.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Various study prints (B. 363-374) by Rembrandt are evidence that throughout his career he was inclined to treat the copper plate in a very unconventional manner, with multiple figures or subjects scattered seemingly at random across the plate. These prints look very much like study sheets from a sketchbook, recording ideas and attempts for practice or future use. Rembrandt certainly had a liking for seemingly unfinished works, as other prints such as The Artist drawing from a Model (see lot 44) demonstrate. The study prints might be another expression of this particular aesthetic.
There is however a slight mystery with regard to the history of execution and purpose of this particular plate. The fragment of the self-portrait is far more controlled and finer in execution whereas the figure and tree have a looser, more fluid feel. It has been suggested that the self-portrait was on a larger plate which, possibly due to an etching fault, was abandoned. This stylistic difference has led to debate as to the dating of the different pictorial elements: the portrait is certainly very similar in style and subject to the Self-Portrait in a Velvet Cap and Plume (B. 20) of 1638. The tree and little figure on the other hand is reminiscent of The Omval (B. 209) of 1645. One is inclined to imagine Rembrandt in his workshop as he came across the little fragment of his unfinished self-portrait and began to play around with it. Perhaps he thought to create a 'Vexierbild' - an image at once a landscape and a portrait, depending on the way the viewer saw or turned the image - an attempt he then also abandoned.
We will never know the artist's real intensions. We do however know that despite its whimsical charm Rembrandt never printed a proper edition of this print - it is hence a work of greatest rarity. This fine impression compares favourably to the example in the British Museum.
There is however a slight mystery with regard to the history of execution and purpose of this particular plate. The fragment of the self-portrait is far more controlled and finer in execution whereas the figure and tree have a looser, more fluid feel. It has been suggested that the self-portrait was on a larger plate which, possibly due to an etching fault, was abandoned. This stylistic difference has led to debate as to the dating of the different pictorial elements: the portrait is certainly very similar in style and subject to the Self-Portrait in a Velvet Cap and Plume (B. 20) of 1638. The tree and little figure on the other hand is reminiscent of The Omval (B. 209) of 1645. One is inclined to imagine Rembrandt in his workshop as he came across the little fragment of his unfinished self-portrait and began to play around with it. Perhaps he thought to create a 'Vexierbild' - an image at once a landscape and a portrait, depending on the way the viewer saw or turned the image - an attempt he then also abandoned.
We will never know the artist's real intensions. We do however know that despite its whimsical charm Rembrandt never printed a proper edition of this print - it is hence a work of greatest rarity. This fine impression compares favourably to the example in the British Museum.