Observation as comprehension:
The Staalmeesters
|
Sampling Officials of the Drapers' Guild
(The Staalmeesters)
1662
Oil on canvas, 191,5 x 279 cm
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
|
| |
Rembrandt painted his last group portrait in the year 1662. In
The Staalmeesters — the name given the board members of the Clothmakers' Guild — the
artist would once again combine the achievements in the structural conception of
his portrait scenes. After the so richly developed scene of The Night Watch, the
later picture strikes the observer as a simplification; it appears to take up
the earlier work of The Anatomy Lesson by Nicolaes Tulp and even - going beyond
this painting - the group-portrait tradition of more than a hundred years, in
which the persons to be portrayed are collected one after the other around a
table, generally with a minor figure included. However, the picture with which
we are concerned here surpasses its predecessors in density, complexity and
fullness of life. Moreover, the superficial resemblance to the traditional forms
reveals all the more clearly the fact that Rembrandt's crucial innovations
consisted not in an external break with the forms which he had taken over but in
their transformation. The portrait, as a document of someone existing in time,
is intended to release that person from the bounds of time. It is the task of
the representation to turn the observer's thoughts back to the subject of the
portrait and thereby preserve the memory of him. In contrast to this,
Rembrandt's structural conception converts the portrait so as to give it the
qualities of a temporal event, thereby changing remembrance of the past into
observation of the present. It is not his intention in his portraits to overcome
the temporal nature of a person by using art to disconnect it from time, to
immortalize it. Instead, he is on the way to overcoming the temporal through a
form of anchoring it in time, one in which timeless eternity appears itself in
the present. It is not his intention to extend the temporal, ephemeral element
of man to everlasting duration; rather, he wishes to anchor in time the timeless
element - that is, that which is independent of temporal restrictions - and thus
to enable it to achieve a present that can be experienced. But what pictorial
form must this take so that it may be experienced?
|
| |
The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Joan Deyman
1656
|
|
|
The members of the board are giving their report. The offices of those present
are indicated by the open book on which Willem van Doeyenburg has let his hand
drop in explanation and in which the gentleman on his right has placed a hand,
ready to turn to a certain page; by the treasurer's purse on the far right; and
by the notebook by means of which the half-standing Volckert Jansz. is propping
himself on the table, while Frans Hendricksz. Bel, the house supervisor, who is
standing bareheaded in the background, serves to give an indication of their
significance. Poses are no longer adopted here. The body language of the men
reveals a complete obliviousness to the world around them, stemming from their
preoccupation with what they are doing. The facial characteristics of the
figures are finely differentiated, from expectant concentration directed
outwards, apparently connected with a readiness to intervene in what
is happening, via an interested following of what is taking place,
to a relaxed observation of the entire scene. Here, too, the
expressions are made to speak. However, the attitudes of the men are
not typical of the representative attitudes encountered at a board
meeting, unlike the typical attitudes of those attending a lecture
displayed in The Anatomy Lesson by Nicolaes Tulp, for
example. The characteristic gestures are so nuanced and meaningful
that their only sensible interpretation can be as an expression of
that individual - and him alone - in whose face they are to be read.
A key to the scene, however, is provided by the observation that it
is within this very individualization that the persons act, not each
for himself but collectively, simultaneously and equally.
Extremely economical allusions to perspective — the view from below
of the table, the armchair, the panelling on the receding back wall,
and — no less — that of the hat brims — make it apparent that the
group is seated on a level above that of the artist. Assuming that
the depicted situation is taking place in an assembly chamber, then
it is only from a seat in the audience that the observer would so
perceive the board members on the podium.
In The Anatomy Lesson by Nicolaes Tulp, the observer's
gaze is met by those of two figures in the picture, inviting him to
see himself as a fellow-protagonist. None of the figures in the
scene of The Staalmeesters is looking at the observer.
The three gentlemen seen above the area of the red table are indeed
looking out of the picture; however, their gazes pass to the left of
the observer. The man in the armchair to the left is also turning in
that direction, while Volckert Jansz.'s eyes are directed towards a
point to the observer's right. This makes it quite clear that the
group is not only acting collectively but also reacting
collectively, to a partner outside of the picture, to an audience.
The fact that the figures are looking past the observer draws him
into the scene to a far greater extent than was the case with the
direct exchange of glances in The Anatomy Lesson.
Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself a member of the large audience,
this latter constituting the cause of the group's reaction. At the
same time, it becomes clear that he is no active participant within
this audience - in the sense that he does not put his hand up, give
his vote when invited to do so, or maybe even interrupt the speaker.
As a member of the audience, the observer is allocated the role of a
witness, a spectator. In the earlier work depicting his mother as
the reading Prophetess Hannah (Rembrandt's Mother as the Biblical Prophetess Hannah,
1631), Rembrandt rendered the observer a potential
participant to some extent by allowing him to look into the book.
Henceforth, this motif is revealed to be a comprehensive and
inescapable principle of Rembrandt's structural conception: in
seeing - and grasping - the situation as portrayed in the scene of
The Staalmeesters, the observer is already executing
his observational role. The fact of his looking at the scene is
itself already a pictorial motif, a part of the picture's action,
whether he wishes this to be so or not.
|
The Standing Syndic
(Study for The Staalmeesters)
1662
|
However, whereas the effects resulting from the
structural conception of the picture thus become comparable
with real-life situations outside of the picture, the basic
depictive problems of the portrayal of temporal actions
become all the more critical. How does Rembrandt represent
movement here? Volckert Jansz.'s posture has been
interpreted in many different ways. In the preliminary
sketch, he is seen still standing upright. An X-ray of the
picture reveals the fact that Rembrandt altered the posture
a number of times while painting the picture. In the final
version, he is shown neither sitting nor standing. One hand,
holding the notebook, is propped on the table - as described
above -while the other appears to be groping behind him, as
if touching the armrest of a chair, or being on the point of
doing so. This, together with the concentrated look directed
outwards, can convey the impression that Volckert Jansz, is
standing up to answer a question from the audience. On the
other hand, he could also be on the point of sitting down
after a speech. While the attention of the other board
members is still or currently occupied by someone or
something on the left, his gaze remains upon a member of the
audience who - to give but one possible explanation - is not
yet content with the answer which he has received and is
making the fact known, as happens again and again in
business discussions, while the debate is already moving on
elsewhere. What is significant is the fact that the two
interpretations given here totally contradict each other.
The directions of movement mentioned are diametrically
opposed to each other: one cannot simultaneously stand up
and sit down. Nonetheless, Rembrandt's attempt to portray
such a posture - as documented by the numerous alterations
that he made - would appear to have taken the direction of
just such a contradiction. A broad range of possibilities is
to be found in the middle area of the course of events
between standing up and sitting down. Volckert Jansz, stands
up, but the situation changes rapidly; before he is upright,
he hesitates in a half-erect posture: either he could
straighten up, or he could take his seat again.
|
|
| |
Alternatively, he has been speaking on his feet and is about to
sit down when an objection occurs; he pauses, could stand upright
again and add a postscript to his speech — or could complete the
process of resuming his seat. It is also possible, having attained
such a posture, to pause for a moment while taking note of a vote by
the audience and deliberating whether an intervention is necessary
or not. Rapid external movement, the lingering action of temporary
duration, and the quietly continuing action, seen distributed among
a number of persons in The Blinding of Samson - all
three characteristics of action are encountered here in a single
gesture. The motif of action within these particular limits is
ambiguous.
Corresponding to this concept, the nature of the glances of the
other board members is equally ambiguous. As shown here, their gazes
can be understood as lingering, but also, if one looks at the
picture in a different way, as fleeting glances moving over the
audience. And even if they are interpreted as lingering glances,
they can be subject to change through an increasing or decreasing
degree of interest, in the progressive forms that have already been
examined in the various possibilities of interpretation regarding
Volckert Jansz.'s posture.
The ambiguity observed here should not be interpreted as indicating
a lack of clarity; rather, it is purely functional. One need simply
recall the fact that it is not until the observer uses his
imagination to conjure up the various potential facets of the action
that the corresponding qualities of movement or change come to
light. The fact that the actions are brought before the observer
should not be seen as representing a contradiction to the static
nature of the picture; rather, the observer himself is challenged to
actively complete the mental picture, to play a game. If he does not
participate, then he cannot understand what is in front of him. This
game consists of linking the various ambiguous elements. A structure
of relationships brought about by actions develops, although its
elements openly undergo change even in their various aspects. As a
result, the structure becomes complex and many-layered, and can no
longer be tied down to a single status. In the course of all this,
the game of imagination itself acquires a certain progressive
character. Within this progression, the observer experiences the
to-and-fro motion of directions and impulses, the alternation of
action and reaction. In so doing, he carries out an action the
course of which is as changeable as is sometimes the case in a
debate between two groups of people at a meeting. This also
ultimately implies that the observer, in becoming aware of this,
realizes himself to be already involved in this action, as it is in
fact a question of his own conscious action.
However, such qualities of experience are not only dependent on the
motifs of action of the figures. The spatial structure was only
partially characterized above. Despite all certainty, it is in fact
simultaneously completely open. The section seen in the field of
vision presented to the observer gives no indication as to the
distance from the observer to the figures. As a result of the lack
of foreground, they give the impression of being observed as if from
close to. At the same time, however, a different effect argues for
their being seen from afar. The colours of the figures, the objects
and the surroundings are uniformly broken in colour against a warm
shade of brown. The impression arises that this common shade of
refraction is not inherent in the colours but stems from a gloom
illuminated by light, one such as appears when haze or smoke fills
the otherwise clear medium of the air. The brightened gloom of the
atmosphere - certainly intensified here beyond the empirical
possibilities — can only be found between the coloured objects and
the eye of the observer. It thus becomes impossible to exclude the
observer from this spatial system, since this state of "between"
only comes into being when one is face to face with the picture. If
the observer understands the manner in which the objects and figures
appear as an atmospheric effect, then he finds himself taken up into
the atmosphere of the pictorial space - in a manner that is just as
inevitable as was the case with the scenic constellations. For the
figures can only be seen in this way by an observer who can be said
to share the atmospheric conditions of visibility experienced by the
figures in the picture. Put another way, the objective manner in
which the pictorial world is painted can only be seen if one is
looking at it subjectively. This was noticed by Jacob Burckhardt:
"Rembrandt is indifferent to the real structure of things; it is
their appearance which is all-important for him ... as far as
Rembrandt is concerned, events, forms, natural objects only exist
inasmuch as air and light play their wondrous game with them."
However, it is not necessarily a question here of gaining an
"undreamt-of magic" from the light, nor of mystically transfiguring
the world. Previously, the act of observation itself appeared to be
drawn into the scenic process; now, the observer cannot avoid being
involved in this event in the pictorial world, also with respect to
the manner in which the object world appears in the picture. The
picture loses the character of something existing objectively for
itself, inasmuch as the "depicted" act of seeing and that performed
by the observer no longer occur independently of each other: for
something to appear within the picture, it must be disclosed by an
act of observation.
|
|
The Sacrifice of Isaac
1650 |
One final observation concerns the relationship of the
scenic order to that of the picture itself. The positions of
the individual figures, as surface elements, stand in a
subtle relationship of interdependence with each other and
with the background. Thus, the jamb of the chimney at the
back frames the treasurer, while the position of the man on
the armchair to the left receives clear confirmation through
the projecting corner above him. The red table unites the
three board members seated behind it. Volckert Jansz, stands
out on account of his half-standing posture, which in turn
is qualified by the higher position of the house supervisor.
The two heads for their part render Willem van Doeyenburg a
central element; and so on. The positions on the surface
become isolated under the influence of one aspect and
combine under the influence of the other; they
simultaneously emphasize and qualify each other. A structure
of relationships results, one appearing ever more complex,
the further the observer pursues the interactions that are
presented. The apparently so simple arrangement, one which
seems so natural through its apparently arising from the
chance element of a seating arrangement, enables the
observer to see the forms at one and the same time as a
number of isolated individuals and yet also as a group of
differentiated people acting in unison.
The pictorial form of the portrait would appear to be no
longer subject to the event being depicted. As has been
seen, the interplay of relationships emerging from the
change of aspects becomes itself a kind of action through
the activity of the observer. Furthermore, the structure of
this interplay corresponds to the event and contributes an
additional nuance to the interpretation: the interaction of
the individual areas of colour becomes a condition for the
individual element to be shown to its advantage, each
serving the other and defining itself via the others. It is
difficult to describe this wealth of relations in words, but
it perhaps has something to do with the kind of
relationships among the persons, and between them and the
audience.
|
|
| |
Abraham's Sacrifice
1655
|
| |
This also serves to explain why it is that one does not grow aware of the purely
visible pictorial values - the interplay of bright and dark areas, of red,
yellow, white, black, and gold-brown - as a self-supporting system, as was the
case in The Night Watch. The dramatic effects of the bright-dark
structure have been reduced. Painting is no longer presented in terms of
artistry and virtuosity. This is not to say that these are not to be found here:
indeed, they are present to a high degree. In order to achieve the outlined
effect of the atmospheric element, the execution of the painting must satisfy
the highest demands in a technical respect as well. Rembrandt's style of
painting has also become extremely individual. The qualities of his painting
have lost any intrinsic value, are becoming discreet, and are absorbed into the
service of the previously mentioned manner in which something appears.
Rembrandt's path towards enabling the observer to experience that which is
temporal through the picture is thus indicated: he forms the pictorial elements
themselves in such a way that the observer can only become aware of them within
the process of their appearing to him. This will ultimately be observed to
comprise the realm in which the mystery of Rembrandt's art lies. In The
Staalmeesters, the appearance in the picture of the event's temporal
structure would seem to have been approached, in the same way that the temporal
action would appear to have been approached; with regard to the actions of the
observer, this means that comprehension is brought closer to observation.
First of all, however, we should focus once again on the path leading to the
final step, that in which the motifs of the action ultimately become one with
their appearance. The artist's work on structural conception can be grasped all
the better from his drawings, since this medium of itself means that the visual
qualities fade in importance, to the benefit of the action portrayed.
|
