Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Rembrandt?

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Rembrandt?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

What's so great about Rembrandt?

I can't figure why he is considered one of the greatest. I am rarely impressed much less moved by any of his paintings. His paintings are so splotchy and blotchy and they all look like they have a thin layer of soot or grease. It's like he didn't really get chiaroscuro; his brights are never bright enough.

I prefer any of the other great painters before 1900 to Rembrandt. He's really at the bottom of my list. Can someone clue me in on what is so great about his paintings?

@Deckard,

I was never impressed with his paintings either, however I recently went to an exhibit of his etchings. They were fabulous, The detail that the man could scratch into copper, I was astounded.

@Deckard,

Deckard;165956 wrote:

What's so great about Rembrandt?

I can't figure why he is considered one of the greatest. I am rarely impressed much less moved by any of his paintings. His paintings are so splotchy and blotchy and they all look like they have a thin layer of soot or grease. It's like he didn't really get chiaroscuro; his brights are never bright enough.

I prefer any of the other great painters before 1900 to Rembrandt. He's really at the bottom of my list. Can someone clue me in on what is so great about his paintings?

Why don't you ask me something hard? Zaftig women!

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;165989 wrote:

I was never impressed with his paintings either, however I recently went to an exhibit of his etchings. They were fabulous, The detail that the man could scratch into copper, I was astounded.

Seeing one of his paintings up close would probably help. So too seeing his etchings up close. Still the etchings I find online look like the work of a sloppy Divinci.

The comparison between Rembrandt and Divinci might be a good one. Divinci's sketches have such grace I think because there is a geometry at work. Consider the geometry involved in the Vetruvian man. Even the curls of on the heads of some of his sketched subjects seem to obey some Fibonaccian pattern.

Rembrandt was part of the movement towards realism. Realism was not just about painting/sketching homely subjects but also about painting/sketching what the eye actual saw. And for realism what the eye actually sees trumps any ideal geometry.

Perhaps the dinginess of his paintings and his half-assed chiaroscuro aren't really bad technique but rather an attempt to represent what the eye really sees. And perhaps his paintings are so blotchy and without definition because Rembrandt was a bit near-sighted. Smile

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 02:01 AM ----------

kennethamy;166003 wrote:

Why don't you ask me something hard? Zaftig women!

This is nonsense.

@Deckard,

Deckard;166005 wrote:

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 02:01 AM ----------

This is nonsense.

A little bit, I suppose. But isn't there truth in it? I wasn't entirely serious, you know. We are getting so dependent on emoticons that unless someone inserts them, we can't recognize (for example) that he is mostly kidding. The depredations of the computer age, I guess. (I am in rebellion. I simply refuse to use emoticons. People will just have to read more sensitively, dammit!).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166010 wrote:

A little bit, I suppose. But isn't there truth in it? I wasn't entirely serious, you know. We are getting so dependent on emoticons that unless someone inserts them, we can't recognize (for example) that he is mostly kidding. The depredations of the computer age, I guess. (I am in rebellion. I simply refuse to use emoticons. People will just have to read more sensitively, dammit!).

Still if you think that I have asked no difficult question in my post then surely you can provide some clear answer. Maybe "Zaftig women" points to what I have already said about Rembrandt and Realism? But I don't want to assume too much.

@Deckard,

Deckard;166011 wrote:

Still if you think that I have asked no difficult question in my post then surely you can provide some clear answer. Maybe "Zaftig women" points to what I have already said about Rembrandt and Realism? But I don't want to assume too much.

Of course I thought you were asking a difficult question! You don't really think I thought that your question had a simple answer, "zaftig women" do you?:perplexed::rolleyes::letme-at-em: etc. etc. (I am not permitted to use more than three emoticons).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166015 wrote:

Of course I thought you were asking a difficult question! You don't really think I thought that your question had a simple answer, "zaftig women" do you? etc. etc. (I am not permitted to use more than three emoticons).

Damn it all! You made me use the most hated of emoticons.

@Deckard,

Deckard;165956 wrote:

What's so great about Rembrandt?

I can't figure why he is considered one of the greatest. I am rarely impressed much less moved by any of his paintings. His paintings are so splotchy and blotchy and they all look like they have a thin layer of soot or grease. It's like he didn't really get chiaroscuro; his brights are never bright enough.

I prefer any of the other great painters before 1900 to Rembrandt. He's really at the bottom of my list. Can someone clue me in on what is so great about his paintings?

There's a delicate grace combined with boldness of execution.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;166121 wrote:

There's a delicate grace combined with boldness of execution.

Yes, I think he must have forgot about that.

@kennethamy,

The museum provided magnifying glasses for the rembrant etching exhibit. One etchin I was particularly taken with had what to the naked eye looked like cloud over a shepherd, but when using a magnifying glass were cherubs complete with individual expressions etc...

@kennethamy,

I just think there is something about this that captures the soul of a man http://www.jean-mcintosh.com/dmis10d/images/Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;166500 wrote:

I just think there is something about this that captures the soul of a man

I am pretty sure that comes under the heading of:

"obscurum per obscurius" . "The more obscure explaining the obscure".

@kennethamy,

If you are upset about the obscure in reference to art refer back to any of the 100 discussions about what is art, such as this http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/aesthetics/1044-what-defines-art.html would you rather I say, the crafstamnship of catching the surprised look in copper reminds me of a man discovering the nuances of the hegelian dialectic?

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Rembrandt?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Rembrandt?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know