So _The Scream_ depicts someone feeling a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
For the first time since watching Lee explain the artists eyes years ago, it all made sense to me. Just like a photo is from the point of view of the lens if a person is looking at the lens. Sandy was fairly condescending to him also.
Jimmy Carr’s laugh manages to cut through any noise, and although I’ve heard it hundreds of times at this point, it continues to stun me every time I hear it
Lee is, to me, 100% correct that you're looking at a planar representation of the artist's 3D experience and as such that experience will always take precedence because, as he says, you're not looking at the eyes of the painting in their own position.
Because the eyes (along with the whole image) are projected onto a 2D plane, so the 3D cues for orientation are lost. The eyes are drawn exactly as seen by the artist so it you're viewing from a different position the projection won't be exactly accurate but will be close enough to what you would see from that point.
They probably knew that but were just ribbing on his slack-jawed persona. Victoria Coren Mitchell has actually said that, despite playing the fool, Lee Mac is known to be one of the smartest men on British television.
The principle is not difficult to understand: if the eyes are painted such that they seem to look straight out, the eyes will seem to follow the viewer no matter where the viewer stands. The same is true with a photograph. Another really simple thing to paint that astonishes laypeople is something that's made of glass and has reflexions on it. Just paint it visually (copy the reflexions), and, hey presto, the illusion of a glass object will appear. Really difficult things to paint-such as a texture going out of focus as it passes behind an object-can take a week or more to paint well, and nobody notices them.
@@colors6692 Yeah, right. it's too bad you're unable to understand what I wrote. I enjoy QI, but their general knowledge of art and art history is abysmal. (I'm the director of a famous art school in Florence, Italy, and I teach this stuff.) Lee's explanation of this illusion is as bad as my explanation of football would be.
@@michaeljohnangel6359 There are no bad students only bad teachers!! If you could not explain a simple concept clearly then you are one! p.s. I don't need to be important to you (bet you thought you deleted that remark). I would have no hesitation in declaring that Mr. Fry's knowledge and class far outstrip yours! Enjoy watching Honest Trailers...LOL!!
Anyone who knows Lee knows he''s not dumb, he just plays up to the character. So ribbing him is fine and he takes it in good spirit. But in this case, he was talking sense.
@bruce karaus his explanation is perfect and it is also why when actors break the fourth wall is when they look directly at the camera. It is the same effect.
I would have been nice if someone e.g. Stephen had explained it (possibly he did with the laughing cavalier) Because Lee did make sense (that if you took a picture of someone looking into the camera, their eyes can seem like they're looking out of photograph)... I would have guessed something about sfumato making the gaze indeterminate... I'm just wondering why it is ALWAYS following you when you can sometime be at almost 90o to the canvas
Alan is absolutely correct: The Night Watch was cut down-you can intuit the cut-off bits from the figures at the sides. Another famous painting that has been trimmed down is the Mona Lisa. The two columns that Leonardo painted at the sides (to frame her) were trimmed off to fit a new frame. You can still see a bit of the bases of the columns at each side of the painting.
That should be "It's". I believe he says "Society of Pedantics". "Society of Pedantic" isn't grammatically correct ("Society of the Pedantic" could be). However, "Society of Pedantics" seems incorrect as the word for someone who engages in such activities is "pedant". So, more correctly, it should be "Society of Pedants", or possibly "Society of Pedantry" (or "Society of Pedanticism").
Jellyfish-Sama I found that part very relatable. I often try to explain things to people and I see them either burying their heads in their hands or looking around completely mystified. There was even one time a woman turned to a guy she must have thought knew me better than she did and just asked “is he winding us up?”
The more he spoke the more he was confusing people but he had a point about the painting is u seeing what they saw and not the a painting but someones literal eyesight or memory
It doesn't make sorta sense. It makes perfect sense. You're looking at a flat representation of what the painter saw when painting the picture. Same as taking a photo. Lee's just not that good at articulating his thoughts… which shouldn't be news to anyone :P
The Night Watch was cut, but not for placing it in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, but in 1715 ... check Wikipedia for the cuts. There is even a painting of where it was placed when they cut it.
Lee is completely right, and explained it far more accurately than Sandy did in her interruption. It’s not a question of dimensions, it’s a question of the relationship between the subject and the object. The principle would be the same even in a three dimensional medium.
Yes lee is right, but what sort of three dimensional medium would the principle be the same in? A sculpture looks at a specific point in the room, its eyes shouldn't follow you around the room. A painting of someone pointing their finger at the viewer will point at all viewers. A sculpture will only point in one direction.
I can't hear Lee talk about fine art without thinking about the anecdote about him and Noel Fielding living together when Noel was listening to classical music and Lee asked if it was jazz. Funniest shit I've ever heard
To be fair, the removal of parts of The Night Watch happened in 1715, back when that was common practice. It was also likely done to make it fit on a specific wall, so folding it would have done little (even if you could, it weighs over 300 kg). I'm also impressed by how close to correct Stephen's pronunciation of Van Gogh is the first time he says it.
And of course, it wasn't - as Alan seems to suggest - done upon its placing in the Rijksmuseum; it was cut when it was moved from its original location at the Kloveniersdoelen to the Amsterdam town hall - the current Dam Palace - where it had to fit between two doors.
Lee gets it. He just doesn't know how to explain it. Here is my amateur artist's explanation. Might not go well. The artist looks head on. The portrait's eyes have the appropriate amount of white sclera around the iris, putting it in perspective. It appears to be meeting your gaze. The portrait with eyes going in another direction with limited white sclera showing will never look correct if you're "in its gaze" because of perspective. Might not be better than Lee, but he was right.
I'm curious if some paintings have something going on with the impasto that emphasizes the 'look at you' effect by dishing the eyes. Furries do this trick with their suits fairly often. With 'follow me eyes,' they form the eye socket as normal, but the eye itself is concave and the iris and pupil painted in the depression. It's an entirely passive method of an eye appearing to look at you or in your general direction as the head moves around.
5:35 To be quite honest, that is a perfect representation of how most of us Dutch actually behave at work. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if something along those lines was said when they were trying to get it into the museum
Except they didn't cut it to move into a museum (there's a hole in the floor of the Rijksmuseum), but to fit it onto a wall of a room of the Paleis op de Dam (i believe).
@@EebstertheGreat No. He wasn't murdered either. Some kids were playing around with their parents gun and accidentally shot it off and it hit him. The pleaded him not to tell their parents, and he promised he wouldn't. He ended up dying with everyone thinking he committed suicide. The kids later grew up and tried to tell people the truth, but nobody believed them.
@@pirateking56128 It doesn't matter which version of the story you are talking about. It all comes from the same book by Smith and Naifeh, or more specifically, from an appendix in the book. No evidence is presented, and if you think the authors claim Secrétan confessed to shooting him, you are mistaken. Secrétan admitted that he used to dress up as a cowboy and fire a pistol, but he never claimed he fired it at van Gogh. Nobody who knew him has ever come forward to contradict the claim of suicide, nor did van Gogh himself. He had already attempted suicide two years earlier and had severed his own ear. All surviving reports describe him as having wounded himself, which also appears to be what he actually said on his deathbed. So to contradict this would require good evidence, or at least any shred of evidence at all.
@@EebstertheGreat The issue is that Van Gogh has been in therapy sincd attempting suicide, and was actually having things look better for him. Suicidal ideation is a beast, i've been caught in it myself. But to say 'he tried to commit suicide once before, so he clearly finally succeeded' ignores how much work he put in to get better. The only 'evidence' for Van Gogh committing suicide was that he was mentally ill. It almost feels like an insult to him to say "well obviously he was just depressed and finally succeeded in his attempts!".
@@Airay552 but he was not correct, as Stephen pointed out I terms of the question. Which was nor about how many of his OWN paintings he sold but how many total given he sold lots of other peoples paintings, one is an incorrect answer.
So unfair to Lee. He understands it perfectly and explains it correctly (albeit humorously). Stephen just doesn't understand it and Sandi is blinded by her dismissive classism.
Rembrandt's "Nightwatch" did not get cut off in the National Gallery (Rijksmuseum). How dare you! It was painted for the militia, yes, and after these people were not as important anymore, the painting moved house. Somewhere, in its journey over time, it got cut off. As painters used to practice by trying to copy a painting from another painter they admired, there is a smaller painting that shows what was on the cut off strip along the left side. IMO important for the allegory it represents.
The problem with Lee here is that he's beyond smart. He's the type of hyperspeed smart. So he's having trouble explaining what he's thinking, which by the way, is insanely spot on.
Apropos of the Botticelli Adoration of the Magi, it is not possible to paint a self-portrait without looking at yourself in a mirror. Therefore, a self-portrait HAS TO BE looking out of the painting. One could not paint oneself from the back in times before photographs were invented.
Yes, but if you just paint your reflection it will be a reversed image of yourself and not how others see you. If you reflect that painting in a mirror and paint again it will be an accurate representation. Or if you set up two mirrors at angles to each other and paint the second reflection it will be an accurate image of yourself and you will be looking to the side. I'll get my coat...
Lee's 100% correct. What you experience when looking at a painting is called disinterestedness. It basically means being absorbed into the work. The traditional ideal of viewing a painting is to be not aware of looking at a painting, to be not aware of yourself in the actual physical space of the gallery, looking at oil smeared on canvas. The purpose of the frame is to limit the viewing into that separate world of the painting, in simple terms, a window. To be "aware" is "theatrical", not as in a play, but as in the physical awareness of yourself and others in the real physical space occupied by the actual physical painting. So to see the portrait "through" the eyes of the painter is actually quite correct. You're not occupying your real space in the world but the other world occupied by the painter and the sitter.
Rembrandt "photo bombing" avant la lettre. Of Rembrandt, I know his group paintings were commissioned by that group. Each individual negotiated about position in the painting and their size in it and the complexity of painting them determined the price for a person. There was a hierarchy that followed from social status and wealth, and the position in the group. In the Nightwatch, Rembrandt is photobombing, but in the Botticelli, something else can be going on. Imagine Botticelli had negotiated for somebody to be depicted in that place. The clothes and pose would be done without the "sitter" (everything was composited, or in today's language "Photoshopped" - yes they are deep fakes). Last moment, the person does not show up, does not pay, dies, whatever. There is a person without face in the painting. You need to make the agreed deadline. What do you do? I have seen a portrait of a high ranking nobleman on a prancing horse - the nobleman did not like the painting, before he had to sit for his portrait to get in it, and the painting was sold to a (wealthier merchant man) and finished with that man's face.
The rest of the comments section: Lee did a fantastic job of explaining this optical illusion and they were a bit mean about it. Me: So I'm the only one who spent this entire segment trying not to say "Oh, Stephen, I'm afraid you're mistaken; this is not a woman, this is a painting."?
Honest question - how come Van Gogh's paintings didn't sell when he was alive? They're clearly phenomenal paintings, and surely at least some people with money would've recognized that, yes?
It is a combination of a few things, a lot of it is speculation as there isn’t a simple answer. The most popular explanation was that he didn’t really try or put energy into selling his work as he was more focused on just painting, coupled with his personality which was described as abrasive. There is also the point that his art was not seen as viable by art dealers as he lacked a lot of the academic polish that his contemporaries had, but towards the end of his life he was very well regarded in artistic circles so the first explanations are probably closer to the truth. Also as a side note he almost definitely sold more than one painting, more likely at least a few, contrary to what Stephen says in the video
@@luposcorro95 Well that first explanation is actually pretty bad, because his brother Theo was an art salesman in Paris and tried to sell his paintings. But they were very revolutionary and many people weren´t ready for that. That is one of the things of how the art market works: if one of the big art collectors starts to buy someone´s paintings, than all of the sudden everyone will, but you need that first breakthrough. Don´t forget how long it even took for people like Monet (where you can say the impressionists were much closer to the academic painting styles) to be collected by the large museums. If Van Gogh had lived as long as Monet, it would have been a different story. I think people tend to forget in how short of a time period before his death he made his iconic work, it really is just 1887/1888-1890 in which year he died in may (and if we take in his Dutch perod, it still is just about 10 years of painting). That is the thing, at the moment his first post-impressionst painting reached the shop of his brother he just had 1-2 more years to live.
Hey now! That Van Gogh question was a bloody cheap trap! :P - He did _trade_ a lot of his paintings for goods and services, like his room rent / food....And Dr Gache had a bunch of 'em at the time of Vincent's death
Let's see if I heard Lee right. If he was the artist and the subject Stephen was staring back at him, then, someone looking on, off to the side, will see Stephen not staring back at them. Now with the painting, however, off to the side, the painting stares back because we are now seeing it through the eyes of the painter, which would be Stephen staring back at him.
Lee Mack should be the new host of QI - as he gets everything before Sandi Toksvig, Lee questions: "Did someone ever think to look behind the panting?" Two minutes later Sandi brings up Scooby Doo and someone standing behind the panting as her "original" input. Then Lee Mack has to explain point of view perspective to Sandi, who spouts off techinical terms but doesn't appear to understand them. I move that Sandi may have rote knowledge, but Lee Mack is like a super computer AI that can give the answer on a subject new to it, and outshines her in actual intelligence.
7:46 respect thy elder's, he's been here way before you were a twitch 😂🤣😂🤣 I admire the gulfs that comedy can breech....and admire the ball's it take's to say such thing's.....then think about the education and work they put it to be able to say such thing's, I doff my cap to thee, the ture spokesmen....
So _The Scream_ depicts someone feeling a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
Munch wouldn't have appreciated the reference but you are essentially correct.
"oh, the jedi's are going to feel this one"
Fitting since the sky was blood red due to a mega-volcano Krakatoa having erupted earlier in the year. 😔
@@marks.3303to be fair, Star Wars didn't exist yet.
@@Pagliacci_Rex We'll have to agree to disagree.
I love how Steven always tries to understand what someone's saying, no matter how crazy it sounds.
Bastian De Vos i guess he finds it quite interesting?
And he will even, indeed, patronise them, even unto a specific point, via pedantry, if, even he, deems it appropriate.
Sorry, I can't read your responses, as I left to check whether my washing machine is leaking, or not.
It was not.
*crazy it is.
Lee is 100% correct and people just laugh at him for it.
For the first time since watching Lee explain the artists eyes years ago, it all made sense to me. Just like a photo is from the point of view of the lens if a person is looking at the lens. Sandy was fairly condescending to him also.
Jimmy Carr’s laugh manages to cut through any noise, and although I’ve heard it hundreds of times at this point, it continues to stun me every time I hear it
Ha HAA!
Lee is, to me, 100% correct that you're looking at a planar representation of the artist's 3D experience and as such that experience will always take precedence because, as he says, you're not looking at the eyes of the painting in their own position.
The thing is - Lee is actually right! He just could not quite find the right words to express it
Because the eyes (along with the whole image) are projected onto a 2D plane, so the 3D cues for orientation are lost. The eyes are drawn exactly as seen by the artist so it you're viewing from a different position the projection won't be exactly accurate but will be close enough to what you would see from that point.
Yeah I’ve checked a few photos on my phone and this seems to be true of any image where the person is looking at the “camera” so to speak.
They probably knew that but were just ribbing on his slack-jawed persona. Victoria Coren Mitchell has actually said that, despite playing the fool, Lee Mac is known to be one of the smartest men on British television.
Honestly Lee put it in the right words too! I don't know how he could have better!
No, he really wasn't. The difference is that the painting is two dimensional, while actually viewing someone is three dimensional.
Poor Lee. He explained it in layman's terms perfectly.
The principle is not difficult to understand: if the eyes are painted such that they seem to look straight out, the eyes will seem to follow the viewer no matter where the viewer stands. The same is true with a photograph. Another really simple thing to paint that astonishes laypeople is something that's made of glass and has reflexions on it. Just paint it visually (copy the reflexions), and, hey presto, the illusion of a glass object will appear. Really difficult things to paint-such as a texture going out of focus as it passes behind an object-can take a week or more to paint well, and nobody notices them.
@@michaeljohnangel6359 Lee explained it a lot better than you...and he is...wait for it...a LAYMAN!!!
@@colors6692 Yeah, right. it's too bad you're unable to understand what I wrote. I enjoy QI, but their general knowledge of art and art history is abysmal. (I'm the director of a famous art school in Florence, Italy, and I teach this stuff.) Lee's explanation of this illusion is as bad as my explanation of football would be.
@@michaeljohnangel6359 There are no bad students only bad teachers!! If you could not explain a simple concept clearly then you are one! p.s. I don't need to be important to you (bet you thought you deleted that remark). I would have no hesitation in declaring that Mr. Fry's knowledge and class far outstrip yours! Enjoy watching Honest Trailers...LOL!!
@@michaeljohnangel6359 Famous my arse, a vanity project at best!!!
Lee did a great job explaining it. I was rather disappointed in Sandy and Stephen.
Anyone who knows Lee knows he''s not dumb, he just plays up to the character. So ribbing him is fine and he takes it in good spirit. But in this case, he was talking sense.
@@dielaughing73 No, he really wasn't. The difference is that the painting is two dimensional, while actually viewing someone is three dimensional.
@@brucekaraus7330 Yes he was. He explained it perfectly, even if you don't understand his explanation.
@bruce karaus his explanation is perfect and it is also why when actors break the fourth wall is when they look directly at the camera. It is the same effect.
I would have been nice if someone e.g. Stephen had explained it (possibly he did with the laughing cavalier)
Because Lee did make sense (that if you took a picture of someone looking into the camera, their eyes can seem like they're looking out of photograph)... I would have guessed something about sfumato making the gaze indeterminate... I'm just wondering why it is ALWAYS following you when you can sometime be at almost 90o to the canvas
Lee was so proud at his explination, and no one was listening. He was so excited! Let him be excited Sandy!!!
Alan knew that first one because it was a plot point in Jonathan Creek.
which episode
Rosie Joy the one where a police woman is strangled in a school gym.
I was expecting a little Davies tale about the episode.
@@Tillyard86 The Coonskin Cap is the name of the episode.
Alan is absolutely correct: The Night Watch was cut down-you can intuit the cut-off bits from the figures at the sides. Another famous painting that has been trimmed down is the Mona Lisa. The two columns that Leonardo painted at the sides (to frame her) were trimmed off to fit a new frame. You can still see a bit of the bases of the columns at each side of the painting.
The Vincent van Gogh Doctor Who episode is very emotional
Nik Turk I knew the right answer was 1 because of that episode.
One of my favorite Doctor Who episodes of all time!
I cried. I literally cried at the end of that episode.
Such a good episode, it uses the fact that time travel exists wonderfully
i totally cried. loved that episode. especially the end where the guy at the art museum described how wonderful he was to his face.
He actually made sense and although he looks silly, it’s the others who are in the wrong. There’s a lot of intelligence within that quick wit!
If you're quick-witted, by definition you're not stupid.
I know what Lee is on about. Anyone else?
Yes, I also thought his explanation was pretty good, if a bit intuitive. Pity it was met with condescension from both Sandi and Stephen.
I didn't at first but after a large gin, I was completely on board 😊
(Only kidding, I now what he meant but wouldn't be remotely able to explain it)
Yes. It's about the POV.
I think it's bull
made perfect sense to me..
perception is only perceived when taking the artist's perspective 🤓
8:44 Chairman of the Pedantic Association!
- its actually the Society of Pedantic, but i'll let that go.
That should be "It's".
I believe he says "Society of Pedantics". "Society of Pedantic" isn't grammatically correct ("Society of the Pedantic" could be). However, "Society of Pedantics" seems incorrect as the word for someone who engages in such activities is "pedant". So, more correctly, it should be "Society of Pedants", or possibly "Society of Pedantry" (or "Society of Pedanticism").
Nzd We found the founder guys!
@@nzd3742 I'll be honest, I was thinking the same myself.
Technically you didn't let it go, you felt the need to leave a comment pointing it out to everybody.
May I join now?
Bill rolling out a joke Mark Lamar said to him on never mind the buzzcocks years earlier
Lee's explanation is perfect and correct.
Lee's explanation actually makes sorta sense
That felt wierd to say
Jellyfish-Sama I found that part very relatable. I often try to explain things to people and I see them either burying their heads in their hands or looking around completely mystified.
There was even one time a woman turned to a guy she must have thought knew me better than she did and just asked “is he winding us up?”
I think it makes sense because he's exactly right.
_ceiling_ flashbacks
The more he spoke the more he was confusing people but he had a point about the painting is u seeing what they saw and not the a painting but someones literal eyesight or memory
It doesn't make sorta sense. It makes perfect sense. You're looking at a flat representation of what the painter saw when painting the picture. Same as taking a photo.
Lee's just not that good at articulating his thoughts… which shouldn't be news to anyone :P
"liza minelli at the oscars" i swear i spat my tea LOL
I'm pretty sure if Phill Jupitus was there for the Van Gogh question, he'd've had a proper breakdown.
Phill would have gone half way to actual armed rebellion I suspect
I'm sure the buyers of Van Gogh's paintings would have been reassured to know that they weren't there.
M I R A G E . . .
And he would have milked the joke to death.
One title that describes Fry and this show perfectly.... "Chairman of the Pedantic Association" XD
Bill’s own immediate continuation “It’s actually called ‘The Society of Pedantics’ but I’ll let it go” was even perfecter.
The Night Watch was cut, but not for placing it in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, but in 1715 ... check Wikipedia for the cuts. There is even a painting of where it was placed when they cut it.
Lee is completely right, and explained it far more accurately than Sandy did in her interruption. It’s not a question of dimensions, it’s a question of the relationship between the subject and the object. The principle would be the same even in a three dimensional medium.
Yes lee is right, but what sort of three dimensional medium would the principle be the same in? A sculpture looks at a specific point in the room, its eyes shouldn't follow you around the room. A painting of someone pointing their finger at the viewer will point at all viewers. A sculpture will only point in one direction.
It's easy to forget just how obnoxious Sandi was before she got the hosting gig. The same smugness of Rory McGrath.
After three or four watches I finally understand what Lee was saying 😂 He makes sense to be honest
Me: "Send pics"
QI: "A'ight..."
I understand what lee is saying completely, he is completely right.
I love how Jo Brand was all over Alan before he could say anything, "Don't say zero."
My favorite artist who inserted himself into many of his works was Norman Rockwell.
I can't hear Lee talk about fine art without thinking about the anecdote about him and Noel Fielding living together when Noel was listening to classical music and Lee asked if it was jazz. Funniest shit I've ever heard
4:28 Alan decided to dress as Agent 47 for that filming.
He was dressed as the dude in that Rene Magritte painting
@@lmm2103 That's too high brow and educated for me to get. I like my big dumb video games.
To be fair, the removal of parts of The Night Watch happened in 1715, back when that was common practice. It was also likely done to make it fit on a specific wall, so folding it would have done little (even if you could, it weighs over 300 kg).
I'm also impressed by how close to correct Stephen's pronunciation of Van Gogh is the first time he says it.
And of course, it wasn't - as Alan seems to suggest - done upon its placing in the Rijksmuseum; it was cut when it was moved from its original location at the Kloveniersdoelen to the Amsterdam town hall - the current Dam Palace - where it had to fit between two doors.
300kg seems excessive for a canvas, or did you think they were talking about folding the frame?
“Chairman of the pedantic association.”
No, I think that would by David Mitchell.
"It's actually The Society of Pedantics, but I'll let that one go."
It's the way the eyes have been painted, that make it as though they seem to follow you around the room or gallery.
Specifically that they're painted the way they look to the artist when the subject is looking into the artist's eyes.
Lee gets it. He just doesn't know how to explain it. Here is my amateur artist's explanation. Might not go well. The artist looks head on. The portrait's eyes have the appropriate amount of white sclera around the iris, putting it in perspective. It appears to be meeting your gaze. The portrait with eyes going in another direction with limited white sclera showing will never look correct if you're "in its gaze" because of perspective. Might not be better than Lee, but he was right.
I like your artist's description. Geometry & perspective from a maker's point of view. I'm glad I stopped yo read it .thank you for sharing.
Lee Mack can always drop some deep knowledge & quick wit when you least expect it.
I wish he appeared on QI more often.
I'm curious if some paintings have something going on with the impasto that emphasizes the 'look at you' effect by dishing the eyes. Furries do this trick with their suits fairly often. With 'follow me eyes,' they form the eye socket as normal, but the eye itself is concave and the iris and pupil painted in the depression. It's an entirely passive method of an eye appearing to look at you or in your general direction as the head moves around.
From the thumbnail picture I thought Fry's nose finally blossomed!!🤣
5:35 To be quite honest, that is a perfect representation of how most of us Dutch actually behave at work. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if something along those lines was said when they were trying to get it into the museum
Except they didn't cut it to move into a museum (there's a hole in the floor of the Rijksmuseum), but to fit it onto a wall of a room of the Paleis op de Dam (i believe).
“He would’ve gone and got some chicken from Chicken Liquor. That’s real nice.”
😂😂😂😂 James Acaster is so wonderfully random
that pedantic joke from bill at the end is actually genius for an off the cuff joke
Excellent, esp. the "society" bit at the end ... Thank you!
I love how new news came out about how Vincent didn’t attempt suicide, he was just an awesome guy who was kind to children and died later.
The murder thing is a myth. He did shoot himself.
@@EebstertheGreat No. He wasn't murdered either. Some kids were playing around with their parents gun and accidentally shot it off and it hit him. The pleaded him not to tell their parents, and he promised he wouldn't. He ended up dying with everyone thinking he committed suicide. The kids later grew up and tried to tell people the truth, but nobody believed them.
@@pirateking56128 It doesn't matter which version of the story you are talking about. It all comes from the same book by Smith and Naifeh, or more specifically, from an appendix in the book. No evidence is presented, and if you think the authors claim Secrétan confessed to shooting him, you are mistaken. Secrétan admitted that he used to dress up as a cowboy and fire a pistol, but he never claimed he fired it at van Gogh. Nobody who knew him has ever come forward to contradict the claim of suicide, nor did van Gogh himself. He had already attempted suicide two years earlier and had severed his own ear. All surviving reports describe him as having wounded himself, which also appears to be what he actually said on his deathbed. So to contradict this would require good evidence, or at least any shred of evidence at all.
@@EebstertheGreat The issue is that Van Gogh has been in therapy sincd attempting suicide, and was actually having things look better for him.
Suicidal ideation is a beast, i've been caught in it myself. But to say 'he tried to commit suicide once before, so he clearly finally succeeded' ignores how much work he put in to get better.
The only 'evidence' for Van Gogh committing suicide was that he was mentally ill. It almost feels like an insult to him to say "well obviously he was just depressed and finally succeeded in his attempts!".
I love Alan’s hair and suit.
ah i love hannah gatsby!
Then you love the world's most unfunny person ever
The guy IN THE CAP is actually Rembrandt (and possibly the eye behind him). You can see this in quite a few of his other museum pieces.
The best "self insertion" I personally have ever seen was Lorenzo Ghiberti. He put his own likeness into a Bronze door in Florence, Italy.
Lee Mack loves the sound of his own voice, as does Gyles Brandreth.
lee actually made sense
Lee Mack was bang on.
Bill Bailey is always good value.
he shoulda been givem retroactivelt at least a point for answering correctly with one. that was unnecessarily cruel from mr. fry :D
@@Airay552 but he was not correct, as Stephen pointed out I terms of the question. Which was nor about how many of his OWN paintings he sold but how many total given he sold lots of other peoples paintings, one is an incorrect answer.
So unfair to Lee. He understands it perfectly and explains it correctly (albeit humorously). Stephen just doesn't understand it and Sandi is blinded by her dismissive classism.
You summed it up perfectly. I usually love QI, but these moments really annoy me.
@@fracturednotes You guys need to get a sense of humour.
Rembrandt's "Nightwatch" did not get cut off in the National Gallery (Rijksmuseum). How dare you!
It was painted for the militia, yes, and after these people were not as important anymore, the painting moved house.
Somewhere, in its journey over time, it got cut off.
As painters used to practice by trying to copy a painting from another painter they admired, there is a smaller painting that shows what was on the cut off strip along the left side. IMO important for the allegory it represents.
Society of the Pedantic, checking in.
THE Society of the Pedantic.
Get it right.
The problem with Lee here is that he's beyond smart. He's the type of hyperspeed smart. So he's having trouble explaining what he's thinking, which by the way, is insanely spot on.
That's because he has ADHD. His brain is working faster than his mouth can process.
@@marks.3303 he has AD4K
Apropos of the Botticelli Adoration of the Magi, it is not possible to paint a self-portrait without looking at yourself in a mirror. Therefore, a self-portrait HAS TO BE looking out of the painting. One could not paint oneself from the back in times before photographs were invented.
Yes, but if you just paint your reflection it will be a reversed image of yourself and not how others see you. If you reflect that painting in a mirror and paint again it will be an accurate representation.
Or if you set up two mirrors at angles to each other and paint the second reflection it will be an accurate image of yourself and you will be looking to the side.
I'll get my coat...
I'm with Lee
I really like the purple tie Sir Fry was wearing
Who is now picturing Van Gough going to the pictures at the Ritzy, then popping down the road for a cheeky Maccy D's?
Thank you Stephen, for trying (and succeeding) to pronounce Van Gogh correctly!
The _a_ in _van_ is pronounced like the _a_ in _hard_ though.
But points nonetheless for _Gogh_
Throat alright now Stephen?
He didnt pronounce it right though 😂
I really want to be on this show
Honestly, Mack was RIGHT on this!
Lee's 100% correct. What you experience when looking at a painting is called disinterestedness. It basically means being absorbed into the work. The traditional ideal of viewing a painting is to be not aware of looking at a painting, to be not aware of yourself in the actual physical space of the gallery, looking at oil smeared on canvas. The purpose of the frame is to limit the viewing into that separate world of the painting, in simple terms, a window. To be "aware" is "theatrical", not as in a play, but as in the physical awareness of yourself and others in the real physical space occupied by the actual physical painting. So to see the portrait "through" the eyes of the painter is actually quite correct. You're not occupying your real space in the world but the other world occupied by the painter and the sitter.
He pronounced Vincent van Gogh's name all the right and wrong ways and then opted for the right way in the end.
‘The Nightwatch’ may be a cooler name, but it’s not set at night
I completely agree with Lee.
Is it too strange that I have a crush on Alan Davies? He really is quite something.
Lee was right. His description was perfect.
Clearly Lee was right, his explanation was simply too complicated for them to realize that.
Lee explained it perfectly
Lee actually got it 100% right, seems like it's Sandi who didn't fully understand it.
Rembrandt "photo bombing" avant la lettre. Of Rembrandt, I know his group paintings were commissioned by that group. Each individual negotiated about position in the painting and their size in it and the complexity of painting them determined the price for a person. There was a hierarchy that followed from social status and wealth, and the position in the group. In the Nightwatch, Rembrandt is photobombing, but in the Botticelli, something else can be going on. Imagine Botticelli had negotiated for somebody to be depicted in that place. The clothes and pose would be done without the "sitter" (everything was composited, or in today's language "Photoshopped" - yes they are deep fakes). Last moment, the person does not show up, does not pay, dies, whatever. There is a person without face in the painting. You need to make the agreed deadline. What do you do?
I have seen a portrait of a high ranking nobleman on a prancing horse - the nobleman did not like the painting, before he had to sit for his portrait to get in it, and the painting was sold to a (wealthier merchant man) and finished with that man's face.
That's actually quite interesting. Have yourself some points for that.
I think you mean Vice-chairman of the Pedantic Association
03:04 Ceiling .... ceiling is not one of the words you are looking for ....
Love Bill Bailey
The rest of the comments section: Lee did a fantastic job of explaining this optical illusion and they were a bit mean about it.
Me: So I'm the only one who spent this entire segment trying not to say "Oh, Stephen, I'm afraid you're mistaken; this is not a woman, this is a painting."?
The Greek sculptor is Phidias
pictures
When Sandi mentioned "self insertion" I immediately thought of that photo by Robert Mapplethorpe with the bullwhip up his arse. Bloody hell...
Honest question - how come Van Gogh's paintings didn't sell when he was alive? They're clearly phenomenal paintings, and surely at least some people with money would've recognized that, yes?
Sometimes great people go unrecognized...
@@AmazinglyAwkward Yes but not usually when their greatness is so visual, tangible, easy to discern
It is a combination of a few things, a lot of it is speculation as there isn’t a simple answer. The most popular explanation was that he didn’t really try or put energy into selling his work as he was more focused on just painting, coupled with his personality which was described as abrasive. There is also the point that his art was not seen as viable by art dealers as he lacked a lot of the academic polish that his contemporaries had, but towards the end of his life he was very well regarded in artistic circles so the first explanations are probably closer to the truth.
Also as a side note he almost definitely sold more than one painting, more likely at least a few, contrary to what Stephen says in the video
@@luposcorro95 Well that first explanation is actually pretty bad, because his brother Theo was an art salesman in Paris and tried to sell his paintings. But they were very revolutionary and many people weren´t ready for that. That is one of the things of how the art market works: if one of the big art collectors starts to buy someone´s paintings, than all of the sudden everyone will, but you need that first breakthrough. Don´t forget how long it even took for people like Monet (where you can say the impressionists were much closer to the academic painting styles) to be collected by the large museums. If Van Gogh had lived as long as Monet, it would have been a different story. I think people tend to forget in how short of a time period before his death he made his iconic work, it really is just 1887/1888-1890 in which year he died in may (and if we take in his Dutch perod, it still is just about 10 years of painting). That is the thing, at the moment his first post-impressionst painting reached the shop of his brother he just had 1-2 more years to live.
Hey now! That Van Gogh question was a bloody cheap trap! :P
- He did _trade_ a lot of his paintings for goods and services, like his room rent / food....And Dr Gache had a bunch of 'em at the time of Vincent's death
At least Lee took Sandi's comment in his stride.
Alans suit in the 3rd clip looks like a black hole
It's funny how certain pieces of art get so much coverage. And most people couldn't name any other edvard munch painting. I can't.
I know where Edvard Munch was at the time of inspiration for the scream (Skrik) I can give coordinates within a 500m radius.
Was James flirting with Stephen there? 🙂
That would be The Hair-splitting Branch of The Pedantic Society.
Let's see if I heard Lee right.
If he was the artist and the subject Stephen was staring back at him, then, someone looking on, off to the side, will see Stephen not staring back at them. Now with the painting, however, off to the side, the painting stares back because we are now seeing it through the eyes of the painter, which would be Stephen staring back at him.
Alan You are dressed so 1960's tonight even the red tie.
Lee Mack should be the new host of QI - as he gets everything before Sandi Toksvig,
Lee questions: "Did someone ever think to look behind the panting?" Two minutes later Sandi brings up Scooby Doo and someone standing behind the panting as her "original" input.
Then Lee Mack has to explain point of view perspective to Sandi, who spouts off techinical terms but doesn't appear to understand them.
I move that Sandi may have rote knowledge, but Lee Mack is like a super computer AI that can give the answer on a subject new to it, and outshines her in actual intelligence.
Wisdom =/= intelligence, and lees adaptability outshines sandy
Doesn’t Hannah Gadsby have an art degree?
She has a degree in being not funny
@@anonymous-vo2rd Aw that’s not very nice
@@erinwhewell857 it's brutal but it's the truth
I quite liked her Netflix special- maybe you’d like it?
@@erinwhewell857 I don't need to watch crap when I already it's crap
Why is everyone booing Lee?! He's right!
-phphlnds-
love hannah XD
Self insertion ? Modern artists Gilbert and George are always in thier own artworks
"Lee couldn't find the right words to explain it" no, he just didn't find the right audience to hear him.
So infuriating. I love Sandy of course, this clip just annoys me
Michelangelo painted himself into the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel - as St. Bartholomew's flayed skin.
Please, normalise the audio at least...
I wanted to hear the rest of the story of the painting VanGogh sold
So how many paintings did Vincent sell then?
I want an actual number!
1
Volumes a bit low lads
Turn it up then
7:46 respect thy elder's, he's been here way before you were a twitch 😂🤣😂🤣
I admire the gulfs that comedy can breech....and admire the ball's it take's to say such thing's.....then think about the education and work they put it to be able to say such thing's, I doff my cap to thee, the ture spokesmen....