Arthur Peabody

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/m...t-jan-six.html an article about Rembrandt, bicycles only incidentally. It's a great detective story about finding an unknown Rembrandt.

KraneXL

The progression of fame to famine doesn't appear to have changed much in 350 years. Too bad he died a pauper. The chiaroscuro referenced in film and photography (lighting) oftentimes bears his name.

Stadjer

The typical artistic type, can't handle the boring earthly matters. Luckily women tend to fall in love with men like that and manage that kind of stuff for them. His wife made their son inheret her part of the money and posessions, so he could continue his life and work only less luxurious. He's a bit of a national institution here so I was raised and bored with him but only recently I discovered how revolutionary and free spirited he was and started to appreciate his work. With typical old stuff it's hard to imagine that it was groundbreaking for it's day.

There's more that hasn't changed that much in 350 years. Recently I was reading a book about daily life in the Dutch republic of the 17th century, by the American historian Simon Schama, and this Rembrandt lived in an extremely modern society, much more like today's than more recent societies. There was a part in it about children playing in the street and getting hit by carriages. I involuntarily pictured bikes in there for a moment before I realized there could not have been. That made me chuckle.

aclinjury

I see a grown poodle in a pregnant woman's body

KraneXL

I often use these timestamp fashion examples during conversations and debates regarding current feminine/masculine fashion wear. Assuming the extreme class diversity that existed during these time, this outfit could be assumed to be his Sunday-go-to-meeting best -- at least for the aristocracy.

Since he's a young man, was this dress considered an Italian suit for the times, or the equivalent droopy pants of his day? Today, it looks like he's wearing a doily wrapped around his neck.

I don't see a lot of emotional expression in this painting. Since I didn't get through all the pages of the link, I wonder if this one of Rembrandt's earlier paintings?

Stadjer

@KraneXL: I saw a documentary about this painting and the collar would be a typical fashion thing, in fashion one year, out of fashion the next. It was actually used to date the painting to the year because fashions were known from other paintings, books and records. It's dated at 1634 and Rembrandt would have been about 28 years and a well established painter with quite a reputation. This makes it likely that the young gentleman was pretty well off, allthoug the big middle class, like skilled craftsmen, would decorate their houses with paintings too and their sons in the courting age would dress fashionably too. The class diversity was limited and there was lots of class mobility but a portrait this size by Rembrandt would be out of reach for most, probably not limited to the 1 percent though. Keep in mind this was not a feudal kingdom with a hierarchy of nobles, but a Republic of 'burgers' (citizens), a new kind of economy with the most successful merchants at the top. Rembrandt also had a habit of prioritizing creativity over the vanity of his portrait commissioners so the number of unsatisfied customers would liklely have lowered the price of his talent.

mr_bill

Arthur Peabody

Perhaps not for the women.

He's a Brit, though he is professing in the US these days.

As did the historians who identified it as a fashion for 1634-6.

Yes.

CrankyOne

Thanks for the article. Great read. I've walked by the Six house and the younger Six's office numerous times. I'll have to look for the painting of the elder Six next time.

I'd guess the younger six looks on a bicycle exactly as he does here: Same clothes, etc. Guys got good taste.