The Three Purposes of Drawing Are to Record to andor to Make a Complete Work of Art
This article proposes that Rembrandt created his Satire on Fine art Criticism in response to the 1644 publication Momenta Desultoria past Constantijn Huygens that included several disparaging epigrams about the creative person's portrait of Jacques de Gheyn 3. This goad explains some of the peculiar inscriptions and illuminates many of the idiosyncratic visual aspects of the drawing.
Rembrandt'south motivation for creating his puzzling sketch A Satire on Fine art Criticism (fig. 1) in the Robert Lehman Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Fine art has notwithstanding to receive a satisfactory explanation. 1 It is no wonder, since the country of cease is rudimentary and the scratchy annotations that might clarify the artist'southward intentions defy transcription. 2 Several scholars, including Jakob Rosenberg, January Emmens, and Ernst van de Wetering, have seen the sketch as a personal polemic made in response to criticism, but as notwithstanding no idea has fairly elucidated the circumstances that prevarication backside this apparently begrudging drawing. iii While a full caption of this unusual allegory and its context may nevertheless be elusive, and a complete consideration of the nuanced landscape of reception and criticism that surrounded Rembrandt is beyond the scope of this article, a proposal is presented here that the cartoon was indeed stimulated by a specific criticism directed at the artist.
Without dwelling on the sheet's attribution to Rembrandt, which has been unanimously supported in contempo literature, it may exist said that the peculiarities of the handling can mayhap be ascribed to the unusual circumstances that brought it into being. 4 Its purpose is not readily apparent. It is unlikely to have been intended as a preparatory study for a painting, since Rembrandt rarely employed such allegorical imagery in pigment, although a print may accept been envisioned. Information technology looks hastily composed, but a certain amount of forethought must have preceded its creation because the image blends allegorical motifs with gimmicky representations, and it demonstrates a familiarity with traditional visual and literary themes of art criticism.
Offset, it is necessary to identify the figures and to analyze their actions. There are two primary characters whose essential identification is generally agreed upon: a human at the far left with donkey's ears poking out of his lid is a foolish critic, while the crouching figure at the lower right is the creative person whose work is beingness scrutinized by the critic and who replies by defecating. 5 The gesturing critic holds a pipe in his left hand and motions toward two paintings that are placed before him, one lying on the ground and another standing vertically. The pipe and butt are traditional vanitas elements, alluding to the fleeting and empty character of the critic'southward words. 6 The donkey's ears on the critic signify his foolishness and poor judgment. 7 The Midas-like ears, particularly in the context of a slandered artist, and the snake wrapped around the arm of the critic, symbolizing envy, also relate to the tradition of the Calumny of Apelles. viii Artists often fabricated use of this imagery when taking a shot at their critics–one recalls not merely Apelles only also Michelangelo, who audaciously used this combination of a ophidian and ass'southward ears in his portrait of Biagio da Cesena at the base of the Terminal Judgment. ix
Turning now to the defecating effigy, as Van de Wetering pointed out, Rembrandt gave considerable thought to the placement of the vertical panel, changing its position so that he seems to crouch behindthe panel. 10 This arrangement corresponds to the theme of Apelles and the shoemaker, another story of criticism and rebuttal, as seen in an keepsake from Joos van den Vondel'south Den Gulden Winckel of 1613 (fig. 2). The crouching human wipes his bare behind with the pages of a book that lies earlier him. His actions do non depict the attention of any other effigy, and he alone turns to address the viewer as if to comment upon the present action.
Amid the remaining figures the most significant is the centrally placed person wearing a large chain necklace. I. Q. Van Regteren Altena, in correspondence with the Metropolitan Museum, and Emmens saw him as a bode or knecht (a society servant). Egbert Haverkamp Begemann suggested that the chain might be a chain of honor, granted past imperial patrons to worthy servants, and that this figure might also be a painter. If this is correct, then he may exist seen as the type of painter who seeks the recognition of royalty and public critics, in contrast to the crouching figure who disdains such involvement. A slightly different identification seems more than likely, though: the effigy could be the personification of painting, Pictura, one of whose attributes is a golden chain. In Rembrandt's paradigm, the jaw of this effigy is rigidly drawn, which I have to exist a shorthand indication of the band that covers Pictura's mouth to betoken her office as silent poetry, equally in the title-page personification from the 1644 Dutch edition of Cesare Ripa'due south Iconologia (fig. three).
Finally, standing directly behind the character with the chain is another person of indeterminate sex and debatable purpose. Haverkamp Begemann's identification of the figure every bit Minerva fits with the pose and attributes and accords too with a traditional role of the Goddess of Wisdom, that of protecting the arts from ignorance (as in a drawing by Federico Zuccaro [ca. 1541–1609], fig. four). 11 Rembrandt indicated a high helmet on her head, and she rests her right hand on her hip, elbow akimbo, while her left arm raises a shield. Minerva shields the critic from two men on the far right who clothing gimmicky wear of the 1640s and perhaps embody the public-at-large.
A more precise estimation of the drawing is dependent on deciphering the inscriptions, a task that for the nearly part has eluded scholars. The most easily understood line of the text is the one at the bottom of the sheet which reads "den tijt 1644" (literally, in the time 1644). This inscription is pregnant in dating the creation of the cartoon, of course, only its form is highly unusual; i.e., it is non a engagement every bit unremarkably seen accompanying a signature. The phrase seems to indicate that the event shown in the drawing refers to something topical that happened in that year. Several writers have seen it this way and attempted to relate the drawing to Rembrandt'southward personal circumstances. Rosenberg saw the drawing as "coming at a time (1644) when the creative person'southward popularity began to wane." 12 Emmens tried to be more specific, identifying the critic as a portrait of Franciscus Junius, whose Der Schilder-konst der Oude (a Dutch translation of his De Pictura Veterum) appeared in 1641, but this proffer has establish little support in subsequent literature considering the date of Junius'southward volume does not accord with the inscription on the cartoon, and in whatever event Junius did non directly address Rembrandt. Neither do the writings about Rembrandt by J. J. Orlers, Philips Angel, or Joost van den Vondel seem to fit, every bit they were all published earlier and either praise the artist or deliver only the mildest criticism.
Other scholars have been content with a generic identification for the critic and have taken the scene to represent more of a climate of criticism rather than a specific incident. One could support this reasoning with reference to Samuel van Hoogstraten's commentary expressing mixed feelings nigh Rembrandt's Nightwatch, extolling its powerful presence amongst the militia pieces in the Kloveniersdoelen, while at the same time suggesting that it had been painted besides nighttime. thirteen Even though his book was non published until 1678, information technology would come as no surprise if Van Hoogstraten's remarks reflected sentiments expressed when the painting was kickoff installed in 1642, since he was a educatee of Rembrandt at that time.
In add-on to written criticism, nosotros too know that Rembrandt was involved in a number of disputes with patrons regarding money, timeliness, mode, likenesses, and decorum. 14 It is serendipitous that these incidents are documented, and information technology is non at all unlikely that other major disputes went unrecorded or were not preserved.
I do believe the critic in the drawing was intended to depict a specific individual, nevertheless, both considering of the peculiarity of the inscription and because the rendering of the critic, while certainly not portraiture in a pure sense, has a measure out of specificity that ane oft sees in caricature. He is portrayed as a gimmicky figure of meaning status, wearing a gentleman's belong with broad sleeves and a broad flat collar. A strap runs diagonally across his breast, indicating that he may take a sword backside him, and he wears a wide-brimmed hat. His pose is every bit aristocratic, with the left elbow extended akimbo. Furthermore, fifty-fifty though he is perched on a barrel, his edge-of-the-seat, spread-leg sitting position was common for gentlemen of rank. There is a person who fits all of the relevant criteria: Constantijn Huygens.
Huygens was private secretary to Prince Frederik Hendrik of Orange, Stadhouder of the United Provinces. 15 The secretary'due south political influence was widespread, particularly in attaining accords with England and France while advocating the war against Spain. His greatest influence, notwithstanding, was undoubtedly in cultural diplomacy. He was the Dutch apotheosis of the gentleman courtier (honnête homme), consort in international court circles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His cultured erudition was vividly expressed in music and in poetry, where he exhibited equal facility in Dutch, Latin, and French, while his fluency in Italian and English language is testified by his messages, diplomatic ventures, and literary translations. Because of his writings and advice to the prince on numerous commissions and acquisitions, Huygens is more often than not regarded equally one of the most astute critics of art in the seventeenth century.
As early equally 1629–30, Huygens recorded an autobiographical account of his life, including commentary on many contemporary painters in notes that went unpublished until the end of the nineteenth century. xvi A prominent section was reserved for two young men of Leiden, Jan Lievens (1607–1674) and Rembrandt. Huygens'due south economic and insightful characterizations of their respective creative styles and aptitudes still resonate in today's histories. In the midst of his praise, yet, he lamented that Lievens and Rembrandt did not follow his advice, which he had as well conveyed to Peter Paul Rubens, to keep a register of all their works, indicating "past what programme and what judgment they synthetic, ordered and worked out each item." Certainly had such a record been kept it would have rendered the present inquiry redundant.
More meaning to the present study is Huygens'south opinion of these two young artists' character when presented with criticism, and hither he did not flatter. Huygens wrote of Lievens, "I used to reprehend that one fault of his–a danger risked not only once–namely, that he either flatly rejected every criticism or took it once admitted with a bad spirit because of a certain rigidity based on too much conviction in himself." Huygens elaborated on one consequence of this stubbornness, as he saw it, with respect to both artists: "I can scarcely tear myself away from talk of such outstanding young men without turning over again to that ane fault for which I already censured Lievens–they are carelessly content with themselves and till now have non thought Italian republic of such great importance, though they demand to spend a few months traveling there." It is quite articulate that Huygens thought these ii immature men, Lievens in particular, were insolent and defiant when it came to good counsel and criticism of their work.
Rembrandt's relationship with Huygens is one of the most intriguing puzzles in Rembrandt research, because of its importance and considering the facts bachelor enhance more questions than they respond. It is beyond the scope of this cursory essay to consider the nuances of Huygens's patronage, simply certainly he had a hand in Rembrandt'south early court commissions, especially the series of Passion paintings made for the stadhouder. Rembrandt'due south seven surviving messages to Huygens about these paintings reveal that he had delayed completing them for some time and that he had requested far greater remuneration than he was somewhen granted. The messages do non demonstrate any open animosity between the two, even though Huygens declined to accept a big painting that Rembrandt offered him as a gift. 17 Information technology is by and large believed that Huygens grew to dislike Rembrandt's art, favoring instead the international classicizing styles newly introduced into the Republic, and past the 1640s he turned his attention increasingly to Flemish artists and Dutchmen with experience away.
We can exist more specific, nonetheless, with regard to the point of intersection with the Lehman drawing. In the year 1644, as scribbled by Rembrandt on the Satire on Art Criticism, a different and more candid sentiment expressed by Huygens about Rembrandt entered the public stage by its publication in Amsterdam. In a volume of his collected Latin poetry called Momenta desultoria, featuring a title folio with an image of Mercury designed by Huygens himself (fig. 5), the secretary addressed Rembrandt's Portrait of Jacques de Gheyn III (fig. 6) in 7 brief epigrams. As Inge Broekman has recently pointed out, Huygens's poetry, particularly these exercises related to portraits, was primarily aimed at expanding and reinforcing his social network. 18 He did not probable intend to insult Rembrandt but rather to glorify the sitter. De Gheyn, a painter and neighbor of Huygens in The Hague, also had shut contacts with Rembrandt in the 1630s. 19 These epigrams were originally penned in January and February of 1633, but they were kept private initially and were not published until eleven years later. For this reason, the publication date has gone largely unnoticed and has never before been tied to the Lehman drawing. The publication can inappreciably have escaped Rembrandt's attention, however, and even though the poems were meant to be jokes, information technology is difficult to believe that he would have lightheartedly disregarded them.
The epigrams read equally follows:
IN JACOBI GHEINIJ EFFIGIEM PLANE DISSIMILEM, JOCI
(On Jacob de Gheyn'due south portrait, which is not like him at all; jokes)Talis Gheiniadae facies si forte fuisset
Talis Gheiniadae prorsus imago foret.
(If de Gheyn's face up had happened to look like this,
This would accept been an exact portrait of de Gheyn.)(ALIUD)
Haereditatis patriae probus Pictor
Invidit assem Gheinio, creavitque,
Quem recreet semisse posthumum fratrem.
(The worthy painter has begrudged de Gheyn his father'due south full inheritance, and has created a posthumous brother to gladden with the half of it.)(ALIUD)
Quos oculos, video sub imagine frontem?
Desine, spectator, quaerere, non memini.
(Whose eyes and whose face practice I see in this portrait?
Stop your questions, Viewer, I cannot retrieve.)(ALIUD)
Gutta magis guttae similis fortasse reperta est,
Tam similis guttae non, puto, gutta fuit.
(Perhaps a drop has been found that more resembled a drop. I call back a drop has never been and then [little] like a drop as this.)(ALIUD)
Geiniadem tabulamque inter discriminis hanc est
Fabula quantillum distat ab historia.
(There is as little difference between de Gheyn and the painting as between myth and history.)(ALIUD)
Tantum tabella est, si tabella quae bella est,
At haec, tabella bella, bella fabella est.
(Information technology is merely a painting, though a lovely painting,
merely this lovely painting is a lovely myth.)(ALIUD)
Cuius hic est vultus, tabulam si jure perculij
Quisque suam possit dicere, nemo sui?
(Whose face up is this, that anyone can call his own for coin, but no-one on the grounds of likeness?)
An eighth epigram was included in Huygens'south diary but was left out of the Momenta desultoria, and from this piece nosotros can be certain that the portrait under ridicule was painted by Rembrandt:
(ALIUD)
Rembrantis est manus ista, gheinij vultus;
Mirare, lector, et iste Gheinius not est. Eod. die.
(This is the paw of Rembrandt, the face of de Gheyn; look in wonder, reader, it as well is not de Gheyn. On the aforementioned day.)
These jocose word-plays (such as tabella, bella, and fabella in the sixth poem) are moderated slightly by their self-clarification as "jokes," but they cannot be taken as flattering toward the artist in the least. To advise that a portrait failed to capture the spirit, personality, or glories of a sitter was standard rhetoric, but to affirm that a portrait failed to capture a likeness was some other matter entirely, specially when conducted in the elitist class of disparaging Latin witticisms. Such public assaults on a single film are rare in Dutch poetry and art criticism. When information technology came to publishing these poems, Huygens clearly tempered the touch on of his banter past omitting the concluding epigram where Rembrandt'due south name was mentioned. Still, the painter surely would take understood that he was the butt of the jokes.
In the Lehman Satire, the critic is dressed every bit a contemporary gentleman, as discussed above. Huygens'southward status as secretary to the Prince of Orange and a knight in his own right brand him an appropriate candidate for this clothing. Furthermore, the facial features of the critic are consequent with those of Huygens, whose visage is known from numerous contemporary portraits, including full-length portrait of 1627 by Thomas de Keyser (1596/97–1667) (fig. vii), where he is seated in a similar gentlemanly mode, and an engraving by Paulus Pontius (1603–1658) after Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641) (fig. 8) distributed in the 1630s, where his features are likewise translated into a graphic medium. Huygens was consistently shown sporting a broad mustache and a trim stroke of bristles, and his hair is shoulder length and slightly disheveled, just like the figure in the Lehman sketch. Furthermore, Rembrandt drew a pair of eyeglasses on the ground before the critic'southward left foot, and Huygens bemoaned his own poor eyesight, returning to the issue several times in his autobiography. xx He wore glasses regularly from the time he was sixteen years old, but he was never depicted wearing them or with them by his side. Spectacles were frequently ridiculed in Dutch literature and fine art, and by placing them on the ground Rembrandt reinforced the notion that the critic is bullheaded and therefore unfit to judge art.
Even though the other inscriptions on the Satire are largely illegible, a portion of the two lines beneath the critic can exist read: "dees . . . van d kunst / is [hortich?] gunst (this . . . of art/ is [contrary?] favor)." 21 The rhyme kunst (art) / gunst (favor) was fairly common in Dutch verse, and peculiarly and then in literature about the patronage of painting. Huygens's position as both critic and patron poignantly corresponds to this inscription. The fact that Rembrandt made a rhyme reinforces the connection to poetry as the source of his grievance. The paintings being scrutinized in Rembrandt's drawing appear to exist portraits, particularly the one on the ground, merely as Huygens's remarks virtually Rembrandt were directed at a portrait. Moreover, Rembrandt's defecating artist may have been directly inspired by a item aspect of Huygens's poetry. In the fourth epigram, the secretary fabricated a play on the word guttae (droplet). In humorous contexts this word usually referred to dung, and Rembrandt may well have been turning the tables on the poet with a scatological pun of his own.
Finally, the well-nigh directly and convincing connectedness betwixt Rembrandt's drawing and Huygens'due south Momenta desultoria is the 1644 date. The question at the heart of this exam has been whether Rembrandt's Satire was prompted past a specific criticism directed at him. The publication of Huygens'southward epigrams fits the timing and accords with the clues provided in the drawing itself. If this hypothesis is correct, such a goad helps to explain the content and overall character of the drawing. In a situation like this, Rembrandt could not complain to the guild or other arbiters, nor could he insist on beingness paid his due or assert the quality of his completed product, as he did in other disputes. The only rebuttal open to Rembrandt was to reply in kind to Huygens'due south paragone betwixt painting and poetry, to create an every bit witty ut pictura poesis of his own, in his own medium. In the end, withal, Rembrandt's temper seems to have died down and the cartoon remained a private statement, never distributed publicly, and never recognized in after times for the specific circumstances that brought it nearly.
- Listing of Illustrations
- Footnotes
- Bibliography
-
i. The title used here was coined by January Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst" (PhD diss., University of Utrecht, 1964). Previously the drawing was calledAllegory on Fine art Criticism. Gary Schwartz,Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings (New York: Viking, 1985), 228, called information technologyThe Asinine Art Heir-apparent. Ernst van de Wetering proposed the titleRevenge on the Asses of Fine art in his "Rembrandt'sSatire on Fine art Criticism Reconsidered," inShop Talk: Studies in Accolade of Seymour Slive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Art Museums, 1995). Egbert Haverkamp Begemann labeled the cartoonArt Judged by Ignorance in Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings: Central Europe, the netherlands, France, England, The Robert Lehman Drove vii (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art in cooperation with Princeton University Press, 1999), 219–28. While Haverkamp-Begemann expressed initial disagreement with the interpretation presented here on pages 223–24 of his entry, he later best-selling a alter of opinion in personal correspondence.
-
ii. On the diverse attempts to decipher the inscriptions, meet Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt's Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered," and Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings,219, 225n1. The legible portions volition be discussed in the text below.
-
three. Jakob Rosenberg, "Review of Otto Benesch,The Drawings of Rembrandt,"Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 116; Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst"; and Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'southSatire on Art Criticism Reconsidered."http://dx.doi.org/x.2307/3047817
-
four. For a summary of the sheet'south attribution, see Carolyn Logan's entry in Walter Liedtke, et al.,Rembrandt/Non Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Fine art: Aspects of Connoisseurship, vol. 2,Paintings, Drawings and Prints: Art-Historical Perspectives (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Fine art, 1995), 164–66, and Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt's Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered." Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, 219, lucidly described his own concerns with the draftsmanship simply endorsed the attribution to Rembrandt.
-
v. For a unlike estimation of the defecating figure every bit a second critic of art, meet Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst," note 272. Haverkamp Begemann did not think that the crouching figure is necessarily an artist but did believe that he expresses his disdain for the critic.
-
6. Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst," 152.
-
vii. A visual tradition grew from this story, featuring the donkey as the embodiment of stubborn ignorance and destroyer of art, but as Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, has noted, the subject was rare in the art of the Northern Netherlands. Michiel Roscam Abbing, "De ezelsoren in Rembrandts satire op de kunstkritiek,"Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 45, no. 1 (1993): eighteen–21, continued Rembrandt's critic to a passage in Samuel van Hoogstraten'southDen eerlycken jongelingwhere a critic demonstrates such an ignorance of poetry that ass's ears grow out of his hat, only as they seem to practise in Rembrandt's cartoon.
-
8. Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst,"154.
-
ix. Karel van Mander,Het Schilder-boek (Haarlem, 1604), 170v, repeated the tale told by Vasari in hisVite.
-
10. Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'sSatire on Art Criticism Reconsidered."
-
11. Run across the seminal study of this theme by Andor Pigler, "Neid und Unwissenheit als Widersacher der Kunst,"Acta Historiae Artum 1 (1954)z; 215–35. Van de Wetering disagreed with this identification, stating his view that the object held aloft is not symmetrical. On the contrary, every bit I see it the shield is shown at an oblique angle, slightly receding into the flick, pointed at the top center, with each side rounded like an arabesque.
-
12. Rosenberg, "Review of Otto Benesch,The Drawings of Rembrandt."
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3047817 -
13. Samuel van Hoogstraten,Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst . . . (Rotterdam: F. van Hoogstraeten, 1678), 176.
-
14. See Paul Crenshaw,Rembrandt'due south Bankruptcy: The Artist, His Patrons, and the Art World in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands (Cambridge Academy Press, 2006), 110–35.
-
fifteen. On Huygens, run into J. Smit,De Grootmeester van Woord en Snapenspel: Het Leven van Constantijn Huygens (The Hague, 1980), and Smit,Constanter: Leven en werk van Constantijn Huygens (The Hague: Appledorn, 1987). On Huygens as artistic adviser, see A. Nieuwenhuis-van Berkum, "Huygens als kunstadviseur: Schilders, aankopen en opdrachten," inHuygens in Noorderlicht: Lezingen van het Groningse Huygens-Symposium, ed. N. F. Streekstra and P. E. L. Verkuyl (Groningen, 1987), 113–26. Besides first-class is Julius Held, "Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: A Hitherto Unknown Portrait,"Fine art Bulletin 73 (1991): 653–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3045835 -
16. Showtime published by J. A. Worp, "Fragment eener autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens,"Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 18 (1897): ane–121. The original text was written in Latin. For modern translations into Dutch, run into Constantijn Huygens,Mijn Jeugd, ed. and trans. C. L. Heesakers (Amsterdam, 1987) and A. H. Kan,De Jeugd van Constantijn Huygens, trans. C. L. Heesakers (Rotterdam, 1946). For further analysis, come across H. Eastward. van Gelder,Ikonografie van Constantijn Huygens en de zijnen (The Hague, 1957).
-
17. My forthcoming study will include a more thorough account of this conundrum. Michael Zell, "Rembrandt's Gifts: A Instance Study in Player-Network Theory,"JHNA three, no. two (2011), is the most contempo examination of the issue, although I accept a few differing opinions on the estimation and implications of the text.
-
18. Inge Broekman, "Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof" (PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2010).
-
19. On De Gheyn, come across I. Q. van Regteren Altena,Jacques de Gheyn: Three Generations(The Hague, Boston, and London, 1983). De Gheyn endemic several paintings by Rembrandt and had several points of contact in Rembrandt'due south social network.
-
20. Huygens,Mijn jeugd, for example, page 95. This was pointed out also by Frits Scholten, "Sir Constantijn Huygens and François Dieussart, A Portrait Observed," inThe Sculpture Periodical (London: The Public Monuments and Sculpture Clan, 1997), 15.
-
21. For the new reading of the wordhortich, see Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, 219.
Broekman, Inge. "Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof." PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2010.
Crenshaw, Paul. Rembrandt's Defalcation: The Creative person, His Patrons, and the Fine art Earth in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Emmens, January. "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst." PhD diss. Academy of Utrecht, 1964.
Haverkamp Begemann, Egbert, et al. Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings: Central Europe, holland, French republic, England. The Robert Lehman Collection seven.New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Fine art in cooperation with Princeton Academy Press, 1999.
Held, Julius. "Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: A Hitherto Unknown Portrait." Art Bulletin 73 (1991): 653–68.
Huygens, Constantijn. Mijn Jeugd. Edited and translated by C. L. Heesakers. Amsterdam, 1987.
Huygens, Constantijn. Momenta Desultoria: Poëmatum Libri XI. Edited by Caspar Barleaus. Leiden, 1644.
Kan, A. H. De Jeugd van Constantijn Huygens. Translated by C. L. Heesakers. Rotterdam, 1946.
Liedtke, Walter et al. Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Aspects of Connoisseurship. Vol. 2, Paintings, Drawings and Prints: Fine art-Historical Perspectives. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995.
Nieuwenhuis-van Berkum, A. "Huygens als kunstadviseurz: Schilders, aankopen en opdrachten." In Huygens in Noorderlicht: Lezingen van het Groningse Huygens-Symposium, edited by N. F. Streekstra and P. E. L. Verkuyl, 113–26. Groningen, 1987.
Pigler, Andor. "Neid und Unwissenheit als Widersacher der Kunst." Acta Historiae Artum ane (1954): 215–35.
Roscam Abbing, Michiel. "De ezelsoren in Rembrandts satire op de kunstkritiek." Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 45, no. one (1993): 18–21.
Rosenberg, Jakob. "Review of Benesch, 1954-1957, Three-4." Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 108-nineteen.
Scholten, Frits. "Sir Constantijn Huygens and François Dieussart, A Portrait Observed." In The Sculpture Journal, 7–xv. London: The Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, 1997.
Schwartz, Gary. Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings. New York: Viking, 1985.
Smit, J. De Grootmeester van Woord en Snapenspel: Het Leven van Constantijn Huygens. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.
Smit, J. Constanter: Leven en werk van Constantijn Huygens .The Hague: Appledorn, 1987.
Van de Wetering, Ernst. "Rembrandt'southward Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered." In Store Talk: Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, Presented on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Art Museums, 1995: 264-74, 425.
Van Gelder, H. E. Ikonografie van Constantijn Huygens en de zijnen. The Hague, 1957.
Van Hoogstraten, Samuel. Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst . . . Rotterdam: F. van Hoogstraeten, 1678.
Van Mander, Karel. Het Schilder-boek. Haarlem, 1604.
Van Regteren Altena, I. Q. Jacques de Gheyn: Three Generations. The Hague, Boston, and London, 1983.
Worp, J. A. "Fragment eener autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens." Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 18 (1897): 1–121.
Zell, Michael. "Rembrandt'southward Gifts: A Case Study in Actor-Network Theory." JHNA three, no. two (2011).
-
1. The championship used here was coined by Jan Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst" (PhD diss., University of Utrecht, 1964). Previously the drawing was calledAllegory on Art Criticism. Gary Schwartz,Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings (New York: Viking, 1985), 228, called itThe Asinine Art Buyer. Ernst van de Wetering proposed the titleRevenge on the Asses of Art in his "Rembrandt'sSatire on Art Criticism Reconsidered," inStore Talk: Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Art Museums, 1995). Egbert Haverkamp Begemann labeled the drawingArt Judged past Ignorance in Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings: Central Europe, the Netherlands, France, England, The Robert Lehman Collection vii (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art in cooperation with Princeton Academy Press, 1999), 219–28. While Haverkamp-Begemann expressed initial disagreement with the interpretation presented here on pages 223–24 of his entry, he subsequently acknowledged a change of opinion in personal correspondence.
-
ii. On the various attempts to decipher the inscriptions, run across Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'south Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered," and Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings,219, 225n1. The legible portions will be discussed in the text below.
-
3. Jakob Rosenberg, "Review of Otto Benesch,The Drawings of Rembrandt,"Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 116; Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst"; and Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'sSatire on Art Criticism Reconsidered."http://dx.doi.org/ten.2307/3047817
-
4. For a summary of the sheet'southward attribution, see Carolyn Logan's entry in Walter Liedtke, et al.,Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Fine art: Aspects of Connoisseurship, vol. two,Paintings, Drawings and Prints: Art-Historical Perspectives (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995), 164–66, and Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'southward Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered." Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, 219, lucidly described his own concerns with the draftsmanship merely endorsed the attribution to Rembrandt.
-
5. For a unlike interpretation of the defecating figure as a second critic of art, come across Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst," note 272. Haverkamp Begemann did not recollect that the crouching figure is necessarily an artist but did believe that he expresses his disdain for the critic.
-
6. Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst," 152.
-
7. A visual tradition grew from this story, featuring the ass as the apotheosis of stubborn ignorance and destroyer of art, but every bit Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, has noted, the subject area was rare in the fine art of the Northern Netherlands. Michiel Roscam Abbing, "De ezelsoren in Rembrandts satire op de kunstkritiek,"Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 45, no. 1 (1993): 18–21, connected Rembrandt's critic to a passage in Samuel van Hoogstraten'due southDen eerlycken jongelingwhere a critic demonstrates such an ignorance of poetry that ass'south ears grow out of his hat, only as they seem to do in Rembrandt's cartoon.
-
8. Emmens, "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst,"154.
-
ix. Karel van Mander,Het Schilder-boek (Haarlem, 1604), 170v, repeated the tale told past Vasari in hisVite.
-
10. Van de Wetering, "Rembrandt'southwardSatire on Art Criticism Reconsidered."
-
11. See the seminal study of this theme by Andor Pigler, "Neid und Unwissenheit als Widersacher der Kunst,"Acta Historiae Artum one (1954)z; 215–35. Van de Wetering disagreed with this identification, stating his view that the object held aloft is not symmetrical. On the contrary, equally I come across information technology the shield is shown at an oblique angle, slightly receding into the picture, pointed at the superlative center, with each side rounded like an arabesque.
-
12. Rosenberg, "Review of Otto Benesch,The Drawings of Rembrandt."
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3047817 -
13. Samuel van Hoogstraten,Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst . . . (Rotterdam: F. van Hoogstraeten, 1678), 176.
-
14. Come across Paul Crenshaw,Rembrandt's Bankruptcy: The Creative person, His Patrons, and the Art World in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands (Cambridge University Printing, 2006), 110–35.
-
15. On Huygens, see J. Smit,De Grootmeester van Woord en Snapenspel: Het Leven van Constantijn Huygens (The Hague, 1980), and Smit,Constanter: Leven en werk van Constantijn Huygens (The Hague: Appledorn, 1987). On Huygens as creative adviser, see A. Nieuwenhuis-van Berkum, "Huygens als kunstadviseur: Schilders, aankopen en opdrachten," inHuygens in Noorderlicht: Lezingen van het Groningse Huygens-Symposium, ed. N. F. Streekstra and P. E. L. Verkuyl (Groningen, 1987), 113–26. Also first-class is Julius Held, "Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: A Hitherto Unknown Portrait,"Art Message 73 (1991): 653–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3045835 -
16. Offset published by J. A. Worp, "Fragment eener autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens,"Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap eighteen (1897): 1–121. The original text was written in Latin. For modern translations into Dutch, see Constantijn Huygens,Mijn Jeugd, ed. and trans. C. Fifty. Heesakers (Amsterdam, 1987) and A. H. Kan,De Jeugd van Constantijn Huygens, trans. C. L. Heesakers (Rotterdam, 1946). For further analysis, see H. East. van Gelder,Ikonografie van Constantijn Huygens en de zijnen (The Hague, 1957).
-
17. My forthcoming study volition include a more thorough business relationship of this conundrum. Michael Zell, "Rembrandt's Gifts: A Case Study in Histrion-Network Theory,"JHNA 3, no. two (2011), is the most recent test of the issue, although I have a few differing opinions on the interpretation and implications of the text.
-
eighteen. Inge Broekman, "Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof" (PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2010).
-
19. On De Gheyn, run across I. Q. van Regteren Altena,Jacques de Gheyn: Three Generations(The Hague, Boston, and London, 1983). De Gheyn owned several paintings past Rembrandt and had several points of contact in Rembrandt'due south social network.
-
20. Huygens,Mijn jeugd, for case, page 95. This was pointed out also past Frits Scholten, "Sir Constantijn Huygens and François Dieussart, A Portrait Observed," inThe Sculpture Journal (London: The Public Monuments and Sculpture Clan, 1997), fifteen.
-
21. For the new reading of the wordhortich, meet Haverkamp Begemann,Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings, 219.
Broekman, Inge. "Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof." PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2010.
Crenshaw, Paul. Rembrandt's Bankruptcy: The Artist, His Patrons, and the Art World in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Emmens, January. "Rembrandt en de regels van de kunst." PhD diss. University of Utrecht, 1964.
Haverkamp Begemann, Egbert, et al. Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings: Central Europe, holland, France, England. The Robert Lehman Collection 7.New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art in cooperation with Princeton University Printing, 1999.
Held, Julius. "Constantijn Huygens and Susanna van Baerle: A Hitherto Unknown Portrait." Art Bulletin 73 (1991): 653–68.
Huygens, Constantijn. Mijn Jeugd. Edited and translated by C. L. Heesakers. Amsterdam, 1987.
Huygens, Constantijn. Momenta Desultoria: Poëmatum Libri Eleven. Edited by Caspar Barleaus. Leiden, 1644.
Kan, A. H. De Jeugd van Constantijn Huygens. Translated by C. L. Heesakers. Rotterdam, 1946.
Liedtke, Walter et al. Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Fine art: Aspects of Connoisseurship. Vol. two, Paintings, Drawings and Prints: Art-Historical Perspectives. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995.
Nieuwenhuis-van Berkum, A. "Huygens als kunstadviseurz: Schilders, aankopen en opdrachten." In Huygens in Noorderlicht: Lezingen van het Groningse Huygens-Symposium, edited by N. F. Streekstra and P. East. 50. Verkuyl, 113–26. Groningen, 1987.
Pigler, Andor. "Neid und Unwissenheit als Widersacher der Kunst." Acta Historiae Artum 1 (1954): 215–35.
Roscam Abbing, Michiel. "De ezelsoren in Rembrandts satire op de kunstkritiek." Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 45, no. 1 (1993): xviii–21.
Rosenberg, Jakob. "Review of Benesch, 1954-1957, III-Iv." Art Message 41 (1959): 108-xix.
Scholten, Frits. "Sir Constantijn Huygens and François Dieussart, A Portrait Observed." In The Sculpture Journal, vii–xv. London: The Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, 1997.
Schwartz, Gary. Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings. New York: Viking, 1985.
Smit, J. De Grootmeester van Woord en Snapenspel: Het Leven van Constantijn Huygens. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.
Smit, J. Constanter: Leven en werk van Constantijn Huygens .The Hague: Appledorn, 1987.
Van de Wetering, Ernst. "Rembrandt's Satire on Art Criticism Reconsidered." In Shop Talk: Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive, Presented on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Art Museums, 1995: 264-74, 425.
Van Gelder, H. E. Ikonografie van Constantijn Huygens en de zijnen. The Hague, 1957.
Van Hoogstraten, Samuel. Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst . . . Rotterdam: F. van Hoogstraeten, 1678.
Van Mander, Karel. Het Schilder-boek. Haarlem, 1604.
Van Regteren Altena, I. Q. Jacques de Gheyn: 3 Generations. The Hague, Boston, and London, 1983.
Worp, J. A. "Fragment eener autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens." Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap eighteen (1897): 1–121.
Zell, Michael. "Rembrandt's Gifts: A Example Report in Histrion-Network Theory." JHNA three, no. 2 (2011).
Imprint
Publication Engagement: Summer 2013
Review: Peer Review (Double Blind)
Recommended Citation:
Paul Crenshaw, "The Goad for Rembrandt's Satire on Art Criticism," Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5:2 (Summer 2013) DOI: ten.5092/jhna.2013.five.2.9
gullettgocielince71.blogspot.com
Source: https://jhna.org/articles/catalyst-rembrandt-satire-on-art-criticism/