Expert: J Heuman - 9/12/2004

Question
I am a high school student and have completed a year of art history. I understand why certain artists are mentioned in many text books, either they are (1) master painters/draftsmen or(2) innovative and influential to the progression of the history of art. There are a select few artists that qualify for both, such as Michelangelo, Turner, Picasso...etc. I am still befuddled about Rembrandt. Books simply point to his etchings and his famous lighting techniques- albeit creating stunning visual and emotional effect- pales in comparison to contemporary Caravaggio and yet there are people very willing to place him near the pinnacle among greats. Can you shed some "light" on Rembrandt for me? Many thanks.

-Thien

Answer
Greetings Thien!

Thank you for your question.  I'll toss out several points . . .

First, and foremost, judgments ought not be made about the qualities of works of art based upon small-scale (often poor quality) reproductions in textbooks.  They cannot adequately capture the scale, details of paint handling, surface treatment, subtle chiaroscuro (modeling/shading), etc.

Second, the history of art is not linear and is not composed of only well-known artists.  Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Turner, Picasso, etc. were men of their times, had teachers and life experiences that led them to do what they did.  History has favored them and, often, marginalized other highly-skilled artists.
   The three you mention -- Michelangelo, Turner and Picasso -- are treasured for different reasons.  Michelangelo, with a sculptor's passion, was tamed by Popes to become a celebrated fresco painter.  But how many people actually saw the Sistine Chapel ceiling and Last Judgment during Michelangelo's lifetime?  Few.  But have you heard as much about Tullio Lombardo or Giovanni Francesco Rustici?  Exactly my point.  These two were well-known and highly successful sculptors despite their exclusion from all but the most specialized books on Italian Renaissance sculpture.
   Turner is celebrated; yet in his day, there were many detractors despite support from senior painters in the Royal Academy of Art, including Benjamin West and Henry Fuseli.  After all, viewers were accustomed to seeing highly polished, detailed, balanced compositions; yet Turner's swirling compositions -- often with the main subject unidentifiable or in small-scale -- upset the apple cart.
   Picasso . . . well, you got me there.  During his lifetime, he was more inventive than nearly any other artist in the history of art.  From traditional painting to sculpture, drawing, printmaking, collage, ceramics and even set and costume design for ballets and theatre.  He is one of the most documented artists for the very reason that his career is of the populist 20th century.

Third, you write: "Books simply point to his etchings and his famous lighting techniques . . . "  There is nothing "simple" about Rembrandt's etchings.  To understand this, one must see many states of each composition to see how he restructured the scenes, correcting minute flaws.  The differences from the first state to later states of each etching are remarkable.  Figures (or groups of figures) disappear, architectural and landscape details are added or subtracted, textures changed from smooth to rough or rough to smooth . . .
   His lighting, I'll grant you, was not unique -- as many artists during the 16th and 17th centuries were experimenting with dramatic spot-lighting.  Caravaggio was one.  Artemesia Gentileschi, one of the few well-known women painters, was one.  But others during the Late Renaissance and of the Mannerrists did . . . especially Tintoretto and Parmigianino.  But considering the following:

[1] How great was communication and cultural exchange between Italy and the Netherlands during this time?  (Better than in previous centuries, but still limited.)

[2] Is it fair to compare a 16th century Italian painter (Caravaggio) to a 17th century Dutch painter (Rembrandt)?  This is comparing apples and oranges.

[3] Perhaps some artists, like Caravaggio, are noticed initially because of their personal lives than their art production?  After all, Caravaggio lived a tempest, with criminal activity and a tragic demise.  (Note: He was murdered.)
   Other artists, like Rembrandt, are known primarily for their art production which inspires a deeeper investigation into their personal lives.

I'm unsure if these musings are of any value.  But I'll reinforce one point: Nothing can replace seeing a work of art in person.  If you've seen etchings and paintings by Rembrandt in person and still were not impressed, that's your prerogative . . . as judgments about art are subjective.

I welcome further questions.

Best wishes, sincerely,
J Heuman