| |
afterRubens.org > The debate so far > Discussion board |
 |
 |
|
| Discussion Board (most recent first) |
Part of what makes the Samson and Delilah so interesting as a work of art is the extreme disparity in the response it evokes from people - both those who have seen it perhaps just once, as well as scholars who may have studied it for half a lifetime.
Below you will find comments both for and against the attribution, as well as more general observations that visitors to the site have sent in. Please recommend the comments you find most interesting and let us know how you see it too.
You are viewing comments chronologically with the most recent first; you can also order them by the number of reader recommendations they have recieved.
 |
|
| |
I think that the sansone and Dalila is NOT by Rubens and the Holy Family with dove (met.of new York) is Not by Rubens but is a copy , I have the proof a real proof!
Thank you
Dott. Fabiano Collettini
fabiano collettini, art historical, rome, italy
|
|
|
| |
ok, let's admit that, for some reason, the toes have been cut off. Why did the same happen to Rubens's talent?
Vangelis Hatziyannidis, writer, athens, Greece
|
|
|
| |
Looking at the buttock and hip of Cupid (statue of Venus and Cupid ) convinced me that certainly although regretfully it is not painted by Rubens.
He was so much at ease with the subject of painting putti that he never would have permitted even to a collaborator of him such a clumsy buttock with wrongly placed lights and shadows.
André-Emmanuel Baert, MD, Gent , Belgium
|
|
|
| |
From the evidence presented here it certainly raises doubts of authenticity. I would go as far to say that I believe (for what it is worth) that the painting is not by Rubens .
Alan Garfield, Retired manufacturer, London, UK
|
|
|
| |
The evidence is outstanding that this is not a Rubens orginal. I will be using this in art history. Thank you!
Jane E. Smith, teacher, Corona, CA, USA
|
|
|
| |
I had a different experience at first from some others who have commented here. Superficial examination of the National Gallery painting on my computer screen and an agreeable willingness to be persuaded made me think the painting might be okay, although I did quickly notice the disproportionate hands and arms, the odd angle of Delilah's head, and the way Samson's arms seems to dangle disconnectedly from anything else in the painting, much less Delilah's leg where it supposedly rests.
Since my college days I have felt that we are done an injustice by only studying the masterpieces, whether of literature, painting or some other field. One gets accustomed to excellence and loses one's appreciation for what lies behind the beautiful surfaces in terms of work, learning, technique... It is the struggle to achieve something worthwhile that can be most instructive to the student, whether experienced vicariously or by direct means.
Therefore, as a sometime student of art, I am profoundly grateful to have stumbled upon your detailed and incisive comparison of the various works attributed to Rubens. I am even grateful for the existance of the forgery itself, whether it was intended as such or merely an imitation by an admiring, aspiring painter of the distant past. Its valiant attempt at greatness makes the brilliance of Rubens sparkle in its dull light and what's more, now I really understand. I plan to recommend the site to my friends and family as a crash course in painterly technique, a "what to look for" when visiting museums.
Margaret Wolfe-Roberts, mother, Spanish interpreter, Oxford, U.K.
|
|
|
| |
I found this site and the problems you raise more than interesting. In particular, your presentation is excellent especially because it is so specific and it could be used by teachers to suggest how to analyze the elements of any painting. Most impressive.
Your analysis has convinced me that there is indeed a problem here. Your comments about the amputated toes, the beard and the carpet certainly support your case. [As far as the missing toes are concerned, it is hard to explain why even a lazy painter would do this. The two copies of the original [lost?] painting are further cogent elements in your arguement.
In any case, do let my congratulate those who designed this site for their intelligence for a site that is outstanding for clarity and interest.
Finally, it's not clear to me why you people are doing this?
Thanks again.
Yours truly,
Luther Link
[author of THE DEVIL;A MASK WITHOUT A FACE, Reaktion books, London]
Luther Link, Professor, Kawasaki, JAPAN
|
|
|
| |
Aliens at the edge of the universe observing us through weak telescopes can see that this isn't by Rubens.
ross miller, london, uk
|
|
|
| |
I am a great fan of Rubens and after reading your site I cannot but agree with you. The painting truly is fake. It was definitely NOT painted by Rubens. I am apalled that nobody has noticed it before and that the painting has been sold for so much. Rainer Richter was right in saying somone wasted a lot of money for a bad copy....
Reene, Art Student, South Afrika
|
|
|
| |
Of course it is difficult to determine the true gradations of color and shadow from a photo measuring about 3" by 3", but from the photo provided, the painting seems to lack the gradations of color and tone, of light and shadow (or the absence of light) that characterize the paintings of Rubens. The overall impression of the photo posted here is that it is too light and too lacking in detail, too lacking in the intriguing, varying shadows that pull normally pull one into his paintings. There is too much contrast overall, no play between light and shadow. However, again, it must be noted that it is difficult to make a determination without having seen the original up close.
Tatiana, Professor , Moscow, Russia
|
|
|
|
