Talk:Rembrandt

Various comments

About the dutch quote and translation(die meeste ende di naetuereelste beweechgelickheijt.): I disagree with both interpretations, he probably meant what we now call 'livelyness'. The best(most) and most(best) natural livelyness ' is the best modern interpretation in english i can think off. The connotation of (political) 'movement' and 'beweging' is also still there in dutch.'bewogen' also means 'moved'. But technically the one major superoustanding aspect of his art is: the natural livelyness , so why not keep it at that. btw. i think in this aspect michelangelo compares in his sculpture.onix80.57.243.72 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)I LUV POO PO PO OOOO

_____

I would like to see some mention of Carrvaggio influence...if its real..it seems so to me, but I dunno maybe its conicidence.

• It is mentioned, at least once, under 'Works'. Maybe there could be something more. JNW 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

___________

Hmm - Caravaggio? Velasquez? Etruscan sarcophagus carvers? I can think of lots of candidates. Please don't go all emotive - art history is a field of serious inquiry. The initial entries is what professionals call with condescension "art appreciation". --MichaelTinkler

---

Needs more.. Plus, given what I've seen of naming conventions here of late, shouldn't this be redirected to Rembrandt rather than the other way around? Rgamble

---

I'd like to see some justification for the pronunciation given. It doesn't make much sense to me, and I don't know how "rijin" is supposed to be pronounced, but it doesn't seem like the Dutch pronunciation for "Rijn" - more like English "rain" or "Rhine" - was attempted. Is it another internationally accepted pronunciation? --Iceager 22:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Does the night watch really require a seperate article? It seems like mostly duplicate information, and should all be in one place. --IYY 02:22, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree, there is not much new in that article. Erik Zachte 02:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed "It was recently parodied (albeit gently) for the dust jacket of Terry Pratchett's 2002 Discworld novel Night Watch." This is irrelevant trivia fact. There are hundreds of parodies on all major works of art. Erik Zachte 02:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Chuck Close was a few months ago interviewed by NPR and was asked what he thought of Rembrandt. One of the interesting things Close said was "Rembrandt had great lines". I have been fortunate enough to have seen some works of both Rembrandt and Titian. Personally, for my part, I respond much more favorably to Rembrandt's etchings and drawings. Strange and I cannot say why. The smaller format I think seemed to work in Rembrandt's favor. Titian was a deft painter. It is a horse race but Titian takes the prize. Titian was a better painter than Rembrandt. Interestingly, Delacroix, the 19th c. great romantic painter, in his journals thought of Rembrandt surpassing Raphael in fame over time. Delacroix was right. Mark Faraday 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

"The Man In The Golden Helmet" seems like it should have its own article, since it can't be tied to any particular artist yet doesn't seem to have any presence on wikipedia except in Rembrandt's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.141.169 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazy eye theory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3665670.stm --Sonjaaa 06:08, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

To prove it, you might want to find some:

* Living great artists who have lazy eyes.

* Living miserable artists who show great improvements after a failed eye surgery.

-- Toytoy 06:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

I can't comment on this in relation to Rembrandt, but generally. If you look at a picture with marked perspective with one eye closed, the perspective (surprisingly) becomes far more marked. The reason for this is that the picture is itself flat, and stereoptic vision therefore doesn't help see its motif three-dimensionally. In fact it probably hinders, because the brain is getting conflicting signals. A (functionally) one-eyed painter would see the world flat (but of course with the perspective effects) and reproduce this flat world on a flat canvas. If he is competent, he will reproduce the perspective effects of the real world accurately, and probably more so than a two-eyed artist, whose perception of three-dimensionality is aided by his stereoptic vision. But precisely for this reason he (the two-eyed artist) will be less aware of the perspective effects. That is the theory. I don't know whether it applies to Rembrandt. Escoville (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Did Rembrandt really picture Leonardo da Vinci dissecting? Of so, can you include it in the article. Thanks. --Eleassar777 16:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are thinking of doctor Nicolaes Tulp? The anatomy lesson of doctor Nicolaes Tulp. For your information, Leonardo lived from 1452 to 1519. Rembrandt probably lived from 1607 to 1669. ChristianGL 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Year of Birth

The year of Rembrandts birth is usually thought to be 1606. This comes from an old book about the city of Leiden (his birth place). Day and year were supposedly named by a brother or sister. There also exist two documents, signed by Rembrandt himself stating his age (a marriage document and a testimony). From these two documents his year of birth appears to be 1607. (See de Volkskrant, zaterdag 6 augustus; het Betoog p7) -- Daniel 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved

I moved the content to Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn in light of the disambig that was needed here. uriah923^(talk) 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuts! It's going back. ToP Dab case if there ever was one.
--Jerzy•t 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

the edit histories are all mucked up. almost all the edits to the article about the painter are under Rembrandt (disambiguation); the history here begins with the initial redirect from Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, then skips two years, then picks up again in mid-February. this is why cut-and-paste moves are Not Allowed.

I'll try to sort it out. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

think it's all fixed now. there might be one or two hiccups in the history here, but the majority of edits are now where they belong. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Moved the following from the article space. --BillC 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Like It is said above that it has always been suggested that Rembrandt's own studio practice is a major factor in the difficulty of attribution... It is highly likely to myself that there will never be universal agreement as to what and what does not constitute a genuine Rembrandt, unless other means are to be used.

Well,... I vanrijngo (Bob Miller) half assed artist, art researcher, collector of fine art and a pain in the ass guru, can believe this last statement on which will be universally agreed upon in the future, about what is and what isn't Rembrandt's. Of course there could be the option of using science and new technologies that are in place today that could make these determinations correctly,.... But the way that it is looking to me today,... these new processes will never be used or excepted in the near future by these supposed so-called MFA expert that seem to be incharge,... just because of their super natural means of intuitive hands on inspections, only which could be used supposedly by themselves. Wouldn't it be great to spend your life studying under these super natural beings and fashioning yourselves after them only to find out in the future or afterwards that they were barking up a wrong tree?

Blogs and diary of vanrijngo.com - a non-affiliate member of this world's art expertise will give you other alternative studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.111.71 (talk)

Listing External Link

I would like to add our company link to your Rembrandt External Links.

We represent the complete collection of Rembrandt etchings by Amand-Durand, featuring Rembrandt's self portraits, landscapes, biblical scenes and other portraiture. Our website is www.rembrandtart.com.

Thank You, www.rembrandtart.com

---

Why is the article located at www.anthonychristian.co.uk/ezine14.html not relevant enough to be included in the external links?

It is written by a very well known art-historian and makes the interesting point that Rembrandt did, in fact, use impressionist techniques 400 years before the impressionist movement.

Mike Hannon 22.05.06

---

Cultural depictions of Rembrandt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Rembrandt's Mistress

I had a lecture in medical school some time ago that mentioned that one of Rembrandt's works featured a lady. Painted in the nude, she exhibited a bulge and pitting in the skin over her breast, signs of breast cancer. This was noticed by a surgeon admiring the painting, who eventually went on to write a book about this. I've found the painting to be Bathsheba at her bath, and Rembrandt's model for this was his then-wife, Hendrickje Stoffels, who was found to have eventually died probably from breast cancer. Wouldn't it be interesting to mention this in the article? She was after all, his wife at the time. Possibly just a sentence as the work is already mentioned in his list of paintings. Or perhaps, someone could add an article on it. I am in no way qualified to do this. Squiggle 15:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"Expert assesment"

I'm not really sure what this theorizing about Rembrandt's vision adds to the understanding of Rembrandt. There always seems to be some professor saying something about the eyes of an old master to explain how they paint in their own characteristic style, for instance also El Greco with his elongated human figures.

I partially agree with you. But I think expert assesments should be included in the article. Although, it should be a fact that the article about Rembrandts life is ridiculously small! There exists no articles about Rembrandts paintings besides from the one about the nightwatch! ChristianGL 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature and optics

I have re-structured to renew sections on R's signature and optics: neither sits appropriately under the 'works' heading, nor does either merit placement so high up in the article. If either is to remain, for now I think they read best lower in the entry, as separate concepts. JNW 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

The European Library presents more than 150 online objects of or related to Rembrandt

Polish Rider

I've read Zygulski's article, from JSTOR, Vol. 21, No. 41. (2000), pp. 197-205. He cites a number of theories from various art scholars regarding the rider's identity: one thought he was Jonasz Szlichtyng, a Polish freedom fighter who was in Amsterdam in the 1650s. Another believed he was Szymon Karol Ogiński, who married a Dutch woman. Yet another, Juliusz Chrościcki, perceived the sitter to be Marcjan Ogiński, a corporal in the Lithuanian army when Ferdinand Bol painted him in the 1650s. It does not seem that any of these conclusions are yet accepted as definitive. The Frick considers the research inconclusive, as do, I suspect, most scholars--it does not fit easily within the iconography of equestrian portraiture. JNW 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth

There is contradictory information on the year of R's birth, as well as number of siblings and familial context. Nearly all literature lists July 15,1606, as his date of birth, so I have reverted the mention of a likelihood of 1607; there needs to be stronger sourcing to support this claim. The sibling issue is tricky: I've reverted the 'fourth of six surviving children' information, even though it derives from Britannica, because several print biographies accompanying recent exhibitions (Rijksmuseum, 2006, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2004) state that he was the ninth of ten children. One anticipates further reversions, but reliable cites will be necessary. JNW 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of paintings

Can we be bold and cut all the redlinks? They are very biased to the Anglosphere anyway. Personally I rarely like these lists, certainly for artists with large catalogues. Johnbod 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like these lists, either--the only thing more disheartening is a trivia list. If am fine with the red links eliminated, though there are a few works of prominence which ought to be included if the list remains (Aristotle, Bathsheba, the Syndics, and Claudius Civilis, for example), maybe in black type. Cut away. JNW 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well done, Johnbod. Now, if you want to have a go at the mother of all painting lists, check out Botticelli... JNW 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pas ce soir! Keep up the good work. Johnbod 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I plan on dropping in something about his etchings soon; there is hardly anything there now, and that's just wrong. If you want to add something first, feel free. JNW 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead, but there's certainly room for more. JNW 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's been on my ever-expanding "to do" list for some time now. Johnbod 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This GA nom (just added) seems premature to me, I must say! Johnbod 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

And you thought no one would review it for weeks! It is a very good article, but there are some concerns that need to be addressed before I would feel comfortable in promoting this to GA status.

1. The Hundred Guilder Print image overlaps some of the text in the etchings section – this needs to be fixed.

Looks ok on my set-up - can anyone fix please. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I swopped two pics left for right & vv; I don't know if that has helped? Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The final attribution in the lead should be a note of some sort (foot, end, reference) and not in the body of the text itself.

Ok, or could be junked. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A non-sequitur, and a lukewarm assessment to boot, so I cut it.JNW 02:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Under "Works," everything in the second paragraph beginning with "More recent scholarship..." requires a citation, as does the last paragraph under "Works"

All done. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I would start the article with the Life section, as it is somewhat disconnected to go from Works to Life to Specific Works through the course of the article.

Agreed - Done. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. There are many paragraphs in "Life" that lack citations. Even if the citation for the next paragraph is the same for the one previous, you still need to have at least one citation per paragraph (the ref name function can help you cut down the amount of repeats in the notes section at the end)

All now done. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The same goes for periods, themes and styles section: eg. "Stylistically, his paintings progressed from the early 'smooth' manner, characterized by fine technique in the portrayal of illusionistic form, to the late 'rough' treatment of richly variegated paint surfaces, which allowed for an illusionism of form suggested by the tactile quality of the paint itself." and "In later years, biblical themes were still depicted often, but emphasis shifted from dramatic group scenes to intimate portrait-like figures (James the Apostle, 1661). In his last years, Rembrandt painted his most deeply reflective self-portraits (from 1652 to 1669 he painted fifteen), and several moving images of both men and women (The Jewish Bride, ca. 1666)--- in love, in life, and before God ."

At the least, I can furnish a citation for the sentence re: 'smooth' and 'rough' treatment--it, too, comes from van de Wetering, but it is a non-controversial assessment nonetheless. JNW 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Calling Self Portrait, 1658, "a masterpiece of the final style" requires a citation, otherwise it sounds POV (I may have missed it in the body of the text - just point it out to me if it is there please).

Universally agreed to be so - I will dig up a reference. Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Now Done Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The last paragraph in Etchings needs a citation

The existing note covered all the statistics etc; now clarified. Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Selected works should be a Level 3 heading under Museum collections, and only those with articles should be listed. I would also move both of these to the last section of the article, as they are the most "current" (or ongoing) aspects of his work (as in, the museums still operate, whereas expert opinion is a sort of past work). The Museum collections needs citations too, of course.

After a major clear-out we agreed (above) to include only those paintings with articles, and a handful of very important works that don't have them yet, but are likely to in the future. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Personally, I would get rid of the "Night Watch" section, which is an unnecessary addition to an already large article (especially since Night Watch (painting) has its own article

It is (rightly or wrongly) his most iconic work, and I think more detail on at least one specific work is a good thing. I note the article was described as "incredibly short" when it was demoted from FA. I must say I would tend to agree with that. Compared to other FA articles on artists, there is very little discussion of major works, so frankly this seems a step in the wrong direction. Anybody else? Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Keep. JNW 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. Plus it doesn't look so bad now that the pictures have been arranged. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The expert assessments section is almost completely unreferenced, as are the Name and Signature and Optical Theory sections.

Done - the latter was refed in the text, but is better in the notes as now. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant lack of citations in the article, and I teetered on whether or not to fail it outright, or give you the benefit of the doubt that you could fix the citation problem within a week. Given your recent work, and your concern for having this nominated for GA, I am going to put it on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it can (and will) be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A significant amount of referencing has been added & I think this & your other concerns have been addressed. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after concerns have been addressed

Well, the article looks great now, at least good enough for GA status. There are still some unreferenced points but, as you've pointed out, it's mostly uncontroversial stuff. If you were hoping to get this up to A Class or FA class, citing even the obvious and uncontroversial would be the first thing to look at.

I am just about ready to pass this article, but I have one small question about this: "His prints, traditionally all called etchings, although many are produced in whole or part by engraving and sometimes drypoint, have a much more stable total of slightly more than 300. It is likely he made many more drawings in his lifetime than 2,000, but those extant are more rare than presumed." I think that this merits a citation, as it's likely to be challenged without one. Once that's done, let me know and I'd be happy to bump this to GA status! Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done those - thanks! Johnbod 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... dammit, sorry. I caught another one that's potentially controversial: "The two were considered legally wed under common law, but Rembrandt had not married Henrickje, so as not to lose access to a trust set up for Titus in his mother's will. A number of the church Elders, however, were among those to whom Rembrandt owed money, and sought to apply pressure indirectly." After that one, I'll pass it. Scout's honour. Cheers, CP 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs sourcing

The first bit is in all the books & now refed. I don't have an equivalent of A number of the church Elders, however, were among those to whom Rembrandt owed money, and sought to apply pressure indirectly. in any of my sources, so I've cut it out & put here, until someone can ref it & add it back. I'm sure it's correct, as all the old life stuff was, but I don't know where it came from. Not really vital, I think. Johnbod 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! It is now my pleasure to upgrade this to GA status. Congratulations! In addition, I seriously hope that my suggestions will help you get this to A Class or FA Class because, if nothing else, you certainly deserve it for the amount of effort that you have put into this article thus far! Good luck with future improvements, and thanks for re-affirming my faith people's dedication to work on Good Article nominations! Cheers, CP 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and thanks to you for a very reasonable, and quick review! Johnbod 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Numerous Theft Attempts Globally

Something ought to be mentioned about the numerous attempts of theft on Rembrandts worldwide. I think it is important to mention this to some degree as it reflects upon the high demand of Rembrandts artistic works.

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It goes hand-in-hand with my suggestion below, too. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rembrandt in science fiction

This section was added at the end of February 2008. Does it actually help us in understanding Rembrandt and appreciating his importance? I would prefer to have it removed, but let's see if there is a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of this section. Fram (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your motion is seconded. JNW (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Pointless trivia, agreed. I think it should be removed. --Etacar11 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rembrandt as symbol

Another recently added section, this with a narrow reference to German nationalism and a foreign language link. I propose removal, but would like a consensus. JNW (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I tend towards removal, it seems quite trivial. --Etacar11 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The effort to turn Rembrandt into a German for propaganda purposes seems more relevant to History of the Netherlands (1939-1945) than to this article. As the section is rather thin & lacks English language sources, I'd eliminate it, or incorporate some of it into a broader "critical reputation" section. Ewulp (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Name

I'd hate to break it to you, america. But his last name is actually written Van Rhijn. He alternated his spelling between Rhijn and Rijn, but his birth register names him Van Rhijn. Being part of the Van Rhijn Family myself, i did enough research and it seems this page is gonna need a complete overhaul. 86.87.28.191 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to whomever is breaking it to America, but I have also done a lot of research on Rembrandt's name and signatures (see [1] on this subject). If we were to go by the extant documents mentioning Rembrandt during his lifetime, we would still be calling him "Rembrant." Rembrandt seldom used the spelling "van Rhijn" himself in his signatures on works or on legal instruments, and "Rijn" can be found spelled in any number of ways in the abovementioned documents. As far as I know, the "van Rijn/Rhijn" patronym was adopted ad hoc by Rembrandt's father, probably to give himself a better status, as his prosperity may have warranted. Whether this appellation was justified by the fact of his owning shares in a windmill on a tributary of the Rhine in Leiden remains to be proved. There was a lot more freedom in using (and spelling) names at the time than there is today. Only a statistical analysis, and no document, can decide which, if any, was the correct spelling of "Rijn." Further information (and confusion) on this topic can be found in the Strauss/Van der Meulen 1979 edition of "The Rembrandt Documents."JMC.

Naive question... how is 'Van Rijn/Rhijn' pronouced? Van Rine, rhyming with 'vine'? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

.... Still wondering --98.232.182.66 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing works?

Weren't several Rembrandts (among other paintings) stolen during a daylight robbery in the US some years back? Aren't there a handful of missing Rembrandt paintings, ones that have been out of sight for decades? This would make an interesting addition to the article. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• bump* Really? Nothing on this? Come on, people. You MUST have heard about this. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are undoubtedly referring to the notorious Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft. If it's not linked in this article, it should be. --Etacar11 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish "Ironies"

I've cut this addition, for a number of reasons:

" Some portraits or Ironies (studies of heads), may well reflect contact with Poland, and 'The Noble Slav' (e.g. Portrait of the Polish nobleman, 1637)."

- firstly, although the ref indeed says "Ironies", this is surely a misprint for Tronies? - and what the Noble Slav? sentence incomplete? - It seems to me a minor point, not clear or helpful to the general reader dropped in like this. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)