i just read an article on vermeer by my friend gary schwartz in his schwartzlist column. in it, he presents a very convincing argument as to why vermeer did NOT use the camera obscura in creating his paintings. i won't go into detail; it's best if you go directly to the article. highlight this link & paste it into your browser::
https://garyschwartzarthistorian.com/2016/09/30/348-today-in-delft-340-years-ago/
i'm still integrating this new information, so i won't say too much more. in creating the paintings in my gaze series, many of which are inspired by details of faces from vermeer paintings, i always had in my awareness how his use of this optical device must have affected the look of the painting. i assumed, as do many, that those little dots of light we see in the details of his work were directly related to the camera obscura. not so, maintains gary.
gary, an old friend from my college years who has lived in the netherlands all of his adult life, has been commissioned to write a book, which he is currently writing, on the details of vermeer's paintings. publishing date for the book is designed to coincide with the opening of a major vermeer show at the louvre, in february, 2017. i hope to be there. BELOW: illustrations from gary's article showing how vermeer was not the only one to employ the dots of light as a compositional/textural device.
drawing i made this afternoon of mikela lying down with an ice pack to sooth her pinched nerve: