Rembrandt's 'Workshop' revisited

Abstract

A painting said to be by Rembrandt's 'workshop' is a peculiar thing. Like a poor reproduction, whether a photograph or an old print, the label provides ambiguous information. For the 'figure' (e.g., fig. i) or the figure of speech to have any value to a serious student of Rembrandt's style, he or she must know the actual work of art and also something about the variables involved in the reproductive process, or the conceptual process that leads to a caption or label like 'Rembrandt Workshop.' But here the parallel between visual and mental images breaks down, unless one assumes that the photograph or print reproduces a painting lost long ago. We have no direct knowledge of Rembrandt's workshop, but only a few colorful (as if 'colored by hand') written reports, and the incomplete evidence of paintings, drawings and prints that appear to have been made under the master's supervision. The surviving evidence is not only fragmentary but also may be misleading, as in the case of works of art that have been falsely signed, overcleaned, overrestored, and so on. Copies after lost originals are especially problematic, beginning with the assumption that they are indeed copies not originals, variants, or something else. Thus, a painting said to be by the 'Rembrandt Workshop' is perplexing in several respects, above all to the layman but also to the specialist. For the object itself may draw a string of red herrings across the art historical trail, while the term 'Rembrandt Workshop' comes with a set of hypotheses that, like pickled herrings, might point in another direction.