Two museum Rembrandts 'are fake'

BBC News ^ | Jan. 5, 06

[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.

[Oztrich Boy]

Is it too much to hope that they are genuine van Meegerens?

[Republicanprofessor]

Rembrandt's paintings may have the most fakes of any artist. There was a group of Rembrandt specialists a few years ago who spent a decade examining many Rembrandts in some of the most famous collections world-wide, determining many of them not to be originals. Thus my interest in this article.

I could not find any images from this particular municipal museum in Faro, Portugal, but I'm not surprised that fakes were discovered in this small museum. They may have been sold by a wiley dealer to a collector who later donated them to the museum.

But Rembrandt is famous for his introspection in the series of self-portraits through his life. Now, this first one looks unusual to me because his face is in the dark (it is usually lit against a dark background). The strands of hair also look odd. So I thought it might be a fake; but I guess I don't know as much as I thought. It seems to be posted as a real self-portrait on a reliable website. I think you really have to see them in person to know for sure.

[Republicanprofessor]

Art Ping.

Let Sam Cree, Woofie or me know if you want on or off this Art Ping list.

How do you like even fake Rembrandts in contrast to the Turner prize winners I just posted?

[satchmodog9]

I guess they can chalk it up to bad intel.

[Echo Talon]

Keep them displayed just mark them, im sure they are not lacking for space. Probably still good pieces even if they are fakes.

[Republicanprofessor]

I confess I had to look up van Meegerens name. I don't know the forgers as well as I should!

Is this supposed to be a Vermeer by van Meegerens?

[Always Right]

The odd thing about art is, all the experts probably raved about what a great work of art these pieces are, but now that they are not real, they are total junk. Same pieces of work, just done by someone else.

[verity]

Mark Twain: "I'm glad the old masters are all dead, and I only wish they had died sooner."

[muawiyah]

It's pretty clear all of the Rembrandt's, whether originals or copies, were done with the assistance of projection technology (camera obscura) known since Aristotles time.

Most trained artists, and even some amateurs with an eye to forged printing, can differentiate between a painting done with only the artist's eye, and those where the artist has a photograph of the subject for reference.

[AnAmericanMother]

No way anybody THOUGHT that was a Vermeer (unless they were a very greedy person who just wished themselves into it)! My lord, it looks bad.

[dangus]

Truthfully, I never enjoyed Rembrandt, with a few exceptions, mostly early and of religious themes (such as the Music Party, the Raising of Lazarus, etc...). I know why *historicly* he's so important, and I can appreciate the importance of his selection of contemporary subjects... but they just seem like a bunch of dark, smoky, mediocre portraits. But its perhaps his eye for the ordinary which animates his earlier, biblical motifs so well.

Wonderful, so he painted everday people. But he rarely evoked empathy and certainly didn't establish an aesthetic beauty... (Again, I say this recognizing VERY strong exceptions.) My ambivalence for the portraits you show borders on disdain.

I mentionned this on the other thread about Turner prize winners ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1552977/posts ), so excuse me for repeating myself a bit, but to answer your question, I very much like Carnegie.

Lambie may not be so original (I wouldn't know) but he does pass my test for non-representational art. Purposely expressed as a third-grader would speak, "it's 'neat' to look at." (Or at least I presume it would be if I were there.) I'm a systems guy... interplay between different elements which share a very strong common element always speaks to me.

As for Starling, I must ask the question that always gets we Phillistines in trouble... But is it art?

[Republicanprofessor]

Oh, I so disagree with you about Rembrandt. Yes, some of the works are rather dark, but the better for the contrast of light and inner spirituality. I see so much emotion and inner character in the light as it moves across the faces of his paintings.

In this Jewish Bride, a late work from 1667, we see an arranged marriage. She acknowledges that she belongs to him (see the hands), and yet they look in different directions. Aren't relationships still like this? Even in very close marriages, we still have separate thoughts (and disagreements) and personalities. I see it as very poignant.

I've already replied to your Turner comments on that other thread. I'm glad you like Carnegie.

[Republicanprofessor]

Yes, it is a bad copy; maybe it's supposed to be a Caravaggio. Still....

[AnAmericanMother]

It's just grotesque. It's wrong all over - as though a garish chromo had been copied with dull colors by a cigarette-ad artist for a third-rate Victorian periodical.

( . . . did I mention it was bad? . . . )

[N. Theknow]

The signature "Billy Bob Rembrandt" was a dead give away?

[AnAmericanMother]

That is one of my favorite Rembrandts. What a splendid, gorgeous painting - and as you note so many thoughts in it.

[dangus]

Oh, by the way... I DO like the Jewish Bride... It is one I haven't seen, and in that instance I certainly see how the shadows are used to create contrast. Too often though, they just make for a dreary, dark painting.

I don't see their looking in different ways as being a sign of separatedness as you seem to be saying. Rather, I find it very tender. Newlyweds then were not merely virginal of intercourse, but often of thought. There's a solemnity in his posture that makes it almost possible to overlook the fact that he is holding her breast. He is looking towards her breast, but not eagerly leering, but rather to take care with what he is doing: he is acclimating her to his touch, not copping a feel.

She, on the other hand, is almost lost in thought. Perhaps she would be feeling quite nervous, even scared, if she wasn't also feeling the reverence, acceptance, and compassion her groom has for her. Instinctively, she has broght her hand to his, confirming that it belongs there. Her other hand's position is modest, held where it is more likely out of a need to feel secure than out of lust, but I don't think I'm wrong to infer a sexuality to its placement.

[dangus]

>> The signature "Billy Bob Rembrandt" was a dead give away? <<

That and the distinctively shiny, white teeth.

[dangus]

>> The signature "Billy Bob Rembrandt" was a dead give away? <<

Well, it was written in Microsoft Times New Roman font...