The Age of Rembrandt: Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art (1 Viewer)


"So fuck Doubleday Doran"
September 18, 2007-January 6, 2008Special Exhibition Galleries, 2nd floor

The Metropolitan Museum is home to the finest collection of Dutch art outside of Europe"”including 20 works by Rembrandt himself"”and all 228 of these masterpieces are displayed together for the first time in this major special exhibition. The exhibition, which coincides with the publication of the first catalogue of the collection, celebrates Rembrandt's 400th birthday. On view is a rich array of works dating mostly between 1600 and 1700"”landscapes, genre pictures, still lifes, marine views, portraiture, and historical and biblical paintings"”by Rembrandt and other celebrated Dutch masters such as Frans Hals, Johannes Vermeer, Gerard ter Borch, Pieter de Hooch, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Aelbert Cuyp. Broadly outlining how the collection was formed, the exhibition reflects the taste for Dutch art in America and among New York's great collectors of the past two centuries.
Accompanied by a catalogue and a Bulletin.

The exhibition is made possible by Accenture.
The publication is made possible by Hata Stichting Foundation and Mr. and Mrs. M.E. Zukerman.

Additional support is provided by the Kowitz Family Foundation and The Christian Humann Foundation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paintings and the art world are strange things indeed. Not long ago a painting that had been on display in Australia for 40+ years (I think it was supposed to be a Picasso) was found to be a fake after being sent to the Dutch experts for verification, after someone questioned it's authenticity. The thing was valued at $5 million beforehand and today it's not worth 1% of that

And in that 40 years countless hundreds of thousands would have looked at it and marvelled at ti's beauty and commmented on what the painter was trying to portray etc etc. How silly do they feel now as now it's simply a worthless pile of shite :D
Some of the fakes are still worth a lot of money for collectors. The technicals skills are there even if not signed by so and so. There were no computers to copy was being done then by a popular artist. Besides, the fact that an artist becomes marketable after his death is a gross indecency and is often a product of class conscious aristocracy. Art critics are paid to create a system
that is not always fair. Art is a business for who buys it and sells it. Artist generally can't afford to buy it.

Users who are viewing this thread