Follow this Fast Track Introduction to gain a quick overview of the controversy surrounding Rembrandt scholarship.  Or use the menu on the left for exploring the ideas in greater depth

The Story of a Discovery
Written by Nigel Konstam
Edited by Nancy Grossman-Telfer

Recently Rembrandt scholars have reduced the number of drawings and paintings that they accept as being by Rembrandt by between 50% and 70%. A massive change of opinion from scholars in the past. Why has this happened and where does the truth lie? I have studied this problem for over 35 years. I have come to the conclusion that we are dismissing works that are truly by Rembrandt because of a misunderstanding of his character as an artist.

Read More > 

See Nigel's YouTube Contribution to the campaign to unseat Sir Nicholas from his 21 Year reign at the Tate Gallery London.

Take this link

Latest video (Takes only 2 minutes to watch) by Nigel Konstam

The recent 2 x 60min Channel 4 documentary (shown July 21st, 28th 2007)
(made by Lion Television) including Nigel Konstam's contribution to our understanding of the art of ancient Greece (the revolutionary demonstration of why we can be certain that Phidias and his workshop used body casts as the basis of there life-size, sculptural compositions) in Part II.

You can see the whole story in my book;- SCULPTURE, the Art and the Practice, 2nd edition ISBN 0 – 9523568 or, less completely, on the website www.verrocchio.co.uk

There are two versions of The Adoration of the Shepherds, one in Munich and the second in the National Gallery (London). Both were once attributed to Rembrandt: The Munich version is still a Rembrandt. The London version has been de-attributed by the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) in spite of the fact that the National Gallery experts examination of the materials confirmed that the painting was from Rembrandt's studio. The object of this demonstration is to prove that the London painting is truly a Rembrandt though the RRP insists that this version cannot possibly be by him.

See Large image

On the right of the photograph you see a maquette made from the figures and architecture in the Munich painting, that Rembrandt observed and painted direct from life. A cow and a basket also form a part of the composition.

The reflected part of the photograph you see in the mirror (on the left) matches up with the subject matter of the London painting to such a degree that we cannot doubt that Rembrandt (or whoever else was painting from Rembrandt's precise position) painted what he saw in the mirror. As the use of a mirror can be demonstrated many times in Rembrandt's accepted drawings it is most rational to assume that Rembrandt stayed in the same position and painted both paintings; probably concurrently, with the same palette and brushes.

It is amusing to note that while the humans are static, only the cow moved: the hats of the figures remain the same, the basket on the post is seen in elevation in the Munich version and in plan in the London version, the lantern is still carried by the man with the broad brimmed hat, lots of tiny details are transmuted but most of all the infinitely complex space relationship between the figures remains constant.

By understanding the extreme complexity of the task of constructing the London subject from the Munich painting, we can be certain that a mirror was used.(This is no simple print image. It is a reversal of a new point of view of the same very complex, three dimensional group we see in the Munich painting.) From this understanding we not only regain a lost Rembrandt, we demonstrate that the impressionistic style of the London painting is also Rembrandt's. Thus widening the stylistic spectrum that has been imposed arbitarily by the RRP.

Furthermore it is proved that Rembrandt worked from a theatrical-type production. I believe he set up live models dressed with costumes (mentioned in his inventory of 1656) in the adoration paintings, I believe the scene was staged in a barn. These tableaux-vivants, the very life's blood of Rembrandt's work as artist and teacher, are implicitly denied by the RRP and their followers, who are keepers of Rembrandt drawings in the museums: a fundamental error, which invalidates many of the experts' judgements over the last 100 years.

Two legitimate questions may arise from this demonstration 1. did mirrors of this size exist in Rembrandt's time? Answer – not made from one sheet of glass – this large mirror was probably made of polished metal. And 2. Why should he work from an inadequate reflection of his models when he had a group to observe direct from life? Answer – Rembrandt was not alone in the barn. There are student versions of this same scene, both drawn and painted, that show that students were working side by side with the master, each with their own individual viewpoint. This would have inhibited Rembrandt's freedom to move himself or change the group of models. Alternatively, it may just be Rembrandt's explorative spirit that drove him to this single experiment, which he never repeated in painting, but many times while drawing.

If you have doubts please look at the rest of this website before submitting your questions.

It is my belief that the other end of the spectrum of style in Rembrandt's paintings should also be redefined by testing a painting in The Wallace Collection: The Uncharitable Servant. This painting was once the most highly valued Rembrandt in the world. It has been described as Rembrandt at the extreme limits of his ability, it is not typical of Rembrandt but Rembrandt is a most varied artist and we need to define the outer limits of his variability as precisely as possible. If The Uncharitable Servant, was put through autoradiographic tests this would show us the way the painting had been built up right from the original drawing on canvas, thus establishing a clear attribution. The result of this could be to re-inflate Rembrandt's oeuvres and reputation back to where they both stood 50 years ago. If the London painting turns out not to be a Rembrandt the case for widening the spectrum towards a loose impressionistic style remains imperative.

REMBRANDT'S CHARACTER AS REVEALED BY HIS DRAWINGS

Cards distributed to send to anyone who might be in a position to pubolicize Konstam's alternative view of Rembrant

From the many questions, there seemed to be no one present who was not carried along by my arguments. At the end I asked people to take some of my cards and write to anyone who might be in a position to help publicize my alternative view of Rembrandt. Nearly 100 cards were taken. The card was a simplified version of the Adoration as it appears in the web-site with an explanation on the back, plus direction towards the web-site. So one can hope that some movement will result.

Should anyone want some of these cards for the same purpose I would be pleased to send them copies.

A personal note.- Let me say once again how delighted I was to see so many friends in the audience. One can feel rather out on a limb attacking the establishment over so long a period, without any response. It was wonderful to feel the continuing support. Thank you all. NK

Press Release Sent out prior to the lecture

Nigel Konstam is a sculptor and draughtsman who has been studying Rembrandt's drawings since 1974. In that year he discovered that Rembrandt used mirrors to multiply and vary his subject. Since then he has spent years exploring Rembrandt's character and working methods. Konstam finds Rembrandt to be an artist of surpassing greatness at the same time as being a very human role-model with whom we can all identify. Rembrandt's eagle-eyed insight into human relationships, personality, dramatise his works and are the foundation of his appeal to his fellow humans. He is a visionary whose determined steps towards his goal can be clearly traced, as can his stumblings along the way. Rembrandt never tidied up his reputation as other artists have done � with exceptional honesty he leaves us all the evidence of his great journey.

Konstam has a deep understanding and love of Rembrandt which he is able to convey to any audience. His unique insights will come as a revelation to anyone interested in art. His discoveries, which are easily understood, will be clearly demonstrated in a short presentation using multi-media illustrations to clarify the arguments, leaving plenty of time for discussion and questions.

Konstam's discoveries have proved surprisingly controversial considering that they agree entirely with the documentary evidence of Rembrandt's own contemporaries and earlier connoisseurship. They are also clear and obvious to the layman observer. It is today's scholars that are out of step. Though Konstam's ideas have been acclaimed by eminent art authorities*, those at the heart of Rembrandt scholarship today have scorned them. The establishment view has led to a very serious decline in public esteem for Rembrandt, triggered by their de-attribution of more than half of his previously accepted works. Konstam finds Rembrandt more variable, more human, more prolific and more honourable than the experts will allow: Rembrandt had an art school not a workshop! Where the experts have expurgated the works that seem below his usual standard of excellence, Konstam simply explains them.

Rembrandt's cultural standing is so important that what he stood for needs to be properly understood and reported today.

Konstam is known for his practical and and common sense demonstrations of artistic methods. As an artist himself, with a lifetime's experience he has a different perspective on the methods used by fellow artists, to those trained as art historians. Konstam recently appeared in Channel 4's acclaimed documentary 'Athens II' demonstrating his discovery of the use of life-casting in Classical Greek sculpture.

*Max Wykes Joyce wrote in The New York Herald Tribune �by implication Konstam's evidence contradicts much of 20thC criticism and scholarship...........Certainly the exhibition (at Imperial College, 1977) is a seminal one that should not be lightly dismissed.�

Testimonials

Slade Professor, Sir Lawrence Gowing found Konstam's division between observed and imagined, "artistically and psychologically much more comprehensible and satisfactory than anything before"

Prof. Brian Coles of Imperial College described his evidence as "compelling assent".

Professor Sir Ernst Gombrich and Dr Jennifer Montagu insisted that The Burlington Magazine publish his article. Gombrich inaugurated Konstam's exhibition at Imperial College saying, "Konstam has produced a great feast for art historians at which he invites them to eat their own words".

Benedict Nicholson editor of The Burlington Magazine wrote "I find the evidence you have accumulated of the greatest possible importance and so I am sure will Rembrandt scholars, who must now get down to revising the corpus of drawings".

Just recently the RRP has taken its first step towards a broader view - congratulations all round! We must ensure that this process accelerates.

This is a rare opportunity to hear two opposing views on this important issue and to understand from the experts why they have neglected evidence that their colleagues have found so compelling.