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#0051
CORPUS RUBENIANUM ЕЕЯ,$Ж REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
45
10. Rubens, &Z77MW; o??<7 De/;7oA, 1609, oii on pane!.
Cincinnati. Ohio, Cincinnati Art Museum. Photo: Wikipedia
unlikely manner ibr Rubens to handle such a detail)'S6. By saying that, Held admitted that the fact that
the toes were missing in the National Gallery's painting is unlikely of Rubens. Incidentally, according to
Held, the greatest authority on Rubens's oil sketches, the panel was made of softwood. a conifer, instead
of oak that was traditionally used^. This would be the only recorded exception among Rubens's sketches.
The panel was later reinstated as oak by the Cincinnati Museum.
There are further issues with the от7г/ Dc/7/0/7 attribution to Rubens. The painting has some
technical anomalies. The smooth and thinly painted panel differs in technique of execution from Rubens's
other contemporary works such as the Ar/o7X7//o77 o///70 T/og/, c. 1609 (repainted by Rubens in 1628-1629),
6*77^077770 o77(/ //70 D/ć/erty, c. 1609-1610, both in Madrid; The Doo/ Prcs<?77ce q/ //70 D/e^et/ 6*007^0777077/,
1609, or /?o/M77g o/ //70 Croxs*, 1610-1611, both in Antwerp. It has no complex paint layers as in other
paintings, no varied and vigorous brushwork with many impastos; the striped /777^/7770/777*0 is light brown
instead of grey and shows through as in Rubens's oil sketches. Oddly there are no blue or green pigments,
craquelures, underdrawing, underpainting, restorations, retouchings, and no ^077/7777077/7. When there is an
absence of ^077/7777077/7, we are often in presence of a copy. None of these aspects were discussed by the
CRLB, even though the technical analysis of the painting carried out by the National Gallery was available
at the time, published in 1983 by J. Plesters in the National Gallery Technical Bulletin^. A re-evaluation of
such old attributions is much needed in the volumes of the CRLB, as well as an openness and transparency
in line with the RRP's approach.
Some volumes of the CRLB accepted a higher number of works of weak quality than others. This in
my opinion is the case of Volume XVIII, Wolfgang Adler's Тя77<з6сг%7е.у, perhaps relying on Burchard's
notes. Judging from photographs almost every Rubens painting with a question mark is of too poor quality
to be by the master. Some more works could perhaps be investigated further: n. 24. Тя77<Аслре w///7
<3 STre^/rerY/ <277ć/ /7A D/ocÆ, Rydal. Penn. Coll. Stanley S. Wulc; n. 32. 7У?е H//e7*77oo77 /H Сеоло77/ r/r/rwg
0 cor/), Famham, Coll. Wolfgang Burchard; n. 33. TT7e Dver7777g /H Deovo7?/ r/r/v/rrg 0 cor*/), in the same
coll.; n. 61. Zo77<Acope w?'//7 <2 7/o7?ger/ №777, Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museum, etc.
J. Held, 0;7 y^etc^es- o/Pe?e?* Рйм/ Princeton 1980, p. 432.
37 /Zn'</e??7, n. 312. p. 8.
ss J. Plesters/Samson and Delilah: Rubens and the art and craft of painting on paneP, AoRcwa/ Ga//ery 7ec/????c<7/ Йм//е7;'?7,
vol. VII, 1983, pp. 30-49.
45
10. Rubens, &Z77MW; o??<7 De/;7oA, 1609, oii on pane!.
Cincinnati. Ohio, Cincinnati Art Museum. Photo: Wikipedia
unlikely manner ibr Rubens to handle such a detail)'S6. By saying that, Held admitted that the fact that
the toes were missing in the National Gallery's painting is unlikely of Rubens. Incidentally, according to
Held, the greatest authority on Rubens's oil sketches, the panel was made of softwood. a conifer, instead
of oak that was traditionally used^. This would be the only recorded exception among Rubens's sketches.
The panel was later reinstated as oak by the Cincinnati Museum.
There are further issues with the от7г/ Dc/7/0/7 attribution to Rubens. The painting has some
technical anomalies. The smooth and thinly painted panel differs in technique of execution from Rubens's
other contemporary works such as the Ar/o7X7//o77 o///70 T/og/, c. 1609 (repainted by Rubens in 1628-1629),
6*77^077770 o77(/ //70 D/ć/erty, c. 1609-1610, both in Madrid; The Doo/ Prcs<?77ce q/ //70 D/e^et/ 6*007^0777077/,
1609, or /?o/M77g o/ //70 Croxs*, 1610-1611, both in Antwerp. It has no complex paint layers as in other
paintings, no varied and vigorous brushwork with many impastos; the striped /777^/7770/777*0 is light brown
instead of grey and shows through as in Rubens's oil sketches. Oddly there are no blue or green pigments,
craquelures, underdrawing, underpainting, restorations, retouchings, and no ^077/7777077/7. When there is an
absence of ^077/7777077/7, we are often in presence of a copy. None of these aspects were discussed by the
CRLB, even though the technical analysis of the painting carried out by the National Gallery was available
at the time, published in 1983 by J. Plesters in the National Gallery Technical Bulletin^. A re-evaluation of
such old attributions is much needed in the volumes of the CRLB, as well as an openness and transparency
in line with the RRP's approach.
Some volumes of the CRLB accepted a higher number of works of weak quality than others. This in
my opinion is the case of Volume XVIII, Wolfgang Adler's Тя77<з6сг%7е.у, perhaps relying on Burchard's
notes. Judging from photographs almost every Rubens painting with a question mark is of too poor quality
to be by the master. Some more works could perhaps be investigated further: n. 24. Тя77<Аслре w///7
<3 STre^/rerY/ <277ć/ /7A D/ocÆ, Rydal. Penn. Coll. Stanley S. Wulc; n. 32. 7У?е H//e7*77oo77 /H Сеоло77/ r/r/rwg
0 cor/), Famham, Coll. Wolfgang Burchard; n. 33. TT7e Dver7777g /H Deovo7?/ r/r/v/rrg 0 cor*/), in the same
coll.; n. 61. Zo77<Acope w?'//7 <2 7/o7?ger/ №777, Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museum, etc.
J. Held, 0;7 y^etc^es- o/Pe?e?* Рйм/ Princeton 1980, p. 432.
37 /Zn'</e??7, n. 312. p. 8.
ss J. Plesters/Samson and Delilah: Rubens and the art and craft of painting on paneP, AoRcwa/ Ga//ery 7ec/????c<7/ Йм//е7;'?7,
vol. VII, 1983, pp. 30-49.