Among Dutch painters from the seventeenth century, Johannes Vermeer has long had the reputation for being one of the most outstanding. His pieces, masterful in their display of technique, give the viewer a tentative glance into Dutch culture through depictions of quiet interiors and exquisite portraits. While many of Vermeer’s works are well known, none appear to be quite as celebrated and analyzed as the Girl With a Pearl Earring. The painting has gone by many names, but a title that has stuck is “Mona Lisa of the North”; many people favorably comparing it to the famous portrait by Italian master Leonardo da Vinci. Much like its Italian counterpart, the figure in the painting has continued to mystify and amaze viewers, many trying to find meaning within the portrait. No matter the interpretation, Vermeer’s Girl With a Pearl Earring is arguably one of the most famous paintings to come from the Dutch Baroque period. Inspired by the interest and mystery surrounding the painting, I also chose to recreate and reinterpret the iconic image through a modern lens.
Johannes Vermeer, born in October 1632, grew up in Delft the youngest child to reformed Protestants Reynier Jansz. Vermeer and Digna Baltens. His father’s own line of work would likely serve as a large influence on Vermeer’s future as a master painter. Reynier Jansz. Vermeer, the son of a tailor, initially became a trained caffa weaver, working to weave fine fabrics such as silk. However, he would later go on to work full-time as a registered art dealer as well as an innkeeper, connecting with Delft’s local painters and art collectors. His inn serving as both its intended purpose as well as a gallery displaying collected works by various artists. It is presumed that Vermeer officially began following his artistic aspirations at some point in the mid to late 1640s most likely around the age of fourteen, the age at which most artists would begin their training. On the 29th of December 1653, Vermeer finally joined Delft’s painters Guild of St. Luke. His inclusion into this all-important guild meant that he now had permission to sell his work within the city of Delft, teach other aspiring painters, and to also serve as an art dealer much like his father once had. The guild required all members to have served six years in an apprenticeship position under a master before they would be granted membership. Art Historians still have not identified the exact master or masters Vermeer studied under; many theorizing he had to study under a less-notable Delft painter due to the financial strain placed on his family by the passing of his father. One possibility is Leonard Bramer, who was a principal painter in the city of Delft with a style very distinct and different from Vermeer’s own. Whether or not he studied under Bramer, there is evidence that he had contact with Vermeer’s family. In any case, Vermeer stayed in Delft for the first four years of his apprenticeship, and likely finished his training period in either the city of Amsterdam or the city of Utrecht. The influences from the artists he likely encountered in either city, are very apparent in his earliest works.
Vermeer’s overall career can clearly divided into three distinct periods: early, middle, and late. His early period, from 1655-1657, is marked by Vermeer’s play with technique, as well as exploration in subject-matter. During this era, the subjects of his works included classical historical scenes, modern historical scenes, mythological stories, and biblical episodes; these subjects leading many historians to believe that Vermeer at this point had an interest in becoming a history painter. This period was also characterized by his interest in Italian art and artistic movements. His knowledge of these artistic works likely comes from the local collections in Amsterdam. During this time, one did not have to travel out of the country to see the works of the Italian masters, thanks to the bustling art trade. His works also made use of warm colors, well-defined modeling of figures, and tenebristic lighting; all Italian Baroque conventions that were later adopted by the Caravaggisti master painters in Utrecht whose paintings Vermeer was likely familiar with. Vermeer as a history painter, is a version of Vermeer that is likely unfamiliar to many.
Vermeer’s late period (lasting from 1667 until his death) much like the beginning of his career, presents Vermeer as an artist that is very different from the highpoint of his career. The final period of Vermeer’s career focused on an increasingly stylized technique, while still featuring the type of subjects he painted during his middle period. Much of this change in Vermeer’s late works stemmed from personal and financial problems. His chief patron, Pieter van Ruijven (who bought the majority of his artistic output), died and Vermeer was left in a state of financial instability and with few options. He became financially dependent on his mother-in-law, and his artistic vision suffered greatly as a result.
The “middle period” of Vermeer’s career, lasting roughly ten years (1657-1667) would greatly shape the artist’s works as the world now knows them, and is considered to be the peak of his career. The Vermeer of this era, is the Vermeer most are acquainted with. This period was dedicated to his creation of genre paintings typically of Dutch interiors, and portraiture, as well as a distinct shift in style. Before this period, Dutch genre paintings were dedicated to depicting their figures, oftentimes peasants, as unruly and barbaric drunks in raucous situations. These types of paintings were very popular in the Dutch upperclass. As the “middle period” of Vermeer’s career arrived, these types of paintings began to fall out of favor and be replaced by the demand for paintings of dignified figures carrying out various, daily activities. Many of Vermeer’s popular works follow this trend in subject matter; this trend combined with his trademark diffused painting style (inspired by the invention and implementation of the camera obscura), as well as his manipulation of light and color define Vermeer’s legacy as the world now knows it. It was during this era, Vermeer produced arguably one of his most famous paintings, Girl With a Pearl Earring.
Girl With a Pearl Earring, was painted near the end of Vermeer’s middle period. While the painting itself appears to be a traditional portrait, it is actually a tronie, a type of painting very common during the Dutch baroque period. The word “tronie”, means “face”, and it applies specifically to “pictures […] of anonymous models shown bust-length (though sometimes in half-length and even three-quarter length).” Unlike traditional portraits, these images were not meant to represent a specific individual or patron, and were intended more as a study. An artist could use tronies to explore painting styles, human features and anatomy, interior settings, clothing, and any number of other topics. Because Girl With a Pearl Earring is a tronie, the viewer is then able to deduce that the painting is not meant to be of a particular woman; however, there is some speculation as to the actual identity of the model. The painting inspired a novel by Tracy Chevalier, which itself spawned a cinematic adaptation. This popularized imagining of the painting’s origin, as well the painting’s status as an iconic image has contributed to misunderstandings as to what the image actually represents. The film and novel both present the woman in the painting as being a specific woman or a house servant within in Vermeer’s life, while art historians have found no concrete evidence to support this theory. In more recent times, people have placed several meanings upon the image that simply do not connect with the truth nor the era of its conception. A person from Vermeer’s time would likely be able to recognize Girl With a Pearl Earring for what it is, an informal portrait; the sitter’s exotic attire and signature pearl earring serving as a dead giveaway to this fact.
Although the painting is simple, there are many different parts that make up its iconography. First there is the titular pearl earring, which back in Vermeer’s time would have been considered expensive and a status symbol. There has been much speculation as to whether the earring is actually made of pearl, and whether or not the pearl is artificial. Art historians have proposed that it is actually a drop of glass or just polished tin, due to its large size, (which is often uncharacteristic of pearls). There have also been theories that the pearl represents the purity of its wearer, the young girl. The girl in the painting is depicted as wearing a turban-like headpiece, which is not easily identifies as it was not a common item of clothing nor was it modern in seventeenth century Netherlands. This type of head wrap appears in several different pieces from this time period, and represents the common theme of exoticism and interest in Eastern cultures that was very much present in Europe. In contrast to the antiquated headdress, the jacket the girl in the painting wears is modern to the time period. The viewer is not meant to accept the girl in the painting as an exotic figure, nor is she exemplary of modern Dutch style; rather, these two opposing garments would have told the viewer that this was an informal portrait.
While the viewer sees little more than a half-length view of the girl in the painting, her position and expression create an air of mystery and intrigue. Her lips are parted as if wanting to speak and reddened, which can be interpreted as slightly sensuous. However, her facial expression conveys a sense of innocence and uncertainty. Her body is slightly turned towards the viewer as if they have just entered into the room from out of the picture plane, and she is reacting to their arrival. The entire moment captured on the canvas feels incredibly momentary and delicately posed.
The style in which Girl With a Pearl Earring is painted in is Vermeer’s distinct own. She is “conceived purely in glowing, interactive patterns of light and shadow as opposed to line”, and features no precise details or harsh contours. There is no clear separation between the flesh-toned features of her face, particularly her cheek and nose; both features seem to fade into the other seamlessly creating a smooth plane. The features themselves are painted very carefully through thoughtfully placed strokes of paint, the tones subtly shifting to show definition. The edges around the figure are softly blurred to decrease the contrast between the girl and the dark background she sits in front of. The background itself initially a dark, glossy shade of green has changed over time due to inaccurate restorations. It has been concluded by Karin Groen and others responsible for conserving the painting, that it was meant look as if the painting had been made of elegant enamel; further creating a sense of elegance and purity.