Only Rembrandt can paint

[Bobhification]

Wank stain. Talented but pretty much wankery in the highest degree that the verdict you honor

[SUPERPHANTAZM]

The white mythology series. Hey is the little white girl still missing?

[danyram89]

what movie is this from??

[supersecretninjame]

@danyram89 i know its a late answer but the movie is called "incognito" if you are downloading it make sure to take the one from 1997 the one from 1999 is a tv series with the same title xD good luck have fun...

[kidzsanlorenzo]

LOL! she is getting hot watching him paint !?! this happens only in movies...

[iDraw3G]

@kidzsanlorenzo lol

[konzwambii]

Anyway, yes it's just a movie and of course they would get an actor (not a talented painter) to act the part. The joke is when people say this guy can really paint! hahahahahahaha

[iDraw3G]

amazon

[1Enkidu]

You are all ridiculous...Gemmill does his thing, you do your thing...

Someone who is genuinely "better" does not say they are better, or would ever criticize another for being lesser.

...walk the walk then call me..

Your inexperience is so obvious and disgusting.

2: it's a movie. Get a life.

[ehsanr]

this scene is so unauthentic ...but i still love it <3

[artisttrev]

Hi Guys,

Loved your verbal tennis, really interesting discussion with no malice.

It is how i imagine artists of old argued in Taverns and bars.

I wish you all the best, Trev

[nisiriti]

I lova the way thomas lockyer looks during the drawing of the painting. he is terrific!

[nijgnohmik]

Great Movie

[11hellamella]

i totally agree!! thomas lockyer for ever!!

[miminikikom]

my favourite movie!! thomas lockyer gives an excellent performance!

[ffffffffff2009]

Is this a movie?

Why do I know he will mess it up at the end?

[konzwambii]

Can't believe the comments what a great painter this guy is. No, he's not. Not by a long shot. Not only is the entire process phony and scripted, but he in no way approaches Rembrandt in any aspect at all. Rembrandt was not only the greatest technical genius in draftsmanship and paint handling, but also imparted deep psychological insight. No one has ever approached it.

[EyeLean5280]

They did get one or two things right: the pre-toned canvas, the way he holds the charcoal. But that's it.

Even a relative beginner knows that no traditional painter would begin a painting with the lights!

And really, now, what courtroom is going to sit there for four hours or more while a guy paints with stinky, turpentiney tools when they could watch the same process in a time-lapse video???

So on both counts, painting and filmmaking, this scene gets a "DUH."

[Dzimini]

Well,no one has ever approached Rembrandt, but also no one has ever approached Dali, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, or any other human being (painter) who was/is/will be on this earth!

And that is the most significant thing!

[konzwambii]

Aside from the general incomprehensibility of your comment, Dali is hardly in the company of the others. Dali was a showman, an act, possessing only modest skills as an artist.

[chandru1103]

WHAT THE FUCK YOU TALKIN' 'BOUT DUMB ASS!? Dali could render a human form ten times better than Michelangelo ever could, and without painting the figures like they have tumors all over their bodies! And more importantly he took his insane amount of technical ability and applied CREATIVITY to his works something the masters (minus Carravaggio) NEVER did!

[konzwambii]

Dali did a few carefully brushed figurative works which are adequate but hardly inspiring, based his originality on Surrealism, but apparently spent most of his career making tons of fast crappy prints. I have yet to see one worth owning. His personality and ego exceeded his artistic merit. Overall, he comes dangerously close to being just a hack. But he got his wish: he is Famous.

[chandru1103]

-Hallucinogenic Toreador

-The Last Supper

-Portrait of My Dead Brother

-The Ecumenical Council

-Child Watcing the Birth of the New Man

All worth owning HO!

[johnyb147]

Clearly you have little knowledge about modern art. The avant garde completely broke with the acadamic way of painting, Dali was one of the most influental artist of the 20th century. Only a fool with misinterpretations about art will rate art for its technique and how pritty a painting is. I wonder if you ever seen a Dali, some of his works are very petite yet the brushstrokes are almost invisible and full of detail. truly, you are a very ignorant man. talking without saying anything.

[konzwambii]

Dali was a minor artist compared to many other notable 20th century artists, known more as a showman than for his art. As for how I rate art, I never said, yet you profess to know anyway. And since you bring up the topic of ignorance, you may want to know that "pretty" is spelled with an "e", not an "i". Your usage of "if you ever seen" is an ignorant misapplication of past perfect tense. Also, in English, sentences begin with a capital letter.

[johnyb147]

I am European, my mother language is dutch, I also speak french. How many languages can you Americans speak? Don't try to come back at me with language. Yes Dali was a showman, but so where others, television fame has completely nothing to do with the value artworks have in the artworld. Dali is of such great imprtance because of his leading positition in the surrealist movement. a movement as important as kubism, but I suppose you think picasso is an overrated artist with no skill at all.

[konzwambii]

Wow. You efffortlessly leap from one non sequitur to another, and with no problem at all putting words into others' mouths. This conversation has gotten so dumb that there is no point going further. Have a nice life.

[Dzimini]

It's ok he's a scenic artist.. But he is great great painter, I didn't say the greatest, but one of the greatest! This year I met one of the most famous scenic artist in my country, but he is also one of the greatest painter here!

[EyeLean5280]

He may be a great scenic artist (I can't judge having never seen those paintings), but what he produces here is no more than competent.

And that's fine. Portraiture is far more challenging and very few artists ever become great.

[EyeLean5280]

Let me amend that. It's better than competent. But it's still short of "great."

[Dzimini]

Well today's academic artists (painters at first), or better to say 'self-called painter' doesn't know to mix colour for this! (in my country)

Rembrandt is Rembrandt, the MASTER, but this is great painting, and he is great artist!

[Dzimini]

I don't know how has painted this for movie, but I would like to know! He's probably one of the greatest today!

[hellois5letters]

James Gemmill. He is a scenic artist for movies.

[Dzimini]

thanks! I searched for his works and found one amazing painting! and than I saw he worked for movies like Da Vinci code, I don't remember now, but for great movies.. great artist! I'm amazed...

[danlevm]

most of the old paintings were made with a very detailed underpainting.....you only have to worry about value and composition the color is then put in layers transparently it is the fastest and most efficient way of painting. alla prima was also used.

[maroulee91]

do anyone know the title of this film? 'cause it's seems to be cool...

[hellois5letters]

Incognito

[Dzimini]

Do you know where can I find something about that? I used to paint in that way, but want to find just real procedure.

[aryul]

Damn straight. Only Rembrandt can paint Rembrandt.

[polymath7]

Yes, those paintings look absolutely nothing Rembrandt's; only a complete philistine would be fooled for a second.

[EyeLean5280]

Agreed.

[zanydinosaur]

its true that an oil painting usually has several layers but its very common in renaissance paining that a lot of areas on the canvas contain very little pigment, so much so that then canvas weave is clearly visible.Also, the 1st series of layers are mearly to "block in" colour and and shape and dry very quickly indeed.Its only the final layer or so that takes a while to dry as Rembrandt used the impasto technique frequently ,although the painting would still be finished.

[Mrsmaldini]

Hey! I'm not a painter but I love art and I really enojoyed your talk, I get to learn a lot from yuo two :) hahaha

[JonCharlesLock]

STFU NOOBS

[paquiyo1974]

la picula se llama INCOGNITO

[p3tro]

its just a movie. a good movie by the way. i actually think its a door for all of us who are not into art to learn at least a small piece of art history. after i saw it rembrandt became my fav artist. just relax and watch, its a movie.

greetings from mexico

[1Enkidu]

My DEARS...this is a film, a dramatization. It means a lot to people "in the know"...

A great deal of this film is taken from a book of a very important art forger of recent times who was murdered in Rome by the name of Eric Hebborn.

Do a search.'

I despise such ignorance and pompous attitudes by the self proclaimed "experts" within the world of art. So you read some books,,nice.

I site the RRP(RembrandtResearchProject) as example.

You disgust me with your arrogance. Do your homework.

[lemalijo]

My dears....this is a guy that makes a copy...he doesn´t need to take too much time thinking about the painting, everything is ready.Just a copy...do youi know?

[lemalijo]

How i do enjoy good people talkink about art...

[camargovalentino]

Give me a break do u really think rembrandt took a couple of hours to make a painting, this is so stupid. rembrandt took months and even years to create a piece, layers upon layers of oil paint requieres years of drying time. when i saw this i just laughed at stupid hollywood.

[Doinaxs]

You're so right. To do a classic painting (like in Renaissance or Baroque for example) it takes at least two years. It's said to know that many people blindly believe in all Hollywood stories.

[apa1989]

You´re tottaly wrong, many renaissance artists such as Rubens or Van Dyck could do a painting alla prima(in just one sitting wich generally takes a few hours to execute). Just to give you an example Rubens painted: The Elevation of the cross in just nine days, Van Dyck could do a portrait in just 30 min. On the other hand Rembrandt´s style required more sittings because he employed different methods and techniques.

[Doinaxs]

apa1989, you don't know much about painting technique, do you? Renaissance artists could do big DRAWINGS in some hours, and those drawings could look like monochrome paintings. Nobody painted that time like Bob Ross. To do an oil painting in the Renaissance style one needs at least seven layers. Each layer needs several weeks to dry. So, there is a big difference between a perfect drawing and a finished painting. Read a bit about classic art, after you can tell me if I'm wrong.

[apa1989]

Hi, you´re wrong, once again, if you read the book "Secret techniques and formulas of the Old Masters"- by jacques maroger or "How to paint like the old masters"- By Joseph Sheppard, you can check that in both Books it is said that Rubens skipped the dead underlayer painting in many of his paintnigs. It is not necessary to do a grisaille or an underpainting and then the upper layers to do a painting in the old masters way. You are the one who sould learn something about this stuff.

[Doinaxs]

:) You should read those books, some informations about them -from internet- it's not enough to know everything about painting techniques. Flemish painters used to put a "dead" underlayer on top of the umber underlayers. Other painters used to put the color layers directly over the monochrome underlayers. With or without the "dead" underlayer they would still need months -years- to finish a painting. Rembrandt wasn't Van Gogh, you know ;). Different times, different styles. Q.E.D.

[apa1989]

You said I "should" read those books? Well, for your information I have those books and I have already read them. Why? BECAUSE I am a painter !!! I´m not telling you informations i read in the internet but the ones I learned and read about. I agree with your point of view when you talk about the grisaille,etc . But did it took years to finish a painting? No!!! If you´re not a classical painter, if you were not thaught to paint in the classic way, you can´t say those things.

[apa1989]

On the other hand, if you don´t understand what I am talking about check the amount of paintings Rembrandt or Rubens did in a year. Check it on google for example. Paintings were not done by themselves but for people who bought them, they would never wait years for them. e.g. Rembrandt would last at a maximum of one and a half month to finish a portrait for a buyer. And dont forget that Rubens among others had pupils under his teachings who helped in his works.

[Doinaxs]

I see, you are a painter. You claim you do your paintings in the classical way. You think you know everything about oil painting techniques. AND you believe Renaissance and Barock masters finished their chefs-d'oeuvre in some hours. If you would say that about Impressionist (or modern) painters I would believe it... Well, in this case, you are just a painter... ...you'll never be a master!

[apa1989]

LOL. You didn´t understand me.they did finish some paintings in some hourse (like small paintings or portraits done alla prima). But the majority would demand some DAYS or MONTHS but never YEARS (due to some technical demandings)!!. I don´t know anything about modern art and i´m not saying that i know everything about classical art.Well I have to admit i liked to discuss all this things with you, and I like your attitude, best regards !!!

[bloodblooms]

I love the tortured artists look he gives at 2:09. Haha.

[bectiursyt]

this film is ridiculous but Irne Jacob is a luminous artist, excuse by bad english

[lesebb]

also the paint on his face is ridicilous

[EyeLean5280]

No oil painter of the traditional method would ever, EVER start a painting with the lights!

[lesebb]

absolutly