| |
afterRubens.org > The debate so far > Discussion board |
 |
 |
|
| Discussion Board (most recent first) |
Part of what makes the Samson and Delilah so interesting as a work of art is the extreme disparity in the response it evokes from people - both those who have seen it perhaps just once, as well as scholars who may have studied it for half a lifetime.
Below you will find comments both for and against the attribution, as well as more general observations that visitors to the site have sent in. Please recommend the comments you find most interesting and let us know how you see it too.
You are viewing comments chronologically with the most recent first; you can also order them by the number of reader recommendations they have recieved.
 |
|
| |
Rubens is not my favorite painter. In fact, I don't like him that much, but I acknowledge his grace and disciplined eye. That said, Samson and Delilah is most definitely a copy. And a really bad one. It's most amazing that an institution like the National Gallery would defend the ownership, provenance and awful technique of this painting. It's a shame they call it a masterpiece when the effect created by the painter is one of horrible, amateurish plastic detachment. The compostion does not follow Rubens rules. The "extras" and repositioning of elements betray the hand ans sensibility of a lesser painter. This web site has done a wonderful job at debunking the myth of this awful painting and I hope it starts an honest debate over this painting and many others that are in similar circumstances.
Andres Gonzalez, Designer, New York, USA
|
|
|
| |
After viewing the comparison of details, it is past obvious that Rubens could have never created this painting. I agree that the man in the doorway (looking directly at the viewer) is the forger.
My thanks to you for creating this site.
ej moore, Writer, Knoxville, USA
|
|
|
| |
While this Website raises a lot of interesting questions about the painting, and that's worthwhile, it doesn't prove much. The print and the Burgomaster Rockox painting don't agree in every detail, and both are closer to the National Gallery's painting in some ways than they are to each other--neither appears to duplicate draperies with great exactitude, the print omits rug patterns that appear in the Rockox painting, the angle of the foot in the print is much closer to the foot in the painting. The print and the Rockox work also differ in the furniture details on the Roman bed or divan. I think the face of Delilah in the National Gallery's painting is much closer to what we think of as typically "Rubens."
Regarding the cut-off foot, I don't think that proves much. A print-maker would certainly "correct" such details, no matter how proud he might be of his otherwise unstinting exactitude.
Commentary about the Rockox painting also ignores the fact that the painter likely finished the painting in his study, perhaps with a copy of the print to guide him.
I think this is probably still a Rubens, even if he didn't paint every detail, and such works still deserve to be called "masterpieces." Even if this is a high-grade copy, it's the best extent version of Ruben's painting that we know of. Do we care about art, the aesthetic experience, visual enjoyment, or are we just credentialist art historians who take the values of the "academy" with them wherever they go, consigning everything that doesn't have the imprimatur of a diploma or a royal seal to oblivion?
It's good to examine this painting and raise questions about it, but whatever it may be, it's not just something that the cat dragged in. Not that these art historians are going quite that far in their opinions.
J. Smith
|
|
|
| |
Hmm... I came to this site a skeptic, but it didn't take much persuasion on your part to convince me of the likely veracity of your claims! The drapery alone is handled in a very amateurish way (I'm surprised you haven't commented on it); the carpet looks suspect for many reasons (is that a 19th-c. *printed* pattern?), the palette is pretty ghastly - and the handling of the human figure is (for lack of a better phrase) spectacularly clunky. (The background figures - doorway and - sculpture - are cringeworthy.)
My take: this is as phony as Hans van Meergen's supposed Vermeers. I'd like to see Rubens' work reevaluated with the same intensity and rigor that's been used in regard to Rembrandt attributions.
And the Getty isn't exactly a name to invoke when talking about fakes!
Ellen Collison, ex-art historian , Reedsville, USA
|
|
|
| |
It seems clear to me from the material I have seen on this website that the painting of Samson and Delilah pictured here cannot possibly a painting by a master.
I can understand why the staff at the National Gallery would be reluctant to admit as much, considering the high price paid for the painting, but even my poorly schooled eye can see that the face and hand of the old woman do not in any way merit the term "master."
Paul Henry, High School Math Teacher, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
|
|
|
| |
I'm suprised you didn't mention the dicrepencies of the two headed snake on the couch between the painting and the engraving. Even a layman like myself can see this is not a Rubens.
Bill
|
|
|
| |
I'm shocked. I came to this website expecting the usual wild-crank lunacy, but I came away completely convinced. The side-by side comparisons leave no room for doubt--the proof is in the painting. This is no Rubens.
Diane Pittman, Data Analyst, Pittsburgh, US
|
|
|
| |
This visual research makes it clear enough that this painting doesn´t belong to Rubens style... unless it was on the level of a sketch, and he never finished it...
The other possibility could be that they needed what they considered a masterpiece to be reknown ($$$), and therefore gave Rubens the authority of this extremely different painting.
Bennu Corbishley, Designer student, Malaga, Spain
|
|
|
| |
The painting is a total fake and should be treated as such. It is a great felony committed on the art world and lovers of art.
Uzoma Samuel, Quantity Surveyor, Abuja, Nigeria
|
|
|
| |
very interesting arguement. It would be interesting to know whether other engravings by Jacob Matham depicted other known works exactly or not. It would seem that a master engraver would not take artistic licence with such a picture when the original work existed for easy comparision. Would he be so foolish... certaintly not. A Rubens?...... most certaintly not.
william biggin, police officer, corner brook newfoundland, canada
|
|
|
|
