Rembrandt was a Dutch painter considered one of the most famous and greatest painters in history. Rembrandt, for all his influence and following in art, stands alone like every other genius. Rembrandt is a greater technical wonder in the Brunswick Family Group than in the Saskia or Coppenol at Cassel. The more artists study his pictures, the greater he becomes (Schama 70). Rembrandt marked a new era of Renaissance painting, transforming and improving techniques and methods used by previous painters.
At first, Rembrandt was a little precise in drawing, a little cool in color, and rather broad (for him) in light distribution. That was his “gray period” marked by hardship and life grievances. Later on, from about 1635 to 1645, he developed a warmer scheme of colors and a looser drawing and handling. He brushed freely but flatly and with great certainty in drawing and texture (Schama 72). That was his “golden period.” His flat handling continued and was emphasized as he grew older and advanced in art.
No doubt he often used a palette knife or his thumb, but he continued to get effects, not by kneading and pitting the surface, but by the flat layer of pigment dragged or plated into place (Bomford et al. 54). An excellent illustration of it is the Jan Six portrait at Amsterdam (Illustration 1) then which is a more beautiful piece of painting that was never done in any school. This was about 1654. In 1658 he continued with this flat brushing in the large portrait of himself in the Frick Collection (Bomford et al. 54).
The Five Syndics of 1661 (Illustration 3) and his own portrait (in the Carstanjen Collection) of 1668 show it again. Still, all three of these pictures also indicate that Rembrandt was not wholly satisfied with the flat stroke and evidently believed that more forceful results could be obtained by kneading, pitting, modeling the surface (Berger 43).
His method marks his latest canvases and produced what has been called his faltering old-age style. But nothing could be more erroneous than that idea. Toward the end, like Titian and Velasquez, he saw things in larger masses, in wider relations, and merely enlarged his handling to match his seeing. His latest pictures are the final development of the largest seeing and the most effective rendering ever known in the Dutch School (Schama 79).
The Jewish Bride and the Brunswick Family Group form the Rembrandt climax, not only mentally and emotionally but technically. It is difficult to say exactly how they were produced, for they are loaded, dragged, kneaded, thumbed in a dozen different ways to produce different effects in the subjects portrayed (Bomford et al. 59). His greatest limitation was undoubtedly his handling of light. He has been called its master, and so he was when he used it as a means of modeling a head, but when he used it as illumination for a large picture, it soon became apparent that he was the slave of his method (Schama 92).
The strength of that method lay in the sharp juxtaposition of blacks and whites. The lights were enforced by strong contrast with the shadows. That was very effective in the case of a portrait head where a high light on the forehead was brought out by dark reliefs at the sides of the head. Still, when the attempt was made to apply this method to a large canvas like the Night Watch, it proved insufficient (Bomford et al. 57; Illustration 2).
Each head in the group had to be separately lighted, with the consequent result of spottiness on the canvas. And there was no central illumination overall. No wonder the Night Watch was counted a failure. It looked like a night scene illuminated by spotlights, but in reality, it was intended for the sortie of a shooting company in full sunlight.
More than any other picture, the Night Watch seems to confirm the tale told by his pictures, that Rembrandt was a portrait painter and little more (Bomford et al. 61). He could not do the historical picture in a satisfactory way, and probably after some trials, gave it up. The dramatic, the pathetic, the spectacular, the grotesque things set down to him are the pictures of pupils in which he had no more than a guiding voice. Perhaps there was no need, no demand, for him to do the historical canvas. Portraiture was the theme of the hour. And portrait painting alone was sufficient to place him at the head of the Dutch School and keep him there.
The whole vision of the world and the race problem can be as well shown in the portrait, nay, better, than elsewhere. The distinction to this day of Titian, Velasquez, and Rembrandt is that they were great masters in this field. The nobles of Titian, the kings of Velasquez, the burghers of Rembrandt — there is nothing like them elsewhere in art (Berger 41; Schama 72). In addition to the comprehensive eye, the revealing mind, and the emotional spirit, Rembrandt had as certain a hand as ever handled a brush. He painted with the greatest simplicity (Wetering 39).
In sum, the elaborate attempts to explain and reconcile his technical methods, to show why and how he was smooth of brush in one picture and rough in another; why he brushed lightly here or coarsely there, or kneaded and dragged elsewhere, are all founded upon the supposition that he painted a thousand pictures making up the oeuvre (Wetering 33). The light-and-dark of Rembrandt was not of his origin, though he brought it to its perfection. The unique style of Rembrandt can be characterized as dark in the shadows, sharp in the lights, free, and even coarse in the brushwork.
Works Cited
- Berger, G. Conservation of Painting: Research and Innovations. Archetype Books, 2000.
- Bomford, D., Kirby, J., Roy, A., Ruger, A., White, R. Art in the Making: Rembrandt: New Edition. Yale University Press, 2006.
- Schama, S. Rembrandt’s Eyes. Knopf; 1st ed edition, 1999.
- Wetering, E. Rembrandt: The Painter at Work. University of California Press; 1 edition, 2001.