> 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

Why? It is the painting that is important, not the painter. At least in my 
point of view.

Either the painting was good or was bad. If it was good and a fine example 
of the baroque style, it still is or still should be. It was painted in the 
period - so much is clear. My point is that it should not matter who did the 
work - the work should speak for itself.

> 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.

I grant you that. If you are not interested in baroque art but in 
"Rembrandt" (the painter) you are right. But if it was considered a 
masterpiece of the baroque style of art (which it was for decades) then it 
still should be considered a masterpiece - regardless if it was painted by 
Rembrandt or John Doe.

Post a reply to this message