The Hand of a Master?

From the beginning I have to preface this by admitting that I am self appointed expert on Rembrandt's works and painting techniques. But I should think that my opinion is just as valid as anyone else who has studied his work inside and out for many years. But don't take my word for it, I'll give you the opportunity to judge for yourself. On my website, www.memoreejoelle.org, you can find many copies I've painted from Rembrandt. These studies and research compiled from various sources are the basis for which I will compare a few paintings I've come across, one of which I just don't believe was painted by Rembrandt himself, though it is largely considered to be by his hand.

Consider this (Rembrandt) self portrait as St. Paul (1661) on the left. From a first glance at the composition and the gestural, descriptive brush strokes, it appears to fit the criteria quite well. But upon closer examination, and consideration alongside several other self-portraits, I find some inconsistencies, which I'll point out.


First, the subtle changes from light to shadow which we see on the middle(1662) and bottom(1658) are not quite so subtle on the top. This is a subtle difference which is not very well conveyed by the photo on the bottom, but can be seen in the original in the Frick collection which I have visited many times. Secondly, there is a much greater accuracy of draughtsmanship in the second and third portraits, as well as a more consistent use of the brushstrokes to describe the shape or form of the head. In the first these expressive strokes appear more arbitrary. Third, the idea of the shape of the head (or the form sense) is different. In other words, whoever painted St. Paul has a different understanding of the anatomy and shape of the skull than the other two. To be specific I'll point out the exact regions I mean. In the portrait at the top, the superciliary arches above the eyes and the shape of the forehead are inconsistent with the other two. The zygomatic (cheek) bones protrude less in the first in relation to the plane of the temples. Also, the maxilla (upper lip) is shortened and the mandible is slightly more square. All of these are relatively consistent in most other self portraits known to be painted by Rembrandt.
The Kenwood self portrait in the middle was painted at least at the same time or a year later than the one on the top, so we know that he wasn't just simply loosing his faculties. In fact, his paintings continue to be consistent up until his death in 1669. There have been dating methods performed on this painting, however, and the fibers and pigments are consistent with the period and geography, so my assumption is that this was painted by one of his students. Regardless of all these elements, it was still a master of some facility who painted this portrait, and I for one feel that it should not be devalued even if it is not a Rembrandt.
-Richard T. Scott

On Beauty

Beauty is that which one cannot quite discern.

First post

Hi, just by way of introduction I thought I'd let you know a little bit about what you might find here. As the subtitle suggests I'll be discussing the long awaited ressurection of beauty, realism, philosophy, and the figure in the art world. Now, there may be some reading this who might think that because I support realism in art, that I don't appreciate or understand other (modern) modes of art making that have been predominant in the 20th century. I assure you that this is not the case. I love Picasso and Schiele, I am open minded to appreciating any and all art that communicates to me, that makes me feel something. But I don't believe that the Sublime can only be experienced in the absence of Beauty (Sorry, sometimes I get a little into art theory: check out Immanuel Kant for a greater explanation of this).


However, I am a figurative painter because of one major fact. Man has been painting beautiful, imaginative, symbolic, psychologically dense, essentially FLAT paintings for 40,000 years. The illusion of space in painting has only been explored for about 100 years in ancient Greece (though we have very few examples of this only some of the Fayum portraits, merely incredible descriptions) and in recent history since about 1400 when Massaccio (and others) developed a system of linear perspective and Leonardo daVinci systematized aerial and atmospheric perspective. When you compare 39,300 years of art focusing on flat design and 700 years of exploration into the illusion of depth.... I'd say that maybe we have a little more that is unsaid in this mode of expression. It seems to me that abstraction has been more thoroughly explored, especially after the 20th century!
So, in conclusion, I will be writing about any and all forms of art... probably philosophy, personal and otherwise... probably politics... probably Literature, music, etc... but I will focus on my field of expertise: Realism, oil painting, and the human figure. If any of these subjects interest you please feel free to browse, read, or e-mail me questions. Thank you and goodnight.