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?
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.