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#0035
CORPUS RUBEN!ANUM ЕЕДбЖ REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
29
6*c/77№7^oecA 1604, underlined that hands-on experience is very important when judging art, and he was
an artist too. Van Mander encouraged connoisseurs to acquire at ieast a basic knowledge of the art of
drawing36. Van de Wetering's personal contribution to the 21st-century connoisseurship comes ful) circle
here, and the old adage still holds true - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
According to Van de Wetering, the original working methods of the RRP required a revision to
reflect how radically ideas have changed since 1968. In 1993, he published an article^, in which he
expressed some of the concems of modern art historians dealing with seventeenth-century artists such
as Rembrandt and their workshop practices. He stated that 'it has been advanced in art historical circles
that the idea at the basis of RRP that there is a need to isolate the works of Rembrandt's hand ffom that
of his pupils and assistants would be a complete anachronism, a wrongly appiied projection of the 19^
century cult of genius to everyday 17^ century workshop practice'W This new approach was in line with
the New Criticism in literature, which has developed as a reaction to the Romantic notion of a genius
where 'work' replaced 'author' as the central force. The question of whether looking for Rembrandt's
hand is an anachronism was previously answered by the Group: 'it was [...] postulated in volume II that
the concept of differentiating the hand of the master and his workshop assistants is not anachronistic'^.
We also know that seventeenth-century connoisseurs such as Felibien or Richardson, were concemed
with the authorship of paintings. Van de Wetering rightly quoted Rubens's case: 'There are, as we know
in the case of Rubens, sources which indicate that 17th c. art lovers were quite keen on differentiating
between the hand of the master and those of others working in the master's studio'^. A. Tummers
wrote that seventeenth-century connoisseurs were keen on recognizing the master's touch, but were not
particularly preoccupied if a picture was entirely autograph. This is what she called the paradox of the
seventeenth-century connoisseurshipW Connoisseurs were looking for the masterly passages in a painting
where they could recognize the artist's distinctive brushwork, but were not concerned with secondary
elements usually executed by pupils in the studio. Van de Wetering wrote in his to Volume IV,
that other members of the RRP also began to reaiise that the methods adopted for the first three volumes
could no longer be applied to Rembrandt's paintings from the 1640s and early 1650s, 'because his output
from this period and its coherence were surprisingiy limited'. A reassessment of the methodology and
a radical revision were caded for. This and other factors led to the decision to terminate the Project with
the publication of Volume III.
Volume IV dedicated to Rembrandt's self-portrait published in 2005, was written under the leadership
of Van de Wetering, with a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholarsW It contains long essays on
a number of topics such as problems of authenticity and function, Rembrandt's clothes, or grounds in his
workshop production. Rembrandt's sell-portraits were placed in a wider context including drawings and
etchings, more like in the CRLB catalogues. The caTc/ogTve ?Y7Ao7777<? part of the voiume included twenty-
nine Rembrandt self-portraits listed in the chronological order and dated between 1640 and 1669. There
was also a Corrigenda to the previous volumes, in which some earlier de-attributions were reversed. Later,
Van de Wetering explained these multiple reattributions to Rembrandt by saying that 'in the 1980's, the
thinking about style and the evolution of style was still dominated by the idea of a correspondence between
a painter's unique character and his equally unique style (in Max Friedlànder's words, "the unchangeable
36 pp. !30-!33.
37 E. van de Wetering, 'The Search for the Master's Hand: An Anachronism?' (A Summary). А'млуГ/е/АгАе?' HnsVoMvcA -
ИгГмГ/'с Æxc/?ange, Akten des XXVII! Intemationalen Kongresses lur Kunstgeschichte Berlin. 15-20 Ju)y 1992, (ed.) Thomas W. Gaeht-
gens. vol. 2. Berlin 1993.
3s /ZuWe/?!, p. 627.
39 E. van de Wetering (at al.), Xe/4/?o?'!?*o!!^ (7625-/669), И Сог/жу q/"Aew/u"OM<7l 7*o??7!!??g^. Vol. IV. Dodrecht 2005, p. 3.
4° Van de Wetering, 'The Search for the Master's Hand*..., p. 628.
4' Tummers and Jonckeere, cp. c/7., p. 57.
42 Van de Wetering (et. a!.), Xe/ZV^'P'olA..., pp. XIII.
43 For reviews and comments on the pubhcations of the new RRP and Voh IV in particuiar, see C. White, 'Review of a Сотрмл
q/Аеум/м'аж/! Po!???!??g^, Vot. IV', 77?e /?M/7I?7g!oM A/ogozIne, 148, no. 1235, Feb. 2006. pp. 120-121; G. Schwartz, 'Review of Cor-
pus IV', /ZM4 Aev/ew q/Z?ooCy. Nov. 2006, pp. 28-31; L.B. Ronberg, and J. Wadum, 'Two Paintings in Copenhagen Re-Attributed
to Rembrandt.' 77?e /?M/7!/?g!oM A/ogozIne, 148, no. 1235, 2006, pp. 82-88; C. Brown, 'The Rembrandt Year', 77?e Z?M?7!!7g!o?? A/ogoz!??e,
149, no. 1247, Feb. 2007, pp. 104-108; C.B. Scallen, 'Review of Emst van de Wetering, et. al. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings.
Voh IV. The Self-Portraits, Amsterdam. 2005', Ом<7 /7о//я??7, 123, 2010, pp. 172-175.
29
6*c/77№7^oecA 1604, underlined that hands-on experience is very important when judging art, and he was
an artist too. Van Mander encouraged connoisseurs to acquire at ieast a basic knowledge of the art of
drawing36. Van de Wetering's personal contribution to the 21st-century connoisseurship comes ful) circle
here, and the old adage still holds true - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
According to Van de Wetering, the original working methods of the RRP required a revision to
reflect how radically ideas have changed since 1968. In 1993, he published an article^, in which he
expressed some of the concems of modern art historians dealing with seventeenth-century artists such
as Rembrandt and their workshop practices. He stated that 'it has been advanced in art historical circles
that the idea at the basis of RRP that there is a need to isolate the works of Rembrandt's hand ffom that
of his pupils and assistants would be a complete anachronism, a wrongly appiied projection of the 19^
century cult of genius to everyday 17^ century workshop practice'W This new approach was in line with
the New Criticism in literature, which has developed as a reaction to the Romantic notion of a genius
where 'work' replaced 'author' as the central force. The question of whether looking for Rembrandt's
hand is an anachronism was previously answered by the Group: 'it was [...] postulated in volume II that
the concept of differentiating the hand of the master and his workshop assistants is not anachronistic'^.
We also know that seventeenth-century connoisseurs such as Felibien or Richardson, were concemed
with the authorship of paintings. Van de Wetering rightly quoted Rubens's case: 'There are, as we know
in the case of Rubens, sources which indicate that 17th c. art lovers were quite keen on differentiating
between the hand of the master and those of others working in the master's studio'^. A. Tummers
wrote that seventeenth-century connoisseurs were keen on recognizing the master's touch, but were not
particularly preoccupied if a picture was entirely autograph. This is what she called the paradox of the
seventeenth-century connoisseurshipW Connoisseurs were looking for the masterly passages in a painting
where they could recognize the artist's distinctive brushwork, but were not concerned with secondary
elements usually executed by pupils in the studio. Van de Wetering wrote in his to Volume IV,
that other members of the RRP also began to reaiise that the methods adopted for the first three volumes
could no longer be applied to Rembrandt's paintings from the 1640s and early 1650s, 'because his output
from this period and its coherence were surprisingiy limited'. A reassessment of the methodology and
a radical revision were caded for. This and other factors led to the decision to terminate the Project with
the publication of Volume III.
Volume IV dedicated to Rembrandt's self-portrait published in 2005, was written under the leadership
of Van de Wetering, with a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholarsW It contains long essays on
a number of topics such as problems of authenticity and function, Rembrandt's clothes, or grounds in his
workshop production. Rembrandt's sell-portraits were placed in a wider context including drawings and
etchings, more like in the CRLB catalogues. The caTc/ogTve ?Y7Ao7777<? part of the voiume included twenty-
nine Rembrandt self-portraits listed in the chronological order and dated between 1640 and 1669. There
was also a Corrigenda to the previous volumes, in which some earlier de-attributions were reversed. Later,
Van de Wetering explained these multiple reattributions to Rembrandt by saying that 'in the 1980's, the
thinking about style and the evolution of style was still dominated by the idea of a correspondence between
a painter's unique character and his equally unique style (in Max Friedlànder's words, "the unchangeable
36 pp. !30-!33.
37 E. van de Wetering, 'The Search for the Master's Hand: An Anachronism?' (A Summary). А'млуГ/е/АгАе?' HnsVoMvcA -
ИгГмГ/'с Æxc/?ange, Akten des XXVII! Intemationalen Kongresses lur Kunstgeschichte Berlin. 15-20 Ju)y 1992, (ed.) Thomas W. Gaeht-
gens. vol. 2. Berlin 1993.
3s /ZuWe/?!, p. 627.
39 E. van de Wetering (at al.), Xe/4/?o?'!?*o!!^ (7625-/669), И Сог/жу q/"Aew/u"OM<7l 7*o??7!!??g^. Vol. IV. Dodrecht 2005, p. 3.
4° Van de Wetering, 'The Search for the Master's Hand*..., p. 628.
4' Tummers and Jonckeere, cp. c/7., p. 57.
42 Van de Wetering (et. a!.), Xe/ZV^'P'olA..., pp. XIII.
43 For reviews and comments on the pubhcations of the new RRP and Voh IV in particuiar, see C. White, 'Review of a Сотрмл
q/Аеум/м'аж/! Po!???!??g^, Vot. IV', 77?e /?M/7I?7g!oM A/ogozIne, 148, no. 1235, Feb. 2006. pp. 120-121; G. Schwartz, 'Review of Cor-
pus IV', /ZM4 Aev/ew q/Z?ooCy. Nov. 2006, pp. 28-31; L.B. Ronberg, and J. Wadum, 'Two Paintings in Copenhagen Re-Attributed
to Rembrandt.' 77?e /?M/7!/?g!oM A/ogozIne, 148, no. 1235, 2006, pp. 82-88; C. Brown, 'The Rembrandt Year', 77?e Z?M?7!!7g!o?? A/ogoz!??e,
149, no. 1247, Feb. 2007, pp. 104-108; C.B. Scallen, 'Review of Emst van de Wetering, et. al. A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings.
Voh IV. The Self-Portraits, Amsterdam. 2005', Ом<7 /7о//я??7, 123, 2010, pp. 172-175.