by Jon Lackman | 17 January 2010 | Baroque/Neoclassical
Gary Schwartz exposes some of the sausage-making that goes into Rembrandt attribution:
In June 2009 a grand conclave of Rembrandt specialists took place at a castle in Sussex … Given the circumstances – notably that none of the more than 50 scholars in the room had at one time or other not been pilloried in print or pointedly ignored by one or more of the other participants – the atmosphere was friendly if somewhat strained … The following exchange took place:
Schwartz: Peter, do you still think that the core list of Rembrandt drawings is no larger than 70?
Schatborn: Yes. It may be a bit larger, say 75.
Schwartz: Have you ever published the list?
Schatborn: No.
Schwartz: Why not? Shouldn’t you and Martin [Royalton-Kisch] back up your claims with argued information? In preparation for my book of 2006 I began assembling a list of the drawings that answer to your criteria, and there were 125 items on it.
Schatborn: If you show me your list I will cut it down to 75.If anyone else in the hall shared my impression that this was a trifle arrogant, they kept it to themselves … In order to submit them to your judgment, I have taken the trouble to make scans of all the drawings, paintings and etchings concerned … the next get-together of Rembrandt specialists [will be] at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles on February 2nd, at which the opening talk is: Peter Schatborn, “The core group of Rembrandt drawings.” There I hope to spark a more satisfying discussion of this matter than that at Herstmonceux. Unless, of course, Peter Schatborn succeeds to the contentment of the field to slash my list back down to 75.
This project has been going on for so long that these arguments seem to simply perpetuate itself rather than submit to a futile discussion