'Rembrandt Laughing' is self-portrait

By ANRICA DEB, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 18, 8:53 PM ET

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The auction house thought the portrait was a 17th century Rembrandt knockoff, and valued it at just $3,100. But the British buyer who paid about 1,500 times more than that apparently knew what he was doing.

Experts have confirmed "Rembrandt Laughing" — bought for a bargain price of $4.5 million at an English auction house in October — is a self-portrait by the Dutch master himself, depicted with his head tilted back in easygoing laughter.

William Noortman from Noortman Master Paintings, specializing in Dutch and Flemish masters, said it's worth $30 million to $40 million, adding: "I'm very surprised it didn't make more at auction."

The 9 1/2-inch-by-6 1/2-inch painting will hang in the Rembrandt House Museum in Amsterdam through June 29, on loan from the anonymous Briton who bought it at the auction by Moore, Allen and Innocent in Gloucestershire and had it cleaned and examined by British experts.

Art expert Jan Six from another auction house, Sotheby's, declined to put a new value on the painting. But he said the sale itself was a rare opportunity, as Rembrandt's works come on the market only once every few years.

"A self-portrait by Rembrandt, that's absolutely unique — not in my lifetime," Six said.

Rembrandt made the self-portrait about 1628, when he was in his early 20s and still in his hometown, Leiden. Already he was earning his reputation as an artist, and experimenting with a mirror and his own face to capture expressions.

"It has an incredible presence," said Ernst van de Wetering, head of the Rembrandt Research Project and an authority on the Dutch master. "The light has the most natural quality of light you can think of. ... and I love the naturalness of the laughing."

The painting previously had been in the hands of an English family for more than 100 years, according to Moore, Allen and Innocent. Some had assumed it to be by one of Rembrandt's students or a Rembrandt imitator.

Van de Wetering said he thought the auction house's low evaluation had been based on poor photographs that showed little of the painting's luminosity or depth.

But in a 23-page analysis published Friday, Van de Wetering described why Rembrandt was almost certainly the creator of the little work: Brush stroke, contour, materials and the monogram all point to the master's hand.

The auction's winner may have suspected the painting was a genuine Rembrandt from the monogram RHL, painted in a rare style that the artist only used for about a year. It stands for Rembrandt Harmenszoon of Leiden. The auction house wrote the signature as "HL" in its assessment.

The initials become more compelling proof when considering that they were painted onto the wet paint of the background, and that the direction of the brush strokes match another monogram known to be Rembrandt's.

Experts also were confused by the shape of the laughing Rembrandt's body. The clothing — a woolly blanket, metal armor and glossy shirt — appear amorphous, lying in lumpy folds with little description of the anatomy below. Yet the contour has a character of its own, one that is repeated in some of his later works.

"If you look at this contour, it has a certain autonomy," Van de Wetering said, adding that it may have been one of the first times Rembrandt tested out this way of painting the body.

The thin copper plate on which the piece is painted matches in size and type with others used in other Rembrandt paintings.

X-rays reveal a second painting underneath — its content and composition also consistent with other Rembrandt works.

It is unclear where the painting had been before 1800, when a Flemish engraver made a reproductive print and attributed the original to the Dutch painter Frans Hals without realizing the face in the picture was that of Rembrandt.

"After that there is silence about the painting; we don't know where it stayed," Van de Wetering said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...t_laughing

I love art detectives.

I am still hoping one of the missing Vermeer's will pop up during my lifetime....

HamsterHuey said:

maybe Muse has it!

madartista said:

Heh, I wish!

I love it....

My immediate thought before reading was huh, i've never seen this.


I love it! Thanks for sharing.

I can't think Vermeer or even hear the word without missing my Herman!

4U

This masterpiece has been stolen not once, but twice in the last twenty-five years. The owner, a member of Britain's Parliament, was targeted by the IRA, who broke into his estate in 1974 and took a total of nineteen paintings. It was recovered a week later, having sustained only minor damage. In 1986, the Dublin underworld stole the painting. Only after more than seven years of secret negotiations and international detective work was the painting recovered. This is the second work, together with the Guitar Player (Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood, London), given as security for a debt of fl 617 by the widow of Vermeer to the baker van Buyten, on 27 January 1676. Sale Rotterdam, 1730. Collection Franco van Bleyswyck, Delft. Mentioned in the inventory of his estate, 1734. Collection Hendrik van Slingelandt, 1752. Collection Miller von Aichholz, Vienna, 1881. Bought by art dealer Sedelmeyer, Paris, same year: Sold to Secrétan, same year. Sale E. Secrétan, Paris, 1889. Collection Marinoni, Paris. Art dealer Kleinberger, Paris. Collection A. Beit, London. Foundation Beit, Blessington.

"Lady Writing a Letter with Her Maid" exemplifies Vermeer's essential theme of revealing the universal within the domain of the commonplace. By avoiding anecdote, by not relating actions to specific situations, he attained a sense of timelessness in his work. The representation of universal truths was achieved by eliminating incidental objects and through subtle manipulation of light, color and perspective.

The canvas presents a deceptively simple composition. The placid scene with its muted colors suggests no activity or hint of interruption. Powerful verticals and horizontals in the composition, particularly the heavy black frame of the background painting, establish a confining backdrop that contributes to the restrained mood.

The composition is activated by the strong contrast between the two figures. The firm stance of the statuesque maid acts as a counterweight to the lively mistress intent on writing her letter. The maid's gravity is emphasized by her central position in the composition. The left upright of the picture frame anchors her in place while the regular folds of her clothing sustain the effect down to the floor. In contrast, the mistress inclines dynamically on her left forearm. Her compositional placement thrusts her against the compressed space on the right side of the canvas. Strong light outlines the writing arm against the shaded wall, reflecting in angular planes from the blouse that contrast abruptly with the regimented folds of the maid's costume. The mistress is painted in precise, meticulous strokes as opposed to the broad handling of the brush used to depict the maid.

The figures, although distinct individuals, are joined by perspective. Lines from the upper and lower window frames proceed across the folded arms and lighted forehead of the maid, extending to a vanishing point in the left eye of the mistress. The viewer's eye is lead first to the maid, then on to the mistress as the focal point of the painting.

Vermeer shuns direct narrative content, instead furnishing hints and allusions in order to avoid an anecdotal presentation. The crumpled letter on the floor in the right foreground is a clue to the missive the mistress is composing. The red wax seal, rediscovered only recently during a 1974 cleaning, indicates the crumpled letter was received, rather than being a discarded draft of the letter now being composed. Since letters were prized in the 17th century, it must have been thrown aside in anger. This explains the vehement energy being devoted to the composition of the response. Another hint is provided in the large background painting, "The Finding of Moses".

Contemporary interpretation of this story equated it with God's ability to conciliate opposing factions. These allusions have led critics to construe Vermeer's theme as the need to achieve reconciliation, through individual effort and with faith in God's divine plan. This spiritual reconciliation will lead to the serenity personified in the figure of the maid.

Perhaps no. 22 in the Sale Pieter van der Lip, Amsterdam, 1712. Inventory of the late Moses de Chaves, 1759. Sale, Amsterdam, 1772, no. 23 (the first certain allusion to this picture). Sale P. Lyonet, Amsterdam, 1 791 . Sale Amsterdam, 1793. Sale Herman ten Kate, Amsterdam, 1801, no. 118. Sale Lespinasse de Langeac, Paris, 1809. Sale Lapeyriére, Paris, 1825. Acquired by A. van der Hoop, Amsterdam, from J. Smith, London, 1839. Bequeathed with the collection van der Hoop to the city of Amsterdam in 1854. On loan to the Rijksmuseum since 1885.

As in the Woman with a Pearl Necklace, a solitary figure of a woman is standing immersed in her thoughts, this time in the center of the composition. She reads a letter and seems completely absorbed by it.

This painting stands out by the simplification of the composition, which does away with the previously mandatory leaden window to the left. Even the chairs and table surrounding the principal and single figure have lost in importance. Only the map on the wall breaks the uniformity. Vermeer's palette has become very delicate and sophisticated. Blue predominates by its widespread use in the woman's jacket.

The foreground again gains in emphasis according to the precepts derived from the inverted telescope.

Otherwise, the viewer is only confronted with the pure majesty of the main figure, set against the clear wall, whose luminosity is balanced by the brownish map. In its classical simplicity, grandeur, and almost abstract conception, this is one of Vermeer's masterpieces.

errh....Herman, this thread was about Rembrandt, not Vermeer.....two different painters, ya know???

abierman said:

No, this thread is about things for Muse, I gave her two of my fave paintings.

You on the other hand, are giving her a headache.

HamsterHuey said:

funny how you always manage to think for others.....

read Chris' initial post again, it is clearly about Rembrandt and therefore posted for Karen.....

abierman said:

Complain, complain, complain.

This, the most famous painting by Vermeer, was part of the Amsterdam sale of 1696, no. 31: "The town of Delft in perspective, to be seen from the south, by J. van der Meer of Delft; fl 200." Sale S. J. Sinistra et al., Amsterdam; 1822, no. 112. For F 2,900 to de Vries. Purchased by the state of the Netherlands.

Topographic views of cities had become a tradition by the time Vermeer painted his famous canvas. Hendrik Vroom was the author of two such works depicting Delft, but they are more archaic because they followed the traditional panoramic approach that we remember from the two cityscapes by Hercules Seghers at the Berlin museum. The latter artist was one of the first to make use of the inverted Galilean telescope to transcribe the preliminary prints and their proportions (more than twice as high as wide) into the more conventional format of his paintings.

Vermeer executed his View of Delft on the spot, but the optical instrument pointed toward the city and providing the artist with the aspect translated onto canvas, which we admire for its conciseness and special structure, was not the camera obscura but the inverted telescope. It is only the latter that condenses the panoramic view of a given sector, diminishes the figures of the foreground to a smaller than normal magnification, emphasizes the foreground as we see it in the picture, and by the same token makes the remainder of the composition recede into space. The image thus obtained provides us with optical effects that, without being unique in Dutch seventeenth-century painting, as often claimed, convey a cityscape that is united in the composition and enveloped atmospherically into glowing light.

We admire the town, but it is not a profile view of a township, but a painting, an idealized representation of Delft, with its main characteristics simplified and then cast into the framework of a harbour mirroring selected reflections in the water, and a rich, full sky with magnificent cloud formations looming over it. This is chronologically the last painting by Vermeer that was executed in rich, full pigmentation, with colour accents put in with a fully loaded brush. The artist outdid himself in a rendition of his hometown, which stands as a truly great interpretation of nature.

HamsterHuey said:

abierman said:

you two crack me up.

Did Vermeer do that painting of a women receiving a letter from her maid? Is that too vague?

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

Scroll uppppp.

HamsterHuey said:

I'm an idiot.

I first saw this painting, or picture of the painting, in one of my all time favorite gay movies PARTING GLANCES.


M

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

Love love love Parting Glances!

madartista said:

When Michael finally admits that he loves Steve Buscemis character.....ughhh! I well up seconds even before it happens. Damn-it. I'm welling up now.

xxoo

Late in the 1640s Rembrandt began to watch Jews more carefully, and to characterize them more deeply than before. Rembrandt had the opportunity to study the Jewish population of Amsterdam. From the time he purchased his large house in the Sint-Anthonisbreestraat (later the Jodenbreestraat) in 1639 until he was forced to sell it in 1658 he lived on the edge of the largest Jewish community in Holland. Among his Jewish acquaintances were the distinguished rabbi, author, and printer Menasseh ben Israel and the physician Ephraim Bonus; he made portraits of Bonus and perhaps one of Menasseh too. Menasseh, who lived near Rembrandt, commissioned the artist to illustrate one of his own books and he most probably provided him with the form of the cryptic Aramaic Menetekel inscription from the Book of Daniel that appears on the wall in his spectacularly dramatic Belshazzar's Feast.

The scene illustrates chapter 5 of the Old Testament Book of Daniel. Belshazzar, King of Babylon, gave a great feast at which wine was drunk in the golden and silver vessels looted by his father Nebuchadnezzar, from the temple in Jerusalem, and 'gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone...which see not, nor hear, nor know' were praised while God himself was not glorified. And there 'came forth fingers of a man's hand and wrote...upon the plaster of the wall'. Only the Jewish seer Daniel was able to read the supernatural inscription MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN which foretold the defeat - in fact, the death - of Belshazzar that same night and the partition of his kingdom among the Medes and the Persians.

Rembrandt's intense familiary with the physiognomies of the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) and the Eastern Jews (the Ashkenazim), who were allowed to live in Amsterdam in relative freedom during the seventeenth century, helped him to enrich his biblical representations. His interest in them was not merely a romantic and pictorial one. To Rembrandt the Jews were the people of the Bible, and with his deepening realism he wanted to become more authentic in his biblical representations. He found among them inspiration for mildly passive and emotional characters, and he also studied the harder and more intellectual types, who show the perseverance of the Jews and furnished models for his figures of the Pharisees. Even more remarkable is the series of portraits of Jesus made around the same time which are based on a Jewish model. Rembrandt, it seems, was the first artist to derive his Christ-type from a personal study of Jews.

HamsterHuey said:

I love this one.... and you are right, I enjoy your depth in art. VERY educational for me.


I am due for a new Rembrandt piece....

HamsterHuey said:

I love this piece but its to haunting to own... I hope I never see Gods hand inscribing similar!


By Mercy therefore go I....

Herman,


My mothers favorite painting as a child ironically was a Rembrandt. One of windmills... I haven't found it yet. I showed her the typical pic and she sadly said no, that's not it.

Rembrandt Van Rijn

The greatest artist of the Dutch school was Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-69).. He was a master of light and shadow whose paintings, drawings, and etchings made him a giant in the history of art. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was influenced by the work of Caravaggio and was fascinated by the work of many other Italian artists. When Rembrandt became established as a painter, he began to teach and continued teaching art throughout his life.

In 1655, in his late period, 13 years after his so-called "Night Watch" (the accurate title is "The Shooting Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq"), Rebrandt van Rijn painted "The Slaughtered Ox", a dark picture of an ox, slaughtered, the innards removed, a big corpse of meat and fat hanging in a room, as if crucified upside down. Apart from a woman in the background, hardly to be seen, there is nothing else in the room. Years before, he had already painted another work with the same title and motif, but very much different. In this early work it's a part of everyday-life, a woman is cleaning the floor, wiping the blood, with the ox's head in the foreground.
Like on that early oil painting, a slaughtered animal was already before to been seen on paintings of Dutch masters, but always as additional features of different main themes: marriages, seasons, rural life. On this painting by Rembrandt, in 1655, it's the very first time, that a dead animal, thought to serve as a human meal, is presented on its own as a work of art: a metaphor of death, sacrifice and human existence depending on a body to be fed. We don't know if his work caused a scandal, but it's true, that unlike many of his other paintings, it was totally unloved and people viewing it shaked their heads.

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

Essentially a romantic rather than a realistic interpretation of nature, the principal subject of the picture is the spirit of peace and calm that envelops the earth at dusk. The subordination of details in large masses of shadow heightens this mood. The Mill which for more than a century was in an English private collection, had considerable influence on English landscape painters. John Constable described it as one of the four memorable paintings in the history of landscape and in itself sufficient to form an epoch of landscape painting.