|
Copy or Original
When the copy is the original and vice
versa.
Rembrandt 1629. Self-Portrait in a Gorget. Until
recently considered to be a copy and now finally
recognized as the original it obviously is.
Copy of Rembrandt 1629. Self-Portrait with Lace
Collar.
Until recently considered to be an original by inept
curators and now finally downgraded to the copy it
obviously is. The two paintings have different titles
because they are located in different museums.
Another aberration.
Of two Rembrandt self portraits, one was
considered authentic and the other a copy.
Nothing has changed except that now it has finally been
recognized that the original is a copy and the copy is
the original.
Deduct 40 million dollars from the assets of The Hague
museum and add the same to the balance sheet of the
Nuremberg museum.
X-ray analysis done on The Hague painting confirmed the
obvious. The Rembrandt Research Project had already
noted that it did not look like a Rembrandt. The
Nuremberg self portrait was classified in part as a copy
because of its signature "RHL". This goes to show that
some museum curators pay more attention to what they can
look up in their books, rather than use their eyes.
Scholarship, which is knowledge from books, has replaced
connoisseurship, which is cultivated appreciation of
quality and merit.
When the two works are hung side by side there is a
harsh contrast between the rich, animated, spontaneous
brushwork in the original, and the routine, bland brush
strokes of the copy.
This is a spectacular case because it involves two very
important and old museums. One can certainly question
the competence of the many prestigious curators they
employed for over a century, who were so blind as not to
see what is so evident.
This is not an isolated case or situation. If you have
been told your painting is a copy, please let us take a
look at it.
|
