DOI Artikel:
Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, Katarzyna: Corpus Rubenianum versus Rembrandt Research Project: two approaches to a "Catalogue raisonné"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34225#0033
CORPUS RUBENIANUM МЖСЗ REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
27
37 paintings. Voiume III published in 1989 covered the years (1635-1642), and rejected 39 paintings. The
fîrst three voluines followed each other closely by 3-4 years, but as many as sixteen years had passed
since Volume III in 1989 and Volume IV in 2005, dealing with Rembrandt's self-portraits. The reason
for this was that the Project went through a crisis caused by the many rejections of Rembrandt's works,
and was officiaHy abandoned in 1993.
As expected, the results of the Project's first phase (Vols. 1-111) were unpopular. The Committee
rejected and downgraded 116 Rembrandt paintings, including many well-known and well-loved works
both in private and public collections, many in North America. These rejections had serious financial
consequences. The verdicts of the Committee were not accepted unanimously and were much criticized,
only adding to the general confusion reigning in Rembrandt studies. The Project has generated much
comment, both good and bad, soinetimes even before anything was published^. American art periodicals
and the daily press were fascinated with it and 'chronicled Dow-Jones-like, the fate of various Rembrandt
paintings in American museums either rejected or downgraded by the Dutch experts'^.
The Group was accused of many things. Their working methods were called into question and they
were said to encourage and instill doubt. There was an interesting commentary on Volume I, by Teonard
J. Slatkes from Queens College, City University of New YorUT Slatkes described the situation in terms of
'expert-and-museum-bashing'. One of his most important lines of criticism was the so-called 'committee
connoisseurship', a methodological issue much discussed. How did the Group make collective decisions?
Were some members more influential, with perhaps more persuasive, stronger and more domineering
personalities? How did they work out their differences? Were they truly unaniinous in their decision, as
it seemed in most cases, except when in rare instances someone disagreed with the final verdict, or when
the B category paintings were left unattributed? Slatkes compared the RRP to the Corpus Rubenianum as
the only generally comparable series dealing with one artist's production. He rightly wondered why the
CRLB set so much lower standards of authenticity fbr Rubens than for Rembrandt. Why in the CRLB
series paintings are described and judged by the author of the given volume, rather than a committee of
experts? The catalogue entries are, however, based on the notes left by the late Ludwig Burchard, so his
opinion is also taken into consideration.
T have no doubt that the authors realize that like modern forgeries of certain Old Masters pictures
[...] the monographic studies and oeuvre catalogues are only coinpletely accepted for about a generation
before they fall victim to what might be termed the art-historical generation gap'30 - Slatkes somewhat
prophetically commented. This was a reminder that attributions can change quickly. This was certainly
true, as many of the Committee's earlier verdicts have already been overturned by their youngest member,
Ernst Van de Wetering.
Another critical opinion of the RRP was voiced in 1987 by Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, in an
article on the state of research in Northem Baroque ArtW His review of the RRP's work contained both
approval and criticism. The method of grouping paintings according to fbnnal or stylistic cohesion got his
support. But whether the groups established indicated variations of one artist or other artists remained for
him largely subjective. Those groups could still be groups of paintings according to Rembrandt's changing
style. The method of visual analysis of paintings and of the artist's overall approach to his subject such
27 See some reviews and comments on the publications of the old RRP: 'Editorial', 77?e Mognrmg', 125, 1983,
pp. 661-663; H. Adams, 'lf Not Rembrandt, Then His Cousin?' 77?g Hr? 7J??//g?/??. 66. no.3, 1984, pp. 427—441; J.R..I. van Asperen
de Boer, 'Review of voi. I,' Æ?, 9. 1985, pp. 14-19; P. Schatborn. 'Review of vol. I', Ом<7-77о//о??4, 100, 1986, pp. 55-63;
E. Haverkamp-Begemann, 'The State of Research in Northem Baroque Art', 77;e ,4?v Z?2?//g?;??, 69, Dec. 1987, pp. 510-519;
C. White, 'Review of vol. 2, 1631-1634', 77?g Z?n?V;'?7g?o?7 Mogozme, 129. 1987, p. 809; W. Liedtke, 'Reconstructing Rembrandt:
Portraits trom the Early Years in Amsterdam (1631-1634)', Hpo//o, May 1989, pp. 323-331, 371-372; S. Hochfield, 'Rembrandt:
The Unvamished Truth?', Hr? Vew^. Dec. 1987, pp. 102-111; M. Kirby Talley Jr.. 'Connoisseurship and the Methodology of the
Rembrandt Research Project', Z?7?g?*?70?;o??o/ 7омг?;о/ p7А7м^ем?;? AZo??ogg??7g?7? o?7(Z См7'о7о?*у/?;/?, 8. 1989, pp. 175-214; L.J. Slatkes,
'Review of Corpus Г, 777g H?? Z?;?//o?;?7, 71, March 1989, pp. 139-144; E. Grasman, 'The Rembrandt Research Project: reculer pour
mieux sauter', Z7o//o?7<7, Vol. 113, no. 3, 1999, pp. 153-160. Also see exh. cat. byH. Von Sonnenburg. W. Liedtke, C. Logan,
N.M. Orenstein, and S.S. Dickey, Z?g???/)?*o?74?//Vo? Z^e???/;?*????^? ;'?7 77;e Л7е??*оро/;'?о77 Л7муем??? q/Ит*?.' Hvpec?^ rT Co??7?o;'^eM7'y/7;jo,
Volumes 1 and 11, New York 1995.
23 Slatkes, op. c;'?., p. 139.
29 7/?;<7e?7;, pp. 139—144.
3° 7/?;ZZe??7, p. 141.
з' Haverkamp-Begemann, op. c;7.
27
37 paintings. Voiume III published in 1989 covered the years (1635-1642), and rejected 39 paintings. The
fîrst three voluines followed each other closely by 3-4 years, but as many as sixteen years had passed
since Volume III in 1989 and Volume IV in 2005, dealing with Rembrandt's self-portraits. The reason
for this was that the Project went through a crisis caused by the many rejections of Rembrandt's works,
and was officiaHy abandoned in 1993.
As expected, the results of the Project's first phase (Vols. 1-111) were unpopular. The Committee
rejected and downgraded 116 Rembrandt paintings, including many well-known and well-loved works
both in private and public collections, many in North America. These rejections had serious financial
consequences. The verdicts of the Committee were not accepted unanimously and were much criticized,
only adding to the general confusion reigning in Rembrandt studies. The Project has generated much
comment, both good and bad, soinetimes even before anything was published^. American art periodicals
and the daily press were fascinated with it and 'chronicled Dow-Jones-like, the fate of various Rembrandt
paintings in American museums either rejected or downgraded by the Dutch experts'^.
The Group was accused of many things. Their working methods were called into question and they
were said to encourage and instill doubt. There was an interesting commentary on Volume I, by Teonard
J. Slatkes from Queens College, City University of New YorUT Slatkes described the situation in terms of
'expert-and-museum-bashing'. One of his most important lines of criticism was the so-called 'committee
connoisseurship', a methodological issue much discussed. How did the Group make collective decisions?
Were some members more influential, with perhaps more persuasive, stronger and more domineering
personalities? How did they work out their differences? Were they truly unaniinous in their decision, as
it seemed in most cases, except when in rare instances someone disagreed with the final verdict, or when
the B category paintings were left unattributed? Slatkes compared the RRP to the Corpus Rubenianum as
the only generally comparable series dealing with one artist's production. He rightly wondered why the
CRLB set so much lower standards of authenticity fbr Rubens than for Rembrandt. Why in the CRLB
series paintings are described and judged by the author of the given volume, rather than a committee of
experts? The catalogue entries are, however, based on the notes left by the late Ludwig Burchard, so his
opinion is also taken into consideration.
T have no doubt that the authors realize that like modern forgeries of certain Old Masters pictures
[...] the monographic studies and oeuvre catalogues are only coinpletely accepted for about a generation
before they fall victim to what might be termed the art-historical generation gap'30 - Slatkes somewhat
prophetically commented. This was a reminder that attributions can change quickly. This was certainly
true, as many of the Committee's earlier verdicts have already been overturned by their youngest member,
Ernst Van de Wetering.
Another critical opinion of the RRP was voiced in 1987 by Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, in an
article on the state of research in Northem Baroque ArtW His review of the RRP's work contained both
approval and criticism. The method of grouping paintings according to fbnnal or stylistic cohesion got his
support. But whether the groups established indicated variations of one artist or other artists remained for
him largely subjective. Those groups could still be groups of paintings according to Rembrandt's changing
style. The method of visual analysis of paintings and of the artist's overall approach to his subject such
27 See some reviews and comments on the publications of the old RRP: 'Editorial', 77?e Mognrmg', 125, 1983,
pp. 661-663; H. Adams, 'lf Not Rembrandt, Then His Cousin?' 77?g Hr? 7J??//g?/??. 66. no.3, 1984, pp. 427—441; J.R..I. van Asperen
de Boer, 'Review of voi. I,' Æ?, 9. 1985, pp. 14-19; P. Schatborn. 'Review of vol. I', Ом<7-77о//о??4, 100, 1986, pp. 55-63;
E. Haverkamp-Begemann, 'The State of Research in Northem Baroque Art', 77;e ,4?v Z?2?//g?;??, 69, Dec. 1987, pp. 510-519;
C. White, 'Review of vol. 2, 1631-1634', 77?g Z?n?V;'?7g?o?7 Mogozme, 129. 1987, p. 809; W. Liedtke, 'Reconstructing Rembrandt:
Portraits trom the Early Years in Amsterdam (1631-1634)', Hpo//o, May 1989, pp. 323-331, 371-372; S. Hochfield, 'Rembrandt:
The Unvamished Truth?', Hr? Vew^. Dec. 1987, pp. 102-111; M. Kirby Talley Jr.. 'Connoisseurship and the Methodology of the
Rembrandt Research Project', Z?7?g?*?70?;o??o/ 7омг?;о/ p7А7м^ем?;? AZo??ogg??7g?7? o?7(Z См7'о7о?*у/?;/?, 8. 1989, pp. 175-214; L.J. Slatkes,
'Review of Corpus Г, 777g H?? Z?;?//o?;?7, 71, March 1989, pp. 139-144; E. Grasman, 'The Rembrandt Research Project: reculer pour
mieux sauter', Z7o//o?7<7, Vol. 113, no. 3, 1999, pp. 153-160. Also see exh. cat. byH. Von Sonnenburg. W. Liedtke, C. Logan,
N.M. Orenstein, and S.S. Dickey, Z?g???/)?*o?74?//Vo? Z^e???/;?*????^? ;'?7 77;e Л7е??*оро/;'?о77 Л7муем??? q/Ит*?.' Hvpec?^ rT Co??7?o;'^eM7'y/7;jo,
Volumes 1 and 11, New York 1995.
23 Slatkes, op. c;'?., p. 139.
29 7/?;<7e?7;, pp. 139—144.
3° 7/?;ZZe??7, p. 141.
з' Haverkamp-Begemann, op. c;7.