The painting wasn't exactly unknown: its existence was reasonably well-documented and it was included in a variety of Rembrandt catalogues. However, in 1960 it was decided that it wasn't a Rembrandt, so people mostly stopped caring about it.
This discovery is a re-analysis of the painting using modern methods, which revealed that the 1960 "not a Rembrandt" decision was a bit premature.
> However, in 1960 it was decided that it wasn't a Rembrandt, so people mostly stopped caring about it.
I'll never understand this about the art scene. Like, if Rembrandt was a shit painter, his works wouldn't have been so valuable today. But then, suddenly, one random painting of his is only interesting if it was actually made by him? If we can judge his entire oeuvre on quality, why couldn't we do the same with this one painting? How is it possible that people stop caring about a painting just because it wasn't made by Rembrandt?
I mean, is it a good painting or not? If not, why do we suddenly care now? If it is, why didn't we before?
Because part of the price of a work of art is its perceived historic / cultural importance. Autographs are taking this to the extreme, where only the mark of the author exists, on its own, and still gets a high price. On the other end, fakes and very accurate reproductions, would never be as valued even if the effect as a visual piece is practically the same.
I don't think it's illogical nor irrational. When you look at artworks below €5 000 then there should be correlation between artistic value and price in euros. Not exactly a linear function, but clear correlation. Above that you're not buying artwork - you're buying the prestige and social status of owning an expensive artwork. It's the rich people's equivalent of buying Supreme clothes just to impress the ladies.
As someone who likes to hang things on walls, I'm rather happy the art prices are as insane as they are. The antiques shop down the street sometimes sells reasonably interesting and/or nice original paintings for 10-20 eur. If it's someone unknown it's gonna be dirt cheap, no matter how good. Imagine if art prices were rational, what would I do?!
The Rijksmuseum is incredible, but also huge; the kind of museum you pick a small fraction of to see in any given trip. There are also several smaller museums that you can see in a day.
The Mauritshaus is a small museum in a converted manor, containing an incredible number of famous paintings, notably by Vermeer and Rembrandt.
Folks here might also appreciate the M. C. Escher museum.
Yes. Don't know if I'll make it again on my upcoming trip--missed the Van Gogh last time because it was sold out but have tickets this time. It always amazes me how quickly schedules fill up. Doesn't help that I'm also working.
I'm currently reading Heretics by the Cuban writer Leonardo Padura. The plot centers around a Rembrandt stolen from a Jewish family that tried to flee to Cuba in the 1930s and a big part of the story follows a young Jewish artist that takes up a kind of apprenticeship with Rembrandt. Padura seems to like stories that span many decades and even centuries as in this book.
Anyway, the book does a good job of describing Rembrandt's life even if the story is mostly fiction.
... with a high-resolution scan of the work itself available for download, to boot. I really appreciate whenever museums go out of their way to share those publically! Much better than many paintings only officially available as some 400px thumbnail.
Yes! I visited Rijksmuseum a few years ago with a close friend and I liked the painting "The Gulf of Naples with the Island of Ischia in the Distance" very much. I downloaded the high quality scan from the painting's museum web page[1] and got it printed onto a canvas to hang in our apartment. We really enjoy its presence with my wife!
The painting wasn't exactly unknown: its existence was reasonably well-documented and it was included in a variety of Rembrandt catalogues. However, in 1960 it was decided that it wasn't a Rembrandt, so people mostly stopped caring about it.
This discovery is a re-analysis of the painting using modern methods, which revealed that the 1960 "not a Rembrandt" decision was a bit premature.
I'll never understand this about the art scene. Like, if Rembrandt was a shit painter, his works wouldn't have been so valuable today. But then, suddenly, one random painting of his is only interesting if it was actually made by him? If we can judge his entire oeuvre on quality, why couldn't we do the same with this one painting? How is it possible that people stop caring about a painting just because it wasn't made by Rembrandt?
I mean, is it a good painting or not? If not, why do we suddenly care now? If it is, why didn't we before?
(I’m just trolling at this point, let me know and we can stop this)
I also like their tech stack, they let you use your own phone + headphones for the guided tours.
The Mauritshaus is a small museum in a converted manor, containing an incredible number of famous paintings, notably by Vermeer and Rembrandt.
Folks here might also appreciate the M. C. Escher museum.
Trying to take all that in in such a short time is just a recipe for visual, emotional, and intellectual indigestion.
As a [former] artist, myself, the thing that comes to mind, is the model must have been in real discomfort, after about 3 minutes.
Anyway, the book does a good job of describing Rembrandt's life even if the story is mostly fiction.
[1]: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/object/The-Gulf-of-...
How, Care to share the steps. I'm thinking of the same thing.
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/stories/operation-night-watch/...