Drawing Tool in Tim's Vermeer

DB here:

Sometimes you sense that a film is made especially for you, and you expect to enjoy and look up to it well before you get wind it. This happened, I guesswork, with millions of people and films likeSensation Wars, Twilight, and The Crave Games. I didn't share those viewers' hopes, but I knew from advance publicity that I would be keenly fascinated in the early documentary,Tim's Jan van der Meer.

Wherefore? IT involves Penn & Teller, ii demigods of mine; it's about artwork and engineering science; and IT investigates the theory that a painter used optical devices to create glowing, mysterious images. In the process, it reawakens the controversy around David Hockney's dissertation in Secluded Noesis that many old Edgar Lee Masters were employing lenses and mirrors to render nature with unprecedented richness.

I wasn't disappointed. It was the most intellectual fun I've had at the movies in the last twelvemonth.

Information technology's hard to excuse technical stuff intelligibly, and equal harder to dramatize information technology so that audiences are attached. Tim's Vermeer teaches you a lot about art, technology, and human will and skill. The personality of the central figure makes the tale engrossing and funny, often suspenseful, and at moments a little sad. At the same time you get to study one of the greatest paintings in the western world in a thoroughly unpretentious right smart.

There, I've made my recommendation. Stop right away if you privation your experience completely clean. But you've perhaps study other reviews, and nearly everything I mention in what follows is mentioned in at least one of those. Sony Pictures Classics has benign put the screenplay online, so there really are no secrets if you're determined to know information technology all. I require merely to convey some of the excitement the film gave me. It explores a fascinating problem in art account direct one man's patience, ingeniousness, and determination.

The Darkened Bedroom

Tim Jenison, a loaded package innovator, is a polymath—musician, tinkerer, and fan of art. He is non a painter, simply helium whole shebang with images perpetually; part of his hazard derives from Video Toaster and other postproduction software. Atomic number 2 comes crosswise A silver-tongued, avuncular, and talented with a apologetic sense of humor.

In 2001 Tim learned of two recently published books, Hockney's Esoteric Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Edgar Lee Masters and Vermeer's Camera, a more scholarly investigation past Philip Steadman. Steadman made a hefty case for Vermeer's wont of a photographic camera obscura in painting his pictures.

The camera obscura is a box that uses a runty hole and electron lens to project an image of the scene outside the box. The fancy appears, inverted and flopped side to side, on the wall opponent the lens. Contrive the image onto a drawing surface, and you can retrace it, although it's touchy and requires very much of practice.

The photographic camera is such a twist, using film stock or a chip to fix the image. Amateurs ill-used man-portable camera obscuras for some centuries before photography, and there's evidence that Canaletto and other prima artists exploited them. A camera obscura (or "dark room") can be any size, and it's possible to set single up As a booth in a parlor. This is what Steadman suggested Jan van der Meer did. Features of the paintings, much as position convergence and destined visual distortions, were characteristic of camera obscura images.

Hockney made bigger claims. He projected that consumption of the television camera obscura, on with convex mirrors and different optical pitch, went Interahamw beyond Jan van der Meer and a couple of other image makers. Caravaggio, for example, seemed to him a surmoun of staging tableaux vivants in his cellar and then copying what his array of gadgets yielded—in effect, creating a photographer's studio.

Hockney's proposals created a storm of controversy, with artistic creation historians, physics scientists, and cultural critics driven to fury. A common advertizement hominem ailment was that Hockney didn't draw well himself and used photography to help him, so He would naturally denigrate a draftsman of ace. You can see some links to the argumentation in that entry's codicil.

Steadman, a historian of architecture, used the perspective presented in the paintings to calculate the dimensions of the room and the placement of the tv camera obscura, and Eastern Samoa a result he could measure the size of the projected images, which uncannily matched the size up of the finished paintings. Tim took some other direction.

By reflecting the camera obscura persona into a hand mirror that he could set back just above the picture in progress, Tim found that without training or talent helium could copy a scene with astonishing accuracy. He started without a camera obscura, just using the hand glass to blusher an image from a photo of his father-in-law. The result bucked up him to go further—much farther.

Tim's Vermeer documents Tim's painstaking process. He used 3D mapping to plot the place shown in The Music Lesson. He then built the room and furnished IT with life-size replicas of the furniture and fittings. Atomic number 2 ground authentic versions of the pigments and lenses used in Vermeer's era. He even found models to rack, fixed in place by clamps, while he multi-coloured, with infinitesimal slowness, the image caught by his lens and hand down mirror. Empirically he saved that adding another mirror helped even more. He was painting from a cardinal-magnitude scene, as captured on a television camera obscura.

The entire project consumed 1825 days. Documentaries always document more than they intend to, and part of the film's attraction is its portraiture of a humankind driven to the terminal point to test his hunches. His presence adds a human narrative to what could have been reasoned a dry academic debate. You have to wonder what Herzog would have ready-made of this multimillionaire disbursement geezerhood stressful to replicate a masterpiece.

Tim's obsession yielded a remarkably exact version of the scene done entirely by hand, eye, and optical devices. The celluloid shows Hockney and Steadman favourable Tim's picture as a valid "proofread of construct," as helium calls information technology.

The motion picture is carefully clear off about what Tim's present didn't prove. He hasn't shown that Vermeer did it this way. We have in point of fact no written documents concerning how Jan van der Meer produced his pictures, so our inferences are based wholly connected the paintings and the historical luck. For object lesson, Antony Van Leeuwenhoek, celebrated microscopist, lived in Delft at the said fourth dimension and served as executor of Vermeer's estate. But no documents signal that they discussed lenses, or even knew one another.

Nor has Tim proved that he's as good every bit Vermeer. Hockney insists that paintings are Simon Marks and "machines get into't realise marks." Jan Vermeer's touch may be unreproducible and owe nothing to optics.

And Tim hasn't supported Hockney's suggestion that there's no other way Vermeer could have gotten his distinctive look. Avowedly, thanks to perceptual psychologist Colin Blakemore, Tim found that Vermeer's pictures include exteroception phenomena that aren't available to our unassisted eye, such as satisfactory gradations of light on a pebbly surface. Lul, perhaps Vermeer was familiar with optically generated images and imitated them, freehanded, in his pictures. Perhaps he used a camera obscura simply every bit inspiration and a guide to visual discovery.

What Tim has shown is that a simple knowledge of how light behaves in mirrors and lenses–knowledge that was available in Vermeer's milieu—could enable someone to produce images of extraordinary accuracy and detail, if he or she were willing to expend a hell of much of time and trouble.

D. H. Lawrence Gowing suggests that to Jan van der Meer the plodding that Tim underwent was exhilarating.

IT was in the tv camera cabinet perhaps, behind the thick curtains, that atomic number 2 entered the world of ideal, light relationships. There He could pass the hours watching the incommunicative women move to and fro.

Maybe Vermeer was, as Tim suggests, an ancestor of today's CGI geeks, toiling over his picture for days and weeks, though without the benefit of pizza and Tons Dew. There are thousands of so much people today. Were they around then too? Was Vermeer the first keyboard rapscallion?

The outsider's jeopardy

Here are some objections to the Hockney-Steadman-Jenison run along of argument. I don't think they're insurmountable.

On that point are always grump theories around. But although the in the public eye discussions of Hockney's dissertation came roughly career him nuts, IT's worth listening to an creative person's conception of how another artist might work—especially when the skeptics aren't practicing artists themselves. Hockney isn't proposing the sort of numerological theories we get, say, in the film Room 237, or the "secret geometries" line of literary argument that maintains that every line and mass proves the artist was a Rosicrucian operating theater a Freemason. Hockney's possibility may be wrong, but information technology's not wacko.

Jenison is a naïve sciolist from outside the art world-wide and lacks certified expertise. Again, it's not a matter of who floats an idea only how effectual the melodic theme is. Why couldn't a computer-art expert come high with enlightening ideas about pictures? Craftsmen in any domain often spot fine points that set people can't.

As well, insiders can atomic number 4 mistaken. Forgers have long fooled connoisseurs. The Grin Young lady picture show higher up was shown arsenic a Vermeer at London's Royal Academy in 1929, but nowadays it's regarded as a fake.

IT's too easy. If this were totally there were to painting lifelike pictures, you might say, any kid could roll in the hay. Well, not numerous would have the longanimity. Tim fagged 130 days painting the picture and atomic number 2 nearly gave up. Information technology was stressful, hard on his back, and strewn with unexpected obstacles. Atomic number 2 had to take frequent breaks. Freehand drawing is a set easier, let alone quicker. Although Tim is no painter by training, he clearly has a careful eye and extreme pulverised motor control in his fingers. I, who can hardly draw a straight line with a ruler, couldn't do what he did.

It's too arduous. Tim's careful dabbing is laborious, others might grant, but it's donkey operate. His conception of graphics is "difficulty of doing," but there are lots of things that are hard to do, like edifice ships in a bottle, and they aren't artistic creation. But every art requires discipline, and in those times experts labored for years concluded bits of the canvass that hardly anybody would notice. As a craftiness, house painting is inherently hard, but we can scarcely imagine the amount of energy invested in the busty images of Vermeer's period. Damien Hirst can whip up last-priced paintings fast for today's market, but conditions at that time would adagio him down. He'd in all likelihood have to get his have shark.

It's too reliant on engineering science. But art has used mechanical devices for centuries. The best examples, very relevant to Vermeer, are all the drawing aids associated with perspective, including not just straightedges and protractors but complex gadgets like Durer's famous convergence-string setup that allowed him to soak up curved volumes.

Such devices are shortcuts to deploying the geometry of the system. As Steadman says in the film, "Perspective is an algorithm."

Later eras have given us much fine art underage along technology, from tubes of embrocate paint to Hockney's own Polaroid- and iPad-power-assisted mental imagery. And of course film and video prowess wouldn't live without machines. Hockney puts IT well from the standpoint of the practicing mountain lion:

[Raphael] would have wanted to make as vivid a portrayal equally he could. As a job painter, he had a job to do and would have used whol the tools at his disposal, including, if He thought they would help, lenses. He would not cogitate, "I'm a great creative person at the height of the Renaissance who should scorn such methods."

Hockney and Steadman report that practicing artists they've encountered have been far fewer uncongenial to their ideas than art historians have been.

It insults greatness. I suppose this is what Susan Sontag meant past saying, "If David Hockney's thesis is letter-perfect, information technology would be a bit like-minded finding out that all the groovy lovers of history have been victimisation Viagra."

Actually, the copying of a camera obscura image isn't as mechanical as one might think, but even if it were, would it personify annihilating? We tolerate photographers, with their mechanisms for intercepting light rays, the status of great artists.

The objection rests on a valid point. We do need to know something of how an artwork was made systematic to interpret and adjudicate information technology. But in this case I don't think that discovering that Vermeer used mechanical aids would minimize our appreciation of the pictures. IT might, however, change our mother wit of how atomic number 2 relates to the traditions that followed. This convert in our understanding is something Hockney and Jenison trust to give rise.

IT dispells the enigma. This is the toughest argument to comeback because it assumes that we want enigma in our graphics. It seems to me ultimately a religious way of rational about art. I'm adequate of a rationalist to hope that in any area, research rear turn on some mysteries into puzzles, then turn puzzles into problems, and maybe solve some of the problems.

There'll always be a residue of questions we can't answer. Given the feeble onward motion we've successful in understanding art, no unmatched should care. We researchers nibble at the edges, and the Big Mysteries aren't going away any time before long. Meantime, we can ask whether Tim, on with Hockney, Steadman, and others, has answered some worthwhile questions about how Vermeer made his pictures.

My wish list

Hera are some matters that a longer picture show would probably have been able to fishing rig. I'd love to see a version that did.

How does Vermeer fit into the broader account of art? The house painting traditions in which Vermeer worked—genre scenes, portraiture, view–aren't jointed in the film. In addition, the use of the camera obscura by other painters could be brought out. Perhaps the supposition is that Hockney covered that territory.

Still, to head off certain accusations, information technology might have been better to grant that artists blend endowment, training, and unvoiced work with exclusive knowledge of what earlier artists have cooked, and what rivals are capable. E. H. Gombrich emphasizes the various factors involved: the tasks that artists contract, their tools, their techniques (including inherited visual patterns, or schemas), the problems inherent in a project, and the artist's circumstances, such as competition with separate artists and the fluctuating tastes of their audience.

The exactitude of Vermeer's interiors, for case, is in tune with contemporary Dutch paintings of house routines (alleged genre painting) and of still-life paintings of foods glistening on a tabletop. There was a taste for meticulous display of everyday spirit at the time, and this probably impelled Vermeer toward his unique brand of realism. Was he trying to apical his rivals? The film suggests that his delicacy and precision surpass what's on display in generation like Pieter Diamond State Hooch.

What counts as Platonism? Vermeer's pictures look after fantastically accurate, and have for some time. But He selects simply dependable dimensions of reality to capture. Other painters focus connected movement, which is just about absent from Vermeer's images. There's a snapshot quality to Baroque representations of figures in action, which look scarily realistic. And umpteen other painters render details that impress from a distance Oregon even close up; Jan Eyck is probably the most renowned.

What about the lenses and mirrors?Tim goes to extraordinary lengths to mimic the features of Vermeer's room and to mix paints arsenic helium might have. The film is mostly unhearable, though, just about his optical devices. What focal lengths were the lenses in camera obscuras? We know that different focal lengths render perspective in differing ways. Some of the distortions commentators have ground in Vermeer's picture seem to proceed from fisheye coverage. What is more, Tim's hand glass and convex mirror appear to be mod ones. Are these sufficiency like what Vermeer would stimulate had available?

Did Vermeer alter the perspective projection he obtained? Many painters who measured perspective felt free to adjust it or confound it for the sake of communicative effectuate. Famous pictures are full of inconsistent disappearing points, often masked aside figures or items of setting. Tim's house painting obeyed what his tv camera gave him, just perhaps Vermeer adjusted his image. Consider, below, some inside information from Vermeer's picture (left) with Tim's (right). (Push asid color differentials, since the reproductions of the pilot diverge so much.)

Did Vermeer fiddle with what the camera showed? I'm not cerebration much of the disparities in the placement of the figures above, which are likely to be expected; we'd be dismayed if Tim's frame-up worked incisively the same as Vermeer's. I'm more concerned with the way in which Vermeer seems to cause cheated perspective with respect to the reflection.

It looks as if Tim tried to match the reflection, but to do that He had to have his daughter turn slightly to the right. In time Vermeer's Lester Willis Young fair sex faces the mirror head-happening, while the reflection shows her in high-tip iii-quarter look at. Was the mirror slightly tipped on the left hand edge? And did it hang out from the wall slightly Thomas More than in Tim's chamber? I wonder if Jan Vermeer just wanted to have it both slipway–a channelise off squarely inaccurate from us, a reflected face that wouldn't be gazing straight out only rather pensively downwards. Standard pictures often hold back so much expressive compromises with nonrepresentational exactness.

Exercise we overestimate the clean image? Tim, coming from the computer-graphics world, seems to let accepted the present-day assumption that the most loyal and attractive image is razor-sudden. He's fascinated by the undeniably exact textures on the fabric and the Mrs. Henry Wood and plaster surfaces. He thinks that Vermeer 's images resemble "a video signalize" and that they glow like the images happening a movie screen door (that is, nowadays, a extremity image).

But Tim's High-Def aesthetic plays down some of painting's traditional resources, notably sfumato. And fine art historian E. H. Gombrich notes that Vermeer's preciseness retains "mellowed outlines" and doesn't seem harshly photographic. Going back to the details above, to my eye, Vermeer's image ISN't as sharp arsenic Tim's. The faces  are sketchier, and the shadows have softer contours.

Gombrich and others have made much of the crucial role of suggestion and incompleteness in painting, especially paintings that are seen at a distance. Our perceptual systems shade dashes and blobs with specific features, but Tim's algorithm may chop too fine. The divergence should give comfort to the people who emphasize Vermeer's idiosyncratic key treatment. It would be worth seeing if Tim thinks he could recalibrate his pictorial interlocking to soften the persona somewhat.

Problems and solutions

Tim's Jan van der Meer is an entertaining moral in how rational inquiry into the arts proceeds—posing a problem and then using inference and evidence to frame possible solutions. The film also shows how a problem normally has many facets, which sometimes cause to be dealt with piecemeal.

A piecemeal attack is particularly pertinent to reconstructing Vermeer's methods. Many fine art historians would grant that he, like others, mightiness have used a camera obscura to conceive of OR sketch out the basic musical composition of the piece. But the decisive later phases of house painting would have been carried out aside eye and pass on unaided. What is characteristic of the Hockney—Steadman—Jenison  line is they try to indicatehow much of Vermeer's practice session tail end be accounted for by visual aids.

Assume that Vermeer used a booth-type camera obscura. That device could yield general contours. Steadman charted other features of the camera obscura that show up in the master copy's paintings, such as changeable focus, light scattering, and perspectival distortion characteristic of lenses. He went on to build a plate model of the elbow room depicted in The Music Lesson and otherwise pictures, and showed that Vermeer power have misused a booth-type photographic camera obscura. With the cooperation of the BBC, Steadman built a life-size good example of the arrangement he discovered.

Interpretation Steadman's brilliant book when IT appeared, so visiting his web site where things are spelled verboten a bit more, beautiful very much convinced me of his argument. But I didn't intend much about lighting surgery color.

Vermeer's "mellowed outlines" are frequently given by minute shadings of tonality rather than firm outlines. In time when you're in the John Wilkes Booth, it's so dark that you can't square up color accurately. This is where Tim Jenison comes in. What sort of optical device could yield such gradations of color?

Tim revealed that a small mirror mounted on a rod ended the drawing skin-deep would give up an artist to build color patches, American Samoa well as masses and contours, by somewhat loose her gaze from the mirror's reflection of the camera's image to the picture being made. You've achieved the right key, Tim points out, when the edge of the mirror seems to disappear. In this image, the disc you attend ISN't clear glass just kinda a mirror reflective the camera obscura's image, which is exterior the frame.

Dim light in the kiosk doesn't matter because both the fancy and the color you match are illuminated uniformly. The result, in the film, shows a remarkable degree of similarity.

Only the optical expulsion corpse a bit pale and missing in detail; more concentrated and focused light is requisite. Teller's film shows how Tim hit upon the idea of focusing and brightening the camera  epitome by projecting it onto a cupular mirror rather than a flat plane. A mirror is also a projecting surface, and its reflexion can amplify the camera lens's image. With this array of lenses and mirrors, you don't need to work in darkness and you assume't need a barrier 'tween you and the fit.

At this manoeuvre, Tim's demo has destroyed the darkened chamber itself. Peradventur this is what Vermeer actually used, although if he treasured to pelt his methods, the booth with its wall or curtain would have been preferable.

Other deterrent example in rational inquiry: Dominant for variables can encourage anomalies to pop out.In drawing the harpsichord in the picture, Tim had assumed straight edges, which he outlines with a ruler. But in painting the undulating seahorse motif on the surface, he revealed that his lens rendered the motif as selfsame slightly curved. When you check the painting, you find that Vermeer's motif does the same thing.

 The curve, which Tim dubbed "The Vermeer Grin," is feature of the distortion yielded by a lens. Your eye and brain don't see it that way, however, and painters working original would automatically make the seahorses prance in a uncurved tune.

In unmindful, even as Jan van der Meer's lens system may have allowed him to make discoveries close to the behavior of light, Tim's Lens gave him a new insight into Vermeer's art.

Picture taking without film

Presuppose we buy the whole package. Assume that Vermeer utilised Tim Jenison's hardware. What then does his art consist of?

In Film Art: An Introduction we distinguish four areas of cinema technique: mise-nut-vista, cinematography, redaction, and sound. Editing and sound aren't relevant to Vermeer (though Eisenstein might make an argument for "collage" operating inside the master's "shots"). Just the other techniques are, if we imagine him making unmoving movies—that is, photographs.

Mise-en-scene involves what is photographed. Vermeer controls the mount, picks the props, and costumes, and arranges the ignition. He determines the color inside the shot. He also stages the carry through, although there isn't untold movement. Gombrich calls his paintings "still lifes with human beings."

Filming has an equal in Vermeer's artwork too. He must select a genus Lens for the camera obscura, and he has to focus it. Most commentators fit that painters who used the device focused connected different areas of the scene as they necessary to paint them. Vermeer doesn't use film, of course, just atomic number 2 does throw blusher, and the properties of that cooked have to equal taken into account. In Tim's words, as he sits brushing in tiny strokes, "I'm a piece of human film."

Jan Vermeer also has to border the scene, which is a bit tricky because the television camera obscura doesn't yield a rectangular image just rather a circular one. Here is Steadman's reconstruction of the camera's visual output, flipped to compeer the house painting and reproduced in Shirley Temple and white.

Jan Vermeer has to crop the projected image in advance, much equally a cinematographer nowadays has to visualize the image's concluding build as seen on the viewfinder or varan.

Scaffolding and framing in The Euphony Lesson yield an unusual composition. What's the subject of the painting? The woman playing? She's turned from us, seen from afar, and quite decentered. True, she's mirrored in the mirror. But Steadman shows that this mirror is equivocally drawn. It also seems to be angular so arsenic to conceal the opposite terminate of the room—a gambit familiar to scholars of early cinema, when such tipped mirrors hide the movie camera.

Thanks to the oddly empty space in the left half of the picture, our attention drifts often to the empty space separating window, furniture, and citizenry. Vermeer is in effect painting the journey of light striking various surfaces. The streaming sun endows a patch of the rug, the bottom of the viola, and the upholstery tacks with a glow and brightens the woman's sleeve. Then it thins into a much spread illumination before hitting the immure as a brilliant pictorial climax.

Perhaps he's painting how air looks.

Jan Vermeer's zones of choice and control overlap with those of a lensman or a filmmaker. Or those of an illusionist. As stage magicians, Penn and Teller know the classic putdown: "Aw, they do IT with mirrors." The film might be their answer: "Yeah, and IT works." They and Tim Jenison have created a watershed film that ponders the interplay of skill, tools, and artistic creativity.

---

Special thanks to Michael Doggie of Sony Pictures Classics and Merijoy Endrizzi-Ray of Sundance Madison. Thanks as considerably to Kristin Thompson, Diane Verma, and Darlene Bordwell for conversations about the motion picture.

The controversy concluded Hockney's theses keister be traced in the Wikipedia entry The Hockney-Falco Thesis. My reference from Susan Susan Sontag comes from Wyatt Mason on ArtKrush. The camera obscura image of The Euphony Lesson comes from Philip Steadman, Vermeer's Camera, p. 123, as does my David Herbert Lawrence Gowing quotation (p. 165). I'm grateful to Steadman on many levels, non least because his website encouraged Maine, in 2002, to put up the one you're visiting now.

For further information on the unspecialized research area, see to it Martin Kemp, The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Artistry from Brunelleschi to Seurat. Kemp corresponded at length with Hockney, and portions of their exchanges are enclosed in Secret Knowledge.

Gombrich's comments on Vermeer come from Chapter 20 of The Account of Art. His classic Art and Illusion elaborates his account of inherited lifelike schemas and their revision across history.

Hockney has defended the picture show and explained further. Kurt Anderson has offered a valuable overview of the making of Tim's Vermeer inSelf-love Fair. Several video interviews chuck light on the process as well. Hera Teller, Pennsylvania, and Jenison discuss the moving picture with Kent Jones at Capital of Nebraska Center. David Poland sits down for a 30-minute interview with Penn and Jenison. Philip Steadman discusses how Tim's ideas body-build on his book in this University College London video.

Jonathan Janson's site offers good insurance coverage of the film's reception, Hera and here.

One commentator considers Tim's theory "wackadoodle" just misunderstands IT, saying that "Jan Vermeer might have created his masterpieces by putting his models in a camera obscura." And so helium told them scary stories in the dark, I approximate. More attentive reviews of the movie include one aside Peter DeBruge inVariety and another by Todd McCarthy inThe Hollywood Reporter.

You know Penn and Vote counter as conjurors and hosts of the demo Bullshit! (My favorite episode: the animal mind-reader.) Be surely to read their books overly.

Squad Vermeer: Standing: Duke of Edinburgh Steadman, Teller, Tim Jenison. Sitting: David Hockney, Penn King Camp Gilette.

PS 12 March 2014: PainterJane Jelley has proposed a direction that Vermeer could have made his pictures using a camera obscura only without mirrors. She reports success replicating that method herself. Her article and around background to her experiment are available here. I give thanks Disseminated multiple sclerosis. Jelley for writing me with this information. The controversy continues, which makes me happy.

Last Modified: Saturday | Jan 3, 2015 @ 11:31 open printable version

This submission was posted on Monday | February 3, 2014 at 8:51 am and is filed under Documentary picture show, Film and other media. Responses are presently closed, but you can trackback from your personal site.

Drawing Tool in Tim's Vermeer

Source: https://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2014/02/03/i-am-a-camera-sometimes-tims-vermeer/

Share this post