I thought they were just covered with 400 years of smoke, pollution
and dirt and that once restorers clean them up they look like this:
<== 
Posted on 01/06/2006 5:51:39 AM PST by Republicanprofessor
Two oil paintings purported to have been the work of Rembrandt have been shown to be fakes, the director of the museum where they are kept has said.
The works were donated to the municipal museum in Faro, southern Portugal, in 1944 and were displayed for 25 years despite doubts over their authenticity.
Tests have now shown the 17th Century Dutch master could not have painted them, Dalia Paulo told AFP news agency.
This was because they used pigments not available until the 19th Century.
Anniversary plans
The paintings, one a supposed self-portrait of Rembrandt and the other said to depict one of his friends, were donated to the state-run museum by Portuguese diplomat Amadeu Ferreira de Almeida.
They were on display at the museum, which was visited by 22,000 people last year, from 1973 until 1998. They were not tested for authenticity until last year.
Ms Paulo said: "We felt it was time to have the tests done. We could not delay any longer."
The 112-year-old museum plans to put the "fake" self-portrait back on display in July to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Rembrandt's birth.
The museum's collection includes several works by European painters of the 16th to 19th Centuries, as well as a large collection of Islamic art and Roman mosaics.
The funny part is that several museums still display fake paintings as the masters', arguing that they are still reflective of their styles, even if pupils actually painted the art. "Fake but accurate."
I'm not the art historian here, but I believe you are mixing up Rembrandt with Vermeer.
I agree with you that paintings done from photographs rather than from life have characteristics that often give this away.
This leads me to wonder some at the techniques of the famous illustrators, NC Wyeth or Howard Pyle, for instance. I guess they must have hired models and used photography both, judging by the beautiful results. I have read that Andrew Loomis considered it the illustrator's job to know human anatomy well enough to draw a credible pose without any reference at all, though he also believed in the necessity of a live model for finished work.
Rembrandt had no reason whatsoever to reject the use of this device.
Noting that a tremendous number of folks out there think "realism" is good art, the latest thing is to have what amounts to an ordinary photgraph "painted" by a machine. This relieves the artist of any duties other than refilling the paint pots and putting the photos in place.
Which brings me to my real point in all of this ~ the Bill Clinton official portrait. It's "realistic" and in the background you find his Oval Office setting. That makes it rather classic.
On the other hand I know the man would have rather had a portrait 3 ft wide and 5 ft tall consisting mostly of his head ~ a "big head" sort of thing, done in an impressionist style.
<==
Vermeer and Hans Holbein are well known for having used the camera obscura, but other masters' use of it is not known. I think that it's existence is no reason to particularly suppose its use by them, just as today's existence of the opaque projector is no reason to suppose its use by most portrait artists, though some do use one.
But the fact is that the skill required to draw a likeness, while not easy to come by, is also not restricted to the domain of the great masters. There are many artists today who are well capable of obtaining accurate likenesses without a projector, as I'm sure there were in the old times. It's just not that uncommon a skill; it's something one can learn, like any skill. I figure some of the old masters probably eschewed a projector for reasons of pride alone, as do modern artists. Especially as it's not something a trained artist even needs.
And, as you mentioned, often work done from photographic reference gives itself away. Probably many feel and felt the same about projected work.
RE your comment about realism now being able to be painted by a machine, that opens a fairly interesting debate, one that is often alluded to on these threads. But it always brings to mind to me Jacques Barzun's comment about how if all the old masters were painting realistically, then how come all their stuff looks so different?
Now I have to go look up that Bill Clinton portrait you mentioned.
Also, Rembrandt probably should have purchased an optically clear waterbased polyurethane at Lowes rather than at Home Depot.
Also, Rembrandt probably should have purchased an optically clear waterbased polyurethane at Lowes rather than at Home Depot.
Why is it that I suddenly have the urge to smoke a cigar?
A young artist of our acquaintance mixes his own colors ~ and his work looks different from the other students who rely on factory controlled standards.
Fortunately for him he is able to duplicate his color mixes perfectly.
Now, concerning the varnish on those paintings, I'd guess the 16th and 17th century "Masters" used high quality lacquer from the orient, and since they were working in the major European port cities they had access to the very best stuff. Unfortunately, bug based lacquers darken with time ~ someone probably has done a doctorate on the photoactive qualities of some of the animals in the mix.
Which raises yet another question ~ were these guys using a "wash" on their canvas and panels which was "photo reactive".
LOL
I understand the intent (I think), but there's something so wrong about displaying fake works to celebrate Rembrandt's birthday.
There is a little more to it than the fact that they mixed their own paint - the point I was getting at is that (one of the things about realism is that) everyone's reality is different.
What exactly is your taste in art anyway?
Thanks.
Nekkid wimmin. And yours?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1660/magn-glass.jpg
Agreed on 33, the nude female is the classic art subject.
Not convinced by 34, though. I tend to think that Hockney has "projected" his own techniques onto the work of other artists. Some obviously worked as he does, others probably did not. Probably most did not, IMO.
I will say though that for almost any artist, achieving a likeness does depend on accurate measurements to a very large extent, regardless of method, sight size, calipers or the traditional pencil or brush held at arm's length. Or projecting, even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.