J von Sandrart “Rembandt asserted that one should let oneself be guided by nature alone and by no other law.”…”His subject matter was usually taken from everyday life… and close to nature”
Filippo Baldinucci “the knowledge that his clients had to sit to him for 2 or 3 months cause few people to commission him”
Roger de Piles “He himself said that his art was the imitation of nature and since this included everything he collected ancient suits of armour, ancient musical instruments, old clothes and a multitude of ancient embroidered cloths”
(This collection is fully listed in the inventory of 1656.) “All one finds in Rembrandt is what the character of his country, filtered through a vivid imagination, is capable of producing”
Arnold Houbraken “I know of no other artist who has produced so many variations of one and the same subject. This was the result of careful observation of the various passions and these are recognisable in the facial expressions and attitudes of his characters.”…”He would spend a whole day or even two arranging the folds of a turban until he was satisfied.”..”Our great Rembrandt was of the same opinion (as Caravaggio) and was indeed faithful to the priciple that one must follow only nature, anything else was worthless in his eyes”…”He was content with imitating nature, as he saw it and without any pedantry.”
There is much more in the same vane, what are the experts think of when they deny his reliance on observation?
When Prof.E.H.Gombrich opened my second exhibition at Imperial College, he described me as “having prepared a great feast for art historians at which I invited them to eat their own words” I took it as a joke, never doubting that the evidence gave them no option but to recant (I have reproduced much of the evidence on this blog.) Now, thirty years later, I have to acknowledge that what still appears to me as irrefutable evidence can be passed off as simply a personal opinion that can be ignored by the great Rembrandt establishment; and they have got away with it. Their colossal misjudgments, seem to provoke no dissent ( see Review Telling the Difference” below).
Has Art become such a specialist subject that no one presumes to question the “experts” even when the evidence is perfectly clear that they are wrong? In the case of Rembrandt the experts have dragged him down (over the last 40 years) from a position of the greatest eminence to one in which he is no longer trusted, but seen as an art operator of the Warhol type. For instance, Prof. S. Slive tells us of a book full of drawings of the nude by Rembrandt in his 1656 inventory then speaking of the male nudes “the fact remains that not a single one by his hand exists” from which statement Slive deduces that Rembrandt “was reckless with the truth”. I would suggest that the scholars are scandalously reckless with the drawings in their charge. Those wonderfully powerful Rembrandt drawings that have inspired modern draftsman from Rouault through the Expressionists to many in our day, recently have been handed out to unworthy students, whose work shows only the slightest similarity with Rembrandt’s.
How many of our art experts have any experience of practical art? Very few I would imagine. I find their published judgments deeply destructive. Instead of the unique genius, Rembrandt is now surrounded by students who can knock out a masterpiece in their master’s style when they feel inclined. Am I in a minority seeing the state of art criticism as decadent beyond belief? Artists need to write criticism again as Sickert did.
How has it happened so very quickly? The power of the experts has increased exponentially as the technology of art publishing has blossomed, so their apparent authority has grown. They now rule the world of art for the first time: They disburse government funds, they give the prizes, buy for the museums, advise the publishers, rule the auction houses, and write the reviews; the tail is wagging the dog. It is a terrible situation that needs to be reversed, and quickly.
There is still a great feast to be had in honour of the Greater Rembrandt! All that is needed is a change at the top: artists should rule in art again.
REVIEW “Telling the Difference” at The GETTY
There was an exhibition at The Rembrandthuis at the turn of the year 84/85 that gave ample reason to fear the madness that has now been carried through with a vengeance at The Getty. The devastation of Rembrandt’s portfolio is a crime. The level of corporate madness is beyond belief, The Director of The Getty wrote, “Drawings by Rembrandt and his Pupils, telling the difference as stunning.” I agree but not in the sense that he probably intends.
Anyone who approaches this enormous volume in the hope of understanding what distinguishes the greatest master from his pupils will be sorely disappointed. In the majority of cases the ‘experts’ are gravely mistaken, re-attributing genuine Rembrandt’s to his students. As a result now we see the master as surrounded by little known nonentities who could, when they felt like it, turnout masterpieces. Mr. Schatborn and his colleagues would have us believe that they have discovered the massive failures of judgement of all previous scholars. Are we going to accept this arrogance?
Rembrandt scholarship of the last 50 years has been an escalating disaster. Benesch’s catalogue of 1954, (which I would wish to enlarge) has been reduced by approximately 50%. The surplus master’s drawings have been handed out indiscriminately to unworthy students. In some cases the experts cannot even prove that they have been Rembrandt’s students. The idea that a moderate student could porduce a Rembrandt look-alike that has passed for a Rembrandt because of its penmanship and sharpness of observation and then chosen to revert back to their middling talent is just too absurd. This catastrophe can only have resulted from the inbreeding of Rembrandt scholarship. No new blood or ideas are allowed to enter. The Rembrandt Mafia have hermetically sealed themselves from the intrusion of advise from the practitioners.
No draftsman could possibly go along with the recent misjudgments, where some of Rembrandt’s finest drawings have been handed out to mediocrities or, in the case of Carel Fabritius, to a fine painter who had not previously shown a talent for drawing. There is no evidence whatever that these scholars have the least idea of what makes a great drawing (see www.saveRembrandt.org.uk for details).
Some of the reproductions in this lavishly produced volume are so small as to preclude the necessary comparisons. Common sense forces me to believe that scholarship since my article in “The Burlington Magazine” February 1977 is not only misguided but fraudulent. Anyone contemplating a libel action on the strength of this statement should study that article and the letter from Prof. E.Haverkamp Begerman (link) which conveniently summarizes the false assumptions on which Rembrandt scholars have continued to destroy Rembrandt in the face of my own evidence and the unanimous voice of Rembrandt’s contemporaries.
The crucial points are
1.Rembrandt “would not attempt a single brush-stroke without a living model before his eyes”(Houbraken). Or, “Our great Rembrandt was of the same opinion that one should follow only nature, anything else was worthless in his eyes.” (Karel van Mander as reported by Houbraken) and there are many more quotes of the same character. The scholars would have us believe exactly the opposite: that Rembrandt actually taught his students to invent, not to observe.
-
The evidence in My article “Rembrandt’s Use of Models and Mirrors” proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that these statements from Rembrandt’s contemporaries are remarkably accurate. The proof of groups of live models in Rembrandt’s studio for the Biblical and other group subjects is incontestable. My recent film on Youtube “Rembrandt’s Adoration of the Shepherds” makes the same point on a grand scale. There we see practically the entire subject matter of two paintings (one seen direct and the other observed from Rembrandt’s same position but reflected in an angled sheet of polished pewter, accurately recorded by Rembrandt even to the extent that the more impressionistic technique suggests the blurred quality of the image reflected in polished metal. Both paintings were once accepted as by Rembrandt). The chances of these very complex space relationships happening by chance, or being constructed by calculation must be millions to one against. There are just too many reversals seen from a different point of view. To suggest, as Prof. E.Van der Wetering does that these were typical exercises in Rembrandt’s atelier is unacceptable lunacy.
This evidence which cuts the ground from under the scholars view is not mentioned let alone discussed in the Getty catalogue. Peter Schatborn who master-minded the catalogue of The Rembrandthuis exhibition from his position in charge of the prints and drawings at the Rijksmuseum, was also the major contributor of the exhibition at The Getty. He can hardly claim ignorance of my discoveries as he translated my second article into Dutch for inclusion in The Rembrandthuiskroniek in 1978.
The fact is that today’s art theorists seem to have no understanding of the importance of observation in human affairs. It is not enough that scientists are so good at it, their observations are specialized; artistic observation is also specialized but specialized in a different area, an area where the neglect is already horrifyingly apparent. By destroying Rembrandt, the figurehead of observed art, the theorists have slued modern art with such success we have to doubt whether it can ever recover. First we must recover The Great Rembrandt by putting an end to Rembrandt scholarship as it now exists. Do not burn their books, preserve them as a warning to future generations of ‘experts’.
A lovely book with an ugly title. I would not have taken it from the shelf had not the librarian handed it to me in lieu of Roger Fry’s study which was out. As it was, it was some time before I got round to opening it.
It is a layman’s response to Rembrandt, in the sense that Taylor is best known as a translator. He teaches at the Parsons School of design in Paris and I guess these chapters were first a most inspiring slide-lecture series to students there. I suspect he has never been subjected to a course in art history, or if he has, his sensibility has survived the blinkers, unimpared. If the book were made into a television series I guess it would do more to save Rembrandt than my rather more technical approach.
The chapter which looks at Rembrandt’s treatment of blindness is wonderful. For me, Taylor has rescued Rembrandt’s etching of “The Blind Tobit” from the doldrums and shown me a great and subtle work; (see caption below) so very different to Kenneth Clark’s treatment of the same subject.
Clark comparing Tobit to Raphael’s blind Elymas writes “Out of all the conceivable ways of representing blindness, are not the similarities of rhythm and pose almost too great for coincidence? And is not the unforgettable simplicity of Rembrandt’s Tobit – the quintessence of blindness – an indication of some deep secreted experience rather than mere observation?”
 |
 |
| Taylor sees Tobit, in his excitement, has overturned the spinning wheel and, disoriented stumbles towards his own shadow rather than greet his son, Tobias, at the door. Tobias has just returned from a great adventure, his dog precedes him and is about to cause yet another mishap. | |
I am right with Clark when he talks of “deep secreted experience” but as for the rhythm and pose being similar, surely complete nonsense. Clark has an acute eye but it has been deformed by modern trends in art history: “mere observation” being a hallmark. Modern critics of art should try a bit of observation for themselves, they would soon find that it is a most demanding process requiring a life-time of vigilance.
Yes, of course Rembrandt knew Veniziano’s engraving after Raphael ( he owned a huge collection of such things) but Rembrandt’s reaction was more probably the same as mine: “child’s play; Blind-man’s-Buff, I’ll show them blindness” and then goes on to produce this little masterpiece.
Yes, artists do secrete experiences. Long forgotten memories bubble to the surface in the act of observation and it is this that activates Rembrandt’s empathetic imagination. The sooner the “experts” recognise this method the sooner we will get back on track with Rembrandt’s genius.
Taylor has a lot to say about Rembrandt’s noses but in the end it is Taylor’s nose that leads us on this enlightening, humanist tour of Rembrandt’s gifts to us.
Vote on the Save Rembrandt Site
You can vote in the poll illustrated below. You must go the the SaveRembrandt site to vote. See bottom right of page for Poll. You will not be able to vote on this blog.
Polls: CLICK HERE to go to Rembrandt Site to vote – NOT ON THIS PAGE
| Current Rembrandt Scholarship…. | ||||||||||||
|
|
This is the real Bol as draughtsman, not very inspired. If anyone has access to better photos of the Bol paintings we would be very pleased to replace the miserable versions we have had to use.
the true Bol
Take this link to see the new YouTube video
New YouTube Video: Rembrandt and Bol
A KIND OF SYNOPSIS
Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the commentaries of Rembrandt’s contemporaries.
-
Recognise the fact that Rembrandt used live models and mirrors regularly in his studio, creating tableaux-vivants for himself and his students to work from.
-
Recognise the variable quality of his works as seen in the etchings and paintings, which are usually dated and signed.
-
Recognise that it is therefore dishonest to continue to impose a hypothetical development on his drawings very few of which are signed or dated.
-
Recognise that the man himself (revealed in his behaviour) is not reliable (get a psychiatric report).
-
Recognise that “he was taught by nature and by no other law. Anything else was worthless in his eyes”. “He would not attempt a single brush-stroke without a living model before his eyes” quotes from Rembrandt’s contemporaries.
-
Insist on practical experience of the art of drawing before embarking on Rembrandt studies (minimum 3 years)
-
Ask advice of recognised draughtsmen – always.
-
Study the syntax as well as the handwriting.
-
Abandon the absurd belief that we would understand Rembrandt better if there was less of him to study! He was hugely prolific.
-
Study logic.
-
Close down all the leading schools of Rembrandt studies and throw out the old guard, they have done immense harm to Art and are a disgrace to Learning, because of their refusal to accept no.1. above. Civilized debate is not tolerated by them.
-
Open new schools with artists in charge.
-
Publish my book written in 1978 and accepted by Phaidon (with all the editorial board behind it, until one nameless American scholar torpedoed it unjustly in his reader’s report. The book needs the minimum of revision and could be greatly enlarged. The book does of course call in question 90% of scholars’ dating and the iconography of Rembrandt and his school.
-
Publish my Commentaries on the Published Drawings of Rembrandt.(in preparation).
Do you remember a Rembrandt we considered the artist who had taught humanity more about humanity than any other? A kind of Shakespeare of the visual world, that Rembrandt can be restored. It is just a matter of how we look at him.
For generations Rembrandt scholars have been “arranging” Rembrandt’s paintings and drawings into a smooth and reliable development but Rembrandt was not reliable. They are trying to knock a square peg into a round hole and have nearly destroyed him. We have lost sight of nearly half his works as a result, through de-attribution.
There is an alternative view. A view that is entirely in accord with the reports of Rembrandt’s contemporaries and with the established facts of his life and art. It fits the facts so well that the scholars will not argue with it – they ignore it.
Rembrandt was not reliable, he did not follow artistic precedents in the approved scholarly fashion “he was taught by nature and by no other law” his contemporaries tell us and this judgment is born out by the works themselves. His inspiration came direct from life as he experienced it. His right brain was feeling life more acutely and expressing it more potently than any other artist before or since. Add to that the very strong indication that Rembrandt was a bi-polar, manic/depressive type, who has been studied by scholars with an obsessive desire for order and you get the present disaster in scholarship. Would you try to date the letters of a manic/depressive by his handwriting? That is what has happened.
Nigel Konstam, the “New Humanist” sculptor, would be happy to show you the alternative Rembrandt, whose art he has been studying for 50 years. His Rembrandt is bigger, bolder and altogether more human than the Rembrandt the scholars have been chewing over in that time.
The exhibition at the Getty would afford him the optimum opportunity for an “Alternative Symposium”. Now is the moment – add your voice to that of The Save Rembrandt Society
Please vote either
a massive vote of no confidence in recent Rembrandt scholarship
or
let us at least hear the alternative view of Rembrandt
As predicted there are plenty of absurdities at the Getty exhibition of “Drawings by Rembrandt and his Pupils”, some you can now see on line. When I receive the catalog there will be more on this blog.
Here are some notes on the Getty website comparisons to help you sort out the mess:-
1. Lievens, was a fellow student with Rembrandt at Lastman’s atelier. When they set up studio together Lievens was the better draftsman. Rembrandt learned more from Livens than from Lastman. (That is probably why Rembrandt only stayed with Lastman 6 months.) Eventually Rembrandt surpassed Livens as a draftsman. It is therefore misleading to include Lievens in this exhibition as he was not a student of Rembrandt’s. I accept the Lievens Rembrandt judgement. NK
2. Flink, was a student of Rembrandt’s. He was a fairly good draftsman and painter. However, his drawings are not similar to Rembrandt. Judgment accepted NK
3. Bol a pathetic student of mythological subjects was unable to learn from the master in spite of brilliant lessons in drawing (see Hagar and the Angel – “One does not Know whether to Laugh or Cry”). see also “The Finding of Moses” & “Pomona”. Bol wisely specialized in portraiture later.Both these drawings are clearly by Rembrandt; look at the hands, feet and fur hat. Bol’s “brilliance” is always due to the recent robbery of Rembrandt’s portfolio by the “experts”. Judgment absurd, refuted NK
4. Landscapes – I do not comment on the landscapes.
5. Renesse was one of Rembrandt’s better students. Certainly a student NK
6. House on the Bullwark – I do not comment on the landscapes.
7. Eeckhout, was a diligent student of Rembrandt’s. accepted NK
8. Hoogstraten was a student of Rembrandts. (I hope you will recognise mundane version of the same set in a barn as in my movie of “The Adoration of the Shepherds)”. Judgement accepted NK
9. Raven may have been a student of Rembrnadt’s. However, he had no drawings to his credit until experts discovered his name on the back of a Rembrandt drawing (presumably because he owned it). It is a complete disgrace that Raven was ever considered the author of this drawing. Note that the model is again Hendrikje Stoffels. Is it likely that Raven and co get invited in to draw Rembrandt’s mistress? absurd, refuted NK
10. Unkown student -this drawing is clearly by Rembrnat absurd judgment NK
Dear Colleagues,
I have devoted perhaps a quarter of my life’s energies to saving Rembrandt, despite the fact that my efforts clearly earn me negative brownie points with the powers that be. At considerable expense I published three news-sheets 1991-2-3 to alert people to what has been going on. More recently I have put up www.saveRembrandt.org.uk which gives a pretty full account of what I see in Rembrandt and what the “experts” fail to see. I have received many verbal endorsements from artists, students and The Save Rembrandt Society but I need public written endorsements or my lonely crusade will founder and be forgotten.
Recently at The Getty in Los Angeles there is an exhibition of Rembrandt and his Students’ Drawings, which undoubtedly propagates the establishment’s judgments made over the last 30 years. Many ludicrous judgments have already entered the annals of art history (in the catalogues of The British Museum, The Rijksmusem and the Boymans in Rotterdam) I am thinking particularly of those where perfectly obvious studies for well known Rembrandt etchings have been de-attributed because the scholars want him to be bolder, not as “tentative” as in his etchings!
Now is the time to act, if you do not these very damaging judgments will blight Rembrandt’s reputation for many years to come. Do not expect art historians to be self regulating after 35 years of silent acquiescence in the ludicrous judgments of the “experts”.
I surely need not remind you of the negative effect Rembrandt’s fall from grace has already had on the teaching of art. At the age of 77 I cannot hope to be around for another such opportunity as The Getty presents. I am reconstituting The Save Rembrandt Society as an internet blog. You will find it [coming soon] on www.verrocchio.co.uk. No fees required, just support. Please become a member and comment.
If I am mistaken I want to know why.
Sincerely,
Nigel Konstam