ABSTRACT
Just as Vermeer gradually forged his way to his outstanding compositions of the 1660s, his control began to unravel in works produced during the early 1670s, which although technically well executed, embody the nadir of his art (Plates 12-13). Blatantly repetitive, with artificial settings, overly elaborate narrative situations, and costly furnishings, these compositions are also derivative both in relation to his peers’ paintings and his own earlier work. In each case he appears to have used the same distinctively unattractive and overweight model, whose appearance he arbitrarily varied, along with her costumes, and other elements of the compositions. Presumably as a result of Vermeer’s increasing financial dependence on her, his mother-in-law Maria Thins apparently volunteered as his model, came to influence his choices in theme and approach, commissioned at least one painting, and likely appropriated his variations of paintings that Van Ruijven passed over. Vermeer increasingly sought to resist his predicament by subverting her agenda through farcical compositions and varying her appearance to the point of abstraction, yet he was unable to avoid the decline heralded by her presence in his art. In Yogi Berra’s inimitable phrase: “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.” On the other hand, baseball’s greatest aphorist also reminded us: “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Vermeer ultimately liberated himself from his
mother-in-law’s influence at the end of his career to conclude with his Lacemaker, one of his greatest, albeit smallest works (Plate 15).
