From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Rembrandt is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Rembrandt has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
February 16, 2005 Featured article review Demoted
October 4, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Core  This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Netherlands (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Listing External Link[edit]

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

Thank You,

Why is the article located at 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


The European Library presents more than 150 online objects of or related to "rembrandt+")&pos=3&src=SE Rembrandt

Replacement of pictures in gallery[edit]

Considering the gallery size, I think that the visibility was much better as it was before. I don't think those new replacements today were an improvment. they are much to dark. Possible that the other ones were much to light, but one if has to chose, take rather the light ones. One has to consider that small galleries have a restricted visibility. Hafspajen (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And I replaced them with something in between. Hafspajen (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In general the replacements are better, & eg for the Prodigal Son; the originals were mostly awful old Yorck project washed-out book scans. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I made these replacements with the best quality versions available, usually Google Art Project ones if available. The previous versions, and the alternate versions above have *terrible* detail and/or colours. I strongly oppose their use. Johnbod, sorry, your versions are also terrible. (Hohum @) 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any versions! I'm agreeing with you, numbskull! Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, thought the versions put back into the article were your suggestions. (Hohum @) 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, J, lets discuss, for the moment there are some compromise pics in the article. Hohum, don't revert to your . Let's just chose, 1, 2, 3... Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, you are not involved and have a good pic judgment, try chose from this. Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A compromise would be versions we could all bear equally. The ones you have put back again are *awful*. They are poor detail and poor colour, exactly what shouldn't be there. Based on your criteria we'd need to change the lead infobox image to File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 131.jpg instead of the featured picture currently there. (Hohum @) 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, if in general the replacements are better, we don't have to do anything, because that is what we have right now. any objections? anyone? Hafspajen (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think the "Other pictures" gallery is probably too large, is unselected, and without proper captions explaining why images are significant. For example I think the Man in Armour is not needed at all, though I prefer the replacement version. I'd rather sort out the choice of images first, before moving on to the choice of photos. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. But make it look good. (And the Man in Armour is there simply because it is a good but unknown picture. Everybody knows the Man in a Golden helmet, but not this one.) I don't care much for The Philosopher in Meditation, 1632; Descent from the Cross, 1634The Archangel leaving Tobias, 1637; Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660; Portrait of a foreign admiral, 1658; Jacob Blessing the Sons of Joseph, 1656; there are two pics of his father, one would be fine. And Hohum, I have chosen the light pictures, you have chosen the dark ones, I think this compomise in not bad. One have to remember that the pictures were not quite this dark, like you chose them, when they were new. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Google art images are the best photos available. The ones you have given have very low level of detail, and are badly discoloured (generally very red); in the face of that, being lighter is an irrelevance, your versions are utterly unacceptable. The gallery is also too large, and should be reduced to the more important examples. (Hohum @) 13:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the other 2 gallery sections are 2 rows of 5 each, with the "other paintings" (as it should be called) now 6 rows of 5. I think it should be 3, or 4 at most, as selected paintings are most of the text images. Google files are the best, though very big, and I do worry about the loading factor. Generally Yorck project (some currently in) are the very worst as they are scans from art books that are so old they were already out of copyright (50 years +?) about 20 years ago when Yorck launched. The washed out red tone comes from the limitations of ye olde colour printing, plus 50 years of fading. It is true that at thumb many better (more accurate) photos of Rembrandts do look very dark - there is a case for having a different photo in the gallery with a link to a google as a "larger image". Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a case for having manipulated images for gallery size previews. The best source image should always be used so a simple click goes to the best version available. If an image is dark, it is dark. (Hohum @) 14:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer 4 to 5; (I'll make that change); Google files where available - and I've avoided artbook imagery for years; unless absolutely necessary...Modernist (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry, was away and didn't noticed this discussion. Why do you prefer them 4 ? It looks displaced on my computer (most regular full screen.) They all gather to the left leaving a big white space to right. Hafspajen (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

4 or 5 pictures per row + new additions[edit]

Young Girl at the Window, Hendrickje, 1651 REMOVED

As it is now with 4 pictures per row + additions we have a gallery that has 12 rows + the drawings,= that makes it 15 rows! - and that is an enormous gallery. Before, with 5 pictures per row we had a gallery that was 6 rows + the drawings. I strongly oppose these changes, they are not an improvment.

I like pictures and galleries but one has to make a selection, and this supposed to be a good article. 12 rows plus the drawings it is just a big, giant, and even more unselected gallery as it was before, with a lot of pictures that are NOT famous or representative for Rembrandt. Themes are repeating themselves, a good deal of the new pictures are unsignificant works, their visibility is extra bad due to the small size and the dark quality of Rembrandts works. When we were talking about the gallery, above, were talkig removing a few more pictures, not adding some new pictures. If not getting any response, (as usual) start an Rcf, soon. Hafspajen (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree; I've trimmed 3 rows I think. How over 4 per row works on smaller screens etc I'm not sure. Otherwise I'm in favour. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks fine...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If we take 3 per row, we will have even more rows, it will be long-long and small. We must select the pictures that are representative and look good in the gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I added a few very important paintings including his first painting - Rembrandt is one of the most important painters in European art history - get off it...Try reading this:WP:OWN...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Now, now, exacly when I thought we were having a civilized discussion here. Hendrickje, that was his second - woman, we can't remove her. And his first picture it doesn't look much in the gallery, it probably looks better in the article, if we have to have that one. Try reading WP:OWN yourself, it is you who take things personally. And WP:POLITE too. I don't care about ownership, I care about quality. I know very well that Rembrandt is one of the most important painters in European art history, that is why we have to make it good. I read enought art history to know that. As long as the changes are for the better, fine. Hafspajen (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Make a section of early paintings and since the first painting also includes a self-portrait; write that up as well; and remove it from the gallery. I think the article is fine right now...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, for example, that is a good idea. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Try it...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

..No, I will NOT. I know quite a lot about art history and I am an academic but English is not my first language. I can write that kind of things in Swedish, but in English, that will not work well - but that doesn't mean that I am not good at arts, because I am. And some of the Rembrand that I added were pictures which, while not particularly well known, were none the less wonderful examples of Rembrandt's art. This kind of things I can judge. And I probably can write better in English than you in Swedish. Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT not quite at thumb size .

These are not so good reproductions for small size - but are in the gallery.

One has to think over certain paintings placement, shall it be in the gallery, or not. Shall it be in the article or create a single row of a possible bigger gallery? As someone said: putting together galleries that look good takes a lot of work. Jamming together every picture after a timeline is not always best. You need to choose high quality images that sit well together and you need to arrange them as if you were hanging works in a real gallery. - Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

OK; hope I explained how I was thinking, and sorry if i was a bit sharp, but it is not so nice to hear one of the most important painters in European art history - get off it. - I am good at art articles in my own way, and can help. Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


I am not entirely satisfied with our selection of his works. We say: Having achieved youthful success as a portrait painter, Rembrandt's later years were marked by personal tragedy and financial hardships. Yet his etchings and paintings were popular throughout his lifetime, his reputation as an artist remained high ... Rembrandt's greatest creative triumphs are exemplified especially in his portraits of his contemporaries, self-portraits and illustrations of scenes from the Bible. Well, selfportraits we have to many of in the gallery really, but we removed portraits lately. We should have more portraits, more organized after themes and not entirely timeline, more - of the great works he had, genre painting, portraits, and so on. .

Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)