# Do You Enjoy The Paintings Of Rembrandt (407th Birthday Today)?



## ArtMusic

One of the greatest visual artist of all times, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn turns 407 today. You must have consciously or otherwise seen some of his paintings. What do you think of his paintings?

Talk about a dude who knew how to paint! Damn!


----------



## deggial

one of the most expressive portraitists (your examples are very good). Yesterday was Bergman's birthday, another great visual artist.


----------



## ArtMusic

The first painting above (self-portrait) seems extremely expressive to me. It's like the face of an elder man with much experience in life and a lot of stories to share.


----------



## GreenMamba

Yes, he's excellent, although the portrait of them woman is quite naughty. Maybe he should have painted more wholesome subjects, like puppy dogs and ice cream.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't know... ice cream can be quite naughty as well:











__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content











__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## ArtMusic

Which is sweeter? The ice-cream or the model?!  

But back to Rembrandt ...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Rembrandt is one of the towering figures of Western painting. If I were to equate him with a composer it would have to be Beethoven. Rembrandt is a great Humanist. His paintings are "portraits" in that the people/figures portrayed are almost always individuals that convey a deep grasp of personality and feeling. 

In purely formal terms Rembrandt is masterful in his handling of paint. His canvases were built up in layers employing a variety of means of handling paint (thick impasto, scumbling, transparent glazes, etc...) and a variety of tools employed in a spontaneous manner (responding to the painting at a given point rather than following an established formula). 

The resulting works exhibit a mastery of light/dark drama, and an incredible sensitivity to edges. He leads the eye to the central focal point and blurs the contours as he moves away from this... rather as the human eye itrself functions. 

By most accounts, he stands among the greatest 10... if not the greatest 5 painters in Western Art History. 

I absolutely love his work, but admittedly it has little to offer me as an artist in that I am of the opposite side of the spectrum from him emphasizing line over blurred edges, brilliant colors over the contrast of light and dark, and idealism/artifice over naturalism/realism.


----------



## brianvds

I have never been lucky enough to see any of his paintings in the original, so I had to make do with reproductions. Until recently, reproduction technology wasn't good enough to do justice to most paintings. I used to think Rembrandt's work is dark and muddy and depressing, until I got to see better quality reproductions. Now you can count me a fan.


----------



## Art Rock

I have seen a lot of his paintings in the original. While I can appreciate his technical mastery, his paintings (and most others of that period - Vermeer being the exception) simply do not interest me. My general taste in paintings is more impressionism and expressionism.


----------



## Rapide

What's there to not like about Rembrandt's paintings?


----------



## TxllxT

Last May we were in the Hermitage, St Petersburg. I was a bit shocked by the bath of bad light in which Rembrandt's paintings are being exposed there. The Prodigal Son hangs close to a big window (looking out on the north) covered with white see-through curtains. But the glittering reflections, you just cannot get rid of them no matter at whatever angle you look at the painting. Flora looks much better, and also many unknown portraits of the master are a delight for the beholder. But prepare yourself for the Hermitage's blockbuster, that you will see varnish.


----------



## Guest

Rapide said:


> What's there to not like about Rembrandt's paintings?


What's there to like? Seriously. What is it about his paintings that sets him apart from others (and puts him, allegedly, in the top 10).


----------



## deggial

^ there are quite a few technical things that set him apart as a visionary and a few non-technical, more elusive things having to do with his ability to visually express insight into human nature. I would say that his way of treating the subject is a turning point in the history of painting. Just look at portraits from masters before and even some from roughly the similar period (Vermeer, Velazquez - who were no mean portraitists themselves) and you will see how much more straight forward both in pose and in treatment and how profound and genuinely expressive his are and how this set the grounds for the art of portraiture from then on.

rather in opposition to the trends of his time, his work is less flamboyant and more concerned with the essential mood and message he is trying to convey, very cinematic I'd say. Then there is the brushwork, a lot freer than usual back then.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I know little about fine art so I can't say. About 20 years ago I remember paying a visit to the Rijksmuseum primarily to have a look at Rembrandt's Night Watch (I'd heard the song by King Crimson and I wanted to see how close it was to the picture I had in my mind) but sadly someone had thrown acid at it a couple of days before so it had been isolated. There does seem to be a textural warmth to the few works of his I recognise but I wouldn't know if this was a Dutch/Flemish speciality or not.


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> What's there to like? Seriously. What is it about his paintings that sets him apart from others....?


The depiction of character. If you are interested in human beings, their lives, their feelings, their experience through time, you will be interested in Rembrandt.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> What's there to like? Seriously. What is it about his paintings that sets him apart from others (and puts him, allegedly, in the top 10).


Seiorusly? Well, Rembrandt's self-portrait looks way more engaging than the black & white photo that is currently your Avatar, for example. Despite a modern camera able obbviously to capture the details of a face, your black & white Avatar for example tells me nothing about the sitter emotionally. Other than maybe superficial pose value , if that's what one likes.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What's there to like? Seriously. What is it about his paintings that sets him apart from others (and puts him, allegedly, in the top 10).

Honestly, if you have to ask... you likely won't ever see it. There is no way to objectively list the elements that make Rembrandt one of the towering figures of Western art any more than there is an objective list whereby we can prove why Mozart and Beethoven deserve their renown.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

deggial- there are quite a few technical things that set him apart as a visionary and a few non-technical, more elusive things having to do with his ability to visually express insight into human nature. I would say that his way of treating the subject is a turning point in the history of painting. Just look at portraits from masters before and even some from roughly the similar period (Vermeer, Velazquez - who were no mean portraitists themselves) and you will see how much more straight forward both in pose and in treatment and how profound and genuinely expressive his are and how this set the grounds for the art of portraiture from then on.

Rembrandt's historical place in the development of painting is never in doubt. He brought a degree of "realism" to his portrayal of the human being that was an equivalent of that of the great novelists. His insight and ability to suggest the emotions of his sitters resulted in characters so memorable the "live" outside the confines of the paintings... rather like Shakespeare's greatest characters or those of Dickens... Cervantes' Don and Sancho, etc... Michelangelo and Raphael's and even Rubens' portrayal of the human being, by contrast, are superhuman by contrast... idealized beings.

Of course none of this "prooves" his brilliance as an artist. Some individuals may prefer the ideal... the artful... to the "real."

...rather in opposition to the trends of his time, his work is less flamboyant and more concerned with the essential mood and message he is trying to convey, very cinematic I'd say.

Well... I would point out that there was a contrast between the Dutch Protestants of the Baroque, and the Flemish/French/Italian/Spanish Catholics. And even then there are exceptions.

Louis Le Nain:










Georges de la Tour:










and Velazquez:










... are clearly precursors of Rembrandt's "Humanism", "Realism", and embrace of the humble.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Vermeer is something altogether different... a jeweler offering up the most perfect and polished visual gems... While his works may seem detached or lacking in Rembrandt's emotional expressionism, the burn with an icy airless fire and call to you with a silent scream that drowns out all but the greatest of his peers. Even placed alongside Rembrandt and Rubens, Vermeer more than holds his own. Having seen almost the whole of Vermeer's oeuvre in real life, I will suggest that Vermeer suffers even far worse than Rembrandt in reproduction.










Then there is the brushwork, a lot freer than usual back then...

Yes... Rembrandt pushed the handling of paint... but anyone who has seen major paintings by Rubens, Van Dyck, Frans Hals, Velazquez... to say nothing of El Greco and late Titian... in real life... will recognize that he was not alone in his approach to painting.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Among my other personal favorites by Rembrandt I would include:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## StlukesguildOhio

[/QUOTE]


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

stlukesguild said:


>


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This is why Rembrandt is one of the greatest painters ever.

ps. A few of the above reproductions including the "Jewish Bride" and _The Prodigal Son_ are from high-definition reproductions that begin to convey the depth and richness... and even color of the originals.


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ps. A few of the above reproductions including the "Jewish Bride" and [I]The Prodigal Son[/I] are from high-definition reproductions that begin to convey the depth and richness... and even color of the originals.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Rembrandt's use of colour is often surprisingly rich, and it is not always apparent in reproduction. I suggest you post some details from large, high-quality reproductions. It will surely win some converts to Rembrandtism. :-)


----------



## ArtMusic

Lovely pieces. This portrait is quite striking too. Something about, again, the face.


----------



## Novelette

Ingenue said:


> The depiction of character. If you are interested in human beings, their lives, their feelings, their experience through time, you will be interested in Rembrandt.


Too true, and beautifully said, Ingenue.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Seiorusly? Well, Rembrandt's self-portrait looks way more engaging than the black & white photo that is currently your Avatar, for example. Despite a modern camera able obbviously to capture the details of a face, your black & white Avatar for example tells me nothing about the sitter emotionally. Other than maybe superficial pose value , if that's what one likes.


So, for all you need to know about Rembrandt's merits, just compare him to a small photo of James Stewart...or better still, Astro Boy!



StlukesguildOhio said:


> What's there to like? Seriously. What is it about his paintings that sets him apart from others (and puts him, allegedly, in the top 10).
> 
> Honestly, if you have to ask... you likely won't ever see it. There is no way to objectively list the elements that make Rembrandt one of the towering figures of Western art any more than there is an objective list whereby we can prove why Mozart and Beethoven deserve their renown.


Who asked for an objective list? A few pointers will do. I suppose there's always wikipedia for an authoritative insight.



Ingenue said:


> The depiction of character.


Thanks Ingenue. I can see that in the portraits, less so in the biblical scenes.



Ingenue said:


> If you are interested in human beings, their lives, their feelings, their experience through time, you will be interested in Rembrandt.


Ah, well, there you go, I'm not interested in human beings, so of course I can't see it. 



deggial said:


> ^ there are quite a few technical things that set him apart as a visionary and a few non-technical, more elusive things having to do with his ability to visually express insight into human nature. I would say that his way of treating the subject is a turning point in the history of painting. Just look at portraits from masters before and even some from roughly the similar period (Vermeer, Velazquez - who were no mean portraitists themselves) and you will see how much more straight forward both in pose and in treatment and how profound and genuinely expressive his are and how this set the grounds for the art of portraiture from then on.
> 
> rather in opposition to the trends of his time, his work is less flamboyant and more concerned with the essential mood and message he is trying to convey, very cinematic I'd say. Then there is the brushwork, a lot freer than usual back then.


Thanks deggial.


----------



## Sid James

ArtMusic said:


> One of the greatest visual artist of all times, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn turns 407 today. You must have consciously or otherwise seen some of his paintings. What do you think of his paintings?
> 
> Talk about a dude who knew how to paint! Damn!
> 
> ...


Yes I like him, and I see him much like the visual artist equivalent of Beethoven, even though Rembrandt lived earlier. I have seen a couple of his portraits in real life, but none of the famous things. I used to have a print of *The Man with the Golden Helmet* hanging in my room ages ago - and subsequently found its probably a forged REmbrandt, not by him but by one of his students - there's heaps of them around apparently, and its only in more recent times this has been found out.










But I got a nostalgic attachment to this image all the same!


----------



## Crudblud

I'm in the "I don't get what sets him apart" camp, I suppose, I don't doubt his technical ability, but I don't see anything profound about these pictures, but then I'm not sure I've seen anything profound in any painting.


----------



## Sid James

To those who don't understand his significance, its really his cycle of self portraits which cover his entire life which give a clue to the depth of Rembrandt's art. Here are three (only a selection, there are many others), from young man, to middle aged with his wife, to older. The only other equally significant and prolific cycle of self portraits that I can think of is Van Gogh.


----------



## deggial

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Vermeer is something altogether different... a jeweler offering up the most perfect and polished visual gems... While his works may seem detached or lacking in Rembrandt's emotional expressionism, the burn with an icy airless fire and call to you with a silent scream that drowns out all but the greatest of his peers. Even placed alongside Rembrandt and Rubens, Vermeer more than holds his own. Having seen almost the whole of Vermeer's oeuvre in real life, I will suggest that Vermeer suffers even far worse than Rembrandt in reproduction.
> 
> http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/201010/21/85/b0195385_1654548.jpg
> 
> Then there is the brushwork, a lot freer than usual back then...
> 
> Yes... Rembrandt pushed the handling of paint... but anyone who has seen major paintings by Rubens, Van Dyck, Frans Hals, Velazquez... to say nothing of El Greco and late Titian... in real life... will recognize that he was not alone in his approach to painting.


you're corrent but a too indepth explaination would drive this thread into unnecessary tangents.


----------



## korenbloem

As I dutchman, I cant vote for anything else.

favorite Painting (except of De nachtwacht 'The Nightwatch'):


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...its really his cycle of self portraits which cover his entire life which give a clue to the depth of Rembrandt's art. The only other equally significant and prolific cycle of self portraits that I can think of is Van Gogh.

Don't forget Max Beckmann... who idolized both Rembrandt and Van Gogh and churned out over 80 self-portraits:


----------



## Sid James

^^ That's interesting. I didn't know about Beckmann's self portraits at all. Another one in the Expressionist style that comes to mind is Edvard Munch. He did many self portraits but I don't know if he surpassed Beckmann's 80. Paul Gauguin did a fair few as well. But for me the Rembrandt cycle is something thats always drawn me in, as I said his work has this power, in musical terms the equivalent in my mind has been Beethoven. So there's that correspondence there that makes Rembrandt for me a unique artist.

A side note is that Rembrandt's paintings have lost their colour and original 'look,' literally. That might explain to people further who think the colours or shades are boring or dull. Well he used a material called bitumen, which degrades over time. Its an art conservator's nightmare. I think that's a big factor here. Bitumen was used by artists right into the 19th century. But even with that imperfection, I am a fan of Rembrandt, I think he was a great portrait painter in particular.


----------



## norman bates

Crudblud said:


> I'm in the "I don't get what sets him apart" camp, I suppose, I don't doubt his technical ability, but I don't see anything profound about these pictures,* but then I'm not sure I've seen anything profound in any painting*.


would you say the same for music?

anyway, I've already posted it, I consider this probably the most beautiful portrait I've ever seen









I don't think I could personally find a better examples of what Ingenue has said in his comment.


----------



## millionrainbows

Rembrandt is not my favorite painter. Too dark, and his drawing looks mannered. I'd rather look at Goya or Da Vinci.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Rembrandt is not my favorite painter. *Too dark*, and his drawing looks mannered. *I'd rather look at Goya *or Da Vinci.


I see a little contradiction here


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> *I see* a little *contradiction *here


Well, that's the wrong approach. You should look for confirmations instead.

Just look at the work. He manages to pull it off every now and then, but he really was not a great draughtsman like, say, Da Vinci.

Or Matisse. :lol:

That signature darkness in Rembrandt's paintings, that dramatic chiaroscuro, _did _have a great influence on other artists...the ones down in Mexico painting bullfighters and Elvis on velvet! :lol:


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Well, that's the wrong approach. You should look for confirmations instead.
> Just look at the work. He manages to pull it off every now and then, but he really was not a great draughtsman like, say, Da Vinci.
> 
> Or Matisse. :lol:
> 
> That signature darkness in Rembrandt's paintings, that dramatic chiaroscuro, _did _have a great influence on other artists...the ones down in Mexico painting bullfighters and Elvis on velvet! :lol:


I think it's strange to say that you don't like Rembrandt (and there's no problem) because he's too dark and then in the same sentence add that you prefer Goya (who's by the way, one of my favorite painters, maybe my single favorite painter), who's best works were probably the black paintings. Anyway, just the portrait I've posted it's a proof that he was a draughtsman of the highest level (if I could choose between that 1657 self portrait and any of the amazing portraits of Leonardo, I'd choose that in any case).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Just look at the work. He manages to pull it off every now and then, but he really was not a great draughtsman like, say, Da Vinci.

Give me a break! Rembrandt was undoubtedly one of the greatest draftsmen in Western art. His ink wash drawings exhibit an ability to capture the essentials in the simplest of gestural calligraphic strokes reminiscent of Chinese and Japanese ink wash paintings.




























Nothing like it exists in Western art until Van Gogh's ink wash drawings.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Rembrandt's abilities as a draftsman are among the most admired and respected in the history of Western art. One can see why by looking at his prints as well as the drawings and paintings. His fluid handling of line in etching is virtually unrivaled:










The contrast between the densely layered and worked up shadows and the simply delineated light areas was wholly original... and demanded the greatest skill to achieve. The technique was essentially the reverse of the traditional manner of painting, where the focus and the light are the most fully rendered.

Rembrandt's daring can be seen in the print, _Ecce Homo_ in which the artist eliminated a clustering of onlookers that were so brilliantly (and simply) rendered, that any number of artists have admitted to wishing to achieve such just once.










But Rembrandt was willing to chance eliminating these figures... clearly knowing that if he drew them once he could draw them again. The figures were removed in order to eliminate elements which distracted from the central drama:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

A side note is that Rembrandt's paintings have lost their colour and original 'look,' literally. That might explain to people further who think the colours or shades are boring or dull. Well he used a material called bitumen, which degrades over time. Its an art conservator's nightmare. I think that's a big factor here. Bitumen was used by artists right into the 19th century. But even with that imperfection, I am a fan of Rembrandt, I think he was a great portrait painter in particular.

Bitumen (Asphalt) really wasn't used much in painting until the 19th century... although earlier restorations may have employed it in the shadows, which explains the somewhat deadened darks in the backgrounds of some paintings.

More likely it was poor varnishes that ruined Rembrandt's colors. The "Rembrandt Dark" became so popular... especially with the English, who have never liked color, that they would intentionally use a darkened varnish over many of their paintings seeking out that "old master" look.

If you look at the painting, _The Jewish Bride_...










... which has been cleaned, you'll see the colors are quite brilliant. Of course Rembrandt was not a colorist, but rather a tonal painter like Caravaggio or Velazquez. Most tonal painters limit the range of colors while pushing the contrast of light and dark. The use of a brilliant and broad array of colors tends to flatten the image, contrary to the aims of tonalism... and the combination of such an array of brilliant colors with a high light-dark contrast commonly leads to a certain garishness... not unlike black velvet painting.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That signature darkness in Rembrandt's paintings, that dramatic chiaroscuro, did have a great influence on other artists...the ones down in Mexico painting bullfighters and Elvis on velvet!

Rembrandt's use of chiaroscuro was influenced by earlier artists, including:

Leonardo da Vinci...










Caravaggio...










Georges de la Tour...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Pieter Bruegel...










Velazquez...










and Adam Elsheimer...










Tonal painting became popular during the Baroque period because of the manner in which it was able to suggest form and space. Add to this the Protestantism of Holland... which rejected brilliant colors in dress or home decor, and we can recognize part of the reason behind the limited palette employed by Rembrandt and the other "Dutch Masters". This dark "Old Master" look remained popular through the Romantic (Delacroix, Goya, Gericault) and Realism (Courbet, Millet...) periods. In light of this, we can see just how shocking the brilliant colors of the Impressionists were.


----------



## Ingélou

Wow, what a thread! Join Talk Classical and get an education!

(Just a tiny protest, though: I'm a female!  )


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Tonal painting became popular during the Baroque period because of the manner in which it was able to suggest form and space. Add to this the Protestantism of Holland... which rejected brilliant colors in dress or home decor, and we can recognize part of the reason behind the limited palette employed by Rembrandt and the other "Dutch Masters".


On a side note, considering the above, I find it somewhat surprising that it was not until the 20th century before there was any significant market for drawings in the commercial art world. At least as far as I know.

Even today, the market is limited: my experience in the commercial art market is that just about the only people who buy drawings are other artists!

Personally, if I had to own old master works, I would quite possibly rather own a Rembrandt drawing or etching than almost any of his paintings.


----------



## Guest

Honestly, if you have to ask... you likely won't ever see it. There is no way to objectively list the elements that make Rembrandt one of the towering figures of Western art.

But you're having a good go, nevertheless!

Thanks.


----------



## KenOC

Interesting to look at these paintings. Very many of them are of dark places, often apparently at night. The artists had never seen the light from even a dim electric light bulb. Their light was candles or lanterns. The color temperature of those sources is far lower than an incandescent bulb, and even farther from sunlight. Also, dim light reduces color perception. So the light in these paintings, and the colors, might have seemed far more familiar to people of the time than to us today. Maybe not entirely fading pigments!


----------



## Ondine

This has been a brilliant thread!

Thanks to StlukesguildOhio and other members -my 'likes' are there- that have made me understand and appreciate Rembrandt in particular and painting appreciation in general.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, thank you! Rembrandt still looks crude to me. The first drawing in post #42 is good, but just a quick, gestural sketch. It looks unfinished, and is not what I consider proof of brilliant drawing ability.
The next one, the baby's face doesn't look right. His arm is way too long, and the woman's weight is not balanced convincingly.
In post #43, The figures overhead are way out-of proportion to the figures on the ground; way too big. I prefer George Grosz' _Ecce Homo.

_The painting in #44: pitiful.

In #45, God, look how much better DaVinci was!!

The Valasquez in #46: Brilliant! Now that's painting!


----------



## Ondine

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, thank you! Rembrandt still looks crude to me.


I could get into his paintings when StlukesguildOhio explained clearly the contrast aspect of his paintings and when Ingenue highlighted the idea of human drama in his paintings as a treatment of 'Reality'. With this contextual frame, his paintings took another dimension different form a plain one moving into that of fourth where 'movement' is preceived.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

On a side note, considering the above, I find it somewhat surprising that it was not until the 20th century before there was any significant market for drawings in the commercial art world. At least as far as I know.

Even today, the market is limited: my experience in the commercial art market is that just about the only people who buy drawings are other artists!

Personally, if I had to own old master works, I would quite possibly rather own a Rembrandt drawing or etching than almost any of his paintings.

I think we should recognize that the audience for any art prior to the last 50-75 years was quite limited in scale... and largely made up of well-to-do connoisseurs. I say "well-to-do" and not "wealthy" or "rich" because it was quite possible... until recently... to amass a brilliant collection of art if one had a good eye and a decent bit of expendable income.

Among the connoisseur/collectors there were more than a few who specialized in drawings, prints, watercolors, book arts, or other genre beyond oil paintings. Of course these works are far more fragile and often need to be kept cabinets to protect them from over-exposure to light. As a result, oil paintings and sculpture tend to account for the lion's share of works on permanent display in most museums and public galleries. As a result... even to this this day there is a bias toward oil paintings and sculpture. A print such as _Durer's Knight, Death, and the Devil_:










... is every bit as brilliant as nearly any painting of the period... and was certainly every bit as labor intensive as most paintings... but even this print is grossly undervalued in contrast to many paintings.

Had you been in the market in the 1950s or even early 1960's you might have picked up the Durer print for a couple hundred dollars... or better yet... a grab bag of some 10 or 12 Japanese Ukiyo-e prints... which might have included this:










... for $120. Of course the Impressionists first stumbled upon the Ukiyo-e prints used as packing materials for shipping ceramics and other items to Europe.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Interesting to look at these paintings. Very many of them are of dark places, often apparently at night. The artists had never seen the light from even a dim electric light bulb. Their light was candles or lanterns. The color temperature of those sources is far lower than an incandescent bulb, and even farther from sunlight. Also, dim light reduces color perception. So the light in these paintings, and the colors, might have seemed far more familiar to people of the time than to us today. Maybe not entirely fading pigments!

This is another possible reason for the use of limited colors and the raking light. Today, there are many "realists" of a reactionary ilk who seemingly see the world through the same conditions as Caravaggio and Rembrandt:










For all their technical skill (and certainly we may see such paintings as masterful craft objects) these paintings often come off as mere pastiches... and certainly not "realistic" at all... unless they are living in a world lit by candle-light and devoid of any objects that might speak of the present. Far more "realistic" is a painter like Eric Fischl...










or Lucian Freud...










... both of whom made frequent use of artificial light... the light we all live under.


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is another possible reason for the use of limited colors and the raking light. Today, there are many "realists" of a reactionary ilk who seemingly see the world through the same conditions as Caravaggio and Rembrandt




Incidentally, I see Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell have just joined the ranks of Living Masters at the ARC. As far as I can work out, they don't think much of the likes of Freud, Fischl or Helnwein though. 

Not that I would ever denigrate masterful craft as something admirable in its own right.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes, thank you! Rembrandt still looks crude to me. The first drawing in post #42 is good, but just a quick, gestural sketch. It looks unfinished, and is not what I consider proof of brilliant drawing ability.

And your opinion... based upon what experience?... is worth...? Those with a real eye for art can recognize mastery in a simple sketch...







...


----------



## KenOC

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Had you been in the market in the 1950s or even early 1960's you might have picked up the Durer print for a couple hundred dollars... or better yet... a grab bag of some 10 or 12 Japanese Ukiyo-e prints... which might have included this:


Hukusai's "Great Wave off Kanagawa" was certainly famous when I was a tyke 60 years ago. Could you really get an "original print" (whatever that means) for a hundred bucks then?


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Bitumen (Asphalt) really wasn't used much in painting until the 19th century... although earlier restorations may have employed it in the shadows, which explains the somewhat deadened darks in the backgrounds of some paintings.
> 
> More likely it was poor varnishes that ruined Rembrandt's colors. The "Rembrandt Dark" became so popular... especially with the English, who have never liked color, that they would intentionally use a darkened varnish over many of their paintings seeking out that "old master" look.
> 
> If you look at the painting, _The Jewish Bride_...


Well I agree its a brilliant painting, moreso because the red dress comes at the viewer and makes such a startling contrast. It makes sense what you say re bad touch up jobs (with bitumen, maybe?) and also varnishing. Art restoration/conservation has come a long way since Rembrandt's time of course.



> ... which has been cleaned, you'll see the colors are quite brilliant. Of course Rembrandt was not a colorist, but rather a tonal painter like Caravaggio or Velazquez. Most tonal painters limit the range of colors while pushing the contrast of light and dark. The use of a brilliant and broad array of colors tends to flatten the image, contrary to the aims of tonalism... and the combination of such an array of brilliant colors with a high light-dark contrast commonly leads to a certain garishness... not unlike black velvet painting.


I agree with your arguments that Rembrandt influenced & opened up avenues for many artists to further explore, some of them (left to right) Sir Joshua Reynolds (self portrait), Mihaly Munkacsy (The Condemned Man's cell), early Van Gogh (Head of A Peasant, oil study for The Potato Eaters), & William Dobell (The Cypriot) among them.


----------



## Sid James




----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The painting in #44: pitiful.










Oh please. If you are going to pretend some degree of expertise, you might want to have at least a modicum of knowledge on the subject at hand... or perhaps do a quick Google search. At the very least, you should avoid sweeping statements that are contrary to common accepted judgment... at least not without making a strong argument based in fact. Its fine to declare that you don't like Rembrandt or Mozart or Shakespeare... but please don't begin to imagine that your personal opinions ("Rembrandt sucks." "Mozart sucks." etc...) are the same as fact

_The Jewish Bride_ is one of the most magnificent of Rembrandt's paintings... and one of the most universally admired. Endless critics and artists have waxed poetic about the golden sleeve alone.



But undoubtedly Carl Andre's stack of bricks or Manzoni's can o' turds is far greater in your eye.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Hukusai's "Great Wave off Kanagawa" was certainly famous when I was a tyke 60 years ago. Could you really get an "original print" (whatever that means) for a hundred bucks then?

Non-Western art is grossly "undervalued" in many ways... although that is changing. Nevertheless, if you shop about you can still get 20th century editions of Ukiyo-e prints pulled from the original woodblcks for a little over $100 to a couple thousand dollars... depending upon the artist, edition, etc... The American realist painter, Philip Pearlstein was torn between majoring in painting and Art History. In his biographical writings he speaks of purchasing prints by Durer and Hokusai as a young struggling art student. One of my Art School professors picked up a Beckmann woodblock for $20 back in the 1960s which is today worth more than his home. Around the same time, he also picked up a stunning Goya etching/aquatint for around $150. I have recently looked at pages from Middle-Eastern illuminated manuscripts that sell for as low as $20 on up through several thousand... yet some of these works are every bit as marvelous as any number of far more pricey Western paintings of the same period.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ironically... for all my defense of Rembrandt, he does not rank among my personal favorites. Rather... my own art is far more inspired by the work of the great colorists (Bellini, Titian, Giorgione, Veronese, the Impressionists & Post-Impressionists, Matisse, etc...) as well as the painters of the early Italian Renaissance, the illuminators of Medieval European manuscripts, Arabic and Persian graphic arts, Indian sculpture, Japanese screen painters and Ukiyo-e print-makers, the early Modernists, and any number of others. Nevertheless, I recognize the genius of Rembrandt, his technical facility, and the emotional impact of the work, and I can clearly appreciate just why he is generally recognized among artists, art historians, art critics, and artists to stand among the very finest of Western painters/artists.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> .... I can clearly appreciate just why he is generally recognized among artists, art historians, art critics, and artists to stand among the very finest of Western painters/artists.


Yes there is consensus there among the experts and also among lovers of art in general. This poll result bears that out. I can understand, as I said, those who do not like his work due to the various reasons discussed on this thread. However thats going to happen with any artist in any creative field of endeavour.

& my own personal bias is I like the Dutch painters for that simplicity. Vermeer as mentioned, and also someone who influenced Rembrandt, Frans Hals. Also the landscapists like Ruisdael and Jan van Goyen and the still life painters as well. Its a unique kind of area or 'school' of art, one that has continually appealed to me. I do like some artists with more flamboyant styles, but that kind of pared down quality and emphasis of humanity itself rather than the add ons has resonated with me a lot. But different people will like different things, it is understandable. Our subjective reactions quite often colour what we say here, and that will be an issue in responses to all creative arts.


----------

