There should not be a debate; both were great in their own way.

I miss the fact that Rembrandt lived in Amsterdam, a city of new riches, loud and vulgar. Vermeer lived in Delft, in the sphere of Den Haag, a city of old riches, noble and silent. This is effectively seen in their paintings !

@jamesmullins6681

Жыл бұрын

Good point.

@factyou123

5 ай бұрын

Wow battle of the Egos. Hard watch, can't do snobs

Rembrandt's paintings are full of humanity and compassion.

Simon Schama is a good lecturer. He is passionate, he understands history and brings art to life.

@nigelaw8814

2 жыл бұрын

But he is supremely self-centred. Ironic, given that he was arguing against Rembrandt's self-obsession.

@latitudeselongitudes1932

Жыл бұрын

I find both Rembrandt and Vermeer boringly overrated. Too bourgeois,northern european protestant sensibility,aesthetics. Very technically gifted painters but still they bore me to death with their art.

Tracy mentions an ambiguity in Vermeer then just moves on to talk about how she can't stop staring at the "the girl with the pearl earring" without referencing where the ambiguity can be found in him.

Art is art, not to be trivialised with this type of question. I love both artists for very different reasons. The debaters are a heavy weight against a light weight...imbalance of knowledge, experience and passion. However, I enjoyed very much and appreciate the many insights discussed. Thank you!

Simon Schama bears an uncanny resemblance to Rembrandt!

Both are genius and my favorites, Pure Art and Talent.

Vermeer is beautiful but looking at a Rembrandt is like falling into an endless sea of humanity, which Vermeer lacks for me, wonderful though it is. Also thought Light is the key genius of Vermeer and I'm amazed that TC doesn't make much of that.

@ashleyupshall7641

10 ай бұрын

Indeed, Rembrandt touches the soul.

Look into the eyes of a Rembrandt portrait. They are alive.

@---cr8nw

5 жыл бұрын

I think that's why I prefer Vermeer. Vermeer's paintings are a snapshot in time. The subjects are not dead, but your don't get the sense that they're alive, either.

I think the time I saw a Rembrandt painting, the effective display of a human face, partially lit in a darkened field was almost breathtaking. Much later, I saw Vermeer's Girl With a Pearl Earring. I love both artists. Not equally and for different reasons. And not always the same picture over a period of time. Yet they both show a mastery understanding the human spirit and the technical aspects of laying paint upon canvas unique for that period.

Just now watching this seven years after it took place and I found the debate illuminating on many fronts. Schama is an intellectual giant and his points are well taken. I disagree with him on many levels. Tracy Chevalier is handed a gift by one of the audience members who mentions light and instead of running with this as it connects with her ideas, she barely mentions it in her answer. However, it is this INEFFABLE quality of light which touches us, and Vermeer's sitters. That INEFFABLE is what makes us "feel" in the moment. Despite what Schama says, no photograph can capture the lighting in a bottle that Vermeer does. It transports the viewer in a tangible and physical way into the space he paints. I adore Rembrandt, but he is a painter who concocts great muddy vacancies of space behind his sitters. The actual spaces he creates are never understood by a viewer, to me, they hold me at a distance and therefore feel artificial. Caravaggio and his followers paint deeply dark backgrounds, that draw us into a larger space. Not so with Rembrandt. Finally, I am saddened that Chevalier did not mention the empathy that Vermeer clearly had for women. His paintings show an almost religiosity and transcendence, a deep and abiding empathy for the world of women and their daily existence. The meanings in the paintings behind his sitters and the resonance of the everyday objects that surround them, as well as the light that exposes them, is so much deeper than what was discussed. These woman are missing lovers who are far away, they are lost in reveries; What are they dreaming of? When has pouring of milk meant so much more than the act-one where the young woman is perhaps giving birth instead. The lip of the pitcher gently reminded us of her sex. In fact, I would go as far as saying that Rembrandt represent the inner pathos of men, where as Vermeer captures a women's hidden world, a world that was forced to stay private and Schama does not seem to understand this. Finally, when you look into the eyes of one of Rembrandt's faces from any genre painting, the gaze is often wrong, technically. One is left with a feeling of vacancy. Only in Rembrandt's self portraits do we look into his soul, and perhaps that is why we obsess about those paintings. Vermeer never gets that wrong, each time you look into the eyes of one of his female sitters you see her soul. You feel the warmth of the light, you wonder about her internal life in a way that quietly and powerfully illuminates much more than her room and does not need to scream in impasto to make its point.

I wish they put the paintings in the corner, or at least flashed them a little more often.

Question for Tracy Chevalier: 1) Did she do any research?

They were referring to paintings we only saw half the screen with the tops of heads in the audience in the long shot. So many of these productions film the individual whom we are listening to but to evaluate their comments we need to view what they are referring to.

Vermeer, hands down, Rembrant was great but Vermeer had something else, a sense for the viewer that feels like looking in at an intimate moment, plus how he used light, ( like Rembrandt used shadows) magical. Plus to see them live is fantastic.

@LilyAmongThorns

Жыл бұрын

I visited the Rijksmuseum this year, wow!!! So many gorgeous works of art, you cannot take it all in with one visit. Rembrandt is dark and beaten up by life’s hardships while Vermeer wants us to remember the peaceful moments and a sense of sincere gratitude for life’s simple moments, quietly reading a letter, doing chores, or simply enjoying the glance of a pleasant looking young lady. I love them both, just as I cherish the simple moments as much as I do remembering the tough moments in my life and the lessons as well as the scars they left on my life. Both talk to us about some aspects of living and being alive. I enjoy the quiet and peaceful moments in life more than I do the dark and challenging times, but both are here for us to appreciate for different reasons, different perspectives and lessons and insights. ❤️

Tracy, I will note for you that I did see a Vermeer and a Rembrandt in the same bay (2 rooms) in San Diego 2 years ago. Nathaniel, and Woman in Blue reading. Although I vote for Rembrandt, I have to say this little jewel of a Vermeer was the star of that event. Cheers.

Why do we ALWAYS have to compare - these two artists are very different - the colours they use, the effect they want to project, their styles… Comparing art is a pointless exercise - let’s appreciate the uniqueness of everyone on its own merit.

@LilyAmongThorns

Жыл бұрын

Yes. This discussion helped me sort out my feelings and own likes and discomforts with the works of these great artists. I always have felt Rembrandt’s paintings to be dark, somewhat dismal, and confrontational and sometimes combative and the opposite of peaceful, where Vermeer’s work is peaceful and light, causing you to be more introspective. Rembrandt focuses on great causes and conflicts, Vermeer brings the viewer home, to the simple things, bread and milk, music, reading a letter, or a glance that we cannot be sure if it is surprise, or quiet delight, or wishing to speak…? and such quiet questions cause us the viewer to dialogue quietly with the artwork, while Rembrandt assaults us with the challenge to take up arms in the Revolutions, life’s battles, and reflect on the battle scars and battered psyches torn apart and held together by the strength it took to overcome such challenges. I prefer the light and the peace of home and the simple pleasures of crusty bread and doing needlepoint, but I recognize that challenges cannot always be avoided, and recognize how battles in my own life, won and lost, have scarred me but have made me who I am today, wiser, a little sad at times, and sometimes a bit tired from all that chaos and disruption. They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum of what their art tells us. Although I love Vermeer’s quiet simplicity, I have to embrace the rougher elements of life that Rembrandt is telling me about.

@sanderdeboer6034

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, however this is a great way to get people invested in both painters and learn more about (art) history.

@Shylade

Жыл бұрын

It’s by comparing we find how different they actually were .. especially since so many confuse the two

I've had the privilege to see Rembrandt's paintings in St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum and I found myself enchanted by the precision and clarity of his art. It was mesmerizing and stunning and it can't compare to nothing, not even with reality. That much impressed I was.

@kerriejohnson983

3 жыл бұрын

I've had the privilege to see Rembrandt's paintings in St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum and I found myself enchanted by the precision and clarity of his art. It was mesmerizing and stunning and it can't compare to nothing, not even with reality. That much impressed I was.

@latitudeselongitudes1932

Жыл бұрын

Meh,Rembrandt is yawn inducing boring,same with Vermeer and a good number of other northern european artists.

@theofrustus3170

Жыл бұрын

@@kerriejohnson983 Tf?!?! Why you copying him like a creep?!?!

@jjk8417

Жыл бұрын

Saw his self portrait as Apostle Paul today (and others). His paintings are indeed completely mesmerizing. Being with such a painting is humbling and an emotional experience. There is a vividness and layering to it that indeed goes beyond reality. A complete human expression

@latitudeselongitudes1932

Жыл бұрын

@@jjk8417 His paintings are beautiful and his technique is masterful, you cant deny it, but he has this boring, bourgeois, protestant, northern european sensibility,aesthetics. I can appreciate it but it doesnt excite or move me like Caravaggio or Michelangelo

you can never say one artist is better than the other. you can only say i like this one more

@LilyAmongThorns

Жыл бұрын

I like the peaceful and tranquil moments captured by Vermeer more just as I prefer love, comfort and happiness over discomfort, darkness and despair…. but have to notice what Rembrandt reveals in his darker images of lessons learned the hard way through battles won and lost in life, and the impressions they delivered to their souls which then reveal the pain, regrets, sorrows in the eyes and expressions of the faces of those who survived to tell us their stories which are etched on their faces.

@anthonylemkendorf3114

Жыл бұрын

Well said Erling , the whole pretext is embarrassing..

The Titans of Dutch Painting were treated to a bad motion in the debate. I feel it should have been about their robust anthropological musings. However, Prof Schama's exposition proved him not only the best as he seems, but also the best there is for the titanic game. He is professorial and provides two solidly clear cut and picturesque illustrations of these giant painters and the stark open gulf between them. I like the ORTHOGONAL ST. ANDREWS CROSS scheme/design of Rembrandt. Well done you, Prof. Schama.

I love Vermeer! What soft and lovely light he painted. The light was almost always daylight from a window on one side of the painting. Blue and Yellow, the idea of color valance and complementary colors was not introduced until the 18th century, good contrast pattern of balance of blue and yellow, reflection, and illusion!

Schama was absolutely captivating! - So many new subtle details about both painters. As for Chevalier, why her speeches felt like a talk by a rep of an advertisement agency? She was rather pedestrian with her attempts at explaining Vermeer' magic and she was vulgar and simplistic when talking about Rembrandt.

@paillette2010

7 жыл бұрын

Nonsense.

@MNKorsak

7 жыл бұрын

Why? My comment was of a passionate and informed lover of fine arts. It does not take a lot of skills to recognize a true expert (and non-pragmatic connoisseur) among the two. The talk would have been much more interesting if Mrs. Chevalier forgot about herself and her literary carrier and focused instead on the main theme of the conversation: The Titans of Dutch Painting

@paillette2010

7 жыл бұрын

+Marina Kreyn I felt his arguments antic and repetitive. Her argument relied less on reminding us how much greater her artist was and Vermeer's excellence in general. I know he's a venerated author rather than a fiction writer, I found her points much more compelling. I, like many have seen Night Watch in person and many of his works, and appreciate his genius. But just like appreciating a tiara loaded with diamonds, one can favor a Faberge egg with delight over the rarity and precocity of the work :)

@MNKorsak

7 жыл бұрын

"Her argument relied less on reminding us how much greater her artist was..." What do you mean, "her artist?" Vermeer is ours - the humanity's - artist. Mr. Schama has given his life to the service of learning about arts. Mrs. Chevalier has dedicated her life to self-preservation as an author of fiction about a specific painting. Lets' look at her bio: "Tracy Chevalier was born on October 19, 1962, in Washington, D.C... In 1993, she began studying Creative Writing, earning a master's degree from the University of East Anglia. ... Chevalier moved to England, where she began working as an editorial assistant with Macmillan's Dictionary of Art, then later joined St. James Press, serving as a reference book editor...Her second novel, entitled "Girl with a Pearl Earring," was published in 1999... As of 2013, it has sold over four million copies worldwide..." Mrs. Chevalier is a financial success. Good for her. However, Mrs. Chevalier is not a realist painter herself. She did not study fine arts at earnest. The point is, Mrs. Chevalie could have benefited from learning about Vermeer and Rembrandt from Mr. Schama who is a true and dedicated expert in arts. Otherwise I agree with you that it is commendable that people appreciate craftsmanship in various forms.

@bepa491

3 жыл бұрын

Ditto, Marina! Ditto to every of the points you make.

Simon Schama is the Art History professor I always wished I'd had in college.

I enjoyed what both speakers had to say. I was quite frustrated, however, with having the projected paintings cut off for the most part. Each of the credits below should be made a link to the painting.

32:52 Look at Simon's face! :D

@bepa491

3 жыл бұрын

Yes! :) This is an ordinary look of an intelligent Brit at a moment when they learn they 've been engaging in a conversation with, shall we say, not so intelligent of a person.... :-/

I adore both. It's like I have to compare between a violoncello concert and a piano concert. They are beautiful, expressive, breath taking, but ultimately they are totally different instruments. One gets luscious legato melodies that resonates with the divine, and the other one gets more complex in terms of rhythm, harmony, complexity. BUT TOGETHER they make up most of everything we love in this world.

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

Still, I would not hang Rembrandt and Picasso with Monné and Van Gogh in the same room

Rembrandt painted the truth to the high degree. And he did it with so much style and mastery.

Schama's look of contempt as she's talking is priceless.

@nigelaw8814

2 жыл бұрын

or sickening. His arrogance was disgusting.

@artistinlederhosen

2 ай бұрын

he comes off as a pompous ass to me. loves the sound of his own words. she comes off as a real person.

I LOVE BOTH THEM . FANTASTIC .

I often popped down to Kenwood House on a Thursday afternoon during the summer term from Bishop Douglass school where I worked and had Vermeer and Rembrandt often all to myself having eaten a bowl of soup. Just having them together, in silence was a treat, a real treat. As an art teacher, I was in bliss. A happy memory from 1986 to 2000.

Rembrandt was a great artist. Vermeer was a great scientist artist. Both are great, art is a subjective topic. 👍

A Rembrandtian here and avid admirer of Vermeer. I think there was a bit of projection on Tracey’s part. I lost count of how many times she dismissed Rembrandt for not doing certain things that hes actually more famous for (speaking to the viewer, inviting the viewer in, innovative brushwork and representation, etc). She had the nerve piggyback off Rembrandt to support what became an overall weak defence of Vermeers talent and legacy. Even the host got tired of her giving roundabout answers. What kind of art fanatic gets “tired” of looking at Rembrandt paintings? Oh too many faces?? Oh poor people, eww? How many times did Simon (and the host and audience members) have to explain to Tracey that Rembrandt interest in selfportraits had nothing to do with ego or vanity but rather humanity and relating to others. Tracey’s preference in subject matter seems limited to stylized representations of wealthy/middle class people. Rembrandt wasn’t ‘everyday’ or [gasp] *diverse* enough for her, but Vermeer is? Anyway she pretty much lost it all the moment Simon asked her to name more than two paintings by Rembrandt where he inserted himself as a character before she suddenly lost hearing in both ears 🤣😏

@robertmicelli2946

Жыл бұрын

exactly. Simon knows his stuff. she doesn't

When I was in my 20-ies I prefered Vermer, now in my 40-ies, i have gone through things, and therefore now I prefere Rembrandt. That`s why I think they both are the best.

@bepa491

3 жыл бұрын

Could not agree more! I am afraid, Stacy has never moved past her 20-ies.

Love them both.

What an inspiring, most entertaining and highly educating demonstration of the reception of art. Of course there is no 'either - or better' artist, there is no real winning possible. However, making your case out of love and passion, knowledge for an artist, is legitimate and worthwhile, and common. You select, compare, putting in context the art and so on, and you declare why this or that artist is closer to your heart. Thank you!

Comparing them is like comparing chalk and cheese. Honestly, both are "gods" for me. Suppose it comes down to emotion somewhere, and in this term, Rembrandt really speaks to me. His self portraits are a bonus. Vermeer is just as overwhelmingly skillful, even brilliant. But hte emotional connection between the work " the painting" and the observer (me) , is laconic in Vermeer, and utterly gripping in Rembrandt. When i grow up though, i would like to paint as well of either. Theuy are both brilliant.

I studied both artist all my life.How did they do this with no modern convenience.Im an artist and I painted my greatgrand daughter as the girl with a pearl earring but I had light,water,heat,etc.

May I add that you can see Vermeer and Rembrandt in one room also in the Queen's palace in London...If I'm not mistaken

@mochapella

4 жыл бұрын

heheheee!

Every artist approaches their passions, subjects, patrons, canvas, light and color differently. Vincent van Gogh painted many self portraits providing insight to his human condition. Dare to compare!

What a ridiculous premise it is to try to convince people to like or appreciate one artist over another. It's the exact antithesis of what art should be. These two artists came from completely different backgrounds and had totally different living experiences, which certainly affected the ways in which they saw and chronicled their worlds. It's up to the viewers to decide for themselves which artist speaks to them on an intellectual or emotional level, and in whose world they feel more comfortable living.

@jadezee6316

4 жыл бұрын

spot on...these people are totally pathetic..especially the drunk..trying to perform as if he was in a stage production...

@John.Smith007

4 жыл бұрын

But is sounds like the presenters have British accents. We MUST accept their premise.

@satyaramc

4 жыл бұрын

@@John.Smith007 or be considered ignoramuses.

@John.Smith007

4 жыл бұрын

@@satyaramc The ignoramus is the person that would inject a personal insult into the matter. Are you that person?

@pmejia727

4 жыл бұрын

This debate, like the one on greece vs. rome, is sort of a comedic release, it is a performance in which the rivalry is manufactured and exaggerated so as to present two artists in a novel way and include the public with their vote on “who won”. I think the lecturers here didnt do a good job, whereas boris johnson definitely did in his debate.

4 million in sales does not equal true intelligentsia nor passion...'shes fine but Simon is a force of nature. The "Great Courses" need to call him soon. if they have not already?!'

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

:) I see Rembrandt always charitable to extravagance

I can't get over Simon Schama description of The Night Watch.

@nigelaw8814

2 жыл бұрын

What can't you get over? The fact that he plagiarised from other art historians?

Great entertainment and very educational.

Vermeer was an authentic artistic genius

I like the idea of debating this just for fun but I think the criticism of Vermeer for not depicting "darker" themes is a bit unfair since that wasn't his subject matter or aesthetic. He may not even of had that as an option since all of his paintings were commissions.

@chuckschillingvideos

6 жыл бұрын

The assumption is that darker = more profound, more serious, more worthy of discussion. Is that a valid assertion? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems to be a fairly common assumption and has been for an awfully long time.

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

I would love to point out critical remark for correcting the # of Vermeer' paintings with religious content and argue that milk lady is absolutely biblical. With Mr Schama tho... will be adorable time spent..

@---cr8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Also, his (likely) method of using a camera obscura would make it quite difficult to capture poorly lit subject matter. I know that's not what is meant by "darker," but it is certainly an element of conveying darker subject matter.

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

@@---cr8nw since all of his paintings were commissions, it's normal

@---cr8nw

5 жыл бұрын

@Villie Stephanov were they, though? I find it hard to believe that a wealthy person would commission a portrait or some other artwork from an artist who has never painted before. According to Wikipedia, "34 paintings are firmly attributed to him, with question marks over a further three. This compares to the 74 pictures attributed to him by Thoré-Bürger in 1866." I think it's VERY likely that he did have works that were not commissioned.

The Dutch masters, Vincent van Gogh and Rembrandt van Rijn. Van Gogh created modern art. Rembrandt was a magician.

You can actually see a Rembrant (Self-portrait) and a Vermeer (Mistress and Maid) in the same room and wall at The Frick Collection in Manhattan. Both beautiful, but you clearly see there her point: the one of a kind Vermeer and the one of several Rembrant’s self-portrait.

The world can't do without Rembrandt, it can without Vermeer. Although I would hate a world without Vermeer. I can't bare to live in a world without Rembrandt. Vermeer taught us the world is beautiful, Rembrandt taught us the world can be beautiful. The distinction is slight. But essential.

@robinsearles5771

6 жыл бұрын

D Sierhuis agreed. At the level of Shakespeare, Milton, and Dante. It would be ruinous to cut out Rembrandt. We suffer no greater loss than would be that of Delacroix or Schubert. Rembrandt takes his drink with Beethoven, Chaucer, and Woolf-only the sublime.

@paulh6724

6 жыл бұрын

D Sierhuis When I visit galleries with both paintings in the same vicinity I spend much more time with Vermeer than Rembrandt. There is a lot more in vameer’s sublime work than is readily recognised.

@brianhudson7822

6 жыл бұрын

REMBRANDT IS WHAT THE FRENCH CALL "M'AS -TU VU?" OR HAVE YOU SEEN ME? AREN'T I CLEVER? HE WAS PROLIFIC TO THE POINT OF BEING COMMON. YOU PEOPLE ALL WRAPPED UP IN REMBRANDT ARE CONFUSING TECHNIQUE WITH INSPIRATION. THE TECHNIQUE OF METSU BLOWS REMBRANDT OUT OF THE WATER. NEITHER TOUCHES VERMEER FOR INSPIRATION.

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

I object. The world is just fine with none of them.

@dynomax101

5 жыл бұрын

@@brianhudson7822 A right fine steaming pile of utter bullshit there!

The best video in this channel ❤

I've watched this at least 5 times

My favorite is Van Gogh, so I like the painterly impasto of Rembrandt's self portraits, but I prefer the brighter colors and the usefulness of Vermeer's works for Memes more.

This was magnificentI! Simon Schama is brilliant!

absolutely brilliant thank you....WOW

This was great debate but I agree with several on the comments. Each was painting in his own style and composition in subject. The sheer numbers of Rembrandt will lean towards his works but one question comes to mind. What painting of the two will be most recognized to the layman? I love both and have reproductions of each. Vermeer touches me as no other artist has and that's what matters to each of us.

Is it possible Vermeer paintings were questions you wanted to answer. And Rembrandt were answers you questioned

Can't stand Simon, too manic and self-important. Unfortunately though, Tracy was ridiculously inadequate at expressing her argument for Vermeer. She actually reversed the psychology of each artist within her debate and didn't even know it. Rembrandt doesn't keep the viewer at a distance; he's almost confrontational. His compositional directness provokes or challenges you into his scenes. Vermeer's style was voyeuristic, not inviting. In most of his paintings, the people aren't even aware there is a viewer. They are turned away from you, or engaged in some task. It feels as if you are peering in on something private. The light in Vermeer's paintings is very calming and serene, almost spiritual. You feel comfortable there. Maybe that's what she meant by 'inviting?'

@Angela-gf6zx

4 жыл бұрын

Steven, just wow! Your short review of both artists is very true. You made me see what I did not before, so thank you.

Simon...Your passion...your deep insight...you english accent...made your intervention...so exquisite. But you were nervous.

@villiestephanov984

5 жыл бұрын

I think, he just couldn't afford to pay attention that much

I like Schama speaking..

The lecturer is very engaging.

Tracy Chevalier got served...

As a lecturer, this woman is as trivial as her book, a very light read.

@chuckschillingvideos

6 жыл бұрын

Clearly she was out of her depth. It's hard to believe they couldn't find a more knowledgeable and credible expert for the Vermeer side of things.

@AndYourLittleDog

3 жыл бұрын

Sadly, she didn’t do the great Vermeer proud.

@nigelaw8814

2 жыл бұрын

Jeepers, how arrogant can you be? 'Trivial'? 'this woman'?? Just listen to yourself.

Both are wonderful. Rembrandt is unquestionably the Master.

I say Vermeer. The problem I have with Rembrandt is that his work is so uneven in quality, not to mention; many of his paintings were finished up by his students. It's impossible to say any work by him is entirely his. Plus there are so many imitations of his work that were thought to be original, but are not classified as copies. Many works that were originally his, have now been attributed to other artists. You can't say that about any of Vermeer's works. You know one when you see it. If you look at a majority of paintings from the Dutch Golden Age. 75 percent looked like they could have been painted by the same artist.

@brainstream851

7 жыл бұрын

Total correct! And Rembrandt has students of "world-Class" Quality: Carel Fabritius, Ferdinand Bol, Gerard Dou, Govert Flinck, Aert de Gelder. Beside this he had a longtime congenial "painting - friend": Jan Lievens - not much worse than Rembrandt himself! Technical even almost better than him.

@johnblack8036

7 жыл бұрын

That's for sure. Vermeer is king. I've seen three Vermeer paintings in person. Woman Holding a Balance and Woman with a Water Jug. I can't remember the name of the other one. It was a woman playing an instrument of some sort. I was young and didn't know one artist from another, but two of those paintings stood out from all the others. The first thing I noticed was the light hitting background wall and the table cloth. How does someone paint a blank wall and make it look so realistic? It looked like photograph. I thought to myself, someone did that with a brush? I couldn't believe it. I've come to appreciate other works of art, but Vermeers are in a class of their own.

@brainstream851

7 жыл бұрын

That's the difficulty you rightly noticed: You see a wall and your brain says "That's white" but that's not exactly correct! In truth its's a blueish white , or purple-white, often a yellowish-white or a brownish-white! The art is to bring this values in the right relation. Here Vermeer is the absolutely greatest painter, beneth other difficulties. To paint something is one thing, the perfect selection of the object the other! In the first thing many, many artists are relatively good, in the point of the choice of the right object that's another difficult challenge! Who get's the idea to paint a street in Delft the kind Vermeer did? Only Vermeer!

@plumeria66

6 жыл бұрын

John Black I'm an artist and I think Vermeer is better with color. Rembrandt is a phenomenal drawer, but as a painter his choice of color doesn't awe me the way Vermeer's does.

and Rembrandt created such a great body of work. paintings, etchings, and drawings

Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 15th October 2015?

Thank you so much for this “debate”….. it has helped me sort out my thoughts and feelings, my preferences ,and the discomforts coming from viewing the works of these two great masters of art. I have always felt Rembrandt’s paintings to be dark, dismal, and confrontational and somewhat combative; the very opposite of peaceful. Vermeer, on the other hand, is peaceful and filled with light, and the quietness of his works cause me to become quiet and introspective while thinking about what I am looking at in his little quiet and peaceful intimate moments frozen for us in time. Rembrandt focuses on great causes and great men, conflicts, determination, the aggression in fighting life’s battles, and noticing the battle scars and tired expressions on the faces of those who weathered such storms. Vermeer brings us home, to the simple things; bread, milk, reading a letter…or a glance that we cannot be sure of; is it surprise? or quiet delight? or wishing to say something intimate? or a combination of all and many more things that cannot be put into words? While Rembrandt’s paintings challenges me to be uncomfortable just sitting home being comfortable while there are still injustices to be fought, challenges to our faith to be addressed, life’s battles to be lived through be it physical and public aggressions, or quiet personal ones such as battling a terrible illness. I prefer the beauty, the peace and light. I prefer remaining home and at peace. I prefer being healthy over being sick and disturbed. I enjoy crusty bread and milk, over going hungry and having to do without, and being angry about things I would like to change but cannot…I recognize that challenges cannot always be avoided, and in Rembrandt’s works I see my own battle scars left from the battles that I’ve lived through, battles that were won or lost, all leaving an imprint in my soul and reflected in my eyes and etched into my facial expressions, making me who I am today, a little wiser, at times a bit sad, and often very tired of the chaos and disruptions. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of what their art tells us. Although I love Vermeer’s quiet simplicity, I have to embrace the rougher elements of life that Rembrandt is talking to me about.

National gallery in Washington has a Rembrandt and Vermeer in the same room

Always Rembrandt for me. I appreciate Vermeer, but find his work a little sterile.

Rembrandt was so poor for so long that his only resource was to paint himself instead of paying a model.

and what about a sex difference in appreciation? I missed that question.

there's always contraction between two extremes through all periods ; like motivated expression and silence in introversion. like romanticism vs classicism. So still-life tents to the later classisism,as does engaged raw expression tents to 19 century romanticism. Dionisus vs Apollo ........

@edwardb7811

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting insights.

The girl at 1:18 is absolutely gorgeous and asks the best question!!😍

I love both of the artist so much and noone can convince me to choose one of them to another. I love the debate but i don't like the logic behind choosing one of them.

As a painter Surely using your own face is just practical

Brilliant debate ...great arguments..... Simon won me over .... :)

I vote Velazquez

@brianhudson7822

6 жыл бұрын

Wolfgang Horinek AMEN! THESE TWO FOOLS ARE CLUELESS. TWO WORDS DESCRIBE THE GREATEST PAINTING OF ALL TIME; "Las Meninas"!

@r.i.p.theovangogh1848

6 жыл бұрын

Brian Hudson 'the allegorie of painting' is even about Velasques. Vermeer depicts stillness as no one ever has managed to do. Vermeer has no competition. Rembrandt and Velasques are both the greatest of all painters. Vermeer does not compete

@brianhudson7822

6 жыл бұрын

r.i.p. Theo van Gogh I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. "WOMAN ASLEEP"

@---cr8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Good choice. I prefer other artists, including Vermeer, but Velazquez had a distinct style and flair that couldn't be matched.

A stellar example of pitting someone trained to the pinnacle of his field and achieved some of the greatest accolades in the intellectual world pitted against someone way, way out of her depth. Ms.Chevalier's critique's seemed superficial and rather obvious; she wasn't able lend any greater understanding for Vermeer in any greater context (historical, familial, political etc.). She clings to her own way of relating to Vermeer, how she accesses it, how she relates to it, as the way Vermeer is accessed. Simplistic and uninteresting.

@walterweimer1333

6 жыл бұрын

Stacie Bigelow Schama is a showman. The most important things in life are the simplest and those rare perfect moments nothing so intrascendental like politics and history and so on that means nothing and is so far from real people and real life. I feel Rembrandt is great and Vermeer is sublime.

@---cr8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed. There are MUCH better Vermeer experts out there that can really explain the genius of his works. Also, his ability to capture things PRECISELY as they are is a rare gift. Better choices for the Vermeer side of the debate would be: Philip Steadman kzread.info/dash/bejne/eXqaz8VtlZqxl7A.html James A. Welu kzread.info/dash/bejne/eJ-rzsGlda2qlpM.html

Just an anecdote.. when someone is referring to a picture or something they’ve done, they might say it’s not a Rembrandt. I have never heard anyone say well it’s good but not a Vermeer ... just saying the better known artist is Rembrandt. But why compare ? Its like comparing guitarist.. both were masters

I have always been confused still today between Not Varmeer nor Ruben but compare Rembrandt with illeya Repins. It would be interesting.

A ludicrous premise, one being "better", but just for fun, why not? Schama is fun... She... as most of us, can't be quite as cheeky and exceptional as him....

@chuckschillingvideos

6 жыл бұрын

No, but is it too much to ask that she have more than a superficial knowledge of that which she is presenting?

One is a writer. One is a teacher. I know his is one helluva teacher. As for her, well, I don't think that is something I will ever know. A terrific time was had by me.

A third Rembrandt appearing in a painting - storm at the sea of Galilee, and IMHO Rembrandt's best and better than anything Vermeer ever produced . It seems weird nobody ever mentions this absolute masterpiece. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee#/media/File:Rembrandt_Christ_in_the_Storm_on_the_Lake_of_Galilee.jpg

Glad Schama mentions Fabritius...

Who is the moderator? if anyone knows, please advise me. Thanks!

Wow battle of the Egos. Hard watch, can't do snobs

I can't say who's better, whether Vermeer or Rembrandt. Nobody can because it's just a matter of personal taste. And every great master was first of all an innovator. True greatness arises when something new is invented. Both Vermeer and Rembrandt were great masters. I don't like saying Caravaggio is better than Monet. i may like Caravaggio more than Monet, but that's just my personal taste. Interesting conversation nonetheless : i love listening people talking about art. It beats funny videos of funny cats :D

Rembrandt vs. Vermeer resembles unfortunately the debate between Jane Austen and Emily Bronte: one artist has too great a body of work to adequately compare with the others' very limited oeuvre.

@davidj.kleinsasser8673

8 жыл бұрын

+Devin Roberts That's ridiculous, Vermeer was brilliant in his own way, and whether he was more "technical" than Rembrandt is mote, he is far more than just a technician...

@Rickyee

8 жыл бұрын

+Devin Roberts well said, but that doesn't qualify vemeer as a simple technician. You know who else didn't draw ? Caravaggio.

@Rickyee

8 жыл бұрын

+Devin Roberts well said, but that doesn't qualify vemeer as a simple technician. You know who else didn't draw ? Caravaggio.

@Rickyee

8 жыл бұрын

+Devin Roberts well said, but that doesn't qualify vemeer as a simple technician. You know who else didn't draw ? Caravaggio.

@Rickyee

8 жыл бұрын

+Devin Roberts +Devin Roberts well said, but that doesn't qualify vemeer as a simple technician. You know who else didn't draw ? Caravaggio.

Simon reminds me of one of my dear friends from university. M.

Next Week: Rolf Harris Vs Caravaggio

Simon nailed it! with Rembrandt, exploring every conceivable thing oil paint could do. yea, that's the feeling i get with works like Jan Six and The Jewish Bride

WRT Rembrandt as an occasion of another Schama performance piece: to paraphrase Hamlet's mom, less natter, more Art.

Learned some Dutch while seeing this video, even though I am Dutch myself. In the talk about Vermeer the word ‘Tronie’ is used, while she claims we Dutch use it. This is NOT the case, and I found out is is actually was part of OLD Dutch. There is a BIG difference between Dutch from a few centuries ago and the modern Dutch. I probably would have a hard time understanding my fellow Dutchman from a few centuries ago. Anyway still nice to learn it.

interesting costume design..

Can't see the screen

wow

I LOVE both: but she's absolutely right about Rembrandt always painting himself! Come on dude, besides all the self portraits, all those other people always has his eyes?

I adore Simon.

Rembrandt wins..Hands down. One BALLSY and Honest painter x

@mochapella

4 жыл бұрын

yes an honest, down to earth, tell it like it is painter with magic in his eyes and hands.

1:36:46