Which is the Real Girl with a Pearl Earring?

Explore Vermeer's masterpiece "Girl with a Pearl Earring" up close, and see how it's different (and not) from a high-res 3D print of the painting. We visit the Mauritshuis in The Hague and learn what happens when conservation scientists study the painting with today's most advanced technology.

The Girl in the Spotlight research project is a Mauritshuis initiative, with a team of internationally recognised specialists working within the collaborative framework of the Netherlands Institute for Conservation, Art and Science (NCIS).

Thanks to our Grandmasters of the Arts Vincent Apa and Indianapolis Homes Realty, and all of our patrons, especially Bronze Bond, Patrick Hanna, M12 Studio, Jane Quale, and Constance Urist.

Subscribe for new episodes of The Art Assignment every other Thursday!

--
Follow us elsewhere for the full Art Assignment experience:

[debasrutiboral]

I love how the conservators speak about the painting like it is a person to be cared for and adored.

[brockalbert]

I bet the people back in 1665 would be more impressed by the robot making duplicates of fine art.

[NiamhCreates]

I love the style of the woman at 3:30. Her hair, necklace, and glasses all match!

[Chemson]

Vermeer : "I use Photoshop, with one layer"
Michelangelo : "I use Zbrush, with no plugins"
Da vinci : "I use AutoCAD, without perspective gird"
Picasso : "I use Microsoft Paint, with a mouse"
Van Gogh : "I use FinalCutPro, with my left ear"

[JoaoPessoa]

I remember seeing her when she was on loan in San Francisco and she had a mesmerizing glow about her I was not expecting

[LucasPreti]

*The original is she, the replica is it.* That probably says it all

[lorenabpv]

I once interviewed a physics grad student whose research was around paint and how it worked with light and how it degraded with time and the effects on conservation. As someone who was always terrible at physics, it was a very interesting but crazy interdisciplinary research

[smurfystef]

7:35 Her hair, her sweater and her frames match so perfectly is so satisfying.

[realspacemodels]

It's amazing to take that close-up look at the pearl and see that it's barely there. It is defined by its reflections and for being such an iconic part of this painting, it is really more a perception by the viewer than an object depicted by the artist.

[vampirica]

There will sadly come a time when those reproductions will look more faithful to the original painting than the painting itself will (if it keeps deteriorating). 🙁 I imagine people, say in 31st century, looking at the reproductions for the accuracy and at the original out of respect to the artist and awe. They'll both be equally important for the different reasons.

[cloudyyy]

Imagine painting something and having your artwork admired, treasured and studied meticulously centuries later

[sonicgoo]

The copy is interesting in the context of for example the big museum fire in Brazil this year. If they get close enough we could make backups of entire museums.

[s.haefke]

this is sooo interesting and abbie vandivere has awesome hair

[Beryllahawk]

Not ashamed to admit that I had no idea about this painting. I might've seen the image someplace but I didn't know anything about it, much less this level of amazing detail and history.
I've also never, ever looked at it in this way or for this long.

I kept waiting for her to blink.

[ZoraTheberge]

One thing any original has that no copy ever will is a direct line to its creator. To celebrate an artist’s work is to celebrate the artist that made it as well. And the original canvas was there. It was touched by the artist. And Vermeer, much like his most famous painting, is shrouded in mystery. So the original represents not only the image created by the paints and pigments, but also the moment it was created.

[artcurious]

The reason we value the original, over even expensive reproductions, is because we have a shared experience as physical human beings who pass through time and space. Rembrandt is part of our shared world history.

You can get a robot to follow a computer program governed by principles of AI and it will reproduce or create a lot of interesting art work. But no one wants it or identifies with it and it’s really only good for mouse pads or coffee mugs. Human made art has the ability to be transcendent in a way that reproductions can never do.

[ojiverdeconfleco]

Oh, so the reason it's difficult to make a bright oil painting is because the paint is transparent? I didn't know that! So whites aren't supposedly saturated enough to remain white if there're other layers of color beneath them, right? Then that is indeed strange. I know next to nothing about paints, so finding out things like this makes me appreciate the work more.

[rayhs]

There was a movie in 1953 called "four sided triangle" where 3 friends were able to duplicate any item. The movie gets crazy, but at the beginning the 2 things they wanted to use the technology for were to duplicate medicine and to duplicate works of art. Not for money but to give to people because art is that important.

[jca]

Vermeer used a camera obscura to achieve his effects. Didn't hear it mentioned. Also there is a movie out "Tim's Vermeer" an engineer figures out how vermeer painted. It is really fascinating.

[EBETZEN]

I really appreciated the part where he mentioned they were working towards making reproductions better so artwork can be shared. Any time I see a work of art in a private collection that I really connect with I'm sad that so many won't be able to see it in the same quality or at all.