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#0038
32
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
I. Rembrandt?, //ем/бгмм///' y уёяО/гел,
c. 1629, oil on oak panel. The Hague. Mauritshuis.
Photo: Wikipedia
2. Rembrandt?, 7ком/'е wz't/z yêotMrgy,
c. 1629, oit on oak pane). Nuremberg, Nationalmuseum.
Photo: Wikipedia
been painted by Rembrandt's pupi). Wiiiem DrosH^. Since then controversy has surrounded it, perpetuated
by 'the myth that the RRP had definitely ehminated the Ро/Ы? ^/r/o^ from Rembrandt's oeuvre'^^, which
Van de Wetering incidentaHy dispeis. He convincingiy defends the attribution to Rembrandt, whiie at the
same time accepting that it was partiy painted by other hands. We first get a meticuious description and
visua) analysis of the painting from an astute observer who is ciearly an artist. Then arguments against
the attribution are duiy iisted: 'The work iacks the coherence in the handiing of space and iight that
characterises Rembrandt's paintings of fuii-iength Tgures in a iandscape or other setting', and 'an aimost
excessive amount of attention given to certain detaiis whose meticuious execution does not match the
rest of the brushwork, which is in places much freer'$s. The fact that the figure is curiousiy 'ioose' in
the picture piane is aiso highiighted and the attention is drawn to the prevaiiing red-yeiiow coiouring,
which may have ied Bruyn to think about Drost. Some parts are singied out as too weak in execution and
handiing of form to be regarded as the work of Rembrandt, whiie others are typicaiiy Rembrandtesque
in styie, execution and quaiity - this is a judgement on quaiity. The proportions of the figure of the rider
as wei! as anatomicai detaiis are aiso described as 'oddiy weak'. The author conciudes that on the basis
of such passages, it is indeed difficuit to believe that this is a work by Rembrandt.
On the other hand, other parts of the picture are identified as characteristic of Rembrandt's hand and
his pictorial vision, such as the head and the neck of the horse where the compiex forms and lighting are
suggested with sureness of touch, and in accordance with his painterly method. The highiights on the metai
parts are characteristic of Rembrandt, as is the handling of the quiver with its sheaf of arrows, the war
hammer, the bow and the scabbard of the sabre. Aiso the buiiding with a dome in the background can be
56 /Z)M/e/M, p. 540.
57 ////'&/?/, p. 541.
5s Л/м/етт/, p. 541.
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
I. Rembrandt?, //ем/бгмм///' y уёяО/гел,
c. 1629, oil on oak panel. The Hague. Mauritshuis.
Photo: Wikipedia
2. Rembrandt?, 7ком/'е wz't/z yêotMrgy,
c. 1629, oit on oak pane). Nuremberg, Nationalmuseum.
Photo: Wikipedia
been painted by Rembrandt's pupi). Wiiiem DrosH^. Since then controversy has surrounded it, perpetuated
by 'the myth that the RRP had definitely ehminated the Ро/Ы? ^/r/o^ from Rembrandt's oeuvre'^^, which
Van de Wetering incidentaHy dispeis. He convincingiy defends the attribution to Rembrandt, whiie at the
same time accepting that it was partiy painted by other hands. We first get a meticuious description and
visua) analysis of the painting from an astute observer who is ciearly an artist. Then arguments against
the attribution are duiy iisted: 'The work iacks the coherence in the handiing of space and iight that
characterises Rembrandt's paintings of fuii-iength Tgures in a iandscape or other setting', and 'an aimost
excessive amount of attention given to certain detaiis whose meticuious execution does not match the
rest of the brushwork, which is in places much freer'$s. The fact that the figure is curiousiy 'ioose' in
the picture piane is aiso highiighted and the attention is drawn to the prevaiiing red-yeiiow coiouring,
which may have ied Bruyn to think about Drost. Some parts are singied out as too weak in execution and
handiing of form to be regarded as the work of Rembrandt, whiie others are typicaiiy Rembrandtesque
in styie, execution and quaiity - this is a judgement on quaiity. The proportions of the figure of the rider
as wei! as anatomicai detaiis are aiso described as 'oddiy weak'. The author conciudes that on the basis
of such passages, it is indeed difficuit to believe that this is a work by Rembrandt.
On the other hand, other parts of the picture are identified as characteristic of Rembrandt's hand and
his pictorial vision, such as the head and the neck of the horse where the compiex forms and lighting are
suggested with sureness of touch, and in accordance with his painterly method. The highiights on the metai
parts are characteristic of Rembrandt, as is the handling of the quiver with its sheaf of arrows, the war
hammer, the bow and the scabbard of the sabre. Aiso the buiiding with a dome in the background can be
56 /Z)M/e/M, p. 540.
57 ////'&/?/, p. 541.
5s Л/м/етт/, p. 541.