Rembrandt or Not?

"Truth in Labeling" by Gary Schwartz, in Art in America (Dec. 1995), 575 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10012.

To call a painting a Rembrandt is to count His Paintings (1985). New analytical techit among the most prized creations of niques, such as X-radiography, which can humankind. Until the mid-1960s, about 620 reveal previously painted areas beneath the paintings possessed that distinction, with surface layer, and pigment analysis, in which scholars, collectors, and museum curators agreeing that Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–69) had created them. Then a great purge began. Today, only about 300 paintings are considered indisputably genuine "Rembrandts." Some 50 more are still in dispute.

The "Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt" exhibition last fall at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art highlighted the unsettling situation. It showcased 42 works once attributed to Rembrandt, of which only 18 are still unquestionably genuine. The Met’s curator of northern European paintings and its chief conservator disagreed so deeply about the other 24 that the museum took the unusual step of publishing two catalogues for the same exhibition.

The purge of ersatz Rembrandts began during the 1960s, explains Schwartz, a visting professor of art history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the author of Rembrandt: His Life, minuscule samples of paint are studied to learn their chemical composition, fueled the change.

In hopes of resolving the controversy, the Dutch government established the Rembrandt Research Project in 1969. Its experts would rule on authenticity and publish a corpus that everyone could agree on. But many curators—including the Met’s— rejected the verdicts, partly because the experts themselves were often divided.

Rembrandt’s own work habits and contemporaries complicate the authenticity problem. He painted in a range of genres and styles, he often supervised students who completed significant portions of his work, and his success inspired many excellent imitations. Indeed, from the ashes of discredited Rembrandts, previously obscure painters such as Govert Flinck and Willem Drost have emerged and gained new appreciation.

Given all the uncertainties, Schwartz favors more honest labeling for the still-disputed Rembrandts. Don’t call them Rembrandts; label them instead with what is known of their provenance. Schwartz confesses that the "initial effect of such a change might be to stun auction houses, art dealers, collectors and teachers who have banked on" authenticity, but ultimately, he believes, they will come to recognize that a painting’s inherent quality depends on more than just the signature on it.