I tried to make a copy of his portrait at the beginning. I did not draw it out and got his head too big, then I got frustrated because I could not do it and gave up. I am much better as a painter today but now the canvas is damaged.
What is not mentioned or considered, is that Rembrandt did not paint like a figourative painter does today, which is to paint wet into wet like an impressionast. Instead Rembrandt would paint, and then let it dry and then scumble and glaze over the top of his dried work, let that dry completely and then do another layer over the top again. This is how he built his impasto areas and textures. At every stage he got it right, and then let it dry, and then painted another layer into the dried paint. I am however fascintated to learn about the filler that he used, chalk or ground sand. I did not know that.
Hi when I was at art school there was a lot of interest in old master's painting methodology, and I distinctly remember that cold pressed linseed oil was supposed to have been left to thicken for several days , or maybe even weeks, in sunlight, to enable linoxin to form.The effect on the oil would have apparently been superior to boiling it, as that browns it too much.
I think what you're referring to is stand oil. I had a teacher who really liked it but I never got on with it. He was really into scumble-like effects but I always wanted a smooth, creamy texture.
@mister kluge I just looked up what stand oil is and the article claimed it's a group of products. Whatever, I didn't like it but the artist who did was Bruce Samuelson.
Through the sciences we get great insight into the pigments and binders , but the actual materials he used is still a secret . This tells me one thing , he was an alchemist as well. His need to use textures to convey his dimensional effect, as well as working with light shadow and distance was unique and pioneering.
@Janitor Queen No harm done and yeah, I was sloppy with my translation skills in th'm dayz ... ;-D 'home schooled', you know . And I'm really not so easily offended after so many years drifting on You Tube. Ever since I was 5 years old, I wanted to speak and write English. Now that I'm sixty I still make those stjoopid mistakes 🤣
If you were here, and reading this, you might well be very interested in a jolly terrific film called My Rembrandt: the story of how Jan Six saw a picture in an auction catalogue and strongly felt it was a Rembrandt. One of the persons in this here film, young here, is in the My Rembrandt film--years older. I streamed the film My Rembrandt on a platform called Kanopy, available through public libraries using one's library card #. An aside, I've been gazing at a Chagall picture of a loving couple--it is a sweet homage to the painting discussed in this video: the Jewish Bride of 1664. Thank you for reading and caring. Sweet wishes to you.
How incredibly stupid to super analyze and spend so much time and money trying to find the secrets of the composition of Rembrandt's paint, because if they knew every possible thing about it they will NEVER be able to replicate the GENIUS that was in Rembrandt's experiential brain that's gone for four hundred years. One would be better spending their time just drinking in his masterpieces that we are so lucky to still have!! It doesn't do any good making a key when the LOCK is no more!!!
So the understanding of painting materials, material science and Art conservation are not for you. Fine. I found it worthwhile and interesting. Not in the slightest bit stupid as this was NOT a quest for a magic formula so others could paint like Rembrandt but an understanding of the chemical constitution of some of his paintings. Rembrandt seemingly got away with incorporating bitumen and asphaltum like materials in his paintings that have resulted in ruinous results for other painters but not for Rembrandt it seems. Not worth knowing how? Should we all just go back in time and leave Human knowledge at the stage of having only just contemplated the wheel?
@@rickh3714 Runious? Do you think that when Rembrandt painted something of beauty that he ever considered in his alchemy that, gee!! I hope this last forever? The fact is even the Great Pyramids will one day disappear, and human advancement hasn't stop with the Old Masters!! Painting materials have improved in the last 400 years despite millions spent on analysis!!!
@@MykolasGilbert Where is the 400 years of evidence? Accelerated tests notwithstanding? All things must pass- yes. Ephemeral art has it's place. I have done lightfastness tests on supposedly blue wool test 8-7 synthetic pigments in oil that show substantial fading after exposure to sun. I was simply arguing the case for a knowledge of materials being worthwhile and not a fools errand.
Come and visit the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The efforts are to restore the paintings in it's original glory, not specifically to help aspiring painters, more so to maintain a level of quality and visibility so that next generations can still marvel at these masterpieces in their original brightness and splendour. They did a great job at rebuilding the Rijksmuseum and preserving the art for the future.
My own experience is that how long a mixed paint is left produces various viscosity and is controlled by time alone. Semi dry oil paint is almost sculptural like soft clay and will be thicker to use as a sculptural effect. Also a hit and miss effect creates its own roughness or happy surface,so examination of content makes no difference. It is all the same paint but of differing age.waiting untill the correct stiffness is achieved before applying as a texture finish as fit jewellery highlights ,thay are actually 3 dimensional mini sculptures to which paler colours can be added to lighten or darken.
Temperature also affects the viscosity of oil paint. I once watched a plien air painter, painting a cityscape during a snow storm. The more intense the storm, and drop in the temperature, the thicker the paint became. He literally had to string the paint, or glop it on, in order to add more paint. It was pretty intense, and the painting looked like a blizzard in the end. You could feel the storms energy just looking at the painting.
Fifty years ago, I had the pleasure of taking a self-guided tour of the Rijksmuseum that hold many of the paintings of the Dutch Masters. As an amateur artist, I was mesmerized by the careful style & craftsmanship of their paintings that delivered an intimate sense of presence and realism. The intricate paint strokes created a grand illusion. Their period in art history was captured with the high-style clothing and artifacts of their time, distinctly marking early Enlightenment with a magical blend of art and science! Those paintings also showed the Masters' patience that few modern people could endure, even with the zen-like mental transcendence that often pulls the artist into a different world. I carefully studied Rembrandt's 'The Black Watch', 'The Jewish Bride', and other oils by him and other Masters. Meanwhile, my wife was tugging me to move along as I gazed! It was an amazing experience to see up close & personal much of the greatest art ever!
There is a Museum in Sarasota Florida, The Ringling Museum. On the Gulf of Mexico. They have an assembly if different Art Deco buildings and a mansion called Cadzan. Very beautiful grounds. Their Masters Paintings are fantastic. That building takes a day to walk through. You would really enjoy it.
Ypu know how to really look at a painting! I'm the same way. I could spend an entire afternoon tour examing one particular painting. Wjen I played hooky at 14, I would try to get my buddies to.go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art! In those days, 1974, The Met was free if you were a student. We never had a bad time there. We behaved and remained quiet. The museum guards knew what we were up to, but pretty much ignored us.
Pigment is the basis then binders and fillers. .Paint bought in tubes is convenient if one does not have the pigments then this is a type of concentrated sauce to begin with. Making ones own paint , even using tubes ready prepared then modified by the addition of wax , oil, calcium carbonate. ground glass. egg yolk will extend the variable consistency and range of colour of tube paints. The addition of calcium carbonate , sand can also help with relief qualities and quantities of paint in an economical sense. Egg tempera over oil is possible with a ground rubbing of garlic and then oil over this. Devin Roberts below makes the absurd statement that these optical effects can be created with "modern" materials. Yet he produces no evidence. Look at his painting Late night conversations. oil on canvas to see not only stunted drawing but poor optical depth.
Temperature also affects oil paint viscosity. I watched a plein air painter paint a cityscape, as a snow storm started. The paint got thicker as the snow came down faster and faster, and as the temperature dropped. Near the end of the painting, the painter had to string out the paint onto the canvas, or glop it on. The painting really did look like a city in a blizzard. I dont know how he did it. I've bundled up, and tried painting during just a light fluffy snow, and could only manage maybe 45 minutes, or an hour tops.
If linseed in its whole state as a seed is eft to soak in water it will swell and produce a gel around the seed; maybe this was included in the binder? Its interesting the commentary said the pigment was ground and water added first as something would be needed to hold the water or separate it? The natural gel in linseed soak could possibly emulsify the oil and water?
I have read that he also put egg into his paints, as well as glass. I didnt hear this in this research. The evidence of proteins, as well as the lead that was revealed.
I know it's not the "exact" same, but as I watched this, it just reminded me of really gifted chefs -- they are also gardeners and understand their ingredients. The brilliance (imo) of using sand to create light effects. I really enjoyed this documentary, and appreciate all of the effort of everyone.
This reminds me of Werner Herzog's Kaspar Hauser, when the scholars couldn't rest until they knew what was going on in Kaspar's brain. Let it go people. Rembrandt was a genius... he was magical. Let it go and enjoy his work.
Too much focus on the arrow, rather than the archer. Just letting paint dry for a few days or a week alters its texture, with no other material added; this research may be useful for verification/detecting forgeries, but it says little about the artists' genius. Remember Pollock used lots of house paints; had Rembrandt used different paints, I'm pretty sure he would have figured out ways to manipulate them just fine for his purposes. Artists routinely mix various mediums, and this is hardly a melodramatic deep dark secret. Of course he used 'limited palettes'; there were very few reliable pigments available then, and relative contrast heightens the apparent contrast range.
Learning about Rembrandt's paints is far more interesting than watching a documentary on his mediocre Dutch life. There are plenty of those on RU-vid, on his materials there are rather few.
Reread - I did not compare at all. Point being, Rembrandt's manipulation of his materials gave him the results he was after, and had he been limited to house paint, I suspect he could have worked wonders with that limited medium as well. Attributing too much significance to the materials used by the greats is a subtle left-handed compliment, as if to imply of course, it was all about the medium, or the solvent, or something other than the mind of the man holding the brush.
z1522 you missed a loooot of the point... And no generally oil paints texture does not change significantly if AT ALL while drying.. Do you paint in oils? How could you say that? If so what in the world could you be adding to your oils to change their texture during drying? Lastly when van de wetering said limited palettes were used, he is not speaking relative to ALL the available pigment colors EVER he is saying Rembrandt deliberately for one reason or another made individual "palettes" or combined preparations of paints for specific parts (passages) of the painting.. As opposed to having one massive common palette with the same consistencies of paint for the entire painting as a whole (as is common today)
Aaron exactly, the commenter seems to think everyone should focus on the same thing. These documentaries are needed for the big picture view of the artist!
He's obviously bilingual (at least) in English and Dutch, as after he speaks names in a Dutch accent, the following couple of words are also tinged in the Dutch accent. He also lets the Dutch accent slip throughout if you concentrate. You can tell this quite often when he says 'paint, or words with 'r' constanant.
One thing apparently not considered (or mentioned) by these researchers is the role "impurities/ contaminants" played in the effects achieved by artists/craftspeople of all sorts. It's now well known that it is the "impurities" (resins & salts) in the woods and varnishes that make the sound of Stradivarius stringed instruments "unique". I believe this was discovered in the 1980s and so should have been known by them but they didn't acknowledge. Someone in the comments here mentioned the possible effect water-soaking the linseed before pressing out the oil might have. THAT is right to the point. Every manipulation of Rembrandt's materials would have added/ subtracted "impurities" in addition to those he intentionally put in. The analysis done here, while informative, didn't go far enough is all I'm saying.
It's actually most amazing that his paintings held up. By using thicker paint to produce texture, there seems to be more area that may be affected by time. Cleaning such paintings must have been especially difficult.
This narrator is the first I have ever heard to pronounce “Van Gogh” correctly. Very refreshing. But it horrifies me that the researchers take paint off the painting, no matter how minute the amount of paint removed.
Plus, some artists could paint regardless of binder or pigments...the Masters were generally "Savants". They were gifted at painting and sometimes that is something that cannot be taught.
Once somebody plays a song sombody else can play it ...except there are a few people that nobody can copy exactly. This Rembrandt is the best,I might as well throw away my brushes and dump my paint down the sink,I'm am not worthy.
Rembrandt allowed paint to thicken on the palette before applying the paint. He rarely cleaned off the paint on the palette and he used this nearly dried paint to create beautiful surface textures. Cold wax was also used. I completely disagree with the assertion that he used different mixtures of mediums for different areas of the painting. It was all about dry vs. wet.
Really, really interessting. I am very sure he uses flour.. also his father was a miller.. it's not about the oil its about the particles and fillers as he says at the end.
Flour would make the paint go mouldy I'm thinking. I'm a painter, I wouldn't use any foodstuffs in my work for that reason. The exception would be egg based emulsion, but that is prepared in a special way.
This was obviously made in the 90s.. I mean the computers.. are so outdated now... and the quality of the video is not HD... But still what a fascinating documentary...
can you just imagine how that painting ("the jewish bride") would look if it were cleaned.....that yellowed varnish must be obscuring some absolutely amazing colors.
I shall save you 25 minutes- We finally find out after extensive research that he used linseed oil and various proteins as a binder, vermillion, carmine (transparent red), quite extensive glazing, different brush strokes, blending techniques and mixed paint at different times .....
Anthony Damore I see that in 2 years nobody has seen fit to tell you how useless your attempt to spoil this video is. Your information is a succinct lesson in providing utterly useless information and actually saying nothing while seeming to say something.
@@MellowWind Smalt is a blue made by grinding cobalt blue glass. It's one of the older blues. Seldom used these days in oil paints, sometimes still used in watercolors.
I really appreciate this wonderful document. I have to say, however, an overemphasis on technique and materials, with an under appreciation of the importance of years of practice and study is revealed. Perhaps, this is one of the secrets of R.'s greatness. In these days, artists attend universities and are expected to graduate a few years later as fully fledged artist. At end the narrator does state that the "unparralleled artistry with which Rembrandt exercised his craft". The rounds out the narrative but seriously under states, I believe, in which mastery (from many long years of practice and study) achieved the result that we see in his works.
This presentation and research methods, and final conclusions are astounding, and as a novice portrait painter, trying to capture some of the feelings and gestures of a few of his self-portraits, I have so much greater respect for his work, but as you said, even this opens us up to even more questions, this was so incredibly wonderful and helpful, especially when you specified that he worked with a limited pallet, thank you, MSG Leum
He was really good, but unsurpassed?? No. Carravaggio, Leonardo, Vermeer, all are just as good if not better. Better draftsmen. He used a looser style than them, indeed his work is along the path towards Impressionism. That a glob of paint could be an impression of light playing with reality.
"Better draftsmen"? Have you looked closely at a Rembrandt etching or the facial expressions he portrays? I thing 'better' or 'worse' are false distinctions among the above named artists -- they all produced artworks of staggering craftsmanship. Achieved by intense, prolonged effort to perfect an innate talent. A process, I'm afraid, which is very much out of fashion today.
9:41 I always wondered whether painters had instructions for how to view paintings, what type of lighting to use, etc. and I finally found an example of it here. It's strange to me that even in famous museums the lighting seems standardized, even for different styles of painting. I doubt the painters would want them presented in such a way, but maybe it's easier to compare different paintings under the same lighting/room setup.
its never standard, every painting has different demands, curators meet these with different varieties of light etc. that is essentially part of their main job.
Jeff K i just went to see a Van Gogh exhibit at the Melbourne National Gallery. The lighting was so dim and amber-coloured, it was hard to actually see details properly in the paintings. They were also all covered with glass panes, which made them all sparkly/reflective. To top that off, they were mostly all framed in big, chunky wooden frames that threw a big black shadow across the top, obscuring the entire top 2 inches of each piece. Now i am neither expert or curator. Am sure there are factors I don't understand, and really am happy that I got to a chance to take in VG at his finest, but it definitely detracted from an experience I had been looking forward to for a long time...
@@NEprimo Yes, but as there is no way of knowing, at present, the composition of the water used, one should start using pure water. It's an issue encountered frequently when attempting to recreate something, and it turns out that the original was actually the result of some kind of contamination. This is what happened when scientists recently tried to recreate part of nuclear warheads, specifically a type of foam designed to become plasma after the primary of the warhead detonates. That's right, Rembrandt and nuclear warfare both interest me. The scientists failed until they found that it was the contamination of the original ingredients that created the desired result. Pretty cool, at least to me.
I for one am not surprises by the difference in layer upon layer in technique . Could it be due to the need to mix as he went due to $ and availability of such materials that he founded such technique ? As an artist I know how This would be a possibility ,I mean he couldn't just go to store and have exacting duplication of having to mix as you go and creating such works in his hand so to speak developed in by doing . I Am believer of creativity as gift In each of us ,some of us don't keep forward at perfecting our talent some must Endeavor Mastery to it I am Reminded of the " Masters " term to such ?
Why do you put music to this? What sense does it make? If anything it only competes with the narration for attention and quickly makes me lose focus on what I want to hear and understand..
I can't imagine any "modern" painter's works being examined in such a manner 400 years from now. I mean what would they find worth knowing? Paint? Lowe's Home Improvement enamel with a color match to "Lauren's Surprise". Method? Painted with a broom at 12 feet covering the entire canvas in that single color. Style? Late post modern delusional expressionism. Inspiration? Laziness and total lack of ingenuity or originality yet wants to be known as the "Great Artiste" they envision themselves to be. In the future, there will be a great void after the true artists have left us with masterpieces worthy the name of "art".
Yes there are art snobs now as there were then and just as dismissive of their work. With every generation comes new snobs who tell how wonderful art used to be.
I Dont mind knowing masters work methods. I read history when I was doing my masters in art and design, now doing paintings as wel as design work, I don't believe in taking copying methods or reference, but an inspiration and the patience and how much they were dedicated for work of art. That's why they are alive and immortal.
The stuff they did way back when was amazing, one of the best things we can learn from them is mixing colors and layering colors to get our desired affects, i mixed some of my own colors when i first took up oil painting as i lived in the deep wood on a mountain in kentucky and while digging a trench i discovered multiple layers of different colored clay which i tryed to make pliable clay with and eventually thought i could dry it crush it and make different piments mixed with linseed oil and actaully got a couple paints that worked well on the old farm impliment parts i was painting on was a fun experiment but much easier to buy consistant paints at the ol art store
I think this was very natural and normal by that time and other artist at that time and in that places nearby where Rembrandt used to learn all those techniques, they knew about them. The fact that other artists are not famous and neither they were famous at that time could mean a lot of things, like that they have no financial possibilities to continue their work, or to show their work, or to master their skills better or to have the right connections... I'm surprised by his work and I totally accept his superior painting techniques and harmony, but for sure it is hard to re-paint today what he painted almost 400 years ago, not only because the raw materials are changed, but everything has evolved, different techniques are being used today to paint, to get the raw materials, to apply them and definitely, times has changed everything, so it's very complex and maybe impossible to represent the same way what he and others, achieved hundreds of years ago. I would suggest to admire their work and let them be who they are, the greatest of the past centuries, but let us dive into new prospective and way of working, so we can create the paints of tomorrow instead of collecting and copying the history of yesterday.
We must research his apprentices and paint mixers. Each person must have also brought his own little secrets. Also the people who.sold him the pigments..but I agree it's the Binder. A pallett is a mixing board. It's tool you can save the original shade of color you started out with. As the light fades in the room, as the day progresses, the color appears very different. I also imagine that he applied every color we see here in layers. As if he were building up.his colors and shadows as he went along. Picture a system of retouching a painting that never ends..
The "magic" you refer to is in the artist's consciousness. Analysing materials is interesting but will not inform,however minutely one looks, as to how he did it. This is a matter of the mind and experience. The use of silica was not for "economy" as she suggests. That suggestion is ludicrous.' It was used for its refractive index and body. It refracts light. It is like analyzing in the quantum levels.You know the electrons are there and even behave like objects but you can find them exactly. Same with Rembrandt. Even he was approximately exact and knew the quantum aspects of painting. Same with Leonardo and Turner.
I agree, they are totally missing the point of what the team is trying to do, which is to broaden our understanding of how Rembrandt worked and produced his masterpieces.
Imagine if the mass production of paint tubes in the later 19th century and their consistancy had not been intruduced to the art world.... The myriad of different techniques that would have subsequently been created which now, alas, have not. Then again, plein air painting probably wouldnt have reached the heights it did.
Image these goofballs trying to figure out a Bob Ross Painting. It must have taken him years to make this masterpiece and he probably made his paint by beating elements together with rocks
Have you considered that if he were alive today he would not want his methods revealed. If it was something he was happy to share with the world he would have written it. So, out of respect for this great man why not let the mystery continue and let us enjoy his illusion without revealing his secret. I don’t know many magicians who like their magic revealed to the world.
Give a guy a machine and he wants it to give results instead of think. Soak the particles of quartz in the oil mixing right before painting then let the oil in the quartz seep out while drawing some of the pigments in. Gives more of a shine or glow in the light. Leave the quartz in the paint a long time and you saturate with pigments loosing the reflection.
@@tr33m00nk It's not solid quartz rock. It's pulverized quartz so fractured quartz with no matter how small has fissures allowing oil to penetrate into the structure. It's not a chemical solution. It's a few steps above cave wall paintings.
Reminds me of the scientists trying to re-create the specifics of the hunter-gatherers' life by analyzing seeds or grass particles in the petrified turd. If Rembrandt had 1/1000 of the money they now spend on this, he would be a happier man, lived longer, painted more and used more expensive materials. And I seriously doubt he would consider this as a good way of understanding him. BTW. His technique was not on par with somebody like, say, Velazquez. So he was putting layer after layer trying to get the right thing. Oil paint is an emulsion that dries and forms the thin film on the surface. Additional layers don't form a bond strong enough. Hence all that craquelure and dry skin flakes that form a "gorgeous gold brocade".
I feel all those x-rays eventually will affect the paintings. I think the answer to the high whites/highlights is heavy metals..lead!..He must have got poisoning by it! .and raw talent for portraiture of course.
Beat me to it; they said virtually nothing, but used media-speak to disguise the fact. It is the _handling_ of the paint that matters in this case, not some search for a chimerical mystical ingredient. I guess people want a magical answer which negates pure talent and experience.
From what I heard is that many used to lick their brushes clean, hence mad as a hatter after a few years due to lead poisoning. Mercury is a known brain toxic. Makes sense then. Van Gogh took it to extremes adding Absynth to the equation.
This is a most important video of Rembrandt's techniques. He was absolutely a master of his own magical abilities of applying his paint and the use of the thicknesses that was used in his own creations. One of his most important idiosyncrasies that was used by Rembrandt was of his own style and was used only by him which will prove everything that was created by himself later on down the road. Yes,.... I do believe Rembrandt was the greatest Dutch artist that ever came down the pike until the arrival of one of his adversaries,.... Vincent Willem van Gogh.
15:39 to identify the elements , and here they mention 2 of the 3 alchemical primes. Mercury and sulfur. The 3rd is salt , which will be present if the painting was shipped anywhere lol.
Salt is everywhere in Amsterdam, the North sea is close. We have lost a lot over time, alchemy has become a mystery instead of a science for most famous people.
