IFAR and the Rembrandt Research Project
| IFAR IFAR RRP Art versus Science JMW Turner: the source JMW Turner /v expert opinion Rembrandt O’Keeffe International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) authentication attribution evaluation appraisal critic catalogue IFAR evening / IFAR evenings
international
foundation for art research
This melancholy Militiaman with swollen wart-spotted hands gives cause for
reflection upon the importance of ones own purpose. The diseased old soldier
blends into a lonely netherworld as he makes do with his addictive
crutches.
ifar
In
recent years there has been a conflict heating up between the
scientific-camp and the connoisseurship-camp.
In 2001 the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) sponsored a talk by Ernst van de Wetering, the long-term chairman
of the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP).
The talk was titled, The Tension Between Science and
Connoisseurship in
Authenticating Art. ifar
At times, could such a conflict in and of itself cloud the judgment of an
expert who is trying to hang onto his or her preeminent position? Could a bad
call, a wrong opinion about a paintings authenticity be occasionally spawned by
acrimony rather than from innocent error? Regardless, the mindset of the expert
community is apt not to favor the logic of science in most situations as much as
the traditional primacy of their own authority in judging right from
wrong’ “genuine from fake. In turn they might be less willing than they should
be to accept the statistical probability that science provides, and opt in
favour of disregarding science altogether. international
foundation for art research
A formula may eventually be accepted,
whereby; hard-won laboratory results are given their due regard. Presently, even
scientists are self-deprecating; particularly in cases where they know that the
, ‘’’: absolute’ answer to a problem is most often unattainable. They are unwilling to
prop-up overwhelming evidence to support the, ‘’’: probability’ that a work is
clearly attributable. In light of the huge art production over the centuries,
where on close scrutiny of the physical evidence, very few of the painters have
much in common, it is only logical to assume that if there are many positive
characteristics supporting authorship and only the odd anomaly the chances of
the artwork being right is extremely likely.[1]
ifar
The results of the
IFAR Rembrandt conference, The Tension Between Science and
Connoisseurship in
Authenticating Art might be considered as somewhat of a blow to scientific
involvement in the art-world. The gist of the text suggests that the credibility
of science was buried by its own efficiency. The closer science was able to
bring a work of art toward Rembrandt as creator, the more desperate, or so it
seemed, was the fight by the “community of Rembrandt specialists”[2]
to condemn it as a studio copy.
Because the efforts of the scientific camp proved contrary to established
curatorial opinion, science was automatically targeted as a faulty adversary.
Rather than accepting at face value the logical conclusion that:, ‘’’: Rembrandt
painted all of the self-portraits that emanated from his own studio’’ “or at least
weighing the new scientific data accordingly; efforts were made to co-opt
scientific opinion, and it apparently worked. Subsequent to the swirl of debate
over who was in reality painting those same self-portraits, Gertrude Wilmers
wrote, “Rembrandt scholar Ernst van de Wetering demonstrated at an IFAR
Evening how certain pictures submitted to scientific procedures such as
x-radiograph and pigment analysis revealed a much more active role for
Rembrandt’s assistants in the production of his workshop [and self-portraits]
than had previously been proposed.”
[v] This
certainly argues against Occam’s Razor, the philosophical rule that the simplest
of competing theories is preferred to the more complex!
The experts had already wrongly denied the early vintage of certain Rembrandt
self-portraits years earlier, while using nothing but their intuitions. These
errors science was able to prove conclusively. Apparently no further concessions
were to be won. Ultimately, so it seems, contemporary scientific empiricism was
brushed aside until the scientists were willing to concur with the
functionaries of the art establishment and agree that a batch of
enthusiastic students of the great master painted those controversial Rembrandt
“self-portraits.” Both scientific and connoisseurship camps now seemed happy;
claiming unanimity in what seemed to be an attack of poor logic.
Rather than inventing such
a complicated scenario, the art historians should be the ones to recognize the
weakness of such an argument in the first place. Would Rembrandt have encouraged
students to paint self-portraits of him as opposed to self-portraits of
themselves? It is unlikely. Their Master was not an icon of his day from which
the multitudes were demanding his visage for their home cabinet. As well, for
himself Rembrandt was merely a malleable and inexpensive model. H. Perry Chapman
gives us a clue to how this sort of narcissistic mentoring would have gone
against the artist’s own ideal. The final testimonial in Rembrandt’s
Self-portraits’ “A Study in Seventeenth Century Identity: “According to both
de Piles and Houbraken, Rembrandt is suppose to have said:, ‘’’: If I want to give my
mind diversion, then it is not honor I seek, but freedom.’ He had indeed found
freedom. In his quest for autonomy he had invented a new idea of artist as an
independent, self-governing individual.”[vi]
Because of its importance as an aesthetic tool and the foundation on which
true art passions owe homage, one hates to appear hostile towards
connoisseurship, (even connoisseurship
with a small c); but in order to get at the truth and away from the politics,
this derision is necessary in the short term in hopes of encouraging science to
take a more confident role. international foundation for
art research
According to Ernst van de Wetering, and
other experts close to the
RRP, there was a rejection of one self-portrait located at Staatsgalerie,
Stuttgard based on a substantial number of what are certainly elusive reasons.
In their words: “The approach to compositional problems in the painting, the
peinture, the handling of form, light, atmosphere, and color, and the
processing of the anatomical details, did not fit our image of the late
Rembrandt’ the most aberrant feature in our eyes was the extremely rough and
undifferentiated paint handling of the face.”
[vii] They
flooded the arena with so many intangibles purporting not to fit, ‘’’: their image’
of a Rembrandt, that the owner of said picture might justly have fled in terror.
But if one stayed long enough at the scene of such a disaster to try and remove
a bit of rubble it becomes apparent that at least some of the criticism can be
countered.
In 1936 the most eminent Rembrandt experts and connoisseurs of the day had
already condemned the Staatsgalerie example as a 19th century copy. Decades
later science inarguably proved that it had come from the artist’s own 17th
century studio. How could such a vast miscalculation in dating have been
accepted in the first place? It certainly casts doubt on the overall
dependability of non-pragmatic expertise. What about the loose brushwork the
RRP was concerned about,
’the extremely rough paint handling?’ This was characteristic of Rembrandt’s
work and what subsequent dealers tried to hide with dark varnishes! This was
truly Rembrandt’s own personal nemesis, and paradoxically, one that eventually
helped to make him famous.
Although the Melbourne replica is also de-attributed for similar vague
reasons: the sallow complexion that is criticized most of all, is in fact more
suitable to the dismal expression on the face of the subject than the rosy
cheeks of its designated progenitor, Self-portrait at an easel in the
Louvre. This challenge to the
RRP is in all due respect presented merely to encourage the use of concrete
evidence as opposed to the intangible. Apparently the people at IFAR are now
grappling with rudimentary concerns over definitive catalogue raisonn (c)s: who are
the effective authorities; what are their credentials, and what might be their
motives.
It is a
serious matter though. To exemplify the profound affect a small
group, or for that matter, an individual can have on the world of art we need
look no further than the renowned Wildenstein dynasty. Established in the 1870s
it has grown more influential over the ensuing three generations by virtue of
erudition, stealth, accumulation of wealth, gathering of influence - and above
all - the production of catalogues. “Being the publishers of such books confers
enormous power ’ " [and among other things] the ability to authenticate
paintings’ as a publisher of catalogue raisonn (c)s
, the Wildensteins virtually control the scholarship on many artists from
Boucher to Monet.”
[viii] This
frustrated one art historian with regard to the Wildenstein Gauguin catalogue,
rightly or wrongly, he criticized: “Pedigrees and quotations have been juggled
to suit private needs; and Gauguin’s oeuvre has been shorn of some authentic
works and adulterated with others that do not belong.”
[ix] Oh yes,
that brings us back to Rembrandt, and those pundits who have been charged since
1968 to “write a comprehensive catalogue of Rembrandt’s paintings and especially
to free his oeuvre of the accretions that were thought to have disfigured the
image of Rembrandt the painter.”
[x] Those
responsible for writing this catalogue raisonn (c) and freeing his oeuvre of the
accretions is the RRP.
One must contemplate whether implicit in this manifesto is the need to preserve
only what they consider to be Rembrandt’s better works?
In her role as an analytical statistician, Geraldine Keen gives pause for
thought over what it means to control any market:
“At any one time there is usually one particular scholar whose opinion is
considered the most authoritative about the work of a particular artist, though
sometimes several scholars may contend for this distinction. In expressing their
opinions they may wield tremendous financial power. For instance, no definitive
catalogue of Rembrandt’s drawings existed until the 1950s when Otto Benesch
published the results of his long years of research. Around 1950 three drawings
catalogued as ‘school of Rembrandt’ were sold at Christie’s for about $280;
another, attributed by Sotheby’s to one of Rembrandt’s contemporaries, fetched
only $25. By the time Benesch’s catalogue was published, its inclusion of these
drawings had raised their value to something 28,000 - 42,000 each.”
(Money and Art, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, NY, 1971)
Rescuing Turner: A New Age of Art Discovery:
r malcolm setters
/ graham setters
Connoisseurship Forensics Biro front Art/Science Tribal Instincts
Home
[1] As will be discussed later the model of Bayesian Analysis becomes invaluable in examining near infinite probabilities. [2] This expression used by Ernst van de Wetering is telling. As we find out later: insular, self-supporting, and self-protecting groups orbit around the oeuvre of many great artists, including Turner.
[v] IFAR Journal; volume 4 number 4 / volume 5 number 1 2001/02, 56. [vi] H. Perry Chapman, Rembrandt’s Self-portraits’ “A Study in Seventeenth Century Identity, (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1990), 137. [vii] Ernst van de Wetering, Thirty Years of the Rembrandt Research Project: The Tension Between Science and Connoisseurship in Authenticating Art, (IFAR Journal, Vol. 4, no 2 2001), 19. [viii] George Rush, Bitter Spoils, (Vanity Fair magazine March 1998), p 252. [ix] Ibid. 251. [x] Ernst van de Wetering, Thirty Years of the Rembrandt Research Project: The Tension Between Science and Connoisseurship in Authenticating Art, (IFAR Journal, Vol. 4, no 2 2001), 14.
| | | | | | An introduction: JMW Turner Rescue off site: Turner Society Tate Gallery National Gallery London Courtauld Institute of Art IFAR International Foundation for Art Research NGC National Gallery Canada Frick Collection Yale Center for British Art The Getty Biro Forensic Studies CCI Canadian Conservation Institute
Wildenstein Institute McCrone Research Institute Collections International Center for Art Intelligence GMM Village Voice Andrew Wilton Rizzoli Tate Clore Christie’s Sotheby’s auction house On site: JMWT bequest news corresp bibliography sa
discovery style provenance connoisseur Orrock forensic signature Butlin legal catalogue portrait sting Courbet Roach old St Durer Manet bio Rubens
medal Unknown Turner ngc shipwreck IFAR/RRP institutional copies book your story Hand C theory C dialogue expertise expert Kayser NGL Fraud Chronology Publishers Oxford Cambridge Yale Princeton Harvard Stanford Penn State Rockefeller UPA J. Paul Getty Trust Publications University College London UCL
Penticton British Columbia Canada
(c) setters 2003, Rescuing Turner: The Art Project & [/)