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#0042
36
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
5. Rembrandt?, No/Jte?*, 1630, oil on copper.
The Hague. Mauritshuis. Photo: Wikipedia
by Van de Wetering with his artist's insights. It is clear, however, that him and the new RRP, unlike
the emphatically overconfident scholars of the past, no longer claiin to be able to determine a definitive
Corpus of Rembrandt's works - the initial objective of the Project. In the RRP's own words: '[...] the
team's classification of a painting in one of the three categories was emphatically presented as a matter
of opinion [...] this is why in each case we try to convey the full extent of our doubts [...] ultiinately,
of course, no conclusive evidence or proof can be provided, only degrees of probability, which may
nonetheless be very high'68. This lack of certitude as to the final verdicts on authorship is also reflected
in the disclaimer: 'The opinions expressed in this volume (IV), and the previously published volumes 1-111
in the Series yl Со/рмл q/ Rc////tw/7tV/ /Cym/mgw should be understood as "opinions" that are meant for
academic use only. [...] Opinions have been changed in the past according to new insights and scholarship.
[...] Therefore, the conclusions expressed in the volumes are only opinions and not a warranty of any
kind. [...] Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions expressed in these volumes'^.
Van de Wetering admits to the confusion in Rembrandt reattributions and de-attributions: 'it is at present
barely possible for the uninitiated to find a way through the forest of attributions, disattributions, revisions
of the same and the more recently newly discovered works by Rembrandt etc. that are now distributed
over the whole of the Corpus'^. According to Schwartz, 'the attributions and especially the de-attributions
in vols. 1-3 of the Corpus are today fairly useiess and continue to create confusion - ali the greater for
the lingering prestige of the RRR'^k
Van de Wetering tellingly quotes Max friedlander's words in his Ртт/Ьсе to Volume IV: 'One should gather
up the courage to say "I do not know" and remember that he who attributes a painting incorrectly displays
unlamiliarity with two masters, namely of the author, whom he does not recognise, and of the painter, whose
63 Van de Wetering (at a!.), &/Aw7T7*a/A'..., p. XVI.
6^ VandeWetering, /Уе??;/)?-?/??^ To/nPVgy /?ev/.s7/eûL., p. VI.
7° Van de Wetering (at al.), 77?e X777o//-Xca/g ЯЫо7-у Po?7?//7?gs..., p. XVI.
7' G. Schwartz, X Согрму р/"/?e77?Z)7-o7?r// To/??//7?gs o-s- o УЕу/ C/MgyÓT* Co??7?oAse??7-s/?;/?, p. 234. Accessed online April 2016
at https://schwartzlist.filcs.wordpress.conr/2014/06/connoisseurship-schwartz.pdf
KATARZYNA KRZYŻAGORSKA-PISAREK
5. Rembrandt?, No/Jte?*, 1630, oil on copper.
The Hague. Mauritshuis. Photo: Wikipedia
by Van de Wetering with his artist's insights. It is clear, however, that him and the new RRP, unlike
the emphatically overconfident scholars of the past, no longer claiin to be able to determine a definitive
Corpus of Rembrandt's works - the initial objective of the Project. In the RRP's own words: '[...] the
team's classification of a painting in one of the three categories was emphatically presented as a matter
of opinion [...] this is why in each case we try to convey the full extent of our doubts [...] ultiinately,
of course, no conclusive evidence or proof can be provided, only degrees of probability, which may
nonetheless be very high'68. This lack of certitude as to the final verdicts on authorship is also reflected
in the disclaimer: 'The opinions expressed in this volume (IV), and the previously published volumes 1-111
in the Series yl Со/рмл q/ Rc////tw/7tV/ /Cym/mgw should be understood as "opinions" that are meant for
academic use only. [...] Opinions have been changed in the past according to new insights and scholarship.
[...] Therefore, the conclusions expressed in the volumes are only opinions and not a warranty of any
kind. [...] Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions expressed in these volumes'^.
Van de Wetering admits to the confusion in Rembrandt reattributions and de-attributions: 'it is at present
barely possible for the uninitiated to find a way through the forest of attributions, disattributions, revisions
of the same and the more recently newly discovered works by Rembrandt etc. that are now distributed
over the whole of the Corpus'^. According to Schwartz, 'the attributions and especially the de-attributions
in vols. 1-3 of the Corpus are today fairly useiess and continue to create confusion - ali the greater for
the lingering prestige of the RRR'^k
Van de Wetering tellingly quotes Max friedlander's words in his Ртт/Ьсе to Volume IV: 'One should gather
up the courage to say "I do not know" and remember that he who attributes a painting incorrectly displays
unlamiliarity with two masters, namely of the author, whom he does not recognise, and of the painter, whose
63 Van de Wetering (at a!.), &/Aw7T7*a/A'..., p. XVI.
6^ VandeWetering, /Уе??;/)?-?/??^ To/nPVgy /?ev/.s7/eûL., p. VI.
7° Van de Wetering (at al.), 77?e X777o//-Xca/g ЯЫо7-у Po?7?//7?gs..., p. XVI.
7' G. Schwartz, X Согрму р/"/?e77?Z)7-o7?r// To/??//7?gs o-s- o УЕу/ C/MgyÓT* Co??7?oAse??7-s/?;/?, p. 234. Accessed online April 2016
at https://schwartzlist.filcs.wordpress.conr/2014/06/connoisseurship-schwartz.pdf