Rembrandt or Rubens? Which version of “Descent from the Cross” is more powerful to you?
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Descent from the Cross, Peter Paul Rubens, 1612-14, Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Descent from the Cross, Rembrandt van Rijn. 1633, Alte Pinakothek, Munich.
The earlier, Rubens Descent, is a triptych whose side wings portray the Visitation and the Presentation at the Temple. He centers Christ in a classic Laocoon-like pose, with an oddly very blonde Magdalen kneeling before his body. Behind the Magdalen stands Mary of Cleophas, identified as probably the sister in law of the Virgin and prominently featured by Caravaggio in his Deposition with her arms raised as Christ’s body is carried from the cross.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Caravaggio Deposition of Christ,1600-04, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Vatican City
Simon Schama, in his opus “Rembrandt’s Eyes,” explores the differences between the Catholic Rubens Descent and the Protestant Rembrandt’s Descent 20 years later
...where the emphasis in the Rubens is on action and reaction, in Rembrandt’s
version it is on contemplation and witness, the properly Calvinist response.
Schama further discusses the sheer physicality of Rubens people around the scene, as evidenced by the man at the top of the cross grasping the winding sheet in his teeth, the bloody foot of Christ on the Magdalen’s shoulder, Mary’s heartbreaking reach towards her son, and the large and muscular St. John the Evangelist in his vivid red robe, receiving Christ’s body open-armed and in that moment taking on his life’s work. Nicodemas and Joseph of Arimathea assist from each side of the ladder that has been erected.
In Rubens original, there are virtually no figures who are not somehow in direct bodily
contact with the Savior -- touching his flesh, stained by his blood. This was precisely right for a church in which the eucharist was of fundamental importance, where the
communicant was meant, physically, to experience the martyrdom of Christ, the Real
Presence, through the sacrament...and one of the most serious issues dividing Catholics
and Protestants.
Poignantly, Rubens adds the super-scription lying on the ground secured by a rock, along with a basin of sour wine in which lies a sponge used to mock Christ’s thirst, the crown of thorns and two nails.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Rembrandt references Christ’s physicality with his reminder of the Savior’s suffering in the blood stains on the empty cross behind him, even as his torment is now over and only his body is to be tended to by his devoted followers. Rembrandt has painted himself into the figure on the left of the ladder (in blue) assisting in the deposition. The man at the top (wearing a fur hat contemporary with Rembrandt’s time and figuring in his portraiture of the day) is gently helping the maneuver using the sheet to help lower Christ’s body with his outstretched arm instead of his teeth.
Mary is seen in shadowed darkness, having collapsed at the scene, which minimizes her participation in the activity of the deposition. That collapse is also presented by Northern Renaissance artist Rogier van der Weyden but given more prominence.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
1435-38, Museo Nacional del Prado. Madrid.
However, Rembrandt’s treatment can also be seen in view of the Protestant downplay of Mary “worship” and strong focus on the suffering of Christ. The Magdalen assists Mary in the shadowed darkness and is barely seen, diminishing her presence at the scene as well.
The Counter Reformation was a major factor in Rubens presentation here. At the time he was painting the Descent in 1610, the Catholic Church had swung into action to reinforce Catholic faith and doctrine in the face of the rise of Protestantism, and art was to be one of its prime strategies. This strategy was laid out by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Art would be used to reinforce the church’s authority and its oral traditions, not those of Protestant sola scriptura, the Bible’s authority alone. The Church wished to stir the passion and devotion of its faithful with great religious tableaux, depicting the triumphant majesty of the one true doctrine.
In Simon Schama’s “The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age,” the author acknowledges the “impact of Reformed thought on Rembrandt’s painterly scheme.” The Calvinist revolution in Holland a the time, he says, brought about a “replacement of a flamboyantly poetic manner with an unapologetically prosaic one; a coming down to earth.”
Rembrandt’s is a very brightly spotlit, very tight knot of people participating in the descent process, which lacks the bombast of Rubens and has a very lonely and even isolated feel towards its subjects. Christ’s body is more delicate and vulnerable, intensifying in the viewer more empathy. In the Rubens interpretation he is presented as larger and more muscular. Moreover, Rembrandt was working off of an etched engraving of Rubens Descent by another artist and had no idea of the chromatic power in Rubens who used color as the driving engine of his draftsmanship.
Even those of us who do not profess either artist’s faith can only view in wonder the artistic oeuvre that resulted from this period of great religious upheaval. Out of it, we have all benefitted from having bequeathed to us two of the greatest works of the Baroque era.
= new reply since forum marked as read
comment in my art threads. I just don't get it...
We actually had a few gonzo people in the art department, and it was some of the silliest random fun I've ever had! Some of those crazies did stuff like this. Process pieces. That was all the rage! Back when we were young and foolish.
As far as religious art, I went to Catholic school, so we were steeped in it. I loved it all. Loved the cherubs and billowing fabric and gnarled fingers and toes and musculature and looks of rhapsodic adoration. There was always gore, whether it was the many different interpretations of Crucifixion scenes or portraits of the Martyrs. Maybe it was their version of horror movies. Still love that stuff. So compelling. Can't choose just one of these as the best.
You have a passion for visual arts, like I do for music. And, like you, I am a non-believer who cares nothing about whether the art is inspired by religion. The only important issue is the result of that inspiration. That's why I consider Bach's St. Matthew Passion to be one of the greatest music ever laid down on paper. This in spite of my lifelong atheism.
I learn more with every one of your Friday posts. I will likely never see in these paintings what you do. However, reading them expands my appreciation of them. That is the best of all possible worlds.
And those who malign your efforts are not worth the effort of a response.
As always,
My best.
people to riot in the streets like for all through western history. So I guess DU is no different...
But then, Caravaggio is pretty much my favorite artist. 
As does our good friend CTyankee.
Here is to all who love such things (and to the few ignorant jerks who have shown up in this thread to malign it, fuck you all ):
Vissi d'arte -- I live for art (Maria Callas):
The 1953 de Sabata recording, probably the best Tosca ever recorded. Certainly Callas' best.
I salute my good friend, CTyankee. Keep on keeping on. Your fans will persevere and clean up the messes so that you can keep focussed. Ignore the jerks. We'll take them on so you don't have to. We have your back.
My take on opera and music is similar to yours on visual arts. There may be more than one interpretation. There are subtleties which one may see that distinguish one from the other. Where discussions delve into such matters, that is where meaningful and thoughtful ideas come to the fore.
I prefer the Rembrandt, mainly because of the esthetics of the body and the more realistic and less idealized depiction. But damnit Jim, I am a music critic, not a visual art critic. So what do I know?
And I love Renior, who often used the same female model in many of his paintings.
For instance, Luncheon of the Boating Party where every female in the painting is the same woman. Love it.
Back when I took two years of voice lessons and I had a three octave range and was a mezzo-soprano, my audition number was
"Non so piu cosa son, cosa faccio" which as you know is Cherubino's fast aria about his discovery of women. "Ogni donna mi fa palpitar" -- every woman makes me tremble.
I learned to sing in French, Italian and German. It was great fun. I was a soprano in the chorus in an amateur production of The Elixir of Love, about 15 years ago. That was a blast. We had a couple of drunk peasant scenes. It's a star vehicle for a bass, who is a con artist who sells cheap wine as a cure-all, Doctor Dulcamara. The tenor and the baritone both try to win the soprano and the tenor wins. And as Doctor Dulcamara, the tenor, and the soprano leave, the baritone says, "May his carriage overturn." ROFL!! In our production they walked out, there was no carriage. It was in an old, small church and was a very intimate setting.
When we had dress rehearsal, they told us to put on lots of makeup with no specific directions. After the dress rehearsal, the handsome baritone came up and told me I looked "lovely". And I was wearing glasses as I always do. I can't navigate without them. I glowed for two weeks after that!!
That was a long time ago. Due to age I have lost all my head tone. But Annie Lennox is still making CDs and she's about my age, so I figure I should keep singing. Choir directors loved me because I could sing soprano, alto or tenor. Now I can sing alto, tenor or baritone. Except that church choirs don't have baritones. Oh well. 
There are several pieces of music that I occasionally have to play that bring me to tears no matter how many times I play them or hear them (they make me cry then too). I have had to memorize certain of my parts because I just can't see the music through the tears. Some of it I know exactly why I do that but most of it is such a mash up of "reasons" that I just know it will happen.
I bet if you went back the very same thing would happen. It is so very nice to be able to feel that way isn't it? It is amazing that something that was created by another human, sometimes centuries ago, can still reach out and touch others that way.
I just find it more affecting, something in the expressions on the faces I think.
I always spend a lot of time looking at the paintings, making up my mind before I read the rest of the thread (when you do these ) then I go looking to see how many people agree with me, and hardly anyone ever does. 
I know I don't know anything about art, and I don't think I've chosen, "wrong." I'm just surprised how often I'm in the minority in these threads.
Anyway, thank you for the bringing a little moment of beauty and education and fun into my day.
Schama's analysis makes perfect sense and brought up many previously unconsidered points.
I prefer the Rembrandt for several reasons. Even though Rubens' style is to paint robust subjects, his depiction of Christ here would not ring true for how we were taught Christ lived his life. He would not have been this size of a man. Also, on a personal note, the paintings that just gobsmacked me in the National Gallery of Art were the Rembrandt's. As another poster noted, when you stand in front of one of his paintings, your breath is just taken away. It's as if the painting's subjects are right there in the room in front of you. The realness. It rings true with this depiction of The Descent.
Giving Schama props here----Rembrandt's version seems more accurate, possibly because of my Protestant upbringing and the story of the crucifixion told the "Protestant" way.
Some posters here have made dismissive comments, mocking the subject matter because it's "religious". Well, it's not just about religion. Things like the Council of Trent greatly affected the very history of this world in every way. The settlement of our country was brought about in large part by the "religious" turmoil in Europe at the time.
It's also about the pure joy of looking at art masterpieces, painted by geniuses. What's not to like about that?
Thank you so much, CTyankee.
It's much appreciated.
[img]
[/img]
Obviously based on the Rubens, but interesting in its own right, I think! He has done similar interpretations of other works by the European master painters.
I learn so much. I can't choose between the Rubens, the Rembrandt or the Caravaggio. I was an art major and a music major in college, but ended up getting a degree in biology. I loved Art History and have told you about my wonderful professor.
And I agree with your comments about religious music. I enjoy lots of Christian music, usually in Latin. I have sung and played a lot of it, though I am not religious now. I can appreciate the religious sentiments behind Christian music and art.
I was once the music director and summer time piano player at a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. At UU churches and fellowships, you are not required to pick songs out of the hymnal. Many of the songs in the hymnal are regular Protestant hymns with the words changed. I always loved the freedom to sing and play secular music.
One UU choir I was in did some of the Liebeslieder Waltzes by Brahms in English, for Valentine's Day. One summer for July the Fourth, I played something patriotic but obscure: Of Thee I Sing, Baby, by George Gershwin.
As far as I'm concerned, if it has something meaningful to say or is beautiful, it's sacred music. Sacred and secular are artificial distinctions. A lot of the stuff cranked out now for the mass market choirs in Protestant churches seems to have a habit of mentioning the word "Jesus" as much as possible as if that would make it holy or good music. Unfortunately, that in itself doesn't make it good music.
The people I have run into who refuse to let their kids listen to evil pop music and insist on listening to "Christian music" are usually referring to whiny bad country music talking about Jesus. I would love to duct tape these people to a chair and make them listen to what I consider to be quality Christian music: Stuff by The Tallis Scholars, Anonymous Four, Chanticleer, and several other groups. Masses and Requiem Masses, by Verdi, Faure, Mozart, Berlioz, Brahms, Schubert, and Beethoven.
The best church music collection CD that I know of is called Agnus Dei: Music of Inner Harmony, by the Choir of New College, Oxford University. On the Erato label.
It has several pieces that were original for string orchestra or orchestra (The Adagio for Strings by Samuel Barber (Agnus Dei) and "Nimrod" from the Enigma Variations by Sir Edward Elgar (Lux Aeterna, Requiem Aeternam). Eternal Light, Eternal Rest.
When my father died in 2000, I got the preacher to play the Lux Aeterna recording. I was proud of myself for sneaking a classical piece in Latin into a little Methodist church in East Texas. And the cool part was when I saw the Tallis Scholars in Houston. I was talking to a lady that was a member of the Tallis Scholars after the concert.
On Remembrance Day, which is Veteran's Day in England, they often sing and play the Elgar piece as a Lux Aeterna, as a memorial for their fallen soldiers. I told her about the Nimrod variation, being turned into a choral piece, and the playing the recording of the Lux Aeterna at my father's funeral, and she said, "You did all right by him." He was in the Army Air Corps (later the Air Force) in Europe in World War Two. Even if the piece has flatted fifths in it, which are sort of strange in the world of music theory.
Having a member of the finest acapella group in the world tell me that means the world to me.
Here it is, Lux Aeterna, in all its glory:
That is excellent. More exposure to great art which is exactly what I want to do.
Fabulous remark, btw. I doubt many people will get it -- born too late I guess -- but relevance isn't what you have much of.
Thanks for giving me the excuse to reply and thereby help my thread get more attention.
Hey, my evil plot is working...
