By definition an expert has a specialized knowledge in a limited area, normally they share their expertise with colleagues. The danger is that should new evidence upset the assumptions of that area of expertise the team of colleagues will unite against it. How can a single outsider succeed in questioning a team as large as Rembrandt scholarship, many with honourable positions in academia and privileged access to learned magazines? He is a lamb to the slaughter.
I dreamt that my case was so strong, so easy for the layman to understand, so much in everyone’s financial interest (only the experts would lose face), so well supported by the documents (note 1), and supported by many esteemed names within the field of Art History (note 2) that I could not fail. But in the 38 years since I made my discoveries (published Burlington Feb 1977) I have failed to make any positive impact, save the recent return of Rembrandt’s Adoration of the Shepherds to it’s rightful position in the National Gallery. So far I have earned no more than £30 (from The Burlington) from my discoveries.
The watch-dog of the media seems to be a very sleepy watch-dog in the area of art. My book “The New Key to Rembrandt” was first accepted by Phaidon Press (with the whole editorial board behind me) and then rejected after a truly heinous report (grossly unjustified) from an expert. Nearly 30 other publishers followed Phaidon.
I am lucky. I have spent my time in the most pleasant “wilderness” of Tuscany, pursuing my interests in sculpture, teaching and art history. My work has been honoured with a permanent museum here which includes 14 other noteworthy discoveries in art history. They also have been similarly neglected.
Can civilization survive such successful sabotage from within? It is dangerous to trust experts in art because there is too much money and prestige attached to their decisions and too little practical experience behind their supposed expertise.
Notes
1. there are few contemporary documents telling us about Rembrandt but all support my discoveries by statements such as “He would not attempt a single brush-stroke without a living model before his eyes.” “He had a wonderful talent for reproducing concrete subjects” The inventory taken of his possessions at the time of his bankruptcy also testifies to a man who created a visual feast for himself and his students to work from. His house and furniture, are reproduced time and again in his and in his students’ works. All support my evidence.
2.Prof. Sir Ernst Gombrich was immediately active in my support. He invited a sub-editor of The Burlington Magazine round to visit my exhibition at Imperial College’s Consort Gallery, they agreed that I should resubmit my article, which had previously been rejected. It was submitted again and again rejected. Gombrich called a governors meeting in which it was agreed that he should help me rewrite the article. We did that with the further help of Dr. J Montagu, and on the third submission Benedict Nicholson wrote “ I find the evidence you have accumulated of the greatest possible interest, and so I am sure will Rembrandt scholars, who must now get down to revising the corpus of drawings.” (For the first article I had received the help of Andrew Wilton of The British Museum print-room. He reported to me that his colleague, the Rembrandt expert, Christopher White had said “ it would be very important if he could prove it”. That article was well beyond reasonable doubt. I have since added “The Adoration of the Shepherds” on YouTube, which puts the odds against it in astronomical proportions.)
Meanwhile as the result of the exhibition I got warm letters from the head of the department of prints and drawings at the Victoria and Albert Museum, Dr. M.Kauffman “ you certainly make a pretty good case for the Rembrandts”. Prof. M.Podro from Essex wrote “I am a great admirer of your whole project…your evidence is of immense importance and critical finesse”.
Of my first exhibition Max Wykes Joyce wrote “Certainly the exhibition is a seminal one that should not be lightly dismissed”(International Herald Tribune) and Prof.Bryan Cole in “Icon” of Imperial College “Not only do these reconstructions (many of which compel assent) cast doubt on received wisdom as far as the dates are concerned: they also imply that a view of Rembrandt’s imagination in construction as depending only on the inner eye becomes very difficult to sustain. I find myself totally convinced by Mr. Konstam’s arguments here. His feeling for the materials of the artist’s work is very strong and it would be a pity for scholarship not to profit from his imaginative researches.”
After my lecture at the Slade, Prof. Sir Lawrence Gowing wrote “I find your division between imaginative and objective much more satisfactory and comprehensible than anything before.” Sir John Pope Henessy invited me to a most cordial conversation in his study at the British Museum. We discussed the relationship between Masaccio and Donatello. I think we were in complete agreement that Donatello must have made maquettes for Masaccio in the Brancacci Chapel. (I had made a maquette to demonstrate a near perfect mirror image there. A mirror image is quite different to a print or cartoon reversal.)
When he opened my second exhibition at Imperial College Gombrich said “Konstam has prepared a great feast for art historians at which he invites them to eat their own words” That exhibition unwisely included a number of my new discoveries of artists use of mirrors: Velasquez, Vermeer and Poussin were among them. The iron curtain fell, no reviews, no letters, no sales.
As a student I loved the process of carving but never seemed to like the resulting sculpture. After I left Art Schools I hardly touched carving, just a few wood carvings that simply confirmed that I was not a natural carver. Twenty eight years later there were no carvings in my retrospective exhibitions in Spain. At Camberwell Art School we were taught by a student of Eric Gill’s. We were taught to move round the piece nibbling off bits as we felt fit, reversing the process of modeling. This method does not work because you do not establish the scale of the piece from the beginning. It starts too big and as it dwindles the movement is lost and it becomes sadly disproportioned.
Michelangelo established the scale with the first limb he came across working from one side of the block only. He continued pushing into the block mainly from one or two sides. Not from all round. In this way he always had a reserve of stone to retreat into. We were told how Michelangelo did it; but were warned that he was a genius, where we were not. In fact, what we call the Michelangelo method was followed by most carvers in medieval times. It is just that Michelangelo left so many unfinished works behind that his procedure was obvious.
When I moved to Italy I did not immediately get into carving although the stone here is beautiful and inexpensive. A student wanted to try carving so I got her a piece of alabaster. It was obvious that she was not going to finish in the two week course so I began to help her. It felt good. I got a piece for myself as well. I dared try the Michelangelo method and found it worked! I was hooked. I had not even finished the first piece before it was bought by a passing German couple. That was very reassuring. Though this speed of purchase has never repeated itself to this day. Nowadays I guess I spend more time carving than modeling. Its a slow process.
Carving came to me as a new lease of life in my mid-50s. I do direct carving. That is the initial inspiration comes from the shape of the stone in front of me. The stone rarely speaks to me immediately. I have to work on it for an hour or so tidying up the crude quarried shape. Then I get a vague idea of what I am going to do. It is only a vague idea. Pay no attention to the historians’ optimistic theories that genius sees the whole thing from the very beginning. If they did there would be no fun in carving. The fun comes in giving concrete form to the vague idea. Paying strict attention to the forms which evolve as you work keeps one interested, indeed deeply engaged. There are moments when carving is just hard work but long periods when one is creating, not just copying a prepared model or a figment of the imagination. My imagination works on the concrete object that is taking shape as I work. It is as if I am watching the two protagonists very slowly embrace.
Each move I make helps or hinders the expression. You have to watch every move to see whether it is for better or worse. Carvers move forward by experiment, if the experiment is not working stop and modify it. Its compulsive stuff, hours of absorption pass rapidly. Its a way of life.
One of the great advantages of carving when teaching is that when one is interrupted one can lay down one’s tools and take a break. On taking up the tools again one immediately finds something to do. With modeling an interruption truly interrupts. As a good half of my students are usually carving alongside me, I give little demos as I go along.
As a modeler I work from drawings made from life. As a carver I am forced back onto memory and imagination because the process itself is so slow. It is important to realize that my imagination is fed by the physical shapes in the stone I am working on. I cut clear plains to get clear feed-back. I may have to re-cut the same plain 20 times in the process of finding the optimum expression. What’s the hurry?
My advice to students is not to worry too much about cutting away something vital. In every stone there are millions of possibilities, you are bound to strike one of them! Start on a stone by clarifying a movement that appeals to you. Then one thing usually leads to another, you will find your way. Cut clear shapes and you will get clear feed-back. It is wise not to define forms by cutting top and bottom which will pin you down to a form too thoroughly. Suggest forms by cutting the top and front. A fan shape of stone for a forearm allows and suggests change.
If you can see one step ahead take it and you will see the next step. It is only necessary to see one step at a time. Pay no attention to the historians’ theory that genius sees the complete composition before starting, look at Michelangelo’s unfinished Slaves you will see that it is not true. Like the rest of us he found his way by trial and error.
A book I would strongly recommend as a follow up is “Michelangelo Models, formerly in the Paul von Praun Collection” by Paul James LeBrooy (Creelman and Drummond, Vancouver 1972). There you will see what terrible losses have occurred as a result of the above theory. You will also get a good insight into how Michelangelo actually transmitted his anatomical knowledge to his carvings: first modeling from life, in clay; rather small, so that he could tie the fired terracotta up where he could refer to it as he carved. All so obvious and straight forward but the mythology has overwhelmed the truth.
An edited excerpt from something I wrote in 1971 (Leonardo vol.4)
I have clung to the figure because I find in it a model of great complexity with a wide variety of jointing, scale and mass, and one with which we are all familiar. We not only know what it looks like from the outside: we know what it feels like from the inside. The slightest deviation form the expected norm is noted and questioned. Every human eye is attuned to the figure more precisely than even the educated eye is attuned to mathematical proportions. When one adds to this the geometric, architectural and rhythmic associations that have accumulated around the figure during its long evolution, it become clear that there is a widely available basis for understanding the purely formal meaning of figurative sculpture, which I find lacking in non figurative work. Figurative art is capable of dealing with human emotions in a simple and direct way.
One of the tragic side affects of non figurative art, in my view, has fallen upon art education. We are producing art students who have little or no interest in the art of the past, thus destroying the communion of artists: that sense of partaking in a timeless communion certainly gives me a sense of well being. Indeed, it seem to me to be the only certain reward for the serious study of art. Moreover, I am convinced that the sense of belonging to a privileged circle with access to inner meanings is an important ingredient of the aesthetic experience. If my view is right, estrangement form the past is surely too greater price to pay for the understandable dissatisfaction with the old academies of art.
Communication in art, as in everything else, must be based on a collection of symbols that are commonly understood. I realise that new forms sometimes have to be invented to express genuinely new experiences. However, the huge transformations in art that have taken place in the last fifty years have all but disintegrated the slowly evolving complex of commonly understood visual symbols. More important, does not the effort of making language describe our experiences force us to re-examine and refine the experiences ourselves? Surely only when the present language proves inadequate for our expression can we allow ourselves the indulgence of linguistic invention. To me a newly invented ‘form’ is simply a novelty. Originality must contain a new insight which may or may not need a new ‘form’ for its expression.
There are many voices from the past that would lead one to accept the broadest, grandest view of Rembrandt. It is difficult to comprehend how the academics missed them.
J.von Sandrart wrote – he was fascinated by every manifestation of art…..he made skillful use of reflections…….his subject matter was usually taken from everyday life…etc
F.Baldinucci wrote – one can barely make out the other figures from one another though they had all been painted from life and with great care…the knowledge that his prospective clients had to sit for him for two or three months caused few people to commission him…etc
A.Felibien wrote – how one can get any satisfaction from looking at such badly finished pictures….so gross as to make one believe that it is only half-sketched etc.
R.de Piles wrote – he himself said that his art was the imitation of nature and, since this included everything, he collected ancient suit of armour, ancient musical instruments, old clothes and a multitude of ancient, embroidered cloths,… all one finds (in Rembrandt) is what the character of his country, filtered through a vivid imagination, is capable of producing….he had a wonderful talent for reproducing concrete subjects…..Even though his outlines may not be correct. His drawings themselves are full of sensitivity etc
A.Houbraken wrote – so many variations and so many different aspects of one and the same subject. This was the result of careful observation…..with his tendency to change and turn to some new experience. He only half finished a great number of his paintings, and a still greater number of his etchings. Only the ones he did finish can give us any idea of the beauty we could have expected from his works had he completed them as he started them. Etc
One could go on and on there is so much evidence of the great, experimental Rembrandt that I have rediscovered, as opposed to the small-minded, less interesting “leaner, fitter Rembrandt” favoured by the experts. What were all those old clothes for if not to equip his models? Every one of his contemporaries tells the same story that favours my interpretation of the facts and the interpretation of previous scholars.
Among the epithets flung at me by Van der Wetering at our encounter was “you hate art historians” in fact I feel very sorry for them. POOR, BLIND , MICE, one might say – but they are dangerous – somehow they have got hold of the “carving knife” that guides our culture. Probably because they produce unanimous decisions on very expensive art objects, where artists could be guaranteed to argue. We would be better off with the discussion. The unanimity is due to the hierarchical constitution of art history, sticking together for strength; it works! But has caused disaster.
They have stuck together successfully stopping me reaching a wider public in spite of my superior evidence (for 36 years). This could constitute reason for hate, were not my character so charitably inclined to sympathy. One should be allowed to go on criticizing an institution that is damaging to us all, without accusations of hate.
The reform of art history is one of the most pressing needs of our civilization. The desperate errors of judgment that are being perpetrated by our art experts on a daily basis in both modern and ancient art must indicate that something is amiss. I have made more discoveries in the field of art history than anyone alive or dead, yet very few are interested in learning to see what I see. Rembrandt, the greatest humanist artist that has ever lived, is in serious danger of being eliminated from our cultural history.
Surely an artist has equal or better claims on the subject of seeing than an art historian. Observation is after all my daily practice as a sculptor. Whereas, to tell the truth, art historians seem much more interested in each others books than in the objects they claim to be studying. I have the huge advantage over the professionals that I come to those objects without the inbuilt prejudices with which art history blinkers its students. I have considerable practical knowledge in the case of sculpture, casting and drawing. In the case of painting at least I understand what an artist can produce from his unaided memory. The theories of art history are a sick joke in that respect.
During my lecture at Harvard I was told that “in the 17th century artists did not even need still-lives in front of them.” When I asked how they got that idea, the answer came back – certain flower paintings have flowers in them that do not bloom at the same season! I pointed out that flowers wilt, that flower painters pick their specimens one at a time – this caused consternation to all concerned.
This kind of nonsense was meant to justify the idea that Rembrandt did no need models to draw from. An idea that I could see was completely untrue in a ten minute flick through of his drawings. Equal research in the documents of those who actually knew Rembrandt confirmed my certainty that he set up groups of actors to draw from.
As a culture we have tolerated the steady destruction of the Rembrandt in the full glare of publicity, with few a murmurs of complaint. Wake up, you are living in a time of unprecedented descent into visual barbarism. If you are happy with myths stick with art history as it is; otherwise learn to see –
THE REFORM OF ART HISTORY is a 2 week course that will be run on demand from a quorum of 5. Lectures and discussion will be interspersed with practical drawing and sculpture.
Apply to nkonstam@ verrocchio.co.uk
The museum consists of maquettes and instruments with which Nigel Konstam made a number of important discoveries in the field of art history and archaeology. There are also a number of DVDs and documents which explain the reasoning that made him determined to suggest reforms in those faculties. Artists should again take the lead in cultural decision making.
The subjects covered in the museum are in chronological order :- a
GREECE
1. The discovery that the Greeks used life-casting for their life-size figures from the time of Phidias onwards.
2. a chimney on the Acropolis in Athens, and another in Olympia.
3. a method of steaming moulds to recover 70% of the wax usually lost, used at Rhodes and almost certainly elsewhere.
ROME
Roman geometry had an enormous influence on subsequent art that is seldom acknowledged. The analysis of a portrait bust of Hadrian in the British Museum, demonstrates this geometry. Artists who have used it since, like Mantagna, Holbein, Rembrandt and Giacometti, are also represented in the museum.
SIENA
1an appreciation of the works of Rinaldo da Siena recently discovered under the cathedral.
2reasons why the so called Duccio Window cannot be by Duccio.
3 The discovery of the dimension of time in Simone Martini’s Madonna of the Annunciation.
4Lorenzo Maitani’s great work is on the facade of Orvieto Duomo 112sq m. of relief sculpture of very high quality. We have a film showing how he was able to accurately transmit his art to his assistants.
FLORENCE
1The probable use of a polished silver mirror in Brunelleschi’s essay in perspective.
2. The probable use of sculptural maquettes in conjunction with mirrors by Masaccio.
3.Michelangelo’s use of maquettes for preparatory drawings
4. Cellini’s casting method is demonstrated to be very close to the method of Phidias.
REMBRANDT’S use of live models and mirrors, indicating that his contemporaries knew a Rembrandt that modern scholarship has all but destroyed; an artist whose example is very important to artists who observe life today.
VELASQUEZ’ use of a large mirror from the Hall of Mirrors at the Royal Palace in Toledo for the composition and rapid completion of his most important masterpiece – Las Meninas
VERMEER’S use of two mirrors in conjunction with a camera-obscura as an aid for painting.
I am a revolutionary, a cultural revolutionary. If you are happy with a status quo in art that has destroyed Rembrandt along with most of the cultural norms that have been in place since art began, you need not read on. If on the other hand you are dissatisfied with the present state of barbarism, I have a lot of homework for you. This museum is well stocked. Much I have said before on my blog and on Youtube but here they are arranged in an order that makes more sense: the chronology of the art rather than the chronology of my discoveries; with links to the relevant YouTube films
I made these discoveries over the last 40 years and though the evidence comes from a wide variety of primary sources (the works themselves) and many have been published in top rank art periodicals they have not been heeded. The facts that emerge from my investigations are often greatly at variance with established art history, where my work has met with unrelenting resistance. This is hardly surprising as the discoveries effectively pull the red carpet from under the feet of many of the mighty in art history and archaeology.
Normally such a radical revolution has to be implemented with machine guns but as they would seem out of place in a cultural debate, I have had to resort to naming names in order to try to provoke a response from a faculty that has up till now resisted with sullen silence, distortions or outright lies. To avoid blackening a whole profession I should mention that I have won most useful support from such prestigious names as Prof, Sir Ernst Gombrich, Slade Professor Sir Lawrence Gowing and archaeologist Herbert Hoffmann.
The Internet has provoked successful revolutions in the middle-east. Let us see if it can provoke a velvet revolution in culture. The public has the right to decide whether I am the crank I am often taken for, or the prophet of a new and better age in art, as I myself presume. Without your public participation with comments I can achieve nothing. This site is interactive. I am retiring from one of my day-time jobs (as director of the Verrocchio Arts Centre) in order to devote more time to this and my work as a sculptor/teacher.
The reform of art history is one of the most pressing needs of our civilization. The desperate errors of judgment that are being perpetrated by our art experts on a daily basis in both modern and ancient art must indicate that something is amiss. I have made more discoveries in the field of art history than anyone alive or dead, yet very few are interested in learning to see what I see. Previous courses advertised on the subject of Rembrandt, the greatest humanist artist that has ever lived, had no takers at all. This course is more general.
Surely an artist has equal or better claims on the subject of seeing than an art historian. Observation is after all my daily practice as a sculptor. Whereas, to tell the truth, art historians seem much more interested in each others books than in the objects they claim to be studying. I have the huge advantage over the professionals that I come to those objects without the inbuilt prejudices with which art history blinkers its students. I have considerable practical knowledge in the case of sculpture and drawing. In the case of painting at least I understand what an artist can produce from his unaided memory. The theories of art history are a a sick joke in that respect.
During my lecture at Harvard I was told that “in the 17th century artists did not even need still-lives in front of them.” When I asked how they got that idea, the answer came back – certain flower paintings have flowers in them that do not bloom at the same season! I pointed out that flowers wilt, that flower painters pick their specimens one at a time – to the consternation of all concerned.
This kind of nonsense was meant to justify the idea that Rembrandt did no need models to draw from. An idea that I could see was completely untrue in a ten minute flick through of his drawings. Equal research in the documents of those who actually knew Rembrandt confirmed my certainty that he set up groups of actors to draw from.
As a culture we have tolerated the steady destruction of the Rembrandt in the full glare of publicity, with few a murmurs of complaint. Wake up, you are living in a time of unprecedented descent into visual barbarism. If you are happy with myths stick with art history as it is; otherwise learn to see –
THE REFORM OF ART HISTORY (from the 1st – 14th July 2011 at the beautiful Verrocchio Arts Centre). Apply to nkonstam@verrocchio.co.uk
Here is an article I wrote in “The Save Rembrandt Campaigner” before the exhibition “Rembrandt and his Workshop” opened at the National Gallery in 1991. From the newspaper reproduction you will not be able to see quite how bad Joudeville was as a painter; so I put a colour reproduction below it.
Article from the Save Rembrandt Campaigner
Jouderville's painting
It is not just the fact that the head does not fit on the shoulders, all the geometry of the head is askew. It has a superficial likeness to Rembrandt because Joudeville was his student for a short time in Leiden. When Rembrandt left for Amsterdam Joudeville understood he did not have the makings of a painter and enrolled in the university.
How a man who has spent five years at art school could make such a gross error of judgment beats me. How that same man could go on regaling us with his connoisseurship in his subsequent publications and at the Benboom party, is a positive miracle of self-delusion. After my article Dr. Christopher Brown, then of the National Gallery, obviously agreed with me and Van der Wetering’s great discovery of Joudeville (revealed in volume III of the RRP) was quietly dropped.
Apart from aesthetic considerations, the sheer foolishness of suggesting that the young Rembrandt who went to Amsterdam to make his name would have had the temerity to send in a student to do a commissioned portrait for him should have alerted his colleagues that all was not well.
I was invited to speak about Rembrandt by PINC, a Dutch equivalent of Ted. It was a great experience. One got a mere 20 minutes to say one’s piece. I spent ages trying to cut mine down to that length. I just about managed it but at the last minute I tried to include something about two previous speakers that were relevant to my story. It ate up precious minutes so the rest was too hurried. Fortunately, I had a second chance which turned out very much better (see “Triumph”)
I have had a most fruitful time at exhibitions here in Amsterdam, Leiden and the Hague. I also had a good talk with Dr. C.Vogelaar who is in charge of Lakenhall at Leiden and the curator of The Lucas van Leiden’s shows there and at The Rembrandt House. The shows were a great treat, I saw a clear line of descent even from Lucas’ teacher, to Rembrandt. Rembrandt quite clearly doted on LvL. Not only did he pay a very high price for his prints initially. He re-bought them after his bankruptcy and hung on to them till he was forced to be porn them in1668.
Lucas was not a great painter but the syntax of his drawings and prints was a very strong springboard from which Rembrandt took off. In my analysis of the syntax in my DVD I use Holbein and Roman portraits as the springboard but Lucas was a hero in his own town. I will write a little piece about it here when I receive the necessary photos from Dr.Vogelaar.
The Rembrandt House Museum has done a wonderful job of restoring the house to something very like it must have been (nearly new) in Rembrandt’s time. It now gives a real sense of what it once was. The only thing missing is the multitude of old clothes, cloths and props, which I am assured will be present, if not in multitudes, when the present exhibition of Rembrandt and Lucas van Leiden finishes. They, of course are very strong corroboration of my view of Rembrandt.
ps. The baskets full of life casts of hands and a head painted by Rembrandt himself was also missing!
I have one horror to report of my Dutch visit: the same modern varnish that I was worried about in the Bronzino show is being used everywhere and on the Rembrandt’s in the Mauritzhuis it is a disaster. If you can imagine a shiny surface on a dark and highly textured painting with a chandelier of three dozen halogen bubbles behind; poor Rembrandt seems to be covered in tinsel. The same goes for the darker Van Goghs in his museum, though there the lighting is not quite so horrific.