statues .....". |
| #16 FALSE CLAIM: My tests of Oneills theory determined it was not workable. It is time for Oneill to prove it works. |
| THE PHYSICAL PROBLEMS I OBSERVED WITH ONEILLS THEORY, IN MY TESTING 1. I used an equivalent concave mirror O' Neill used. I also tried others of different sizes. 2. I followed O'Neill's diagram instructions for projecting a LIFE SIZED HEAD onto a canvas. This describes the arrangement of the two mirrors , the canvas , and the subject 3. I moved these objects around to many different positions and distances in trying to make the theory project an image onto the canvas. I switched the positions of the mirror and the canvas. All efforts failed. 4. If the flat mirror faced the light, it would reflect that light and illuminate the canvas because O'Neill's theory requires both to be somewhat parallel to each other. If the canvas faced the light, even with some of it being shielded by the flat mirror, the light would lighten up the surface of the canvas. 5. To combat this double problem of undesirable illumination, I constructed a "box- like shield" to keep both the canvas and the flat mirror shaded from the light, while still keeping the subject highly illuminated. These efforts failed. 6. To further combat any light entering , I placed a cover near the highly lighted mannequin , to keep the canvas shielded from the light. All efforts failed. 7. I tried changing the color of the canvas--from white to light brown as Rembrandt sometimes used a mid brown colored canvas. This failed. |
| My studio with a high located window. The mannequin represents Rembrandt. The ruler has blue tape to show 26 inches. My arm extended is 26 inches. The canvas must be within arms reach to paint on it. The canvas is tilted so Rembrandt can see its surface to paint on. Very important to see that the canvas is in shadow because a projected image cannot be projected onto an illuminated surface. The canvas is on Rembrandt's left side ... as it would be for painting the very large Frick self-portrait. Rembrandts left side of his face is illuminated as it is for the Frick painting--which is a mirror reversal--falsely appearing that it is his right face that is in the light. |
| PROBLEM NUMBER ONE: When I placed the flat mirror in the correct position, it immediately illuminated the surface f the canvas. I repeat, a projected image cannot be seen if the surface is illuminated. |
| MYEFFORT TO SOLVE THE ILLUMINATION PROBLEM: I switched the placement of the mirror and the canvas...even though it is clear that to paint the Frick painting, the canvas must be on Rembrandt's left side. The mirror placed the canvas in shade. This also failed. |
| ANOTHER ATTEMPTED SOLUTION: I constructed a box-like cover to eliminate as much illumination as i could from both the mirror and the canvas--while still keeping Rembrandt's face in the light. IMAGINE how Rembrandt would have had to place his head in painting the large FRICK self portrait!! |
| MY TESTS DEMONSTRATED THAT O'NEILL'S THEORY IS FALSE BECAUSE IT IS NOT WORKABLE Although I tried several different distances, placements, etc with the Concave mirror -- (a concave mirror equal to O'Neill's concave mirror) - plus trying several other concave mirrors I have--I was unable to project an image of Rembrandt's face onto the canvas by following Oneills diagram very very closely. I POINT OUT THAT ONEILL HAS NEVER ONCE... TESTED HIS OWN THEORY IN THE STUDIO Oneill has not once demonstrated his theory in a studio setup ( as of my last letter from him in August 20, 2016) UPDATE: I received a letter from him a day ago. He said he is close to testing out and documenting his theory in the studio. Those of you who follow him on FACEBOOK, you must follow up on this..I do not subscribe to Facebook. |
| THIS TEXT IS COPIED EXACTLY AS STATED IN O'NEILLS PAPER..... THESE ARE O'NEILL'S EXACT WORDS. HE EXPLAINS WHEN TO USE EACH DIAGRAM Figure 1. Diagram of set up for a self-portrait projection using a single concave mirror. This method may have been used by old masters such as Durer, but not by Rembrandt. It would allow the projection of profile self-portraits. For all projections illustrated in this paper, the image on the projection surface is inverted. This abstraction may have been beneficial to the artist, where, by following the areas of light and dark, they were free to record the reality of the subject's face, without being misguided by any preconceptions. Figure 2. Two illustrations for smaller self-portrait projections. (left to right) (i) Arrangement for a projection of the face, such as in Self-portrait with wide open eyes3(iii). (ii) Set-up for a projection including more of the body, where the image is smaller, such as in Self-portrait leaning on a stone wall3(iv). In both, the artist is set back from the apparatus, enabling the projection surface to be shielded. Clear projections were achieved with concave mirrors of focal lengths ranging from 14 to 25 cm, and of diameter 5 to 17.5 cm, in conjunction with a circular flat mirror of diameter 7 cm or greater. For arrangement (ii), a flat mirror with a minimum diameter of 16.5 cm was used. Figure 3. Diagram of set up for life-size self-portrait projections. In this arrangement, the artist stands at 2× focal length of the concave mirror, which is equal to the sum of the distances between the concave mirror and flat mirror, and the flat mirror and projection surface. A clear, life-size projection was achieved using a 10 cm diameter mirror with focal length 100 cm. A concave mirror with a larger diameter would achieve a larger and more detailed projection. Mirrors of this size or greater are likely to have been available to Rembrandt. In all the described self-portrait systems, a lens placed over a circular flat mirror of the same diameter as that lens, may be used as an alternative to the use of a concave mirror. |
| THESE ARE ONEILLS DIAGRAMS ON HOW TO ARRANGE THE MIRRORS |
| FIGURE 1 |
| FIGURE 2 - has two variations |
| FIGURE 3. THIS IS THE DIAGRAM I USED IN MY TESTS TO TRY TO PRODUCE A LIFE SIZED PROJECTION OF A 9 INCH HEAD ...THE TEST FAILED |
| #13 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt made accurate self portraits when he TRACED the projection of his face, as in "HOLD THAT POSE". |
| GARY SCHWARTZ' book reporoduces all of Rembrandt's etchings in ACTUAL SIZE! I photographed some with my fingers to show actual sizes and scale. |
| THE CARTOON ABOVE SHOWS HOW ONEILL SAID HE TOOK THE PHOTO. Using his diagram FIG 2 (not to scale) PLEASE NOTE: It is projected onto a shiny copper plate- AND NOT ONTO A WHITE PAPER NOR ONTO A CANVAS WITH ANY COLORED GROUND . I tested this set-up on September 25th. I was able to project a small image of my face ... BUT ONLY ON A METALLIC SURFACE. My facial features were distorted and dissolved into blurriness. I was not able to project my face onto white paper, nor black, nor brown paper, nor onto canvas. This explains why ONEILL has Never even made a drawing on white paper of his own face, nor made a painting. |
| Mr. David DeWitt is the Senior Conservator and Senior Curator of the Rembrandthuis museum in Amsterdam, which was Rembrandt's home . In September 2016, I wrote Mr. DeWitt a letter about O'Neill's theory with a link to my website so he could read my investigative essay. His kind response denounced O'Neill's theory to the point saying it did not merit a rebuttal from scholars. I agree with Mr. DeWitt for many reasons. However, because O'Neill has never once painted his own self-portrait with his theory, this is reason enough to discount its validity. Because O’Neill has not proven his theory is workable, I believe scholars should ignore it. Because I am a professional artist and an independent researcher, I felt it was important for me NOT to ignore it, but to investigate it and inform the public of my findings. I tested O'Neill's theoretical arrangement of mirrors in my art studio and determined that his theory is not workable. |
| THE NEXT ENTRY DESCRIBES THE GREAT DIFFICULTY AN ARTIST FACES IN TRYING TO TRACE A PROJECTION BY A CONCAVE MIRROR. The biggest problem is the blurriness of the projected image, and lack of any high definition |
| #8 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt did not paint his self portraits from looking at himself in a flat mirror, as other less talented artists DID do. |
| #9 FALSE CLAIM: A POSE from a flat mirror required" EXTRAORDINARY PHYSICAL DISCIPLE"... and therefore he TRACED a projection. |
| #7 FALSE CLAIM: That a drawing of Rembrandts studio showed his easel was IN SHADOW- the exact condition needed--for tracing a projection |
| # 10 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt drew more accurately when he TRACED a projected image |
| #12 FALSE CLAIM: I conducted tests of Oneills theory and determined they were unworkable. It is time for him to prove it. |
| I TESTED O'NEILL'S MIRROR ARRANGEMENT IN MY ART STUDIO. THEY FAILED TO PRODUCE A PROJECTION. I have known Francis O'Neill ( via the Internet) for over 6 years when he acquired my books and DVDS. I made every effort TO TRY TO PROVE HIM RIGHT!!! I am disenchanted that I now am findiing his refusal to even making a simple line drawing as being DECEITFUL. |
| CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS AND ARTISTS CONCENTRATE ON THE EYES O'NEILL HAS MADE IT A POINT THAT BECAUSE SOME OF REMBRANDT'S SELF PORTRAITS SHOW THE EYES LOOKING " LATERALLY" ( off to one side), O'NEILL CLAIMS IT IS EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS REMBRANDT USED PROJECTIONS--AND THAT HE THEN---TRACED THE EYES EXACTLY AS HE SAW THEM IN THE PROJECTION. O'NEILL'S CLAIM IS LAUGHABLE! THE CLAIM IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS IT, THAT IS DESCRIBED HERE: "Great painters and great photographers demand FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and PERSONAL CREATIVE EXPRESSION. NO ARTIST, especially Rembrandt, would allow anyone to dictate how he should paint. It is clear that O’ Neill does not understand this basic principle of creative art making. Perhaps O’Neill was never learned it. Perhaps O’Neill knows it but has ignored it by his own overzealous desire to PROVE his theory at all costs. In either case, O’Neill’s argument claims have demonstrated a lack of understanding of Rembrandt's extraordinary artistic mind and capabilities in a futile attempt to reduce this extraordinary genius to the level of mediocre artistic talents. I POST HERE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PABLO PICASSO'S EYES. WE NOTE THAT A CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHER AND A CREATIVE PAINTER PORTRAY THE EYES OF THE SUBJECT WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION FOR PARTICULAR REASONS. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, RULE, MANDATE , OBLIGATION NOR REASON TO PORTRAY THE EYES AS IF ONE WERE TO SAY, " LOOK STRAIGHT AT THE CAMERA" ! EVERY CREATIVE PAINTER AND PHOTOGRAPHER....when portraying a self-portrait … or a portrait of another person ... will CREATIVELY MANIPULATE all aspects of visual reality: The overall lighting, the coloring, the degree of dark to light values, the concentration on or off of specific details , the body positioning, the environment, the associated visual elements ....AND EVERYTHING THAT ADDS MEANING. Along with this, they INTERPRET or IMBUE the subject being portrayed with EITHER truthful observable characteristics....or false characteristics..... of their character. The women are made more beautiful, given longer necks, wrinkles are removed....men are portrayed as heroic or gallant ….when they may not be. I REPEAT: O’Neill has demonstrated a lack of understanding of Rembrandt's extraordinary artistic mind and capabilities in a futile attempt to reduce this extraordinary genius to the level of a mediocre artistic talent." |
| ONE OF ONEILLS WEAKEST ARGUMENTS, OFFERED AS SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY, IS THIS: ONEILL argues that when we see BLURRY STROKES and FADING AWAY OF DETAILS..in Rembrandts self portraits ( CALLED VIGNETTING) , IT IS BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PROJECTED IMAGE IS NOT FULLY IN HIGHER RESOLUTION..and REMBRANT IS COPYING THAT BLURR.! We know that projections with a concave mirror have a HIGHER RESOLUTION ..ONLY...in the smaller circular propjection area called the CENTRAL AXIS. The rest of the image gets more blurry as it recedes from the central axis. ONEILL TRIES TO ASSOCIATE VERMEERS OPTICAL EXPERIMENTS WITH REMBRANDTS WORK. IT IS A RIDICULOUS FAR FETCHED EFFORT. Rembrandt's paintings and goals differ greatly from Vermeers paintings which were mostly still-life interiors. THE EMINENT REMBRANDT SCHOLAR , ERNST VAN DE WETERING recently published his latest book. Ernst cites the similarity of the FLUID, ROBUST, SKETCHINESS, BLURRY, FUZZINESS of Rembrandts paint brushstrokes and those of Titian's in their late paintings. Titian lived to be almost 90-100years of age ( depending on what source you read). AGAIN, O'NEILL demonstrates his zealousness to TRY TO ARGUE a false theory! |
ARE REMBRANDTS EYES LOOKING STRAIGHT AT YOU? |
| #1 FALSE CLAIM: That because some of Rembrandts eyes look to the side, suggesting (to Oneill) he traced a projected image of his face |
#3 FALSE CLAIM: Because many of Rembrandt's late self-portrait oil paintings are "LIFE SIZED", this is evidence he traced projections of his face |
| #4 FALSE CLAIM : That Rembrandt traced the projected image of his eyes EXACTLY as he saw them |
| #5 FALSE CLAIM: Oneill cited only one of Van Gogh's self-portraits, SELECTIVELY IGNORING all others that contradict his claim and disprove his theory |
| #14 FALSE CLAIM: Part Two of his theory is dependent on Part one. If he cannot prove part one is workable, then Part Two is automatically false |
| #15 FALSE CLAIM: Contradictions by world class Rembrandt scholars completely DESTROY Oneills claim that WHEN REMBRANDT TRACED PROJECTIONS--HE COULD DRAW MORE ACCURATELY THE THINGS HE SAW. |
| #18 FALSE CLAIM: That parts of Rembrandts paintings are blurry or appear unfinished, BECAUSE the projected image gets blurry at the edges --and Rembrandt simply TRACED COPIED that blurriness. |
| #17 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt would have TRACED his eyes EXACTLY in the position a projection would show them |
| TWO EXCEPRTS FROM VAN DE WETERINGS NEW BOOK Used without permission, but, under the Fair Use Laws of the US Govt THE TEXT DESCRIBES HOW MASTER PAINTERS CAN CHOOSE WHEN TO PAINT IN HIGH DETAIL--AND WHEN TO CHOOSE TO PAINT IN A BLURRED, SKETCHY STYLE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROJECTIONS OF IMAGES!! |
| #19 FAL:SE CLAIM: That Albrecht Durer could NOT draw a profile self portrait with only ONE FLAT MIRROR |
| ALBRECHT DURER Like Rembrandt, DURER was an extraordinary draughtsman. These two great masters drew in different styles, the things they saw....DIFFERENTLY......like all great Masters, each has a highly individualistic style. These original styles HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PROJECTIONS OR TRACING, as O'Neill would wish us to believe as he tries so hard to support his failed theory. I will repeat again: O'Neill attempts to drag down these extraordinarily gifted masters...down to his common level of talent, inadequate comprehension and misunderstandings of what the GREAT CREATIVE ARTISTS accomplished, and how they did so. I read a letter between O'Neill and professor Philip Steadman where they discussed the drawing DURER made at age 13. The drawing is almost a profile, but it is not a profile. On the drawing, DURER wrote that he drew this FROM A MIRROR at when he was a child. Therein, Oneill argues that Durer used the " singular" of the word " mirror"..... that O'Neill then interpreted as meaning that DURER DID NOT USE TWO flat mirrors, ..meaning , Durer used ONE MIROROR ONLY....meaning....it just had to have been a CONCAVE MIRROR. Extrapolating that IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN A PROJECTION THAT DURER TRACED FROM A CONCAVE MIRROR. Oneill then argued that without the use of a concave mirror...DURER ...would have been unable to draw his own profile!! ONEILLS CLAIM IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I made a five minute drawing of myself as seen in my bathroom mirrors. One mirror is a long immovable flat mirror glued to the wall. The other is a movable medicine cabinet mirror that swings on a hinge. By simple moving of the movable mirror I could see my PROFILE. It was easy to draw myself. What you see is the direct drawing. I did not erase, nor correct, nor improve it. I could have done all of that later. To clarify what Durer really meant: I too drew my profile from A MIRROR!! Although the I used two mirrors to be able to see my profile... WHEN I WAS IN THE ACT OF ACTUALLY DRAWING...I only had to focus on my image IN ONE MIRROR. This illustrates just one more false claim by Oneill. PLEASE NOTE: Durer's drawing IS NOT A FIRM PROFILE! NEITHER IS MINE! |
| CONCLUSION OF MY INVESTIGATION : ONEILLS THEORY IS FALSE BECAUSE OF MY RECENT TESTS- I NOW BELIEVE IT IS ALSO MISLEADING , BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER ONCE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE, EVEN A SIMPLE DRAWING OF A PROJECTION OF HIS FACE, TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS. I BELIEVE ONEILLS THEORY WAS ILL CONCEIVED, FUELED AND MOTIVATED BY A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF REMBRANDTS ARTWORKS AND POSSIBLY BY OTHER VERY PERSONAL REASONS THAT ONLY HE KNOWS OF... ( a desire for ???) IF HE CAN PROVE HIS THEORY IS WORKABLE--BY FILMING IT IN TOTAL TRANSPARENCY, I WILL OFFER HIM A FULL APOLOGY. IF HE CANNOT PROVE IT IS WORKABLE--HE SHOULD WITHDRAW HIS PAPER, AND APOLOGIZE TO THE PUBLIC. |
| THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE I hope this investigation was of some help to those interested best wishes Louis R. Velasquez September 28, 2016 |
| ADDENDUM TO #15 FALSE CLAIM: That Rembrandt simply copied and traced the PROJECTED image of his eyes. |
| THE LOS ANGELES GETTY MUSEUM - EXHIBIT ON THE ART OF DRAWING Drawing: The Art of Change -October 4, 2016–January 1, 2017 More than any other medium, drawing conveys the evolution of artistic ideas with great immediacy. Drawing sheets often bear traces—crossed-out lines, repositioned figures, cut and pasted forms—of an artist's change of mind during the creative process. Drawn entirely from the Getty's permanent collection, the works in this exhibition showcase the crucial role revision plays in artistic practice. I BELIEVE THIS EXHIBIT UNDERSCORES WHAT SCHOLARS AND ARTISTS KNOW ABOUT HOW CREATIVE ARTISTS WORK AS THEIR CREATIVE WORK UNFOLDS.This is something Oneill fails to understand as demonstrated by his claims that Rembrandt WOULD HAVE COPIED AND TRACED HIS EYES.... JUST AS HE SAW THEM. |
| NOW THAT MY INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE ( until I see a video made by Oneill to prove his theory works), I WISH TO SHOW HOW I BELIEVE REMBRANDT DID PAINT, DRAW, and ETCH HIS SELF PORTRAITS |
| THIS IS HOW REMBRANDT PAINTED HIS SELF PORTRAITS Rembrandt is one of the world's greatest geniuses and is equal to Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Einstein, Mozart, Shakespeare and other great minds. Besides being considered the greatest masterful oil painter...he is also considered to be the greatest etcher...and the greatest draughtsman. Quite simply, Rembrandt painted his self portraits by looking at himself in a flat mirror. This ancient method has yielded the greatest self portraits of all the great Old Masters throughout history. With the invention of modern photography in the early 1800's, today's artists can use digital photographs, electric projectors and all manner of modern technology if they wish to paint accurate images of themselves. None of these tools were available to Rembrandt. . If Rembrandt had wanted to experiment with optics, he had a choice of two commonly available crude "projection" tools. One is the concave mirror and the other is the glass lens. The clarity of a projection by a concave mirror depends on the surface it is projected onto. When projected onto a shiny metallic surface the image is highly detailed and in full color. When projected onto paper or canvas, the image may be non-existant, or very blurry and indistinct. For projection to be possible with a CONCAVE MIRROR, the subject must be highly illuminated. IN CONTRAST, A FLAT MIRROR can be used in ANY lighting situation. No special tools, arrangements, nor outside assistance are required. There are easy ways to use a flat mirror to assist the placement of the facial features . The various Old Master artists used different methods to place their features accurately...but they all used the same flat mirror to see their face for self portraiture. For an artist to paint or draw his/her facial features from looking in a flat mirror the challenge is keeping ones head still. It can be done. Rembrandt did it throughout his life. The reason the 3/4 view is the position MOST represented is because Rembrandt only had to move his eyes and NOT his head between the mirror reflection and the canvas that were placed side by side. SEE THE YOUTUBE VIDEO: DRAWING A SELF PORTRAIT FROM A FLAT MIRROR - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UL4TqQV7r4A This video is 8 minutes long. IT IS ABSOLUTE PROOF that a professional artist can accurately draw his own face , self portrait, by looking at his reflection in a flat mirror. ALSO...Please NOTE that in the final finished drawing....the EYES OF THE ARTIST ....are looking SIDEWAYS, LATERALLY....and not STRAIGHT AHEAD as Oneill claims self portraiture from a flat mirror will appear. THIS IS ONE MORE BIT OF EVIDENCE to prove O'Neill's theory is COMPLETELY FALSE . |
| JOHANNES GUMPP painted this painting in 1645. At that date, Rembrandt was age 39. This clearly shows what we artists all know as the standard method of painting a SELF-PORTRAIT. |
| IN MY EXPERIMENTS , I recently created an easy method that I never knew of as a youth. The next photos and diagrams explain it well. The challenge is to hold your face still- that is the reason I leaned on my hand. A GRID IS DRAWN ON THE MIRROR Then. one can make Enlargements or reductions of your face by drawing a larger or smaller grid on the canvas. THE GRIDS MUST BE PROPORTIONAL. This is easy to do by drawing a diagonal line. |
| A SIMPLE WAY TO PAINT A SELF PORTRAIT FROM A FLAT MIRROR: USE OF A GRID DRAWN ON A FLAT MIRROR AND ON THE CANVAS |
| DID REMBRANDT USE PROJECTIONS? |
| There is every reason to believe that Rembrandt KNEW OF ALL THE OPTIC TOOLS available to artists that lived in his time. There is every reason to believe he visited many of the artists in his city - friends of his - to observe HOW THEY USED the optics and the availability of those optics. One can surmise he experimented with the optics tools also. THERE IS NO PROOF - other than pure conjecture as Oneill has amptly done--to even consider Rembrandt painted his self-portraits with optics. Oneills arguments are weak, and easily contradicted with solid scholarly arguments ... as well as by simple art studio experiments and demonstrations THAT ANY ARTIST CAN DO.. As I wrote above- I met Oneill in about 2010 when he acquired my books and DVDS. I had read Philip Steadmans book on Vermeers use of the CAMARA OBSCURA and David Hockneys book on SECRET KNOWLEDGE. Then after the movie TIMS VERMEER , by TIM JENISON, was released in late 2013, I began a series of experiments with optics. I shared my optical experiments with Oneill and also my YOUTUBE VIDEOS on the subject. I owe a great debt to Hockney and Steadman because I learned from their experiments and demonstrations.. I recommend interested viewers read both books...and especially, WATCH THE TWO PART SERIES made by the BBC , on Hockneys DEMONSTRATIONS and EXPERIMENTS. Go to YOUTUBE and search: DAVID HOCKNEY, SECRET KNOWLEDGE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BOTH, HOCKNEY AND STEADMAN, MADE AND FILMED THE DEMONSTRATIONS OF THEIR THEORIES .. AS DID ALSO..TIM JENISON ON HIS THEORY OF HOW VERMEER PAINTED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: ONEILL never made any demonstration at all. This FACT leads me to question his motives in publishing an unproven theory. |
| THE CAMARA OBSCURA The David Hockney BBC film on YOUTUBE will clearly demonstrate how Caravaggio used the CAMARA OBSCURA [ DARK ROOM] to project, trace, and compose a painting by the use of a glass lens- a glass lens much like the spectacles we all use to see better---except Hockney uses a larger one that is about 8 or 10 inches in diameter. Leonardo Davinci , wrote 500 years ago that a simple pinhole in a metal plate will project an image onto the back wall of a DARK ROOM. This is easily proven to be true fact. |
| THE TWO PHOTOS ABOVE SHOW THAT I TAPED UP ALL MY WINDOWS IN A BEDROOM. I put a glass lens in the window. It projected the outside view onto the canvas. THE PROBLEM is that the image is UPSIDE DOWN and also MIRROR REVERSED I SOLVED THE PROBLEM by placing a flat mirror at a 45 degree angle to the lens in the window. This caused the image to be bounced straight down onto a HORIZONTAL TABLE--and the image is CORRECTED and no longer mirror reversed. Professor PHILIP STEADMAN , in his book on Vermeer admitted he was unable to solve two problems [ although he said he had some ideas] The first unsolvable problem for him was HOW DID VERMEER CORRECT THE MIRROR REVERSAL? The second problem was HOW DID VERMEER PAINT FULL COLORS IN THE DARK ROOM? I wrote to him about both problems. One is solved as I explained. The other was that I made a SECOND hole in the window without a lens. This allowed light to be bounced by a small flat mirror onto the horizontal table. HOWEVER- I said- Vermeer did NOT PAINT in full coloirs in the dark. He only traced the image in brown paint. Then, later in the studio light he applied the colors. |
| WITH PROFESSOR PHILIP STEADMANS STUDIES, This drawing shows what Vermeer's projection of THE MUSIC LESSON would look like in the DARK ROOM. It would be projected by the LENS onto the back wall-- it would be upside down-and mirror reversed. ADDITIONALLY-- the LENS would cause all the vertical lines and the horizontal lines to "BARREL OUT" , meaning..they would bend outwards from the central axis point. [ It is the same painting recreated by Tim Jenison in his movie TIMS VERMEER] |
| VERMEER HAD TO COMPENSATE for these technical problems. He had to use a straight edge or a string on a stickpin to correct any bulging lines. At some point he had to CROP the picture because the farther from center--the greater the DISTORTION of reality. We see that same thing in modern photos ..if you take a photo of a person extending his hand straight at you--it becomes quite large in appearance. |
| THE CAMARA OBSCURA THE DARK ROOM |
| THE CAMARA LUCIDA THE ILLUMINATED ROOM |
| THE CAMARA LUCIDA does not use a lens It uses a simple piece of flat glass. It is placed at a 45 degree angle to the subject which must be highly illuminated. This is done in a well lighted room, not in a dark room. It is difficult to use. The size format of the finished piece is very small. THe artiost must either use only one eye or use a viewfinder. The image you see is NOT A PROJECTION. It is a virtual image. Some manufacturers of childrens toys now sell these. They allow children to trace images. It has very limited use in creative art making. |
| THE DAYLIGHT CAMERA I CREATED |
| A GOOD EXPLANATION OF THIS CAMERA IS SEEN ON MY YOUTUBE VIDEO tiotled; JAN VERMEERS DAYLIGHT CAMERA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xQl3JwWY These photos are of a prototype. using a simple cardboard box. The flat mirror is very small also. NOTE in the second photo..the projected image is BLURRY NOTE in the third photo the image was sharpened into high detail by holding a FOCUS LENS in front of the STATIONARY LENS attached to the front of the box. |
| THE DRAWING SHOWS HOW ONE CAN BUILD A LARGER DAYLIGHT CAMERA The instructions are easy to follow |
| The actual image is quite small. It is in front. Imagine Rembrandt TRACING this blurry image |