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#0041
CORPUS RUBENJANUM ЕЕЖО-У REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
35
Apart ń*om disp!aying the chrono!ogica! order and the more conventiona! style of the earher catalogues,
the votume a!so contains a remarkable persona! account of the history of the RRP, especiahy the animosity
and ideo!ogica! differences between Bruyn's 'narrow viewpoint' and Van de Wetering's inctusive approach.
We are to!d that Bruyn's view was dominated by the idea that Rembrandt's way of painting changed from
one period to another, but !arge!y remained unifbrm within those periods in which there were no radica!
variations. Van de Wetering postulates an important, a!beit perhaps controversia!, idea that a range of styies
within the same period of an artist is entireiy acceptable. As noted by White, he is aiso 'at pains to emphasise
that he is 7?o/ offering a conventional гоАо777?<? of which paintings he accepts as by Rembrandt,
but instead is providing what are modestły caHed notes to the plates fbHowing the style of Gerson's notes
to Bredius'^. Once again we come fu!! circie, this time to the earlier coto/og??^ 7T7Ao?7?7bs in the styie of
Gerson and Bredius, where the entire oeuvre was cataiogued by one man on!y - the finai authority on the
master. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Van de Wetering's notes to the p!ates are
rather fragmentary and succinct and mainly concentrate on the comp!exities of probiems of attribution. They
!ack provenance and condition of paintings and very few references are provided. According to the author,
the piates are the most important part of the book, and they are of the highest photographic quality.
In Voiume VI, Van de Wetering adds to the Rembrandt Corpus eight rediscovered pictures in the wake
of the acceptance of 7776 7?яр7А777 q/1/76 F?777 ?7c/7, 1626, Utrecht and the Z<2?7g/7777g Zb/J/er, 1630, oii on
copper, The Hague (Fig. 5) (I am not entireiy convinced about the vaiidity of this attribution). This also
inciudes the iatest Rembrandt discovery, &//^7оН7Т7?2 /o77g/7777g, oii on copper, c. 1628, which emerged
in 2007 at auction in Engiand, and was iater soid to the J. Pau! Getty Museum. The author reattributes
to Rembrandt as many as 44 pre-1642 paintings rejected by the RRP in vols. 1-111, such as 2776 Goo<7
&7?7?<3777'<3'77, 1630 and the &//4РотУ7Т772, 1637 from the Wallace Coilection. As to the post-1642 works not
iisted in the previous flve voiumes, he inciudes 26 pictures previously rejected by various authors, primarily
Gerson and Türnpel. Voiume VI brings the totai number of accepted works by Rembrandt to 340. As many
as 70 paintings, which were removed from RembrandCs oeuvre or were strongiy doubted, are re-instated
by Van de Wetering. Paradoxicaiiy, some of the reattributions continue to be rejected by the museums,
who own the paintings, as has been reported in the press^. The re-instated Rembrandt, A77 (%/ №777 777 <r?7
Н7'7?7б/?<27г, 1650s in the Tondon National Gaiiery, is stiil labelled 'Foliower of Rembrandt'. The reattributed
to Rembrandt 1658 at the Metropoiitan Museum, New York, is stili iabeiied 'Foliower of
Rembrandt'; and Ае?77/77Т7?7& <зл <з %?7?7g №777, 1630 (downgraded by the early RRP to 'imitation') in
the same museum, is also stiii iabelied 'Style of Rembrandt'. Smaiier museums such as the Sterling and
Francine Clark Art Institute in Wiiiiamstown, Mass, are more wiiiing to accept new attributions. ТСжТтт??/
o/ <2 №777 /?e?7(/77?g W' C'777??//6/7g/?/ (1648), aiso known as №??? /?677(/777g is now 'attributed to Rembrandt'.
Van de Wetering himself is realistic about the certitude of his conciusions. 'Having leamt from the
experience of having to change his mind over the course of tiine, Van de Wetering makes no claims to
Enality of judgment. He is aware that a definitive answer to what Rembrandt did or did not paint is not
achievabie, at least at present, and there will always be much scope fbr discussion' - underiines C. White^.
He then conciudes, somewhat contradictoriiy: 'And so after forty-six years of intensive research on the part
of the dwindling band of the RRP, we are finaliy presented with a newly defined corpus of Rembrandt's
painted oeuvre'. But are we?
The comprehensive technicai examination of Rembrandt's paintings, the wide-ranging and insightful
anaiysis of the artist's painteriy technique and his studio practices, the fuli articulation of the process of
attribution as well as an honest admittance of any existing doubts, must deserve our highest praise. The
detailed hands-on discussions on attributions are also extremeiy interesting and exciting, when conducted
65 White, 07?. c7?., p. 73.
66 For press reports on the re-attributions see J.S. Marcus, 'An Expert Cites Dozens of Paintings as Rembrandt's', 7?7g ЙЫ/
5*?rcc? Jow77a/, 8 Oct. 2014; N. Siegal, 'Disputed Painting Is Declared an Authentic Rembrandt After Decades'. №<? JorÆ 77/77^,
9 June 2015; M. Brown, 'Rembrandt expert urges National Gallery to rethink demoted painting', 77?g Смя7*с//о77, 23 May 2014;
E. Zolfagharifard. 'lt's offlcial! Rembrandt was master of the selfie: Portrait of the Dutch artist has been scientificaHy verified after
50 years of doubt', 77?c Do//g №7//, 9 June 2014; J. Lopez, *A Rembrandt Becomes a Rembrandt Again'. 77;c I%7/ X?r<?e7 Jo?77*uo/,
6 May 2014; V. Noce, 'Rembrandt or not Rembrandt, Lc spécialiste Emst van de Wetering propose de réattribuer 70 toilcs au maitre
baroque hollandais', L/be?*o?/o77, 19 Nov. 2014, etc.
67 /Ь/с/ети.
35
Apart ń*om disp!aying the chrono!ogica! order and the more conventiona! style of the earher catalogues,
the votume a!so contains a remarkable persona! account of the history of the RRP, especiahy the animosity
and ideo!ogica! differences between Bruyn's 'narrow viewpoint' and Van de Wetering's inctusive approach.
We are to!d that Bruyn's view was dominated by the idea that Rembrandt's way of painting changed from
one period to another, but !arge!y remained unifbrm within those periods in which there were no radica!
variations. Van de Wetering postulates an important, a!beit perhaps controversia!, idea that a range of styies
within the same period of an artist is entireiy acceptable. As noted by White, he is aiso 'at pains to emphasise
that he is 7?o/ offering a conventional гоАо777?<? of which paintings he accepts as by Rembrandt,
but instead is providing what are modestły caHed notes to the plates fbHowing the style of Gerson's notes
to Bredius'^. Once again we come fu!! circie, this time to the earlier coto/og??^ 7T7Ao?7?7bs in the styie of
Gerson and Bredius, where the entire oeuvre was cataiogued by one man on!y - the finai authority on the
master. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Van de Wetering's notes to the p!ates are
rather fragmentary and succinct and mainly concentrate on the comp!exities of probiems of attribution. They
!ack provenance and condition of paintings and very few references are provided. According to the author,
the piates are the most important part of the book, and they are of the highest photographic quality.
In Voiume VI, Van de Wetering adds to the Rembrandt Corpus eight rediscovered pictures in the wake
of the acceptance of 7776 7?яр7А777 q/1/76 F?777 ?7c/7, 1626, Utrecht and the Z<2?7g/7777g Zb/J/er, 1630, oii on
copper, The Hague (Fig. 5) (I am not entireiy convinced about the vaiidity of this attribution). This also
inciudes the iatest Rembrandt discovery, &//^7оН7Т7?2 /o77g/7777g, oii on copper, c. 1628, which emerged
in 2007 at auction in Engiand, and was iater soid to the J. Pau! Getty Museum. The author reattributes
to Rembrandt as many as 44 pre-1642 paintings rejected by the RRP in vols. 1-111, such as 2776 Goo<7
&7?7?<3777'<3'77, 1630 and the &//4РотУ7Т772, 1637 from the Wallace Coilection. As to the post-1642 works not
iisted in the previous flve voiumes, he inciudes 26 pictures previously rejected by various authors, primarily
Gerson and Türnpel. Voiume VI brings the totai number of accepted works by Rembrandt to 340. As many
as 70 paintings, which were removed from RembrandCs oeuvre or were strongiy doubted, are re-instated
by Van de Wetering. Paradoxicaiiy, some of the reattributions continue to be rejected by the museums,
who own the paintings, as has been reported in the press^. The re-instated Rembrandt, A77 (%/ №777 777 <r?7
Н7'7?7б/?<27г, 1650s in the Tondon National Gaiiery, is stiil labelled 'Foliower of Rembrandt'. The reattributed
to Rembrandt 1658 at the Metropoiitan Museum, New York, is stili iabeiied 'Foliower of
Rembrandt'; and Ае?77/77Т7?7& <зл <з %?7?7g №777, 1630 (downgraded by the early RRP to 'imitation') in
the same museum, is also stiii iabelied 'Style of Rembrandt'. Smaiier museums such as the Sterling and
Francine Clark Art Institute in Wiiiiamstown, Mass, are more wiiiing to accept new attributions. ТСжТтт??/
o/ <2 №777 /?e?7(/77?g W' C'777??//6/7g/?/ (1648), aiso known as №??? /?677(/777g is now 'attributed to Rembrandt'.
Van de Wetering himself is realistic about the certitude of his conciusions. 'Having leamt from the
experience of having to change his mind over the course of tiine, Van de Wetering makes no claims to
Enality of judgment. He is aware that a definitive answer to what Rembrandt did or did not paint is not
achievabie, at least at present, and there will always be much scope fbr discussion' - underiines C. White^.
He then conciudes, somewhat contradictoriiy: 'And so after forty-six years of intensive research on the part
of the dwindling band of the RRP, we are finaliy presented with a newly defined corpus of Rembrandt's
painted oeuvre'. But are we?
The comprehensive technicai examination of Rembrandt's paintings, the wide-ranging and insightful
anaiysis of the artist's painteriy technique and his studio practices, the fuli articulation of the process of
attribution as well as an honest admittance of any existing doubts, must deserve our highest praise. The
detailed hands-on discussions on attributions are also extremeiy interesting and exciting, when conducted
65 White, 07?. c7?., p. 73.
66 For press reports on the re-attributions see J.S. Marcus, 'An Expert Cites Dozens of Paintings as Rembrandt's', 7?7g ЙЫ/
5*?rcc? Jow77a/, 8 Oct. 2014; N. Siegal, 'Disputed Painting Is Declared an Authentic Rembrandt After Decades'. №<? JorÆ 77/77^,
9 June 2015; M. Brown, 'Rembrandt expert urges National Gallery to rethink demoted painting', 77?g Смя7*с//о77, 23 May 2014;
E. Zolfagharifard. 'lt's offlcial! Rembrandt was master of the selfie: Portrait of the Dutch artist has been scientificaHy verified after
50 years of doubt', 77?c Do//g №7//, 9 June 2014; J. Lopez, *A Rembrandt Becomes a Rembrandt Again'. 77;c I%7/ X?r<?e7 Jo?77*uo/,
6 May 2014; V. Noce, 'Rembrandt or not Rembrandt, Lc spécialiste Emst van de Wetering propose de réattribuer 70 toilcs au maitre
baroque hollandais', L/be?*o?/o77, 19 Nov. 2014, etc.
67 /Ь/с/ети.