While in Las Vegas a few years ago, I visited Steve Wynn’s art collection, being shown at the Bellagio Hotel.
I was struck by how very, very good every piece he displayed was. Even his “modern” art was excellent.
It was somewhat of a sad irony though, as Steve Wynn has this beautiful art collection and he is losing his eyesight.
The piece that really struck me was Rembrandt’s Portrait of a Gentleman in a Red Doublet.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/24/0124pow.html
The online picture doesn’t even come close to showing how good this work is. I looked at it and obviously knew it was a painting, yet the skin appears to have the same semi translucent quality of real skin, it was truly remarkable.
As I looked at it, I thought, this is why the very best artists still try to compare themselves to Rembrandt van Rijn.
I see where that painting is coming up for auction. Apparently, infuriatingly, it's not quite in the same price range as a Warhol, but I gues it'll still bring millions.
I checked out the link, and I had a thought. Are you (and Steve Wynn) sure that this is an original? They had a group of scholars within the last decade or so who sought out most of Rembrandt's works to determine authenticity. A surprising number of them were fakes, or were by his students, or whatever. Imagine the Frick Museum in NYC "discovering" that one of their Rembrandts has been designated a "fake."
Of course, it may just be a bad internet image (even more common than fake Rembrandts). But it seemed to lack a great deal of his subtlety, especially in the doublet. My guess is that it is a bad image on the internet. But that's something to watch out for when you buy your next Rembrandt. :)