Rembrandt

• The First Impressionist

As I have mentioned, Courbet was known as the grandfather of Impressionism, and Manet the father. Turner was also given that title, "Father of Impressionism" but in a way they're all wrong. If they were right, then Rembrandt might well be called the great grandfather of Impressionism - but he was far more than that; Rembrandt was the first Impressionist.

Impressionism simply means that instead of working your end results up to a high "photographic" finish through a number of layers of semi-transparent paint, (called glazes) you "sketch" in your painting directly onto the canvas with no under-painting, therefore giving an "impression" of something rather than a graphic likeness. Although Frans Hals became the artist most famous for using this technique, that was only because Hals used only this technique, and in a very hit and miss manner; Rembrandt on the other hand only used it occasionally, but never "missed." When Rembrandt did use this technique, he did so with such pure genius that I could give you one example from the genres of both portraiture and landscape, and ask you who had painted them, and you would be absolutely forgiven for guessing Manet, (the head) or Monet, (the landscape). Rembrandt's hand was in fact so much more highly trained than those later artists that to the trained eye a difference would actually be apparent. But no matter, the important point I wish to make here isn't a question of who was the greater amongst them all, but in this case merely the fact that stylistically they could all be thought to be roughly of the same period - although Rembrandt lived some 200 years before the others!

Rembrandt was the first artist ever to actually think of paint not merely as a tool but as an entity on its own - a thought process that would eventually lead to abstraction some 300 years later. When one becomes truly familiar with Rembrandt the Painter, one feels his love for the paint to such a degree that one can actually imagine him eating his paint, so much did he revel in its qualities, its textures and colours, probably even the smell of it. He loved paint. He loved nothing more than to build his paint up into what is called impasto, which means that it is so thick that it protrudes from the surface of the canvas or panel. Great lumps of paint stick out in areas of his work, often guided by his painting knife, or in his case probably any tool that happened to be lying around. He very often used his hands and fingers to achieve a specific effect, and he experimented with all sorts of techniques to arrive at his heart's desired results, including even mixing oil and water, a technique which, as well as impasto, Turner would use more than a century later.

Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer Rembrandt		Ru Wang Contemplating Christian

Like Rubens, Rembrandt was married twice. His first wife Saskia, was the wealthy daughter of a banking family and Rembrandt was crazy about her. They made a glittering couple. Rembrandt was just becoming a celebrated artist, portraitist especially, and Saskia was a glamorous upper class girl. Although Rembrandt enjoyed her social status, the fact that he was in love with her beyond that is constantly manifested in his work. He loved nothing more than to dress her up in outlandish costumes and paint her; she was everything for him between muse and goddess. Happily, Rembrandt didn't stop at worship, it is also evident that they enjoyed an earthy, very physical relationship as well.

One of my favourite Rembrandts is the double portrait he did of Saskia sitting on his lap; he painted it to celebrate their marriage, indeed, it is known as "The Wedding Portrait." When Fanny and I got married, I took a liberty with this painting, and to celebrate our marriage I repainted it, but with Fanny and my heads replacing those of Saskia and Rembrandt.

Saskia in a Red Hat Rembrandt

Fanny in a Red Hat Christian

Paris Self Portrait '76 Christian

For all the reasons I explained before, I wanted portraits of Fanny around but not in her modern mode; and so I took my favourite existing Old Master portraits and re-painted them with her head. After the Wedding Portrait, I painted her as (Rembrandt's) "Juno", and also in a "Profile in a Red Hat," each time replacing Saskia's head with Fanny's. None of these paintings are for sale, they are painted purely for my own (and Fanny's) pleasure. In fact, I have always believed that the best works of any artist are always those he does for himself, as there is absolutely no motive behind them save inspiration and love. That's why, in spite of Rubens' and Rembrandt's impressive oeuvres including several great epic works, my favourites have always been their portraits of their wives - their loves.

One of the reasons for which I stopped accepting commissions many years ago was because I believed that, that the very best work was done for oneself, and so it simply didn't seem fair to give less than the best to others for money. I simply paint whatever excites me so much that I couldn't bear not to paint it; and I never stop before I am completely satisfied that I have achieved a total expression of the idea I set out with. The subjects that thus excite - inspire - me range from portraits of Fanny to nudes and landscapes. Sometimes, to give collectors who enjoy my work a chance to acquire it, I sell works that although I love them have a less sentimental hold on me, so I can let them go - in a way I could never let a portrait of Fanny go, for example.

One of the things Rembrandt is most known for are his self-portraits. He probably painted more of them than anyone else, and even for those he loved dressing himself up, as on other occasions he dressed Saskia up for her portraits. From quite early on I came to understand the reason for Rembrandt having painted so many self-portraits. I have actually done many myself and I believe that I have done so with pretty much the same motives as Rembrandt had; and it is not a fascination with ones own physiognomy I can assure you, or even any act of vanity in the slightest. On the contrary, I have never particularly liked my own face and looking at Rembrandt I can't believe that he had any great love for his own either.

No, the sad fact is, and nearly every artist who has painted portraits for a living has recorded this throughout history, sitters are notorious for behaving badly. Artists' experiences range from those who complain that the artist has "aged" them and so they berate the artist most unpleasantly, to those who simply won't pay up after the work is complete because they don't like it! That latter kind of behaviour caused me, in the last 5 years of my portraitist years, to insist on being paid in advance. I followed this practice with all the Lords and Ladies in the land and happily they wanted their heads by me more than I wanted to portray them, so they conceded to my admittedly arrogant - but desperate - rule. During those five years there was only one exception, where I was put in a position of doing the portrait expecting the payment to arrive some time before the work was completed, and of course it didn't arrive, not while I was working or ever afterwards...and that from one of the richest men in Paris. It was more or less the last portrait I ever did on commission.

The pressure I had felt under with each sitting (several hundred over 15 years) was in fact so stressful that I had to have deep massages after a sitting from a professional osteopath to try and take away some of the stress pains from various areas of my chest and (mostly) my back. And I was by no means alone in this; so many artists have written of their unimaginably awful experiences under the portrait painters' punishment scheme - punishment simply for trying to make an honest living but dependant on peoples' egos, a highly explosive proposition in actual fact - that I came to dread the very idea of working on commission, and stopped doing so. The reason I have told you all this is not to beg for any sympathy but to explain, and leave you in no doubt, as to the horrors of professionally portraying mostly extremely spoilt and shallow people, so that you might understand something very important. Which is why, to someone who simply enjoys actually painting faces as Rembrandt did and I do, ones own face can become a most valuable commodity. It is like a holiday, painting oneself. We know we are not going to complain over the results, or berate ourselves, or threaten no payment, execution or even worse, torture. It is a veritable holiday for us, after the experiences of professional horror. We do not have our egos on the line. In fact we have nothing to look forward to but the fascination of translating an expression of a human face with paint onto panel. It is a truly marvellous experience, and I have enjoyed it, even pulling outrageous faces as well as dressing up for it, both of which are things Rembrandt had done before me, and there are of course various other extremely famous self-portraits, not the least of which is the one by Leonardo da Vinci, drawing of himself as an old man...a very beautiful and special old man indeed, as I think most of the world would agree; and he was another one who suffered torturous abuse at the hands of so-called patrons. No, for an artist to be beholden to no one in society, to dance only to his own tune, has been the dream of every artist since the beginning of time, and is in fact one of the things I am most pleased to have achieved during an unusually long and varied career as an artist. Any of my works that a viewer might consider really beautiful, can attribute their success at least in part, I believe, to my chosen independent manner of working.

The Wedding Portrait Christian

Rembrandt was a fine draughtsman, but his real genius, other than in his painting, lies in his etchings. He was as passionate about this medium - for which you have to be a superb draughtsman anyway - as he was about painting, and probably created a fairly equal number of each, paintings and etchings, although fewer drawings. But his influence on me has always been his paintings, his techniques. I too have always enjoyed dressing up my models in fantasy costumes, when not painting them nude. Silly "things on the side" that have always fascinated me about Rubens and Rembrandt are the number of similarities they share, although they worked in very different styles. Rubens worked at high speed with a fluent hand and just enough paint to achieve his magnificent purpose. Rembrandt on the other hand worked in the traditional layers, only more-so, he would add to his layers with impasto. But apart from that, they were both Cancerians. They each married twice - although it must be said that of their two wives Rubens most passionate "affair" was with his second wife Helen while Rembrandt's was definitely with Saskia, his first wife. His second wife, Hendrickje, was of course his lover, but even more than that she was his friend and supported him in practical ways when he most desperately needed it.

When towards the end of his life Rembrandt went bankrupt, to avoid the receivers taking all his work away, Hendrickje even became his dealer, paying him a salary; thus she saved his most personal and precious works perhaps even from disappearing altogether. Both Rubens and Rembrandt achieved spectacular social success during their lives, although Rubens' star was forever in the ascent while Rembrandt ended his life in relative poverty. Each of these artists died at 63 years old. And for each of them, their lady loves had really been the centre of their universe - another thing I share with them both.

Anthony Christian

• If you would like to receive updates about new articles then join ICHOR's Mailing List