[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?

[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?