DOI article:
Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, Katarzyna: Corpus Rubenianum versus Rembrandt Research Project: two approaches to a "Catalogue raisonné"
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34225#0034
28
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
as perspective, composition, definition of figures or detaiis was deciared as vaiid - despite its subjectivity.
Judgments of quatity, however, were iess convincing as a yardstick of authorship. The quality of a painting
or its execution can be subjective characteristics. We shouid note that the word 'subjective' was used by
the author as many as three times in the text, and appears as the most serious objection to the 'coliective
decisions' of the RRP. Incidentaiiy, Haverkamp-Begemann disagreed with some of their negative verdicts.
As exampies of controversiai verdicts by the Group one can cite the Wallace Collection in London,
where eleven of its twelve Rembrandt paintings were demoted at that time. Only one painting by Rembrandt
was accepted by the old RRP, t/7<? Н7ТА?А Aw, c. 1657. From among all the works acquired between
1803 and 1868 by Lord Hertford as genuine Rembrandts, two were deemed copies or pastiches, one was
attributed to Backer, five were 'probably' by Flinck, one by Drost, and two were ascribed to Rembrandt's
studio. Among the demoted works was ш RArcÆ Сяр, 1637, 777e Goo<7 &7777or7/z777, 1630, and
the pendant portraits of ./<xv7? /A//?'('o/7?e o/?(/ /??.s .S'o/? C'<7.s//e/* and T??.s(7??/7(7 L/77 Co//e?7 o/?C /?ет /)o?/g/??e?*
H77770, both dated c. 1632. AII these paintings were later reattributed to Rembrandt by Van de Wetering. The
rejections and de-attributions were graciously accepted by the Gallery's Director as part of the necessary
process to credit Rembrandt with a realistic output as well as to raise his quality. Other directors were not
as understanding. Some delended their paintings in art historical reviews and museum publications, most
were reluctant to lose their masterpieces. Many scholars objected too, which led to several publications
analysing and justilying the current attributions to Rembrandt^. There was a general lack of agreement
on the de-attributions made by the Group.
VAN DE WETERING'S APPROACH TO CONNOISSEURSHIP
In 1993, the four older members of the Committee: Bruyn, Haak, Levie and Van Thiel announced their
withdrawal from the project. This was a result of serious tensions within the Group, especially between
Bruyn and Van de Wetering, when the latter disagreed with some of Rembrandt rejections and broke the
consensus. The older members stood by the reductionist approach based on coHective connoisseurship and
resigned. Van de Wetering was left alone in charge of the Project, although there were other multidisciplinary
collaborators involved.
Van de Wetering started his career as an art teacher and trained artist, which in my view is one of
the most significant aspects of his ability to judge paintings. He also studied and practiced Old Masters'
techniques. To understand how paintings are made on a practical level can be of great help to art historians,
especially when making judgments of quality. When Van de Wetering was studying art history, he 'leamed
that art historians in general paid relatively little attention to the creative process between the artist and
artwork'W It was perhaps this discovery that later dellned his most important contribution not only to
the Rembrandt Research Project, but also to connoisseurship in generalW The fact that he examines
Rembrandt's paintings with an artist's eye (particularly the //ew/Tv/T - the perhaps slightly awkwardly
used French word for 'painting', to describe brushwork) is crucial, although nothing new in the history
of connoisseurship. The idea that an artist is the best connoisseur was already advanced by Dürer in the
1520s, and Van de Wetering quoted this fact in his book. At least three seventeenth-century theorists
- Etienne Binet, Abraham Bosse and Samuel Van Hoogstraten, also declared that only painters were
able to adequately assess pictures^^. Also Karel Van Mander, in his widely read treatise on painting №/
з^ In defence of the Rembrandts in the Wahace CoIIection see C. Brown. 'Rembrandts reassessed', Npo//o, 148, 2006, pp. 54-61;
on the controversy of the fo/AA 7^/r/o/- see A. Baiiey, T^ospo/zs'os' ?o 7W/////*o?;</?.' R7/o //o//-/7or/ 77/c Ro/B// 7?/û/g/*? yl Co/;7/*ove/*^v Co/r-
^7&/*g<7, New York 1994; Z. Żygulski, 'Further Batties for the "Lisowczyk" (Poiish Rlder) by Rembrandt/ ,4/*?/'//му e? №T?o/*/'oe, 2i,
no. 41, 2000. pp. i97-205.
33 E. van de Wetering, /?<?///7//*o//6(7ś' Ro7/;7;'//g^ 7?ov/T/'7er/. .4 Co//;///c?c N/rwy, ,4 Со/р/м qf Re//////*o//r/7 fo/'//?/'//gj, Voi. VI.
Dordrecht 2014. p. 3.
34 See some more pubiications by E. van de Wetering, ??е//////*<7//</7.' 77/e Co///7e/* o? MG/*L Amsterdam 1997; E. van de
Wetering and P. Broekhoff, 'New Directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, Part 1: The 1642 Seif-Portrait in the Royai Coi-
iection.' 77/e ?////*/;//g?o// ATagoz/'/ze 138, Ш6, i996, pp. 174-180; E. van de Wetering, 'Connoisseurship and Rembrandt's Paintings:
New Directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, Part 112 C//g 7?M/*//'//g7o// ALogor/'//e 150, 1259, Feb. 2008. pp. 83-90.
33 A. Tummers and K. Jonckeere (eds.), ^4/*? №?/*Æe? о//<7 Со/;//о/Туем/'^/////,' /1 C/os'g/* TooZr o?р</7//?7//^^ //v /?c//////*o//</7, /?м//е/м
o/;<7 ?//o/'/- Co//7<?///po/-o/*;'e^, Amsterdam 2008. p. 139.
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
as perspective, composition, definition of figures or detaiis was deciared as vaiid - despite its subjectivity.
Judgments of quatity, however, were iess convincing as a yardstick of authorship. The quality of a painting
or its execution can be subjective characteristics. We shouid note that the word 'subjective' was used by
the author as many as three times in the text, and appears as the most serious objection to the 'coliective
decisions' of the RRP. Incidentaiiy, Haverkamp-Begemann disagreed with some of their negative verdicts.
As exampies of controversiai verdicts by the Group one can cite the Wallace Collection in London,
where eleven of its twelve Rembrandt paintings were demoted at that time. Only one painting by Rembrandt
was accepted by the old RRP, t/7<? Н7ТА?А Aw, c. 1657. From among all the works acquired between
1803 and 1868 by Lord Hertford as genuine Rembrandts, two were deemed copies or pastiches, one was
attributed to Backer, five were 'probably' by Flinck, one by Drost, and two were ascribed to Rembrandt's
studio. Among the demoted works was ш RArcÆ Сяр, 1637, 777e Goo<7 &7777or7/z777, 1630, and
the pendant portraits of ./<xv7? /A//?'('o/7?e o/?(/ /??.s .S'o/? C'<7.s//e/* and T??.s(7??/7(7 L/77 Co//e?7 o/?C /?ет /)o?/g/??e?*
H77770, both dated c. 1632. AII these paintings were later reattributed to Rembrandt by Van de Wetering. The
rejections and de-attributions were graciously accepted by the Gallery's Director as part of the necessary
process to credit Rembrandt with a realistic output as well as to raise his quality. Other directors were not
as understanding. Some delended their paintings in art historical reviews and museum publications, most
were reluctant to lose their masterpieces. Many scholars objected too, which led to several publications
analysing and justilying the current attributions to Rembrandt^. There was a general lack of agreement
on the de-attributions made by the Group.
VAN DE WETERING'S APPROACH TO CONNOISSEURSHIP
In 1993, the four older members of the Committee: Bruyn, Haak, Levie and Van Thiel announced their
withdrawal from the project. This was a result of serious tensions within the Group, especially between
Bruyn and Van de Wetering, when the latter disagreed with some of Rembrandt rejections and broke the
consensus. The older members stood by the reductionist approach based on coHective connoisseurship and
resigned. Van de Wetering was left alone in charge of the Project, although there were other multidisciplinary
collaborators involved.
Van de Wetering started his career as an art teacher and trained artist, which in my view is one of
the most significant aspects of his ability to judge paintings. He also studied and practiced Old Masters'
techniques. To understand how paintings are made on a practical level can be of great help to art historians,
especially when making judgments of quality. When Van de Wetering was studying art history, he 'leamed
that art historians in general paid relatively little attention to the creative process between the artist and
artwork'W It was perhaps this discovery that later dellned his most important contribution not only to
the Rembrandt Research Project, but also to connoisseurship in generalW The fact that he examines
Rembrandt's paintings with an artist's eye (particularly the //ew/Tv/T - the perhaps slightly awkwardly
used French word for 'painting', to describe brushwork) is crucial, although nothing new in the history
of connoisseurship. The idea that an artist is the best connoisseur was already advanced by Dürer in the
1520s, and Van de Wetering quoted this fact in his book. At least three seventeenth-century theorists
- Etienne Binet, Abraham Bosse and Samuel Van Hoogstraten, also declared that only painters were
able to adequately assess pictures^^. Also Karel Van Mander, in his widely read treatise on painting №/
з^ In defence of the Rembrandts in the Wahace CoIIection see C. Brown. 'Rembrandts reassessed', Npo//o, 148, 2006, pp. 54-61;
on the controversy of the fo/AA 7^/r/o/- see A. Baiiey, T^ospo/zs'os' ?o 7W/////*o?;</?.' R7/o //o//-/7or/ 77/c Ro/B// 7?/û/g/*? yl Co/;7/*ove/*^v Co/r-
^7&/*g<7, New York 1994; Z. Żygulski, 'Further Batties for the "Lisowczyk" (Poiish Rlder) by Rembrandt/ ,4/*?/'//му e? №T?o/*/'oe, 2i,
no. 41, 2000. pp. i97-205.
33 E. van de Wetering, /?<?///7//*o//6(7ś' Ro7/;7;'//g^ 7?ov/T/'7er/. .4 Co//;///c?c N/rwy, ,4 Со/р/м qf Re//////*o//r/7 fo/'//?/'//gj, Voi. VI.
Dordrecht 2014. p. 3.
34 See some more pubiications by E. van de Wetering, ??е//////*<7//</7.' 77/e Co///7e/* o? MG/*L Amsterdam 1997; E. van de
Wetering and P. Broekhoff, 'New Directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, Part 1: The 1642 Seif-Portrait in the Royai Coi-
iection.' 77/e ?////*/;//g?o// ATagoz/'/ze 138, Ш6, i996, pp. 174-180; E. van de Wetering, 'Connoisseurship and Rembrandt's Paintings:
New Directions in the Rembrandt Research Project, Part 112 C//g 7?M/*//'//g7o// ALogor/'//e 150, 1259, Feb. 2008. pp. 83-90.
33 A. Tummers and K. Jonckeere (eds.), ^4/*? №?/*Æe? о//<7 Со/;//о/Туем/'^/////,' /1 C/os'g/* TooZr o?р</7//?7//^^ //v /?c//////*o//</7, /?м//е/м
o/;<7 ?//o/'/- Co//7<?///po/-o/*;'e^, Amsterdam 2008. p. 139.