after Rubens: the strange story of the Samson and Delilah
 
 
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.

Viewing comments 21 to 30 of 109
Ordered by: date received | recommendations


Submitted: 20 January 2006, 10:52:00 PM
  The way I look at this work of art and see this massive painting supposedly by Rubens,.... that the copying artist seems to me he could not paint hands or the feet in the detail that Rubens had or would, or should I say may have had difficulty in these parts of the anatomy of the body or even possibly did not care about the inconsequential. This is definitely a copy,... but by whom?

I myself like it better than the etching or the depiction of it in the other painting by the artist's or eyewitnesses you speak of. Sure,... anybody with eyes and good feelings for art can tell you that this painting is not by Rubens, but from quite possibly a greater hand of a different artist. I'm not running Rubens down for his works of art by saying this,.. I'm only saying Rubens paid more attention to detail, but could not use light and shadow along with the chiaroscuro which is quite dominant in this painting.

I'm not saying that the copyist could have been Rembrandt, but that possibility cannot be over looked. Now,.. if this happened to be true, what exactly would you think it's value would be,.... not in dollar value, but as a copy by an other artist who appreciated Rubens popularity and works of art. Naturally being this close to Rubens' works it would not contain any signature as to the rightful artist,... only painted for a means of selling popular art of the times and for means of support,... and if by this artist I speak of,...more than likely would have been painted after his bankruptcy and exile out of Amsterdam.

Kind regards, Bob Miller ---vanrijngo

Bob Miller, art researcher & collector, Nampa, Idaho, USA

This comment has been recommended 1633 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 20 January 2006, 2:03:17 PM
  I think sum1 wasted a few million bucks for a copy...

Rainer Richter, Student, Cologne, Germany

This comment has been recommended 1677 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 18 January 2006, 1:24:46 PM
  my first imprestion when looking at the painting was too much light and the colour purple being an eye sore in such a painting by a master who always seemed to use less viabrant colours . The style in my opinion is totally contrary to a true Rubens

lilly attard, retired rest. mang, rabat, malta

This comment has been recommended 1683 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 09 January 2006, 7:38:56 PM
  Samson won great battles against the people known as the Philistines several times throughout history. Once upon a time Samson whispered, “If you cut off of my toe, I shall be as weak as any other man." After that, he shook himself to fight one more time the Philistines, but his toe was gone. His strength was gone.

Samson was overcome.

Yet one day, Samson felt the breeze blowing through his hair, which had begun to grow again, and he realized that his incredible strength was returning. Samson stretched his mighty arms around the two pillars of the temple of the Philistines and pulled with all of his great strength, which had returned. The temple crashed around him. Samson died in the destruction along with 3,000 Philistines.

Julia Perez - Torres, film producer, Oacaha, Mexico

This comment has been recommended 1704 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 07 January 2006, 5:49:41 AM
  Very good job of depicting a copy. There can be no question that this painting is not an original Rubens. Simply put, it is a fraud on the public and a disgrace to the art community. It does not take a genius to see that this is a good copy. Even my five year old grandson can see the difference.

Mervin Davis, art collector, Malibu, usa

This comment has been recommended 1591 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 03 January 2006, 7:17:44 PM
  Fascinating website. Thank you for all the excellent information. I have to agree with you. I don't believe it's genuine. To reduce that reasoning to the simplest of terms: It just doesn't look right. There's often truth in mere instinct.

Jane Ewer, European Tour Manager, USA

This comment has been recommended 1363 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 03 January 2006, 7:16:30 PM
  What a farce! When the rarest of the rare occurs and a great painting is imported into England rather than exported, it turns out to be a copy! and to think that for the same money they could have bought the Radnor velasquez (Juan de Pareja) ten years earlier, or even, about the same time they bought 'Samson and Delilah', they could have bought the 'Blenheim' Rubens' which left England in 1886, and was available through Wildenstein (around 1980). This portrait of the artist with his wife Helena Fourment and son, was perhaps his most magnificant painting to have ever been in England. A painting of unparalleled decorative splendour, but also a most tender expresion of the poetry of love. The National gallery, it seems, always prefered the dramatic Rubens to the Romantic or humane Rubens. That's why they allowed the 'Gerbier family' to leave England ten years before. I think there are too many massacares and wars in the National gallery's collection of Rubens. But the collection lacks in lovely family portraits.

joseph B daniel, musician and writer, kfar mordechai, israel

This comment has been recommended 1344 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 02 January 2006, 10:26:41 PM
  Your arguments are very persuasive that the painting in question is not the original work of Rubens. It has essentially no provenance (only that one human and fallible expert, in 1929 claimed it was genuine without any surviving documentation of that judgment) lacks the detail and technique which mark others of his work, and has anomalies like the awkward toeless foot that are unlike him.

It is easy to understand that those responsible for spending millions for it are unlikely to agree with you, based on the nature of human beings. To accept your arguments they would have to admit to folly, and jeopardize their reputations and possibly their careers. Whether they are right or wrong, this is a beautiful illustration of the way that errors, once tied to individuals, can stay alive and prosper.

It also raises an important aesthetic question: is all this relevant to the National Gallery featuring and displaying the painting?

The merit of a work of art of this kind lies in many different qualities: these include the subject matter, the overall design of the work, the rendering of major features, and finally the details of its execution. A good copy usually is identical to the original in the first two or three of these and perhaps less good in the last.

To members of the general public, who come to the gallery to see great art, and look at perhaps a hundred or more different paintings, the details of any one of these are largely irrelevant and soon forgotten. Many come without a well developed aesthetic sense, and come in part to learn what greatness is and what it is they are expected to find admirable.

The overall impression that the painting under consideration gives to people who know little about Rubens is hardly different from what they would get from the original, (assuming it is a copy). Thus, to most viewers, it is as worth showing as the original, whatever it is.

I myself have never much liked Rubens, because I associate him with overlarge but un-sexy nudes, and angels floating in the sky, both of which have little appeal to me. To me, seeing even the images on your website increase my appreciation of his genius. To me then the presence even of the copy has almost the same value as that of the original.

Yes, the attention to detail and technique of the present picture seem sloppy but there were lots of Seventeenth Century artists in the Low Countries who were like Rubens in their attentions to detail and in their grittiness. His unique genius is tied up with his subject matters and his treatment of them rather than these characteristics.

True, students of art history or artists, who really care about details find these things disconcerting and lead them to question the authenticity of the painting. But this is a good, not a bad thing. For a student to realize that his or her own judgment might be superior to that of the experts at the National Gallery is a liberating revelation that leads to the self confidence needed for individual development of character, and to freedom from the artistic conventions of the moment.

Furthermore, consigning this painting to basement storage would make your website unnecessary and useless, since its job would be done.

I would recommend keeping the painting on display, but also advertising your website with it. The education in art that the casual observer would get from making the comparisons you feature would be of immense value toward interesting members of the general public in art history and in the world of Rubens.

Daniel Kleitman, mathematician, Newton, USA

This comment has been recommended 1350 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 01 January 2006, 8:55:50 PM
  OH MY GOD! DO I LAUGH? OR, SIMPLY CRY?

LEO STEVENSON SAID IT BEST. AT A GLANCE, WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION OF THE OBVIOUS, "IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT." IN FACT, I'LL GO FURTHER AND SAY THAT IT IS VOID OF ANY FEELING THAT ONE EXPERIENCES UPON VIEWING AN "OLD MASTER", THAT SO QUICKLY ASSURES ME, OF WHAT I AM AND AM NOT VIEWING. FURTHER DEBATE COULD ONLY EXIST WITH SOMEONE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM SPEAKING OF.......

La Jan White-Sanford, artist (self taught), Fort Worth, TEXAS, USA

This comment has been recommended 1343 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Submitted: 27 December 2005, 9:19:58 PM
  Fascinating. I believe it's a fake.

While you did mention the possibility of the right side of the painting being cut (ie. the lack of toes on the foot), I don't believe anyone has mentioned the difference on the left side of the painting. In the engraving (after the original) and the other painting, the old woman's back (actually her whole body) is on the canvas (with space behind it). In the "faux" Reubens, just like Sampson's foot, the body is cut off. Which makes me question why the canvas was altered? Have the threads from the canvas been tested for the appropriate chemistry for the period? Was the fabric, in fact, the wrong dimension to qualify for such a period? Was there a signature other than Rubens on the portion removed? Too many questions...too few answers.

Thank you for a stimulating debate.

Judy Swierczek, Bergenfield, NJ, USA

This comment has been recommended 1323 times.

Please mark this comment if you would like to recommend it.


Viewing comments 21 to 30 of 109
Ordered by: date received | recommendations

Comment
If you'd like to send in a comment please go to the main comment form, or fill in the form below, providing at least your name and comment. Comments will be reviewed before they are shown on the site, and email adresses will never be published or shared.
Name*
Occupation  
City
Country
e-mail
Comment*