|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
message de groupe de discussion : 4bfeccb3$1@news.povray.org...
> After highly specialized research involving x-rays and more it was shown
> that the painting was not painted by Rembrandt himself, but by an unknown
> pupil of Rembrandt. And, lo and behold, the famous painting was not so
> good anymore, and they wanted to remove it from the collection.
I doubt that the curators thought that the painting was "not so good
anymore". It is just that, once established that the painting was not from
Rembrandt, its historical and artistic significance became different and
murkier. For instance, it could be a faithful or crappy copy of something
that Rembrandt did (but has been lost since), or an original work from an
unknown genius. In any case it cannot be studied from a "Rembrandt"
perspective anymore. The painting no longer tells us anything about
Rembrandt, all the "Rembrandt" features people admired in it have
disappeared and whatever it told us about Rembrandt must now be erased from
art books. It's now in its own little isolated bubble of art history. It
does not mean that people should not enjoy it, but it cannot be looked at
and appreciated the same way as before.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |