This excellent and crowded exhibition is made up entirely of the MET’s impressive collection of Dutch School paintings (roughly 1600-1800). While the title might make one think the focus of the show falls on Rembrandt, its really a show about collecting and the impact of wealthy collectors on the art market and museum culture - and why not? Many reviews have responded negatively to this curatorial focus, yet in many ways this investigation of the root of the MET’s collection and early history shed light on todays environment of overheated art collection fueled by new global wealth. Overwhelmingly contemporary art work that enters museum collections and major exhibitions are being chosen by a new breed of collector rather than curators or other individuals in the not-profit sector. Is it then surprising that so much of the new art that is seen engages first in spectacle and only second in any type of visual/aesthetic investigation (Damian Hirst or Matthew Barney for example)? What this exhibition makes clear is that this is an old story in many ways. In fact, I’d say The Age of Rembrandt touches upon this point on three distinct meta-levels.
Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-portrait, 1660
The Met, Bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913
First - Rembrandt himself was a smart business man who new how to “work it”, like many contemporary artist he painted for a group of new money wealth in the trading mecca of 17th century Amsterdam. Himself a beneificary of this prosperity, he lived beyond his means, like many examples of new wealth - spending vast amounts of money on all sorts of luxury goods (he was also a prolific collector of exotica, some of which can be seen at his former house in Amsterdam). He eventually lost everything to his creditors as his work went out of fashion and he died poor and virtually alone.
Rembrandt van Rijn, The Noble Slav, 1632
The Met, Bequest of William K. Vanderbilt, 1920
Second - This show is an exhibition about the wealthy American collectors of the 19th century. The paintings are arranged in the galleries in “the approximate order of their acquisition”. Thus documenting the inner workings of how a museum obtains a collection - shall we say the reality of collection acquisitions - In doing so, it documents the effort of the new American wealth to establish cultural legitimacy. The post-reformation Dutch painters seemed to have been of particular interest to these new collectors, possibly because within the Dutch Republic can be found the origins for early American values and religious practices.
Upon entering the first room of the exhibition we are presented with a stunning wall of Rembrandt portraits - all with the names of the collectors who donated it - in large grey / white letters floating above the ornate picture frames. From left to right in the room:
Altman - Friedsam - Vanderbilt - Neilson - Huntington - Marquand - Harkness
Considering that one can view these paintings at any other time at the MET, minus the thick crowds, how were the curators to arrange these painting? It would be inaccurate to use them to say this is a acurate representation of the Dutch School because the selection is really a reflection of these particular collectors interests rather than the actual historical age of Dutch painting.
Johannes Vermeer, Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, ca. 1662
The Met, Marquand Collection, Gift of Henry G. Marquand, 1889
Third - What do these curatorial choices and investigation in 19th century American art collecting teach us about our own commodity based over-blown atmosphere in the Visual Arts, where we are saturated with New Wealth within a now Global Art Culture?
On a last note - This show also makes clear for me - it is not Rembrandt who holds the undisputed heavy weight championship of the Dutch School, but rather Vermeer. With his quite understated and relatively small canvases of interior private moments and spatial / light studies.
