Stunning Revelation: Chicago Art Institute’s Rembrandt Is a Copy!

A painting in the UK previously believed to be a mere replica produced by an assistant in Rembrandt’s studio has been identified as an original work by the renowned 17th-century Dutch artist himself, as per the analysis of a prominent expert.

The artworks, both known as Old Man with a Gold Chain and created in the early 1630s, portray an elderly man adorned with a gold chain and a feathered hat, each nearly life-sized.

For the first time in nearly four centuries, these two artworks were brought together by the Art Institute of Chicago, which possesses the panel painting long recognized as authentic.

The second painting, slightly smaller and on canvas, comes from the collection of Sir Francis Newman, a Cambridge entrepreneur. It was previously categorized as a “copy” by someone within Rembrandt’s circle.

Nonetheless, Rembrandt specialist Gary Schwartz has determined that both paintings were created by Rembrandt himself. He points to the exceptional brushwork quality and notes that it was common for Dutch painters of that era to produce several versions of their works.

A French contemporary of Rembrandt from the late 17th century remarked: “It is rare to find a painter [in the Netherlands] who did not recreate one of his paintings either from personal preference or at a patron’s request for a duplicate.”

Schwartz expressed to the Guardian: “It’s a matter of whether we choose to acknowledge that Rembrandt painted it. This discovery is thrilling. It invites us to reconsider the origins of many paintings once more.”

He elaborated: “If Rembrandt had a client who wanted a duplicate of the appealing Old Man, what would be the most logical and efficient approach? Would he delegate it to an apprentice, whose execution might need corrections, or would he replicate the process himself while the steps were still fresh in his mind and hands? The latter scenario is more plausible and explains the high quality found in the canvas.”

Investigations using X-ray and infrared on the Chicago version showed underdrawings and modifications to the figure’s attire. These types of corrections were not observed in the canvas, leading Schwartz to comment: “If it were done by an apprentice, there would likely be errors needing correction by the master. This painting matches the original precisely.”

Newman’s great-grandfather acquired the painting as an authentic Rembrandt in 1898 from Agnews, a notable London gallery, for a significant amount. Schwartz noted, “It was indeed taken very seriously back then.” However, when the other painting surfaced in 1912, the canvas was dismissed by distinguished German art historian Wilhelm Bode as “a clever reproduction”.

Schwartz, who is set to give a lecture on Dutch painting at the National Gallery in London, has authored several books on Rembrandt and Dutch art, and has recently published a new book with Thames & Hudson’s World of Art series.

He criticized Bode’s dismissal, stating that “no serious reasoning for his contention” was provided.

The Newman painting was previously displayed in 1952 during an exhibition at the Royal Academy in London, where it was initially introduced as an original by Rembrandt. “However, experts who attended the exhibition later corrected this, and an article in the Burlington magazine by a leading Dutch art historian labeled it as a studio copy,” Schwartz added.

While both paintings share many similarities, detailed scrutiny by researchers in Chicago uncovered differences, such as the technique used for the eyelashes. In the UK painting, they were painted with fine brushstrokes of light paint, whereas in the Chicago painting, they were etched into the wet dark paint to expose the light layer beneath.

Further analysis by the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge confirmed that the canvas and pigments in the UK painting align with those used by Rembrandt and his workshop. It also shares the same oil-bound, double-ground layer found in eight paintings by Rembrandt from 1632 and 1633.

The Art Institute of Chicago acknowledged after reviewing the infrared scans, X-rays, and pigment analysis that while differences suggest the UK version could be a workshop reproduction, the debate over its origins and authorship is still evolving.

Newman, when asked about his belief in the painting’s authenticity, said, “It has always been a mystery. I have enjoyed the mystery because it allowed me to appreciate it on my wall without the burden of its potential significance.”

He concluded that if it is confirmed as a Rembrandt, it will be donated to a museum.