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#0040
34
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
(who opted ibr Boi), and Liedtke and Brown (both suggested Van Hoogstraten). Van de Wetering proposes
another approach to the question of their pairing, which ahows for Rembrandt's authorship of both works.
They are of the same size and are both on popiar paneis, but the girl's portrait was probably iarger. This
is shown by the cropping of the frame on the side and at the top. The way the figures are piaced in the
images is ałso different: the giri is standing in a picture frame in a manner of /го/н/д? / 'oe?'/, but the oid man
is sitting at a desk. The floor ievei in both works is different. Additionaiiy, a pairing of an oid man with
a young giri was unconceivabie in the seventeenth-century Dutch pictoriai tradition. The painteriy treatment
of both works is different too, as the oid man's outfit is much richer in detaii.
if Lanckoroński paintings are not pendants, some differences in their execution become expiicabie
and need not refiect different hands at work. Rembrandt's Во?Тгя?7 q/Hg<2//7<3 f/aw aiso dated 1641,
shows indeed some differences in execution, and looks more sophisticated than the portrait of the girl.
But according to Van de Wetering, the latter couid have been the earlier prototype and inspired the Bas
portrait. This is confirmed not oniy by the idea of the /ro???pe /'oe?'/, but also the artist's attempt to portray
movement. The girl is moving, as perceptiveiy noticed by the author. The hand is suspended above the
window frame, the earring is swinging, and the body is siightly turned to the left. This invention does not
feature in Rembrandt pupils' work. Van de Wetering lists other arguments in favour of the reattributiom
building up the probabiiity of authorship. The pane) comes from the same batch of popiar pianks as other
works of the period. The picture is painted over an unfinished portrait of a woman, as in other Rembrandt
works. The giri's dress is most iikeiy unfinished. The treatment of the face and hands is masteriy and
can be compared to other works by the artist. The painting was signed by Rembrandt freshiy affer the
execution of the painting. The treatment of the texture of the dress is simiiar to &м/г?'(7 ту T7o?v7 and to
the ciothes of one of the men in the Wg/??* f%?Tr/7. There is also a 17^ copy of the work possibiy executed
in Rembrandt's studio. The probabiiity that this painting was painted by Rembrandt is therefore 'fairly
higiT. The arguments advanced are convincing and testify to the author's high powers of observation,
probabiy iargeiy derived from his experience as an artist.
VOLUME VI: THE RETURN OF THE MORE CONVENTIONAL
CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ
Voiume V, which was meant to be the last in the series, has left many post-1642 paintings uncatalogued.
This included iarge scaie history paintings, iife-size bibiicai, mythoiogicai and aiiegorical works, ali the
portraits (except for self-portraits) and iandscapes, in totai about one hundred works which wouid make
neariy a quarter of Rembrandt accepted oeuvre. This situation ieft many unsatisfled parties - art historians,
owners of paintings both private and institutionai and Rembrandt students. So what C. White calied in his
2015 article 77?e T?c777Z)?Y?77r// 7?aye<37v77 TVo/'ec/ G?7r/ ?А r/e??o?7C77?e?7TO, a 'mopping-up operation' foilowed.
Between 2005 and 2012 Van de Wetering travelled the worid and saw every Rembrandt painting in
existence except for three works. in 20i 5 he authored the finai Voiume VI, 7?<?/77/)?Y777r//A P<37??/?77gs TTvW/Er/.'
И Co?7?p/o/o N?/7i'qy. This large, beautifuiiy iiiustrated book contains the compiete works of Rembrandt
accepted by Van de Wetering, inciuding paintings rejected by others and rejecting those others have
accepted. The author practicaily singie-handediy ('a voiume, which contains aü the paintings of which,
I am convinced, Rembrandt was the author or the co-author'^^) reattributes to Rembrandt and his studio
a iarge number of demoted paintings, and deciares that 'in retrospect, it is surprising to note how shaliow
the underpinning of these frequentiy negative opinions was'W He describes Gerson's connoisseurship as
'remarkabiy simpie judgements of quaiity, aiways reiated to the execution of the painting concerned'^.
He aiso admits to 'the faiiibiiity of connoisseurship' in general, 'specificaiiy with Rembrandt as the major
artist concerned'64.
60 C. White, 'The Rembrandt Research Project and its denouement', №<? Z?M?*//?7g?on A/ognrme, Feb. 2015, no. 1343. Vol. 157,
pp. 71-73.
6' VandeWetering. 7/<?;;;/;;"nn<77y Po;';;7;ng^ 7?т'А;'?е</..., p. IX.
62 p. X.
60 №;<7c;n. p. 9.
64 p. 5.
KATARZYNA KRZYZAGORSKA-PISAREK
(who opted ibr Boi), and Liedtke and Brown (both suggested Van Hoogstraten). Van de Wetering proposes
another approach to the question of their pairing, which ahows for Rembrandt's authorship of both works.
They are of the same size and are both on popiar paneis, but the girl's portrait was probably iarger. This
is shown by the cropping of the frame on the side and at the top. The way the figures are piaced in the
images is ałso different: the giri is standing in a picture frame in a manner of /го/н/д? / 'oe?'/, but the oid man
is sitting at a desk. The floor ievei in both works is different. Additionaiiy, a pairing of an oid man with
a young giri was unconceivabie in the seventeenth-century Dutch pictoriai tradition. The painteriy treatment
of both works is different too, as the oid man's outfit is much richer in detaii.
if Lanckoroński paintings are not pendants, some differences in their execution become expiicabie
and need not refiect different hands at work. Rembrandt's Во?Тгя?7 q/Hg<2//7<3 f/aw aiso dated 1641,
shows indeed some differences in execution, and looks more sophisticated than the portrait of the girl.
But according to Van de Wetering, the latter couid have been the earlier prototype and inspired the Bas
portrait. This is confirmed not oniy by the idea of the /ro???pe /'oe?'/, but also the artist's attempt to portray
movement. The girl is moving, as perceptiveiy noticed by the author. The hand is suspended above the
window frame, the earring is swinging, and the body is siightly turned to the left. This invention does not
feature in Rembrandt pupils' work. Van de Wetering lists other arguments in favour of the reattributiom
building up the probabiiity of authorship. The pane) comes from the same batch of popiar pianks as other
works of the period. The picture is painted over an unfinished portrait of a woman, as in other Rembrandt
works. The giri's dress is most iikeiy unfinished. The treatment of the face and hands is masteriy and
can be compared to other works by the artist. The painting was signed by Rembrandt freshiy affer the
execution of the painting. The treatment of the texture of the dress is simiiar to &м/г?'(7 ту T7o?v7 and to
the ciothes of one of the men in the Wg/??* f%?Tr/7. There is also a 17^ copy of the work possibiy executed
in Rembrandt's studio. The probabiiity that this painting was painted by Rembrandt is therefore 'fairly
higiT. The arguments advanced are convincing and testify to the author's high powers of observation,
probabiy iargeiy derived from his experience as an artist.
VOLUME VI: THE RETURN OF THE MORE CONVENTIONAL
CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ
Voiume V, which was meant to be the last in the series, has left many post-1642 paintings uncatalogued.
This included iarge scaie history paintings, iife-size bibiicai, mythoiogicai and aiiegorical works, ali the
portraits (except for self-portraits) and iandscapes, in totai about one hundred works which wouid make
neariy a quarter of Rembrandt accepted oeuvre. This situation ieft many unsatisfled parties - art historians,
owners of paintings both private and institutionai and Rembrandt students. So what C. White calied in his
2015 article 77?e T?c777Z)?Y?77r// 7?aye<37v77 TVo/'ec/ G?7r/ ?А r/e??o?7C77?e?7TO, a 'mopping-up operation' foilowed.
Between 2005 and 2012 Van de Wetering travelled the worid and saw every Rembrandt painting in
existence except for three works. in 20i 5 he authored the finai Voiume VI, 7?<?/77/)?Y777r//A P<37??/?77gs TTvW/Er/.'
И Co?7?p/o/o N?/7i'qy. This large, beautifuiiy iiiustrated book contains the compiete works of Rembrandt
accepted by Van de Wetering, inciuding paintings rejected by others and rejecting those others have
accepted. The author practicaily singie-handediy ('a voiume, which contains aü the paintings of which,
I am convinced, Rembrandt was the author or the co-author'^^) reattributes to Rembrandt and his studio
a iarge number of demoted paintings, and deciares that 'in retrospect, it is surprising to note how shaliow
the underpinning of these frequentiy negative opinions was'W He describes Gerson's connoisseurship as
'remarkabiy simpie judgements of quaiity, aiways reiated to the execution of the painting concerned'^.
He aiso admits to 'the faiiibiiity of connoisseurship' in general, 'specificaiiy with Rembrandt as the major
artist concerned'64.
60 C. White, 'The Rembrandt Research Project and its denouement', №<? Z?M?*//?7g?on A/ognrme, Feb. 2015, no. 1343. Vol. 157,
pp. 71-73.
6' VandeWetering. 7/<?;;;/;;"nn<77y Po;';;7;ng^ 7?т'А;'?е</..., p. IX.
62 p. X.
60 №;<7c;n. p. 9.
64 p. 5.