Today the Mauritshuis presented the results of its research on three paintings in its collection. In the case of two of these works, it was not certain whether they were painted by the great master himself or came from his studio. All three were subjected to close examination at the museum’s conservation workshop, where conservation work was also performed on two of them.
The research revealed a wealth of new information, including on the attribution of the paintings. The Mauritshuis is devoting a presentation in the museum to the project. Entitled Rembrandt?, it can be seen in room 10. The three paintings are: Portrait of Rembrandt with a Gorget (c.1629), Study of an Old Man (c. 1655-1660) and ‘Tronie’ of an Old Man (c.1630).
Rembrandt research is never done, and that includes the work we do at the Mauritshuis.
Sponsored by the Lucas Fund.
Rembrandt van Rijn (studio copy), Portrait of Rembrandt with a Gorget (c. 1629)
It had been known for 25 years that this 1629 portrait is not a genuine Rembrandt. In 1999 it was discovered to be a copy of an early self-portrait by Rembrandt in the collection of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, Germany. When the two paintings were brought together for the first time and comprehensively examined it became clear that the museum in Nuremberg owned the genuine Rembrandt, and the Mauritshuis had a contemporaneous copy.
The first ‘domino’ to fall in 1999, calling the previous attribution to Rembrandt into question, was the discovery of a preparatory sketch beneath the paint in the Mauritshuis version. This is not seen in paintings that we know to have been made by Rembrandt.
The portrait has now been restored and re-examined at the Mauritshuis. One question remains unanswered. Who exactly did paint it? Experts are unsure. Perhaps it was fijnschilder (‘fine painter’) Gerrit Dou, Rembrandt’s first student in Leiden.
The conclusion remains, even after the latest research, that this is a copy from Rembrandt’s studio.
Rembrandt (studio), Study of an Old Man, c. 1655-60
For many years, there were doubts about who painted this work. Was it a Rembrandt or not? The poor condition of the piece, with lots of discoloured overpainting, kept its secrets hidden. But it has now been examined and restored for the Rembrandt? project.
The interesting thing is that the painting features a signature, 'Rembrandt f' ['Rembrandt fecit', 'made by Rembrandt '], that is almost certainly genuine. It was applied when the paint was still wet, and the handwriting is definitely Rembrandt’s. However, in the 17th century it was not unusual for a master to sign the work of a student (which meant it was more likely to sell).
Now that conservation work has been performed on the painting, experts have concluded that the execution of the painting is not convincing. In paintings by Rembrandt, every brushstroke is just right, but that is not the case here. The work appears ‘awkward’, as if a student had done their best to imitate the master. The eyes are patchy, and the nose is not clearly defined. In the lower layers, there are thick lines along the man’s chin, a correction in the painting process. It may have been Rembrandt himself correcting the work of his student.
Conclusion: made by someone employed by Rembrandt
Rembrandt?, ‘Tronie’ of an Old Man, c. 1630
The experts also had doubts about this painting. In the past, some have attributed it to Rembrandt, only for this to be called into question later. Our research has shown that the panel on which the character study (or ‘tronie’) is painted is from the same tree as two paintings we know to have been painted by Rembrandt. So it is highly likely that this panel was painted at Rembrandt’s studio.
An x-ray revealed that the painter made changes during the painting process. This does not usually happen in a copy. The brushwork is somewhat coarse, the red highlights in the man’s eye are not usually seen in ‘real’ Rembrandts, and the brushstrokes are imprecise, but there are elements that are high-quality, such as the convincing way the cap is positioned on the man’s head. The background turned out to have been overpainted with paint that Rembrandt did not use in this early period. The overpainted background cannot, however, be removed using current techniques, so it is not possible to draw any definitive conclusions.
Provisional conclusion: This could be by a student or employee of Rembrandt’s, or by the master himself. The mystery remains unsolved.
