Rembrandt or not? - Rembrandt Research Project attempts to authenticate certain works

Art in America, Jan, 1993 by John Gash

There are other pictures in both the National Gallery and Wallace shows, however, that do not so comfortably fit the new slots proposed for them. Three of the "ex-Rembrandt" paintings at the National Gallery, in fact, had little or nothing to do with the comparative ones with which they were hung: Anna and the Blind Tobit (London, National Gallery), attributed to Rembrandt's brilliant Leiden pupil, Gerrit Dou, who was later to become a great painter in his own right; Bust of a Young Man in a Turban (Collection of Queen Elizabeth II), attributed to Isack Jouderville, who studied under Rembrandt in Leiden, and may have assisted him after his move to Amsterdam in 1631; and the putative Bust of Rembrandt (Berlin, Gemaldegalerie Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz), attributed to Govert Flinck (a Rembrandt assistant ca. 1633-36). One can well see how the identifications may have been clinched using photographs, because there are formal similarities. But color, brushwork and techniques of modeling apparent in the accredited works of these masters immediately belie the comparisons.

This, of course, does not mean that the three pictures have to be returned to Rembrandt. They could be by other imitators. But in the case of the "Dou," at any rate, an attribution to another artist seems unlikely. Even Christopher Brown, in his useful Exhibition Guide, written after the catalogue was printed and the pictures had already been seen in Berlin and Amsterdam, has argued that "the attribution to Rembrandt himself should probably be reconsidered." The textures and detailing, especially of the faces and such background features as the bricks, plaster and wooden shutters, are typically Rembrandt's, and the work's only real connection with Dou is that it must have fed his artistic imagination. The Bust of a Young Man in a Turban, inscribed with Rembrandt's monogram and dated 1631, raises other issues. It is not of the highest quality, although evidently superior to the signed Jouderville from Dublin with which it was paired. But its shortcomings could be due to either studio participation or poor condition. In particular, its abraded surface implies the possible removal of some of Rembrandt's distinctive brushwork.

The latter cannot be said of the Berlin portrait, which, though unsigned and undated, displays dexterous, vigorous brushwork and modeling of a kind which is closely comparable to Rembrandt's - as, despite claims to the contrary, is the dominant gray-green tonality. Indeed the catalogue entry seeks to marshal its case through a forensic-style melange of uncorroborated opinions, citations of the uncorroborated opinions of "authorities," and ill-defined claims about what was "typical" of Rembrandt's working processes. In view of such speculations, it is worth considering alternative scenarios. Scarcely any points of technique militate decisively against Rembrandt's authorship. And when it comes to other facets, such as the slightly idealized and, to some, insufficiently introspective countenance, one feels bound to introduce more complex factors into the attributional equation.