Painting considered workshop copy is in fact by Rembrandt, expert says | Rembrandt

A portrait in a UK collection long considered a workshop copy of an almost identical painting by Rembrandt was actually also painted by the 17th-century Dutch master, according to a leading academic.

Titled Old Man with a Gold Chain and dating to the early 1630s, each of the paintings is a nearly life-size depiction of an old man wearing a gold chain and feathered hat.

For the first time in nearly four centuries, two portraits have been reunited by the Art Institute of Chicago. undisputed versionPainted on panel.

The other portrait, slightly smaller and painted on canvas, was borrowed from Cambridge-based entrepreneur Sir Francis Newman and labeled a “copy” by an artist in Rembrandt’s workshop.

However, Rembrandt expert Gary Schwartz It was concluded that both belonged to the master. Apart from the quality of the brushwork, he argued that many Dutch artists of the period created replicas of their own paintings.

In 1699, a French contemporary of Rembrandt observed: “There are almost no painters. [in the Netherlands] A person who does not repeat a work because he liked it or because someone asked him to do the same.”

Schwartz told the Guardian: “The question is whether we aim to accept what Rembrandt did. I find that very exciting. It opens up all kinds of possibilities to look at many paintings again.”

He added: “If he had a client for a copy of Rembrandt’s charming Old Man, what would be the most effective and efficient way to do this? To give it to a student whose work needs correction – and there is no sign of correction in the Newman painting – or to reenact the steps he has just taken, while they are still fresh in mind and hand? The latter, of course, makes more sense. This assumption explains the extraordinary quality of the canvas.”

X-ray and infrared imaging of the Chicago painting revealed, for example, the underdrawing showing adjustments to the man’s costume. Schwartz said that such corrections were not found on the canvas during painting: “If it were a student doing this, he would make slips that the master would want to correct. That’s very certain.”

Newman’s great-grandfather purchased the painting as a Rembrandt from the Agnews gallery in London in 1898 for a large sum. “So it was taken really, really seriously back then,” Schwartz said. However, when the other painting appeared in 1912, the famous German art historian Wilhelm Bode disregarded it and concluded that it was a “clever reproduction”.

Schwartz, who will give a speech on Dutch painting, National GalleryOn Monday in London he wrote several books on Rembrandt and Dutch painting and published a new volume of Thames & Hudson’s World of Art series.

He said Bode “provided no serious justification for his arguments.”

Newman’s version had been exhibited only once before, in 1952 as part of an exhibition at the Royal Academy in London. Schwartz said: “In the catalog they called it a Rembrandt original. But experts who visited the exhibition corrected this and found it in Burlington.” [magazine]There was an article by a prominent Dutch art historian who said it was a studio copy.

Although many details appear the same in both works, a study conducted in Chicago showed that differences emerge upon closer inspection. The eyelashes in the UK painting were created with tiny brushstrokes of light paint, while the eyelashes in the Chicago painting were made by scraping off the dark paint while it was still wet to reveal the light paint underneath.

But a study by the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge found that the canvas and color pigments of the UK version matched those used by Rembrandt and his studio. It was also revealed to have the same oily, double-ground layer as eight Rembrandt paintings from 1632 and 1633.

The Art Institute of Chicago, after examining infrared scans, X-rays and pigment analysis, said differences between the two works suggested the UK version was a workshop reproduction. However, they acknowledged that “discussions about the purpose and authorship of these copies continue to evolve.”

When asked whether he always believed it was a Rembrandt, Newman said: “In my view it was always a mystery. I enjoyed the mystery because it meant I could enjoy it on the wall… and not take responsibility for its potential significance.”

He said if it was Rembrandt, he would go to the museum.