How do fictional reimaginings of famous paintings impact our perception of art?Exploring the immersive world of Girl with a Pearl Earring.

Words by Evie Brett

Johannes Vermeer, Girl with a Pearl Earring, c.1665. Oil on canvas, 44.5 x 38.1 cm. Mauritshuis, Netherlands.

Johannes Vermeer’s famous pearlescent portrait of the Dutch Golden Age, painted back in the seventeenth century, still remains vitally relevant today, holding space within the modern art discourse. Namely, the conjecture and guesswork surrounding the sitter’s mysterious identity functions as the launch pad upon which other creatives have since constructed and projected their own narratives as to who the figure of the ‘tronie’ could have been; a ‘tronie’ being a study of an imaginary character, intending to represent and embody a generalised demographic, rather than a specific individual. In this vein, Girl with a Pearl Earring has consequently been the subject of countless iterations of the original 1665 oil painting, crossing boundaries of both medium and century, allowing us to question the ways in which these innovative, yet still very much fictional, reimaginings of the young sitter from Holland have impacted our present-day perception of art.

Tracy Chevalier, Girl with a Pearl Earring, 1999.

Arguably the most pivotal of these reimaginings, was the 1999 novel by Tracey Chevalier, sharing the same title as the painting and later being adapted into film in 2003, directed by Peter Webber, starring Scarlett Johansen and Colin Firth. Here, Chavalier expands the world of Girl with a Pearl Earring beyond the confines of the frame, inviting readers to travel back in time to seventeenth-century Holland. Immersed in the cobbled streets of Delft, the scents of freshly caught fish and warm bread of the street markets come alive alongside those of the linseed oil of Vermeer’s home studio, as Chevalier crafts a fiction whereby the sitter of the famous work is a young girl of the name of Griet, of whom is played by Johansen.

Over the course of the novel, Griet comes to work under the artist’s family as a housemaid, though her duties gradually expand from simply cleaning the home and studio, to encompass more painting-specific tasks, such as the sourcing and grinding of pigments. Ultimately, as Chevalier herself writes, Griet “becomes both student and muse”, sitting for the portrait whilst elegantly poised with the glossed orb of Vermeer’s wife hanging from her earlobe. And yet, though this world that Chevalier crafts is rich in literary imagery and story-telling that makes it feel as though the narrative is unfolding before our eyes, it is in fact a conjectured fantasy.

Still from Girl with a Pearl Earring, directed by Peter Webber, 2003.

However, that is certainly not to say that Girl with a Pearl Earring and similar novels, of which include Leonardo’s Swans by Karen Essex and I, Mona Lisa by Jeanne Kalogridis, are works of deceit that hinder our perspective and understanding of artworks, but rather the case is on the contrary.

Hence, how do these fictional reimaginings and theatrical expansions of narratives first set in paint impact our perception on art as a whole? And why are we so fascinated with reimaginings of works of art? I would argue that they act supplementarily to the physical works, adding simply another layer of narrative to the paintings’ auratic appeal. Certainly being able to actually experience the work and the world in which it was created, be it through film or a novel, means that even artwork from the seventeenth century is able to remain relevant and strike meaningful connections with its audience.

Still from Girl with a Pearl Earring, directed by Peter Webber, 2003.

Rather than overshadowing and drawing attention away from the main attraction, these reimaginings are simply a gateway through which we can gain an even deeper and more intrinsic understanding of works of art, perhaps even allowing us to walk in the shoes of the artist or muse.

So, what can we say for the future? Will we continue to remove ourselves so far from the original that the source of the fictionalisation is no longer recognisable as inspiration? Not to mention the question of authorship. Though, whilst there does definitely exist a certain danger that these reimaginings may stray too far from the artist’s true vision, at their heart, these fictionalisations are simply avenues for creativity, whereby authors and the like can play out explorative narratives, expanding the worlds of painting and the limits set by connoisseurial institutions, redefining the way in which art can and should be perceived and enjoyed.