The Critics' Debate: Girl With the Pearl Earring — LePrinceSmile vs. Ralph Rumpelton
Moderator: Tonight we examine two digital MS Paint interpretations of Vermeer's Girl With the Pearl Earring. On the left is LePrinceSmile. On the right, Ralph Rumpelton. Our critics are Regina Pembly and Professor Bartholomew Crankshaw III.
Regina Pembly
(Adjusts spectacles with visible disappointment.)
Let us dispose of the obvious first.
The painting on the left demonstrates that its creator understands what Vermeer was actually doing. The light rolls gently across the face. The transitions are subtle. The anatomy remains intact. The expression possesses that maddening ambiguity which has fascinated viewers for centuries.
It is, in short, competent.
Now...
(turns toward the Rumpelton version as though something unpleasant has appeared on the wall)
...we have this.
Miss Vermeer appears to have wandered into a carnival funhouse and emerged permanently altered. The eyes point in directions known only to migratory birds. The neck has apparently resigned from the composition altogether. The proportions suggest someone reconstructed a Renaissance masterpiece from memory after hearing it described over a poor telephone connection.
And yet...
I hesitate to admit this...
The silhouette is instantly recognizable.
The blue turban.
The oversized pearl.
The turn of the shoulders.
Somehow this impossible creature still announces itself as Girl With the Pearl Earring.
That irritates me more than if it had failed completely.
Because failure would have been easier to dismiss.
Instead Mr. Rumpelton has committed artistic vandalism while preserving just enough structure for the viewer to smile.
I hate that.
Professor Bartholomew Crankshaw III
(Produces a notebook that appears older than electricity.)
Miss Pembly is, as always, wonderfully angry.
The left painting demonstrates admirable discipline. Whoever painted it understands restraint, atmosphere, and the difficult business of allowing light to do the work instead of shouting with color.
I have remarkably few complaints.
Which is disappointing.
Now...
Mr. Rumpelton.
Good heavens.
This is the visual equivalent of translating Shakespeare into refrigerator magnets.
Every proportion is argumentative.
The face appears assembled by committee.
The eyes have abandoned diplomatic relations with one another.
And yet...
The fellow possesses confidence.
One stroke says,
"Yes, I know that eye is too large. It shall remain too large."
There is no apology.
No timid correction.
No desperate attempt to imitate realism.
Only complete commitment to an absurd visual language.
As someone who believes artists should suffer for their convictions, I cannot entirely dislike that attitude.
Regina Pembly
Commitment is not a substitute for ability.
Crankshaw
Certainly not.
But ability without personality often becomes wallpaper.
Pembly
Personality should not resemble a startled trout.
Crankshaw
Nor should it resemble another technically perfect imitation destined to disappear into the endless ocean of competent digital realism.
Pembly
You cannot possibly be suggesting the Rumpelton painting is the more memorable work.
Crankshaw
I regret to report that I am.
If I passed both paintings in a gallery today, I would admire the left one...
...and remember the right one tomorrow.
Pembly
That is because memory clings to accidents.
Crankshaw
History occasionally does as well.
Cubism was once considered an accident.
Impressionism was considered unfinished.
The first fellow who painted green shadows was probably laughed out of Paris.
I am not declaring Mr. Rumpelton a genius.
Heavens, no.
I am merely observing that he has committed himself to a language that belongs unmistakably to him.
Pembly
Very well.
I concede one microscopic point.
If these images were stripped of signatures...
...I could probably identify the Rumpelton painting from across the room.
Which is either the beginning of an artistic identity...
...or a public safety warning.
Crankshaw
Sometimes the distance between those two is surprisingly small.
Moderator's Closing Remarks
The debate ends without agreement.
Regina Pembly leaves convinced that LePrinceSmile honored Vermeer while Ralph Rumpelton committed a cheerful act of artistic sabotage.
Professor Crankshaw departs muttering that although he would never voluntarily endorse digital painting, he finds Rumpelton's refusal to imitate reality strangely admirable.
Neither critic changes their opinion.
Both secretly spend the train ride home thinking about the painting on the right.
LePrinceSmile Youtube Channel
No comments:
Post a Comment