301 2 Core list of Rembrandt drawings:
with inscriptions in Rembrandt’s handwriting other than a signature

21 drawings with inscriptions by Rembrandt of which his authorship of the drawing itself is accepted
2 drawings with inscriptions by Rembrandt of which his authorship of the drawing itself may be doubted
1 drawing with an inscription by Rembrandt that he did not draw

 

For an explanation of the nature of this list, see Schwartzlist 301


Continue reading “301 2 Core list of Rembrandt drawings:
with inscriptions in Rembrandt’s handwriting other than a signature”

301 1 Core list of Rembrandt drawings:
signed drawings

21 drawings with Rembrandt’s signature of which his authorship is accepted
3 drawings with signatures that might be authentic but the drawing itself not by the hand of the master
2 etchings reworked by hand and signed by Rembrandt

For an explanation of the nature of this list, see Schwartzlist 301.

Continue reading “301 1 Core list of Rembrandt drawings:
signed drawings”

301 Rembrandt’s core: the drawings

Since 1991, the opinion has held sway that only 70 drawings by Rembrandt can be confirmed with great certainty. That is, drawings that are signed, otherwise inscribed in Rembrandt’s hand, indented for transfer to the etching plate or serving as preparatory studies for an autograph painting or etching. Schwartz now expands that list from 70 to 169.


Continue reading “301 Rembrandt’s core: the drawings”

285 The Cotswolds Rembrandt

A country art auction in England made the front pages all over the world when 2.2 million pounds was paid for a painting that looks a lot like a Rembrandt self-portrait. Is it? Schwartz thinks it is, and supplies an analysis to explain why. At the same time, he shows how the published opinions of the Rembrandt Research Project could have led to the rejection of the painting by the experts consulted by the owner and the auction house. More like an article than a column.


Continue reading “285 The Cotswolds Rembrandt”

154 The transparent connoisseur 1: Free advice to the Van Gogh Museum

The Van Gogh Museum did not take kindly to my column of January 19th (“The saga of Bouwe Jans”). The museum feels that I criticized it unfairly for the way it handled a request for an expert opinion on the authorship of a possible van Gogh painting. I promised the museum, by way of response, to elaborate on the recommendations in my piece. I do this in print because my remarks were not intended only for the Van Gogh Museum – which I am sure behaved in all good faith in this matter – but for any body, museum or not, that proffers expert opinions on sensitive subjects to the public. Continue reading “154 The transparent connoisseur 1: Free advice to the Van Gogh Museum”