Yes Saul, you are so right on your discoveries of hidden figures by Rembrandt. The art of seeing you see, is usually seen differently by most everyone. People in general see things as they themselves want to see things, not as the artist in question, the absolute real artist of the work of art. The copyist's have no idea of these questionable discoveries and have no ways of reproducing their effects as to the satisfaction of the original artist or the connoisseurs of that particular artist.
You are so right with your discoveries of hidden figures by Rembrandt, but they are questionable to where they are actually seen by other viewers. As it is well know, everyone seems to see quite differently, as Rembrandt and Vincent would tell it.. The art of seeing you see, is a art in itself, usually seen by the artist in question, the one who happened to be the real artist, not the MFA copyists.
Um, definitely not the eye socket, unless rembrandt is like 10 feet tall. I can see the profile of a nose and mouth, which is more reasonable without the giant eye socket because a profile view would mean the eye is hidden behind his wife.
This makes sense. Thanks for sharing. It is not uncommon. When I studied Art History, we were taught this for Italian painters; Masaccio, della Francesca...Even Watteau with Rococo art had hidden symbolism based on contemporary court/fan language. I think it is an interesting comment.
Because you don't look is no reason to question those who do..I have many many other examples of Rembrandt's use of hidden images..look at his etchings and drawings without a point of view and you might learn..
it is not hidden anything. as a painter the over lays can be scene from the glazing process. if anything consistent brush strokes cause a illusion of other faces and objects.
I could introduce you to other examples..many, many other Rembrandt's and other greats did the same..it is called hidden symbols and it was used in other mediums as well..in other cultures and other times since humans started to 'create' their world the use of the 'hidden' was used..
The Latin root of the word literacy is the same as intellect. The source for that word also gives us its true meaning:inter-leggere or to read between the lines. An intellectual is defined by an ability to read between the lines, to analyze and to think critically. To understand things on many levels at the same time. This was done by artists through all time.
I didn't get much of a message..if you would like to go to my website and click on videos there are a number of other videos that indicate the thinking. You might like the multiple views on Picasso and Rembrandt.
Artchive,ucalgary,wikipedia,artbible,abcgallery,humanities web,art of europe,bestpriceart..I think you might have a problem and I think these might help you now and in the future..
Those are "not" hidden figures; the face you claim to see is no more evident than what one might see in a cloud or a coffee stain (or a tortilla -could that be Jesus?).
And not to know that that second painting is 'The Jewish Bride' is to know nothing about Rembrandt at all -it's as though you were to refer to 'Hamlet' as 'The Ghost's Tale'.
The Latin root of the word literacy is the same as intellect(or to read).The source for that word also gives us its true meaning:inter-leggere(to read between the lines)An intellectual is defined by an ability to read between the lines, to analyze and to think critically, to understand things on many levels at the same time. This has been done by major artists through all time especially since the renaissance.
You are so wrong in your statement that it isn't called 'The Jewish Bride'..I invite you to look it up on the internet..I have checked some 5 sources and all of them call it what I stated..
This is 100% something that Rembrandt did in all of his work, and yes, I said all. In a catalogue of his raisonne dated late 1700's it is already well known that he, having the skills learned from miniturist learnings, incorporated many sometimes up to (20) faces in his etchings.....these were often times completely erased, yet most times, he would just soften that which he wanted to be discovered later, and pull the eye to where he wanted current focus to fall. Master in every sense.
I just now discovered your comments..I agree with you 100%..it is funny that when one presents the fact of this that so many don't want to believe..they have bought into the photograph is king idea..they don't want to use their brain power to think why is Rembrandt one of the greats and others are not..
The first one i really dont see too much. I think that you can see anything you want if you stare at it long enough. The second example is more convincing but isnt there a chance that he had wanted them in the background originally then decided he didnt like them in the background and just painted over them?
Given Rembrandt's fame, it might be surprising to find that the quality in his paintings is not distributed evenly, but that may even be a conscious trick on the painter's part to highlight the best and most important sections.
The eye does not perceive all of a painting's surface at once -- it rather wanders around discovering one particular detail after the other. So together with a sense of stage lighting Rembrandt might have managed the way to discover and enjoy his work.
The observation that the hand doesn't really fit is interesting itself, though. You find lots of weak parts in Rembrandt's paintings once you start looking for them. In fact, Rembrandt was not the only painter working quite uneven with respect to the total body of the painting surface.
Leonardo may not have been the first two suggest looking at clouds and weathered walls to enhance the imagination by trying to figure out faces and any other subjects -- this obviously doesn't mean that what you see is where you see it, convincing or not. So if you see something that isn't really obvious even after pointing to it, chances are you overinterpret what you see.
Well, that's an interesting thesis, but I'm afraid that there is nothing to it. Just manipulating contrast and other digitally accessible factors will certainly not reveal what is behind the surface. X-ray investigation might show a layer which may influence the actual appearance, but this doesn't even mean that a worked out figure beneath the surface is meant to be part of the final work or even be in any way related to it.
The painting with the couple has been attributed to the Biblical couple Jacob and Rebecca, to Rembrandt's son Titus and his bride, to others as well ... but yes, for centuries this masterpiece has been entitled "The Jewish Bride".
I find it interesting that your comment does not include the main reason for this analysis(the use of hidden images)..whether or not this was Rembrandt's son is not the important element..it is the use of a 'witness' to a wedding..he was not the only painter to do so..I invite you to look at Van Eycks wedding portrait also..
Yes Saul, you are so right on your discoveries of hidden figures by Rembrandt. The art of seeing you see, is usually seen differently by most everyone. People in general see things as they themselves want to see things, not as the artist in question, the absolute real artist of the work of art. The copyist's have no idea of these questionable discoveries and have no ways of reproducing their effects as to the satisfaction of the original artist or the connoisseurs of that particular artist.
vanrijngo 6 months ago
You are so right with your discoveries of hidden figures by Rembrandt, but they are questionable to where they are actually seen by other viewers. As it is well know, everyone seems to see quite differently, as Rembrandt and Vincent would tell it.. The art of seeing you see, is a art in itself, usually seen by the artist in question, the one who happened to be the real artist, not the MFA copyists.
vanrijngo 6 months ago
Um, definitely not the eye socket, unless rembrandt is like 10 feet tall. I can see the profile of a nose and mouth, which is more reasonable without the giant eye socket because a profile view would mean the eye is hidden behind his wife.
miceskin 11 months ago
IDIOT!
ianlutz 1 year ago
This makes sense. Thanks for sharing. It is not uncommon. When I studied Art History, we were taught this for Italian painters; Masaccio, della Francesca...Even Watteau with Rococo art had hidden symbolism based on contemporary court/fan language. I think it is an interesting comment.
antheajk 1 year ago
this, is, fucking, retarded, divinci code, wanna be's
RsAnc1ents 2 years ago
Because you don't look is no reason to question those who do..I have many many other examples of Rembrandt's use of hidden images..look at his etchings and drawings without a point of view and you might learn..
bernsart 2 years ago
it is not hidden anything. as a painter the over lays can be scene from the glazing process. if anything consistent brush strokes cause a illusion of other faces and objects.
it up to ones imagination
befranklintoo 2 years ago
I could introduce you to other examples..many, many other Rembrandt's and other greats did the same..it is called hidden symbols and it was used in other mediums as well..in other cultures and other times since humans started to 'create' their world the use of the 'hidden' was used..
thanks for your partially correct analysis
bernsart 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really do not know why i am wasting my time writing to you.
saskias ' masculine' hand is seen as being so, because she is wearing a GLOVE! its cold in the Netherlands. She's not in sunny Italy!
portervillelouis 3 years ago
evidently you don't go to your site..the answer is below from bernsart 2 months ago..
good luck
bernsart 3 years ago
The Latin root of the word literacy is the same as intellect. The source for that word also gives us its true meaning:inter-leggere or to read between the lines. An intellectual is defined by an ability to read between the lines, to analyze and to think critically. To understand things on many levels at the same time. This was done by artists through all time.
bernsart 3 years ago
And?
polymath7 3 years ago
I didn't get much of a message..if you would like to go to my website and click on videos there are a number of other videos that indicate the thinking. You might like the multiple views on Picasso and Rembrandt.
thanks again
bernsart 3 years ago
To help you further..the following websites are
Artchive,ucalgary,wikipedia,artbible,abcgallery,humanities web,art of europe,bestpriceart..I think you might have a problem and I think these might help you now and in the future..
thanks again
bernsart 3 years ago
Those are "not" hidden figures; the face you claim to see is no more evident than what one might see in a cloud or a coffee stain (or a tortilla -could that be Jesus?).
And not to know that that second painting is 'The Jewish Bride' is to know nothing about Rembrandt at all -it's as though you were to refer to 'Hamlet' as 'The Ghost's Tale'.
polymath7 3 years ago
The Latin root of the word literacy is the same as intellect(or to read).The source for that word also gives us its true meaning:inter-leggere(to read between the lines)An intellectual is defined by an ability to read between the lines, to analyze and to think critically, to understand things on many levels at the same time. This has been done by major artists through all time especially since the renaissance.
bernsart 3 years ago
You are so wrong in your statement that it isn't called 'The Jewish Bride'..I invite you to look it up on the internet..I have checked some 5 sources and all of them call it what I stated..
thank you again
bernsart 3 years ago
This is 100% something that Rembrandt did in all of his work, and yes, I said all. In a catalogue of his raisonne dated late 1700's it is already well known that he, having the skills learned from miniturist learnings, incorporated many sometimes up to (20) faces in his etchings.....these were often times completely erased, yet most times, he would just soften that which he wanted to be discovered later, and pull the eye to where he wanted current focus to fall. Master in every sense.
sonofaspade 4 years ago
I just now discovered your comments..I agree with you 100%..it is funny that when one presents the fact of this that so many don't want to believe..they have bought into the photograph is king idea..they don't want to use their brain power to think why is Rembrandt one of the greats and others are not..
thanks again
bernsart 2 years ago
The first one i really dont see too much. I think that you can see anything you want if you stare at it long enough. The second example is more convincing but isnt there a chance that he had wanted them in the background originally then decided he didnt like them in the background and just painted over them?
PhilCommander2 4 years ago
Given Rembrandt's fame, it might be surprising to find that the quality in his paintings is not distributed evenly, but that may even be a conscious trick on the painter's part to highlight the best and most important sections.
The eye does not perceive all of a painting's surface at once -- it rather wanders around discovering one particular detail after the other. So together with a sense of stage lighting Rembrandt might have managed the way to discover and enjoy his work.
WernerPopken 4 years ago
The observation that the hand doesn't really fit is interesting itself, though. You find lots of weak parts in Rembrandt's paintings once you start looking for them. In fact, Rembrandt was not the only painter working quite uneven with respect to the total body of the painting surface.
WernerPopken 4 years ago
Leonardo may not have been the first two suggest looking at clouds and weathered walls to enhance the imagination by trying to figure out faces and any other subjects -- this obviously doesn't mean that what you see is where you see it, convincing or not. So if you see something that isn't really obvious even after pointing to it, chances are you overinterpret what you see.
WernerPopken 4 years ago
Well, that's an interesting thesis, but I'm afraid that there is nothing to it. Just manipulating contrast and other digitally accessible factors will certainly not reveal what is behind the surface. X-ray investigation might show a layer which may influence the actual appearance, but this doesn't even mean that a worked out figure beneath the surface is meant to be part of the final work or even be in any way related to it.
WernerPopken 4 years ago
The painting with the couple has been attributed to the Biblical couple Jacob and Rebecca, to Rembrandt's son Titus and his bride, to others as well ... but yes, for centuries this masterpiece has been entitled "The Jewish Bride".
buddmar 4 years ago
That's not a painting of his son's wedding. That's The Jewish Bride.
JanSchipper 4 years ago
I find it interesting that your comment does not include the main reason for this analysis(the use of hidden images)..whether or not this was Rembrandt's son is not the important element..it is the use of a 'witness' to a wedding..he was not the only painter to do so..I invite you to look at Van Eycks wedding portrait also..
thanks for you comment..
saul
saulart 4 years ago