after Rubens: the strange story of the Samson and Delilah
 
 
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.

Viewing comments 91 to 100 of 110
Ordered by: date received | recommendations


Submitted: 30 October 2005, 1:16:42 PM
  Are there any other examples of it being 'not unlike his other paintings of the period', as the Director of the National asserts?

Can we be sure that that Francken did not use the engraving to fill in the detail of Samson and Delilah in his painting?

Spencer Steadman, London, UK

This comment has been recommended 1299 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 29 October 2005, 12:55:01 PM
  Cutting off the toes of a hero's foot is a clear sign that this painting is not the work of a master. Rubens was a great respecter of naked feet and I am shocked that the National Gallery can hang a painting by someone who has such contempt for the sensitivities of modern, art-loving, pediphiles.

Terry Gilliam, Filmmaker, London, UK

This comment has been recommended 2736 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 29 October 2005, 12:49:13 PM
  I've just gone through the case against S&D=R in the flash video, and I think that perhaps it is time to see the other side of the case - what made its authenticity so compelling that the National Gallery was advised to buy this piece of work for ₤2.5m in 1980?

The debate's a little unbalanced, don't you think?

May-Ann, Singapore

This comment has been recommended 965 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 29 October 2005, 12:06:51 PM
  The case presented on the website is very convincing, particularly the relatively primitive technique - it simply doesn't look like a master.

But at the same time, I find it hard to conceive that the National Gallery was simply daft enough to buy a work, at such a price, without giving at least as much attention to detail as the authors have here. It seems like too big a mistake for such an institution.

Eleanor

This comment has been recommended 953 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 29 October 2005, 3:04:58 AM
  Need more information... my hunch is it's not Rubens.

Mohammad Abdoh, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam

This comment has been recommended 958 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 28 October 2005, 10:15:26 AM
  I entirely agree with you that the painting is not by the hand of Rubens: maybe a copy by a student.

David Russell, Compiègne, France

This comment has been recommended 968 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 27 October 2005, 11:32:05 PM
  You seem to have a very strong case. Well done !

Dino Joannides, London, UK

This comment has been recommended 1064 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 27 October 2005, 7:21:43 PM
  Looking at this painting one gets the impression that the artist, whoever he was other than the master himself, made an agonizing effort - yet unsuccesfully - to make it look like a Rubens.

Stephanos Karaiskakis, Athens, Greece

This comment has been recommended 1026 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 27 October 2005, 7:13:30 PM
  In the National Gallery painting there is a vulgar contrast between shadow and light unlike Rubens paintings where the light is brighter and the shadowy parts more profound and mysterious. This painting is flat and not redolent of fineness.

Pierretta Lorenzatou, Athens, Greece

This comment has been recommended 974 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 27 October 2005, 6:20:03 PM
  I am not a Rubens expert, though I was once a colleague of the late Dr Fritz Grossmann, who knew Dr Burchard well.

Viewing the Samson with others we felt that the flesh painting was uncharacteristic of teven the other Rubens with which the National Gallery compares the Samson.

Dr Selby Whittingham, Secretary/Editor, The Watteau Society, London, England

This comment has been recommended 949 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Viewing comments 91 to 100 of 110
Ordered by: date received | recommendations

Comment
If you'd like to send in a comment please go to the main comment form, or fill in the form below, providing at least your name and comment. Comments will be reviewed before they are shown on the site, and email adresses will never be published or shared.
Name*
Occupation  
City
Country
e-mail
Comment*