This is an extremely well produced video on Vermeer, surely one of the best to be found. I've always been bothered by aspects of the Girl With Flute painting, and might even say that just on a visceral basis these misgivings made me question its authenticity. So many details and compositional choices always made me think "Vermeer would never do that". I think it is worth rewatching this whole video again to try again to consider all the differences.

The real question is how did Vermeer go from an untalented artist--who could neither draw nor paint-to a painter verging on greatness. It had to have involved some very rigorous self-analysis, with an emphasis on foregrounding his strengths and hiding his weaknesses. It was a matter of infusing what he could adequately do, with so much intelligence, that mere facility looked like brilliance, and incompetence was hidden away. For example, he is a very weak anatomist, but we either do not see much of the body, or physical features are rendered as brilliant cliches. It not often noted that Vermeer is a satirist, satirising the interest in virtuosity and in certain subject matter. His paintings mock the connoisseur. They are satires.

Did you just say Vermeer’s wife bore him 15 children??????? Oh My God

If you cover the pearl with a finger, the painting feels plain, as if "something" is missing. The genius of Vermeer is that by adding it, that little detail balances the light coming from the left, adding a certain luminosity (literally) to the whole. Your eyes dance from her eyes to her lips to the pearl, and back again. Her enigmatic expression is far more intriguing than the Mona Lisa, and that makes it iconic and a true masterpiece .

Looks kosher to me.

3:35 Sorry but I'll have to take it too seriously. 😁In few of his paintings Vermeer painted a green curtain. I love your take on it. If I was doing a master study, I would have definitely added at least some green to that background that is a lot more visible. Although, an angle of that top, right corner, fold throws me off. It just doesn't look like that curtain would have folded like that. On the left side there is supposed to be Vermeer's signature. Since he incorporated his signature on the objects in his painting, it looks like that area would have not had any folds but it would possibly be a flat surface. Great video. I wish I found the video when you posted it.

I think its not by Veermeer. Very interesting analysis!😅

I am more convinced the white fur of the cuff was done by someone else. Fragonard?

The lines in the hat are delicious. Only a master could have done them. And look at the reflection of light on a single tooth. Who else could think to do that? Also, more attention should be paid to Vermeer's mouths. The mouth is very difficult to do if you want it to show character. It was very important to Vermeer.

Jonathan Jansen nicely enumerates many technical details but for some reason did not comment on Vermeer's message. Most people who know nothing about techniques and have no need to illustrate their competency on such matters. This 'lack' actually removes a big obstacle to appreciating (understanding) art. Key Points Cupid: Cupid's presence is a clear declaration about the theme of this painting. Vermeer is stating his understanding of love. What love means for him. Clearly, it is not about lust or mutual exploitation for pleasure etc. While cupid's arrow struck strikes suddenly, in realizing that one feels for this particular person but if you want this initial feeling of emerge into full love then certain mandates must be abided. Cupid stepping on the mask is saying that you must immediately avoid all falseness, all adoption of a persona and role playing. True love is stifled and eventually extinguished by insincerity. Pregnant Woman: The girl is clearly pregnant. The letter she is reading is from the man in the window. What appears to be her reflection in the window is the man in her heart and mind. He has a beard and his clothing does not match her clothing, especially the black band around her neck. He is clearly broad-shouldered since, very nicely, his right arm is in front of the curtain draped back over the window. It appears that she sees him in her mind writing the letter she is reading. This constant awareness of the beloved is reciprocal as indicated by the man clearly composing the letter she is reading. Openness, Transparency, Sincerity: The window is open, openness is a quality in all true love relationships whether that love is between friends or a spouse (Partner, current common term for "the other" in a relationship in no way implies love, just a momentary presence.) The curtain is thrown back - nothing is hidden in true love which is only possible in a sincere relationship where sincere is from the Greek (sin meaning without and cere (keri) means wax) to be without wax means to be without makeup, making oneself appear differently or hiding how one actually appears. Contrast this with modern American tendency of using facial expressions to hide how one actually feels. Bowl of fruit - love relationships are fruitful is consistent with the theology of love where fruitful does not refer to offspring. Love bears fruit in that both lovers mutually grow in virtue (meaning strength) if their love is true love because love seeks to benefit the beloved. The bowl is overflowing so to speak. True love is very fruitful in many ways as depicted by the exceptional variety of fruit. The Bed is a symbol of their sharing one life together. The fruitfulness of their innocent / virtuous relationship (not motivated by lust) is the placement of the bowl of fruit. Bed Clothing (blankets) is the most complex fabric in the room. Loving relationships possess a deep richness or personhood. Dull Fabric Bed Curtain - the bed curtain is thrown back to reveal to the world a glimpse of true intimacy. The bed curtain is a coarse dull fabric because that best illustrates the typical other kind of 'love' relationship that is common in the world. Intimacy without sincerity is coarse self-seeking pleasure or other benefits. There is more, but I suspect I'm typing a message to myself. I've been married for 50 years and can assert from experience that Vermeer got it right. No matter the difficulty presented by the events of life, there is always a bright glow in one's heart provided one abides by the simple fundamental guidelines Vermeer enumerates. While he wasn't a Catholic, his "theology" coincided with it in on many points.

I agree with your analysis 100%

My short take; It's a love letter from God with a Window Of Upper Unity.

They are idiots for that. Why do they always choose STUPiD?

I trust the Dutch saying it is real.

Thank you¡¡

Love the color restoration - simply brilliant. Not terribly happy with the Cupid - it’s an awful picture in very linear frame. For love symbolic it way into face - on the old gravure angel is exquisite - and if Vermeer as an art dealer was selling his mother-in-law style paintings, no wonder business was not brisk…

The newly retired head of the Rijks who knows Vermeer more than anyone thinks that Girl With The Flute is definitely by Vermeer. The curator from the National Gallery was so arrogant thinking that she knows more than this man.. what a cringer.

isn't it possible the brightness of the interior wall is due to the angle of the sunlight at a certain time of day?

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKHEi4GtqaagjdE

Super great job explaining, great video. you're right about that other golden Age artist Geret Dou get's the detail, but not the same zaz as Vermeers girl reading the lettter.

Excellent. A refreshing, logical and considered analysis by someone who has a lifetime of painterly knowledge and experience of Vermeer's oeuvre. Jonathan must be one of the few people to have seen all 37 works in person and that gives a rather unique perspective. How can the NGA be so definitive given their analysis requires interpretation and consideration of many other subjective criteria as Jonathan highlights? There surely must be an element of doubt to any attribution of a 350 year old painting with no direct provenance? Watching the "Close to Vermeer" film, the NGA's stance came across as rather arrogant and inconsiderate. At worst it was a case of showboating prior to the 2023 Amsterdam exhibition. The Rijksmuseum and Mauritshuis experts' reaction said it all. If the NGA academics can't see the hand of Vermeer in the work then maybe they should remove their blinkers/ preconceptions and look at more of Vermeer's oeuvre? It certainly raises the profile of the work, which is a good thing, shame the NGA had to traumatise folks along the way.

100% Vermeer😉

OK OK . I will give the N.G. A . $ 100.00 DOLLARS FOR THE WORK. If they are so #isssed off with the WORK.! LOL

I have an oil on panel of the procuress. Can u help me understand if its legit. Looks super old

I have an oil on panel the procuress

Wow, imagine how the girl asleep at 14:50 could look if it were cleaned. Imagine how bright it could be!

Lol DC embarrassing themselves yet again. This is what happens when people with too much time on their hands sit around and stare at a picture for too long. Girl with a Flute is obviously Vermeer.

I agree that Vermeer's GIrl Reding a Letter is so superior now that it's been restored - thank you for your video and annalysis, great job!

It is interesting how art critics confuse themselves with their own words about what they are looking at without actually JUST LOOKING. I have no doubt whatever that the girl with flute , is by Vermeer. and hearing the NGA's assessment of "wrong perspective on the Lion's head finials on the chair",... i just realized something. I had long noticed they both slightly face inward. and had thought well it's either just an artifact of how that chair was constructed or the legs had twisted or warped inward slightly without actually thinking it "out loud". And here with "the girl interupted in her music" from a side view we can see that the same lion head finials on the same chair are indeed pointed slightly inward. so its not some foolish painter. miss painting chairs,... it is some foolish art critic deciding that lions head finials on chairs have to be perfectly parallel. on the actual chair, and so in perspective the one further away should appear slightly more from the side view.... hahahaha ! QED

This is so obviously a Vermeer….. the two paintings draw together when seen side by side….. . The Kaplan Picture on the other hand is a very mediocre copy of his style. I’m no expert and even I can see it. I remember in the documentary him holding it with his hands out of the frame…. Did he know them he had wasted all that money on a £500 painting? He’s a very decent man … he must know

I found Binstock’s book on this topic to be fascinating. Great video!

That cupid is awful. It reminds of why I consider Vermeer comically overrated. People just like the artificial scarcity.

Fascinating analysis

You are spot on. I agree with all your conclusions. The NGA literally over-analyzed and over-thought this painting, clouding their vision of what was before their eyes.

In my opinion, study of a young woman and girl with a pearl earring are the same person or sisters. Girl with a pearl earring just looks like she is a little older than study of a young woman, their features are undeniably similar, along with pose they both are positioned in and the large pearl earrings etc. I know a lot of people won't agree because " who is she? " is part of the mystery and Allure of the painting, so we may never know for sure. but that's just my opinion, Vermeer is one of my favorite artists from the Dutch Golden Age but anyways both works are absolutely beautiful and will keep us guessing for generations to come.

Thanks. A great analysis.

Having just seen them side by side at the Rjiksmuseum, I have no doubt Vermeer painted "Girl with a Flute." It seems like the experts are trying too hard to dispute what seems intuitively obvious. And I am left with a single question: why is there no other work by this artist? Anyone this skilled would have produced works before and after this one. Sometimes the absence of something can prove the presence of something else: this is a work by Vermeer.

For me the restoration is majestic, it reveals an extra gift from Vermeer across the centuries - what's not to like !

Thank you for this video. I've enjoyed The Essential Vermeer for a long time! I have 2 questions. I am pouring over the Vrel catalogue but there is no reference or image of the painting you cite. Is this something new? The smoker tronie may be a self portrait of Adriaen Adriaen Brouwer.

There are no "imperfections" - it is the end result that matters ; When you gaze at the finished painting for the first time, or even after a little while away from her, you will only see one thing; a Vermeer masterpiece!

A painting of a housewife reading a love letter...How do we know?..look at the puto in the painting, he represents love, she is reading a love letter. Married women do not receive letters any letter. She has duties. She has a liver ...sinful!.

mostly done by Vermeer, possibly as a lesson, maybe for Maria...the hands could be her attempt

Oh No! Although verified, I find it hard to believe that the Met's 'Study of a Young Woman' is even by Vermeer. The lips of 'The Girl With The Pearl Earring' have to be among the best ever portrayed in art. And the expression - to me, a look of love, mixed with resignation, she knows what she wishes for can never happen.

It definitely has the sensibility of a Vermeer. The technicalities aren’t convincing evidence that he didn’t paint it. The unfinished finial is unfinished deliberately so it doesn’t compete with the face. The more coarsely ground pigments in the under painting were probably used to save time and/or money since this was a minor painting. You’re right - artists aren’t machines who do everything the same way.

It's occurred to me before that art connoisseurs often assume that a particular artist always painted the same way and to a consistent standard. As a painter myself I know this is not remotely the case, and I don't see why considerably greater artists of the past didn't have the occasional off-day. I'm sure they also experimented with different styles, compositions and techniques. For this reason the expert reasoning for declaring a particular work genuine or otherwise often seems rather dubious, to me. Bizarre that these subjective and questionable opinions often make the difference between a particular artwork being valued in millions or hundreds.

After having visited the Vermeer exhibition in the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, I absolutely agree with your conclusion on this work. I cannot see a Vermeer in this work, it lacks his soft touch and the nuances of light and shadow. Where is the mystery? I miss al the wonders that made me admire Vermeer as the greatest painter I know. The girl's face says it all: this painting is not by Vermeer.

I always found this picture terribly off. Even if it were a 'van Meegeren'

I first saw the girl with the flute when I was 15 at the national Gallery. She and the girl with the red hat have remained in my mind as charming Vermeers. I agree with your analysis that both paintings are likely by Jan Vermeer.

Sorry, I posted my comment before reading your reply concerning the original varnish over the cupid.

Excellent video. I was rather comforted by but the survey as I've always felt a but guilty in preferring the pre-restoration painting, although I completely agree with the decision to restore it in accordance with Vermeer's original intent. I'm quite convinced by the experts opinion of it being over painted at a late date and not by Vermeer himself. I think I remember reading that the original varnish was found over the cupid proving the point? As to my enjoyment of the restored painting, I confess I preferred it as it was. It seems cluttered to me now, detracting from the beautiful profile of the woman's figure against the blank wall. And I'm afraid I positively dislike the cupid painting itself!