As I look Rembrandt in the eye, or try to--he's looking slightly to the left of me, which is a little frustrating--I am marveling about the miracle that is this work, here and now, speaking to me from the 17th century. "1642-43", according to the I.D. plaque. He lived to be 63 years old--in a year I will catch up to him in that way, at least!
Underneath the two strings of crystals (the curators think those are gold chains; I disagree)--which are draped across his fur-trimmed cloak--he's wearing.... a t-shirt! He has about 2-1/2 chins, and they need a shave. He has observed his subjects with great intensity, which is evidenced by the deep crevice in his forehead, just above his nose. He is preoccupied with something, but not really worried about it. No, it's more like.... sadness.
The indirect gaze gives a pensive quality, as if he's saying to me "Well, here I am. What you see is what you get." There is no pretense in his gaze. Doing the math, I realize he's only 36 here, and will continue to paint many more masterpieces. Perhaps none as fine as this one, though. Maybe he's pondering what to paint next.
A half dozen portraits on either side of him, painted by others--all fine citizens of their day, I am sure. They're decked out in their finery. All dressed up and nowhere to go. And nothing to say. But Rembrandt has a lot to say, my eyes return to his face like there's some magnetic force field embedded in that string of crystals. What is the message? I will ponder that further, when I get "home" this evening.
Written on Dec. 1, 2011 while communing with Rembrandt's "Self-Portrait".
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
So I did ponder--and google--this evening, and what to my surprise, discovered that this self-portrait (photo posted yesterday) was painted at the time that his first child died, or within a year of that event (again, the plaque gives a time-span, not a date: "1642-43"). That look in his eyes? It is sadness. And two more children died after the first. So I'm thinking that there's only enough sadness in his eyes for one death; the curators could perhaps say more definitively that the painting was completed in 1642.
What do you think... shall apply for The History Detective show?!
I think it would be a great idea to compare what my friends and I can read in a painting, like a parlor game. The back story always informs the viewer (or reader, whatever), but even without it, a painting says things. I have a canvas with a drawing, really, not a painting, of my favorite model. It's one of my favorite things I've ever done, because it just captures (to me, mind you, and absolutely no one else) everything I love about this particular model. And I began thinking that as soon as what is meaningful to me has more general appeal, I may actually have an audience for my work! Rembrandt looks out at us with feelings we recognize, and it's worthwhile to think on that for a minute, and for that we thank him (and you for blogging it!).
ReplyDeleteI just noticed your comment. Hmm... wish there was a way to be notified of comments. Anyway, one of the best papers I ever wrote was in Art History, a paper on the Ravenna mosaic "The Empress Theodora with her Retinue", 547 C.E. It was the first time I really *looked* at a work to see what I could apprehend across time about the artist's intent. It was an amazing experience, I was shocked at how much was there to see, just by looking! We'll have to talk about that sometime.
ReplyDelete