# Is Rembrandt A Great Artist?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn is one of the great masters of Dutch painting. He is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art and the most important in Dutch art history.

Do you think he is a great artist? Do you like his paintings?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Not a particular favourite of mine, as I tend to prefer the impressionism, post-impressionism and expressionism styles.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Rembrandt is one of my favorite painters. His style effectively spanned hundreds of years from traditional, albeit in his own signatory style when he was a successful artist as seen above, to this impressionistic, almost avant-garde style shown below. This is his last self-portrait:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> ...to this impressionistic, almost avant-garde style shown below....


..................................................


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Yes, a great artist and I like his art. period, for me that is.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In my opinion, a very fine artist, and I enjoy many of his paintings. Definitely among my Top Twenty.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I recognize that he is "considered" a great artist - but I don't care. His stuff is okay, I can appreciate his "skill" (for what it's worth), but overall I am more interested in other artists.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I am attracted to his paintings. A reproduction of his Return of the Prodigal Son is in the lobby of the courthourse where I've spent a lot of time working, and every time I enter, I have to stop and gaze at it. I know I look silly as laywers and litigants shuffle by, but there is so much there.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Having seen several of his self-portraits in one room at a gallery in London, I can honestly say that I'd never experienced such a powerful reaction to paint before or since...wonderful. The sheer strength, boldness and power of his impasto and the effectiveness of his chiaroscuro is something I'll always remember.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Yes, he is great (subjectively, of course). Seems like there's some kind of an agenda behind this...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Yes, he is great (subjectively, of course). Seems like there's some kind of an agenda behind this...


I think it is clear his techniques is objectively original and superior even to this day. We shouldn't downgrade his skills.

In the _Jewish Bride_, the facial expressions are there expressing the exact moments of their thoughts:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Saw his stuff in the Louvre. I was quite struck, and more than from any other artist, except maybe the Venus de Milo. Not the same as seeing them in a book or webpage.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I think it is clear his techniques is objectively original and superior ...


Why did you feel the need to insert the word, "Objectively", in your sentence? The sentence would have worked equally well without it. Are you simply being provocative?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chilham said:


> Why did you feel the need to insert the word, "Objectively", in your sentence? The sentence would have worked equally well without it. Are you simply being provocative?


Because painting at the mastery level of Rembrandt requires objective skills. No, I am not being provocative. I don't know why you think that. Any one of the paintings I sampled above requires far more skill, one that takes years of training than say it does to paint this, say Rothko's _Orange and Tan_ (1954) (please Google it).


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes, he's a great artist in the sense that he's important and influential in the history of art, skilled at drawing and painting, and seems to have ideas of his own.

No, I don't like his art - it's so _dark_, and it oppresses me.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Because painting at the mastery level of Rembrandt requires objective skills. No, I am not being provocative. I don't know why you think that. Any one of the paintings I sampled above requires far more skill, one that takes years of training than say it does to paint this, say Rothko's _Orange and Tan_ (1954) (please Google it).


I agree that Rembrandt displays more of a set of skills that Rothko doesn't necessarily use (although why you'd bring Rothko into this discussion about Rembrandt I have no idea) but then you didn't use, "Objective" in relation to skills. You're changing the context of your words. Let me walk you back.

You were talking about Rembrandts techniques being, "Original and superior" but chose to use the words, "Objectively original and superior"? It doesn't necessarily take years of training to be original.

Can we be clear, what techniques are we talking about? Chiaroscuro?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I feel many abstract modern paintings unnecessarily ugly and insipid for the lack of true ideological content. However, I appreciate artists like Keith Haring. I am not quite sure about how to evaluate Rembrandt, I like his art of course, and those who want to criticize the baroque art should concern themself with other real issues we have today. I do not think we are qualified to pass any criticism on ancient people now, unless you are a marxist, who by nature is disposed to lying and cheating and defacing all the human heritages. If you did not appreciate enough of the world, you are not qualified to criticize anything, for a real artist, he will find more appreciable things to uphold than chances to express his egos. 

Stupid artists betray their stupidity with their insipid arts. their mind is more empty than the end of the universe and they do not know about themsel at all. That is why they creat bad arts, it is hard to discretely differentiate a good art piece and a bad piece, just like I just know it, like the spontaneou sixth sense, and through bad arts, I know many people are sick mentally.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Rembrandt used some impressionistic techniques to offset the psychological profile of the subject, when used in 17th century subjects, the result is very spicy and vivid, since the cultural ambient of the time itself was very intense. This is my concise comment on Rembrandt.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

If art is executed well, with the skill - its nice. However the skill itself does not hold much value for me. Many painters from Rembrandt era are very skilled craftsmen, but rather boring as artists. Obviously some were very good at it and were able even to paint emotions. So Rembrandt sure is one of these. But I am tired to look at his work - there is so much more interesting art to pay attention to. And I do not care for antique and name value of art at all.
I am glad that invention of photography replaced the need for painted portrait.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

After seeing the Rembrandt exhibition at the National Gallery in 2014, no doubt about it.

p.s. the simultaneous Turner exhibition at the Tate made it an astonishing visit to London.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chilham said:


> I agree that Rembrandt displays more of a set of skills that Rothko doesn't necessarily use (although why you'd bring Rothko into this discussion about Rembrandt I have no idea) but then you didn't use, "Objective" in relation to skills. You're changing the context of your words. Let me walk you back.
> 
> You were talking about Rembrandts techniques being, "Original and superior" but chose to use the words, "Objectively original and superior"? It doesn't necessarily take years of training to be original.
> 
> Can we be clear, what techniques are we talking about? Chiaroscuro?


It seems you are particularly perturbed by certain English words, when such are used all the time in books, articles, journals, the press, the media, by artists themselves and elsewhere. The reality is, it is all part and parcel of art critique and art appreciation. There is nothing mysterious in simply saying: "Rembrandt is a great painter, his portraits are among the best ever done by man". You are of course entitled to disagree with that and dislike the paintings by Rembrandt but that doesn't mean there should be censorship of other people who are happy to describe it in harmless ways, that have been so for centuries.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> After seeing the Rembrandt exhibition at the National Gallery in 2014, no doubt about it.
> 
> p.s. the simultaneous Turner exhibition at the Tate made it an astonishing visit to London.


Turner and Rembrandt will be a massive visual indigestion. Lucky you!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

erki said:


> If art is executed well, with the skill - its nice. However the skill itself does not hold much value for me. Many painters from Rembrandt era are very skilled craftsmen, but rather boring as artists. Obviously some were very good at it and were able even to paint emotions. So Rembrandt sure is one of these. But I am tired to look at his work - there is so much more interesting art to pay attention to. And I do not care for antique and name value of art at all.
> I am glad that invention of photography replaced the need for painted portrait.


Yes, I am glad my iPhone 12 Pro Max has replaced the need for skilled photography.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> It seems you are particularly perturbed by certain English words, when such are used all the time in books, articles, journals, the press, the media, by artists themselves and elsewhere. The reality is, it is all part and parcel of art critique and art appreciation. There is nothing mysterious in simply saying: "Rembrandt is a great painter, his portraits are among the best ever done by man". You are of course entitled to disagree with that and dislike the paintings by Rembrandt but that doesn't mean there should be censorship of other people who are happy to describe it in harmless ways, that have been so for centuries.


I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying. I ask you one question, you answer another. I ask you to clarify, you change the subject. How can I agree or disagree with you when you won't clarify what it is you're saying? It's baffling.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chilham said:


> I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying. I ask you one question, you answer another. I ask you to clarify, you change the subject. How can I agree or disagree with you when you won't clarify what it is you're saying? It's baffling.


I don't think so as this thread is very simple. The thread asked do you think Rembrandt is a great artist and further in the poll gives you options if you think so or not, and whether you like or dislike his works. I don't have to define anything. You can choose to participate as you please like other members have done or not.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think so as this thread is very simple. The thread asked do you think Rembrandt is a great artist and further in the poll gives you options if you think so or not, and whether you like or dislike his works. I don't have to define anything. You can choose to participate as you please like other members have done or not.


You said Rembrandts techniques are, "Objectively original and superior". I didn't know what that meant, so I asked. You started taking about Rothko. I asked for clarity on the techniques you referred to. You get defensive and accuse me of being perturbed.

I don't know why you're so reluctant to engage in discussion around points you seem very confident of. It's most strange. Perhaps your confidence is a veneer. I hope it isn't.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chilham said:


> You said Rembrandts techniques are, "Objectively original and superior". I didn't know what that meant, so I asked. You started taking about Rothko. I asked for clarity on the techniques you referred to. You get defensive and accuse me of being perturbed.
> 
> I don't know why you're so reluctant to engage in discussion around points you seem very confident of. It's most strange. Perhaps your confidence is a veneer. I hope it isn't.


My good sir, you hoped correctly indeed.

The statistical results of the poll so far also indicate that 70% of people who are familiar with Rembrandt think his art is masterful. I forgot to mention his landscapes, too. His view of the landscape is almost impressionistic and offers a dramatic representation, rather than a beautiful picturesque view compared with the great landscape painter John Constable.

Moving on.

_The Mill_ reminds me of Beethoven's _Pastoral_ symphony evoking feelings of the countryside. With Rembrandt, his treatment of the stormy clouds missing with people offers a beautifully contrasting set of activities. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mill_(Rembrandt)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think he's fantastic. I appreciate also enjoy Van Gogh to mention a complete opposite.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

His landscape backgrounds are beautiful. It's tragic that he painted only one seascape and it has been missing for over 30 years, stolen from a museum in Boston.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I also like Jackson Pollock.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Open Book said:


> His landscape backgrounds are beautiful. It's tragic that he painted only one seascape and it has been missing for over 30 years, stolen from a museum in Boston.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee
> 
> View attachment 153695


That is one of my favorite seascapes. It is so dramatic, and sad it has been stolen. Such a timeless masterpiece in everyway.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> That is one of my favorite seascapes. It is so dramatic, and sad it has been stolen. Such a timeless masterpiece in everyway.


I hope it's on somebody's wall, even if it's a drug dealer or a Middle Eastern prince who has it. I hope it wasn't damaged, destroyed, or in a hiding place no one remembers anymore. It's been so long, all the suspects are dying off.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> After seeing the Rembrandt exhibition at the National Gallery in 2014, no doubt about it.
> 
> p.s. the simultaneous Turner exhibition at the Tate made it an astonishing visit to London.


I did both of those too. The Rembrandt self-portraits mesmerised me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> I did both of those too. The Rembrandt self-portraits mesmerised me.


His self-portraits are a documentary of his life. Rarely do we see a series of self-portraits reflect the artist's private life as much as Rembrandt's. He painted many of himself.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I am glad my iPhone 12 Pro Max has replaced the need for skilled photography.


That is true only if your phone goes out and composes the picture by itself. So far it is just a tool as the paintbrush is for artist and can be used as a tool to produce great pictures. But technically skilled photography can be boring too. As the subject or the feel for composition does not resonate with me. For instance war-photography I could care less.
Rembrandt is OK but I do not value canonised/institutionalised art as such. So I recognise his masterful execution but my interest in art is somewhere else.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> His self-portraits are a documentary of his life. Rarely do we see a series of self-portraits reflect the artist's private life as much as Rembrandt's. He painted many of himself.


I think Jegreenwood went to the same exhibition as me. IIRC There were about 4-6 of his self portraits in the one room, perhaps he/she can remember. The effect of seeing his portraits chronologically along a wall was fascinating.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

wasn't that Rembrandt guy a little self-obsessed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-portraits_by_Rembrandt


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Jacck said:


> wasn't that Rembrandt guy a little self-obsessed?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-portraits_by_Rembrandt


'Self-obsessed' is IMO a Renaissance phenomenon. Rembrandt is no exemption of living self-consciously with an insatiable curiosity for what was close & homely, which is typical for Dutch painting.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

mikeh375 said:


> I think Jegreenwood went to the same exhibition as me. IIRC There were about 4-6 of his self portraits in the one room, perhaps he/she can remember. The effect of seeing his portraits chronologically along a wall was fascinating.


I remember it vividly. I'm from NYC, where the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a number of Rembrandts. I've been to a number of other museums, which have them as well. But to see those self-portraits grouped together was a stunning experience.

And I had never paid that much attention to Turner until I attended that massive show at the Tate. That day he joined my pantheon of greats.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Because painting at the mastery level of Rembrandt requires objective skills. No, I am not being provocative. I don't know why you think that. Any one of the paintings I sampled above requires far more skill, one that takes years of training than say it does to paint this, say Rothko's _Orange and Tan_ (1954) (please Google it).


I believe it has been very effectively demonstrated that great skill is neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for the creation of pictorial art (painting). The selection of subject matter, and often pure happenstance (serendipity) govern whether and how well a painting or piece of sculpture affects individual perceivers. Rembrandt represents a happy conjoining of great skill and literally attractive (to some, not all) subject matter.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Great artist, but I'm not really a fan of his choices of subject material.

Like that proto-impressionistic portrait and the seascape though.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I believe it has been very effectively demonstrated that great skill is neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for the creation of pictorial art (painting). The selection of subject matter, and often pure happenstance (serendipity) govern whether and how well a painting or piece of sculpture affects individual perceivers. Rembrandt represents a happy conjoining of great skill and literally attractive (to some, not all) subject matter.


Put simply, Rembrandt had all the great skills.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Yes
Obviously 
Next question?


----------

