DOI article:
Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, Katarzyna: Corpus Rubenianum versus Rembrandt Research Project: two approaches to a "Catalogue raisonné"
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34225#0055
CORPUS RUBENIANUM ЕЕЯ0Ж REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT...
49
introduced a new vision of Rembrandt as a master coliaborating with assistants on his own compositions.
Van de Wetering postulated, rightly or wrongly, that the artist painted in many different styles at the
same time. His highly personal connoisseurship, which has dominated the entire RRP, was based on
documentary evidence, degrees of probability, and an artist's eye. He reattributed many demoted works
back to Rembrandt, but his decisions continue to divide opinions.
The hands-on technical approach of the RRP strongly contrasts with the purely theoretical approach of
the CRJLB. While Rembrandt's paintings underwent a thorough technical investigation in order to establish
the correct authorship, Rubens's works were not technically investigated at all within the framework of
the CRLB. Instead, the CRLB has concentrated on the historical and iconographic material, following the
documentation of the late Ludwig Burchard, and adding to it. Where the RRP set out to correct the corrupt
tradition, to innovate, and to take Rembrandt connoisseurship into the 2H century by using scientific
investigation, the CRLB has followed the traditional methods based on the earlier scholarships of Smith,
Rooses and Burchard aiming to complete and update their material.
The early RRP was very radical in the desire to weed out fakes, imitations, copies and pupils'
works from Rembrandt's autograph oeuvre but under Van de Wetering it became more inclusive, while
reinventing Rembrandt as the experimenting artist actively collaborating with his pupils. The CRLB, on
the other hand, was from the start and continues to be overly cautious about the matters of attribution. It
still attaches much importance to Ludwig Burchard's old opinions through the respect for his scholarly
reputation and the agreement with his heirs. This approach can be seen as indecisiveness.
Despite their ups and downs throughout the years, both projects are outstanding in their own way and
have gathered an impressively large amount of inlbrmation on Rubens's and Rembrandt's oeuvres. They
would perhaps benefit from drawing from each other's methods. In fact, Koen Bulckens who has also
compared both projects, noticed that they have somewhat evolved towards one another during their fifty-
year life span. According to him, the RRP is focusing more on the iconography and less on attribution,
and the CRLB shows more interest for Rubens's technique and the problems attributions.
Looking at the wider picture, the idea of a definitive ся/я/ogMC глмомме seems to be contested these
days, and attributions are only seen as current opinions, not firm decisions like in the past. Confidence in
modem connoisseurship even as thoroughly researched as that of the RRP or the CRLB seems surprisingly
low, and attributions continue to divide opinions.
CORPUS RUBENIANUM TC/LSLS REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT.
DWA PODEJŚCIA DO KATALOGU ROZUMOWANEGO
Streszczenie
Artykuł ma na cełu omówienie historii dwóch monumentatnych katałogów /'оАолле Rembrandta i Rubensa. opubiikowanych przez
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project i Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard. oraz porównanie ich metodoiogii i wyników.
Oba projekty przekroczyły pierwotne terminy o dziesiątki iat i oba są nadał niedokończone. Przez prawie pięćdziesiąt łat badań podej-
ście RRP do tematu atrybucji zmieniło się radykałnie, ałe metody badawcze CRLB pozostały bez zmian. Rembrandt Research Project
od początku koncentruje się na kwestiach autentyczności i atrybucji, z naciskiem położonym na badania technołogiczne obrazów. Pod
kierunkiem E. Van de Weteringa katałogowanie dzieł stało się mniej restrykcyjne i opiera się na studiach nad warsztatem i techniką
malarską artysty oraz na źródłach iiterackich. Corpus Rubenianum bazuje na tradycyjnych metodach historycznych i ikonograficznych
zainicjowanych przez Roosesa i Burcharda, zaniedbując sprawy znawstwa i badania technoiogiczne. Podczas pierwszej fazy projektu RRP
odpisało wiełe obrazów Rcmbrandta, ałe pod kierunkiem Van de Weteringa 70 obrazów na nowo przypisano artyście. Corpus Rubenia-
num nadał katałoguje wszystkie dzieła Rubensa uznane przez Burcharda w ł. połowie XX w. za autentyczne, zbyt rzadko weryłikując
i kwestionując dawne atrybucje. Cały format katałogu гамоияё jest dziś poddawany krytyce. Pomimo ogromnych dokonań obu projek-
tów w badaniach nad twórczością Rembrandta i Rubensa poziom zaufania do współczesnego znawstwa jest nadał zaskakująco niski.
49
introduced a new vision of Rembrandt as a master coliaborating with assistants on his own compositions.
Van de Wetering postulated, rightly or wrongly, that the artist painted in many different styles at the
same time. His highly personal connoisseurship, which has dominated the entire RRP, was based on
documentary evidence, degrees of probability, and an artist's eye. He reattributed many demoted works
back to Rembrandt, but his decisions continue to divide opinions.
The hands-on technical approach of the RRP strongly contrasts with the purely theoretical approach of
the CRJLB. While Rembrandt's paintings underwent a thorough technical investigation in order to establish
the correct authorship, Rubens's works were not technically investigated at all within the framework of
the CRLB. Instead, the CRLB has concentrated on the historical and iconographic material, following the
documentation of the late Ludwig Burchard, and adding to it. Where the RRP set out to correct the corrupt
tradition, to innovate, and to take Rembrandt connoisseurship into the 2H century by using scientific
investigation, the CRLB has followed the traditional methods based on the earlier scholarships of Smith,
Rooses and Burchard aiming to complete and update their material.
The early RRP was very radical in the desire to weed out fakes, imitations, copies and pupils'
works from Rembrandt's autograph oeuvre but under Van de Wetering it became more inclusive, while
reinventing Rembrandt as the experimenting artist actively collaborating with his pupils. The CRLB, on
the other hand, was from the start and continues to be overly cautious about the matters of attribution. It
still attaches much importance to Ludwig Burchard's old opinions through the respect for his scholarly
reputation and the agreement with his heirs. This approach can be seen as indecisiveness.
Despite their ups and downs throughout the years, both projects are outstanding in their own way and
have gathered an impressively large amount of inlbrmation on Rubens's and Rembrandt's oeuvres. They
would perhaps benefit from drawing from each other's methods. In fact, Koen Bulckens who has also
compared both projects, noticed that they have somewhat evolved towards one another during their fifty-
year life span. According to him, the RRP is focusing more on the iconography and less on attribution,
and the CRLB shows more interest for Rubens's technique and the problems attributions.
Looking at the wider picture, the idea of a definitive ся/я/ogMC глмомме seems to be contested these
days, and attributions are only seen as current opinions, not firm decisions like in the past. Confidence in
modem connoisseurship even as thoroughly researched as that of the RRP or the CRLB seems surprisingly
low, and attributions continue to divide opinions.
CORPUS RUBENIANUM TC/LSLS REMBRANDT RESEARCH PROJECT.
DWA PODEJŚCIA DO KATALOGU ROZUMOWANEGO
Streszczenie
Artykuł ma na cełu omówienie historii dwóch monumentatnych katałogów /'оАолле Rembrandta i Rubensa. opubiikowanych przez
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project i Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard. oraz porównanie ich metodoiogii i wyników.
Oba projekty przekroczyły pierwotne terminy o dziesiątki iat i oba są nadał niedokończone. Przez prawie pięćdziesiąt łat badań podej-
ście RRP do tematu atrybucji zmieniło się radykałnie, ałe metody badawcze CRLB pozostały bez zmian. Rembrandt Research Project
od początku koncentruje się na kwestiach autentyczności i atrybucji, z naciskiem położonym na badania technołogiczne obrazów. Pod
kierunkiem E. Van de Weteringa katałogowanie dzieł stało się mniej restrykcyjne i opiera się na studiach nad warsztatem i techniką
malarską artysty oraz na źródłach iiterackich. Corpus Rubenianum bazuje na tradycyjnych metodach historycznych i ikonograficznych
zainicjowanych przez Roosesa i Burcharda, zaniedbując sprawy znawstwa i badania technoiogiczne. Podczas pierwszej fazy projektu RRP
odpisało wiełe obrazów Rcmbrandta, ałe pod kierunkiem Van de Weteringa 70 obrazów na nowo przypisano artyście. Corpus Rubenia-
num nadał katałoguje wszystkie dzieła Rubensa uznane przez Burcharda w ł. połowie XX w. za autentyczne, zbyt rzadko weryłikując
i kwestionując dawne atrybucje. Cały format katałogu гамоияё jest dziś poddawany krytyce. Pomimo ogromnych dokonań obu projek-
tów w badaniach nad twórczością Rembrandta i Rubensa poziom zaufania do współczesnego znawstwa jest nadał zaskakująco niski.