Is it just me, or was it a better composition with the empty wall?
It's clear that it was there to lend an indication as to the contents of the letter -- but for me, I liked it better when it was less cluttered and more ambiguous.
It's clear that it was there to lend an indication as to the contents of the letter -- but for me, I liked it better when it was less cluttered and more ambiguous.
(I do look at it differently since watching Tim's Vermeer though. I wonder if the conservators looked at the painting a bit differently after seeing the documentary? Like hay, "Maybe it's not the masterpiece we thought?")