DOI Heft:
Nr. 4
DOI Artikel:Bastek, Grażyna: J. Bruyn, B. Haak, S.H. Levie, P.J.J. van Thiel, E. van de Wetering, A corpus of Rembrandt Paintings: T. I-III. The Hague-Boston-London 1982-1989
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48917#0447
RECENZJE I POLEMIKI
39. E. VAN DE WETERING, The invisible Rembrandt...,
s. 96.
40. E. VAN DE WETERING, Studies in the workshop prci-
elice of the early Rembrandt..., s. 39.
41. E. VAN DE WETERING, The invisible Rembrandt...,
s. 96, il. 118 i 90.
42. Art and Autoradiography: Insights into the Genesis of
Paintings by Rembrandt, Van Dyck, and Vermeer. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1982.
43. G. PEEH, o.c., s. 28-37 oraz C. - O. FISCHER, C. LAU-
RENZE, W. LEUTHER, K. SLUSALLEK [W:] Der
Mann mit dem Goldhelm. Berlin 1986 s. 38-48.
44. A. BARTSCH, Catalogue Raisonne de toutes lesEstam-
pes qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ses
principaux imitateurs. Vienna 1797, nr kat. 192/1. Dalej
w tekście wszystkie przytaczane ryciny z adnotacją:
Bartsch i numerem katalogu.
45. Pytanie, czy dociekanie autorstwa jest anachronizmem,
było przedmiotem referatu wygłoszonego przezE. van de
Weteringa na sympozjum w Nationalmuseet w Sztokhol-
mie i opublikowanego: E. VAN DE WETERING, The
Question of Authenticity: an Anachronism? [W:] Rem-
brandt and His Pupils. Papers given at a Symposium in
Nationalmuseum Stockholm, 2-3 October 1992. Stock-
holm 1992 s. 9-13. Weteringprzyznaje tam, że dzisiejsze
i siedemnastowieczne poczucie oryginalności są odmien-
ne, a także, że siedemnastowieczne praktyki warsztatowe
dopuszczały jednolitość stylu w poszczególnych warszta-
tach i współpracę mistrza i ucznia przy jednym obrazie.
Na poparcie tezy, że dociekanie autorstwa nie jest jednak
anachronizmem, przytacza kilka przykładów pokazują-
cych, że siedemnastowieczni kolekcjonerzy i osoby zama-
wiające obrazy cenili sobie własnoręczność, "oryginalność"
kupowanych dzieł.
46. W pierwszych dwóch tomach Korpusu propozycje atry-
bucyjne były prezentowane jako opinia całego zespołu
RRP, w HI tomie pojawiły się jednak zapisy, że atrybucja
jest opinią większości.
GRAŻYNA BASTEK
J. Bruyn, B. Haak, S. H. Levie, P.JJ. van Thiel, E. van de Wetering, A Corpus of
Rembrandt Paintings. Vols I-III. The Hague-Boston-London 1982-1989
Summary
The review presents the history, results of research and
methodological assumptions of the Dutch investigative team
called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP). The RRP was
set up in 1968 by five Dutch art historians, J.Bruyn, J.A.
Emmens, B.Haak, S.H.Levie and P.J.J.van Thiel under the
authoritative auspices of Horst Gerson. The aim of this group
was carry out a complete revision of Rembrandfs oeuvres,
thoroughly investigate all paintings associated with the artist
and to publish the results of their research in a new catologue
(A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, of which to datę three of
the five planned volumes have been published focussing on
Rembrandfs work until 1642). The attributive methods wor-
ked out by the RRP in contrast to previous ones (considered
in an article by G.Morelli, M.von Danzig, A.P.Lauri,
M.Friedlander and B.Berenson) were referred to as the new
connoisseurship, because these investigations had been enri-
ched by recent breakthoughs in technology and conservation
(including infra-red and ultra-violet reflectograms, dendro-
chronology, X-ray and autoradiography, detailed analysis of
point media and pigments, although it should be added that
not all paintings were subjected to such detailed inspection).
This wide system of researches in fields of technology and
conservation has arisen from the approach to a painting as an
integrated whole composed of its structural elements starting
from mounting and base colours to the top paint layers. This
article demonstrates how our knowledge on 17th century
workshop practices and the way in which Rembrandfs own
workshop operated has been greatly inereased through the
RRP’s technological and conservation research. A series of
interesting assertations has been madę in relation to specific
paintings, although as yet no definite conclusions have been
reached on attributions. In acknowledging Rembrandt as the
original author of a given painting or assigning it as the work
of another painter, the RRP members rely on assumptions
established a priori and it is these assumptions which repre-
sent the weakest aspect of their methods, among others: the
criteria of ąuality based on the belief that Rembrandt was
incapable of composing a poor painting, and that his works
developed in time in a "linear" way, according to "an evolu-
tionary model" established by the authors of the Corpus.
Another extremely debatable hypothesis is that no Rembrandt
painting arose as a result of cooperation between the master
and any of his pupils. The way in which the paintings have
been divided in the thus-far published volumes of the Corpus
is also radical. There are three categories: A - Rembrandfs
paintings; B- paintings which in the present State of investi-
gation cannot be attributed in all certainty to Rembrandt; C -
paintings recognised not to be the work of Rembrandt (and in
most cases attributed to one of his pupils). This division is
morę suitable for the contemporary, rather than former, 17th
427
39. E. VAN DE WETERING, The invisible Rembrandt...,
s. 96.
40. E. VAN DE WETERING, Studies in the workshop prci-
elice of the early Rembrandt..., s. 39.
41. E. VAN DE WETERING, The invisible Rembrandt...,
s. 96, il. 118 i 90.
42. Art and Autoradiography: Insights into the Genesis of
Paintings by Rembrandt, Van Dyck, and Vermeer. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1982.
43. G. PEEH, o.c., s. 28-37 oraz C. - O. FISCHER, C. LAU-
RENZE, W. LEUTHER, K. SLUSALLEK [W:] Der
Mann mit dem Goldhelm. Berlin 1986 s. 38-48.
44. A. BARTSCH, Catalogue Raisonne de toutes lesEstam-
pes qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ses
principaux imitateurs. Vienna 1797, nr kat. 192/1. Dalej
w tekście wszystkie przytaczane ryciny z adnotacją:
Bartsch i numerem katalogu.
45. Pytanie, czy dociekanie autorstwa jest anachronizmem,
było przedmiotem referatu wygłoszonego przezE. van de
Weteringa na sympozjum w Nationalmuseet w Sztokhol-
mie i opublikowanego: E. VAN DE WETERING, The
Question of Authenticity: an Anachronism? [W:] Rem-
brandt and His Pupils. Papers given at a Symposium in
Nationalmuseum Stockholm, 2-3 October 1992. Stock-
holm 1992 s. 9-13. Weteringprzyznaje tam, że dzisiejsze
i siedemnastowieczne poczucie oryginalności są odmien-
ne, a także, że siedemnastowieczne praktyki warsztatowe
dopuszczały jednolitość stylu w poszczególnych warszta-
tach i współpracę mistrza i ucznia przy jednym obrazie.
Na poparcie tezy, że dociekanie autorstwa nie jest jednak
anachronizmem, przytacza kilka przykładów pokazują-
cych, że siedemnastowieczni kolekcjonerzy i osoby zama-
wiające obrazy cenili sobie własnoręczność, "oryginalność"
kupowanych dzieł.
46. W pierwszych dwóch tomach Korpusu propozycje atry-
bucyjne były prezentowane jako opinia całego zespołu
RRP, w HI tomie pojawiły się jednak zapisy, że atrybucja
jest opinią większości.
GRAŻYNA BASTEK
J. Bruyn, B. Haak, S. H. Levie, P.JJ. van Thiel, E. van de Wetering, A Corpus of
Rembrandt Paintings. Vols I-III. The Hague-Boston-London 1982-1989
Summary
The review presents the history, results of research and
methodological assumptions of the Dutch investigative team
called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP). The RRP was
set up in 1968 by five Dutch art historians, J.Bruyn, J.A.
Emmens, B.Haak, S.H.Levie and P.J.J.van Thiel under the
authoritative auspices of Horst Gerson. The aim of this group
was carry out a complete revision of Rembrandfs oeuvres,
thoroughly investigate all paintings associated with the artist
and to publish the results of their research in a new catologue
(A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, of which to datę three of
the five planned volumes have been published focussing on
Rembrandfs work until 1642). The attributive methods wor-
ked out by the RRP in contrast to previous ones (considered
in an article by G.Morelli, M.von Danzig, A.P.Lauri,
M.Friedlander and B.Berenson) were referred to as the new
connoisseurship, because these investigations had been enri-
ched by recent breakthoughs in technology and conservation
(including infra-red and ultra-violet reflectograms, dendro-
chronology, X-ray and autoradiography, detailed analysis of
point media and pigments, although it should be added that
not all paintings were subjected to such detailed inspection).
This wide system of researches in fields of technology and
conservation has arisen from the approach to a painting as an
integrated whole composed of its structural elements starting
from mounting and base colours to the top paint layers. This
article demonstrates how our knowledge on 17th century
workshop practices and the way in which Rembrandfs own
workshop operated has been greatly inereased through the
RRP’s technological and conservation research. A series of
interesting assertations has been madę in relation to specific
paintings, although as yet no definite conclusions have been
reached on attributions. In acknowledging Rembrandt as the
original author of a given painting or assigning it as the work
of another painter, the RRP members rely on assumptions
established a priori and it is these assumptions which repre-
sent the weakest aspect of their methods, among others: the
criteria of ąuality based on the belief that Rembrandt was
incapable of composing a poor painting, and that his works
developed in time in a "linear" way, according to "an evolu-
tionary model" established by the authors of the Corpus.
Another extremely debatable hypothesis is that no Rembrandt
painting arose as a result of cooperation between the master
and any of his pupils. The way in which the paintings have
been divided in the thus-far published volumes of the Corpus
is also radical. There are three categories: A - Rembrandfs
paintings; B- paintings which in the present State of investi-
gation cannot be attributed in all certainty to Rembrandt; C -
paintings recognised not to be the work of Rembrandt (and in
most cases attributed to one of his pupils). This division is
morę suitable for the contemporary, rather than former, 17th
427