爭議畫作終被鑑定爲倫勃朗真跡
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The painting was sliced down the middle in the 19th century, probably to be sold as two Rembrandt portraits. At some point in the next 40 years, it was sutured back together with pieces of an entirely different canvas, and layered with paint to cover up its scars.
荷蘭海牙——19世紀的時候，有人將這幅畫從中間一分爲二，其目的可能是把它當成兩幅獨立的肖像畫出售。後來的40年時間裏，又有人利用若干塊完全不同的畫布把分開的兩部分嚴絲合縫地拼了起來，還塗上了顏料，用以遮蓋疤痕。In 1898, the director of the Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery here proudly displayed it in the museum as “Saul and David,” one of Rembrandt's most important biblical works. Then, in 1969, a noted Rembrandt authority discredited the painting, and for years it hung next to a label that read “Rembrandt and/or Studio,” a serious demotion.
1898年，海牙莫瑞泰斯皇家美術館(Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery)館長在館內驕傲地展示了這幅名爲《掃羅與大衛》(Saul and David)的畫作，它是倫勃朗(Rembrandt)以聖經故事爲題材的作品中極爲重要的一件。到了1969年，此畫遭到一位倫勃朗研究權威的質疑，之後的很多年裏，在它旁邊的標籤上一直能看到“倫勃朗和/或仿作”(Rembrandt and/or Studio)幾個字，這意味它身價大跌。
Now, after eight years of examination and restoration by the museum's own conservators — with support from researchers from various outside institutions, like the Delft University of Technology, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the Netherlands Institute for Art History and Cornell University — the Mauritshuis has reclaimed the painting as an authentic Rembrandt, saying it was painted in two stages by the master's own hand. It is one of more than 300 surviving Rembrandt paintings.
現在，莫瑞泰斯皇家美術館重新將這幅畫認定爲倫勃朗的真跡，說它是大師親手繪製的，歷經兩個階段。此前，該館的文物保存專家在代爾夫特理工大學(Delft University of Technology) 、華盛頓國家畫廊(National Gallery of Art) 、荷蘭藝術史研究所(Netherlands Institute for Art History)、康奈爾大學(Cornell University)等外部機構的研究人員幫助下，用八年時間對它進行了查驗和修復。它也由此進入了300多幅倫勃朗存世真跡的行列。
The museum revealed its findings on Tuesday, two days before it opens an exhibition, “Rembrandt? The Case of Saul and David.” The show is devoted entirely to this single work, which depicts the young hero David playing a harp for an elderly King Saul, who is moved by the music.
週二，莫瑞泰斯皇家美術館在該館名爲“倫勃朗？以《掃羅與大衛》爲例”(Rembrandt? The Case of Saul and David)的展覽開幕兩天前公佈了自己的研究結果。《掃羅與大衛》是這場展覽的絕對焦點，它描繪的是少年英雄大衛爲年長的掃羅王演奏豎琴、琴聲讓後者深受打動的場景。“It's a very special occasion,” said Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, the world's leading authority on Rembrandt and one of eight members of the museum's independent advisory committee. “They must feel lucky. They have another addition to their fantastic collection of Rembrandt.”
“這是一個十分特別的場合，”荷蘭的藝術史學家恩斯特·範·德·維特林(Ernst van de Wetering)說，“他們一定覺得自己很幸運，他們令人讚歎的倫勃朗收藏又多了一幅作品。”維特林是倫勃朗研究領域的世界級著名權威，同時也是莫瑞泰斯皇家美術館獨立專家諮詢委員會的八名成員之一。Van de Wetering, speaking in a telephone interview, added that the work was “a rare history painting from Rembrandt's middle period.”
維特林接受電話採訪時還表示，《掃羅與大衛》是一幅“罕見的出自倫勃朗藝術生涯中期的歷史畫”。Other Rembrandt scholars who were not on the panel responded largely with approbation.
其他一些不在上述委員會裏的倫勃朗研究者基本表示贊同。“It fits the style of Rembrandt and also his kind of handling,” said Christopher White, a London art historian who specializes in Dutch art.
“它符合倫勃朗的風格，處理手法也吻合，”研究荷蘭藝術品的倫敦藝術歷史學家克里斯托弗·懷特(Christopher White)說。Attribution problems for the painting began when the art historian Horst Gerson questioned its authorship. He suggested that it was the work of one of the master's pupils because “the painterly execution is superficial and inconsistent” and because he did not “recognize Rembrandt's touch in it.”
這幅作品的真僞問題，最先是由藝術史家霍斯特·格爾森(Horst Gerson)提出的。他認爲，這是倫勃朗的一名學生的作品，因爲它‘畫得沒有深度，缺乏一致性”，而且他沒有“從中看出倫勃朗的特點”。The Mauritshuis accepted Gerson's decision, and changed the wall label.
莫瑞泰斯接受了格爾森的結論，更換了牆上的標籤。Then, in 2007, the museum began its own investigation.
2007年，該美術館開始自行展開調查。Emilie Gordenker, the director of the Mauritshuis, said that new scientific data gleaned from paint sample analysis and a new X-ray technique allowed restorers to look beneath the overpainted surface and gain fresh perspective on aspects of the painting that had been obscured by damage and previous restorations.
莫瑞泰斯的館長艾米麗·戈登科(Emilie Gordenker)說，藉助顏料樣品分析和一種新的X射線技術，他們獲得了新的科學數據，這使修復者可以看到表面下被修改前的狀況，對於破損和之前的修復工作所掩蓋的部分，他們獲得了新的視角。Once researchers could differentiate original pigments from those that were added later, the museum could more easily start to conceptualize the original work. The final assessment of attribution was made through the judgments of curators, restorers and members of the international advisory board. Gordenker made the final call.
研究人員一旦能夠分辨出原來的顏料和後來添加的那些，美術館對最初的作品形成概念就會變得更容易。真僞的最終評估由策展人、修復者和國際諮詢委員會的成員進行。戈登科負責最後定論。Some researchers were tentative about weighing in before they had read all of the new data.
對於在沒有看所有新數據的情況下參加辯論，一些研究人員感到躊躇。“This painting is in a very bad state, and that makes it harder to analyze,” said Stephanie Dickey, a professor at Queen's University in Canada and the author of three scholarly books about Rembrandt. “No matter how much scientific research you do, there is always a subjective element.”
“這幅畫處於非常糟糕的狀態，這使得它很難被分析，”加拿大皇后大學(Queen's University)教授斯蒂芬妮·迪基(Stephanie Dickey)說，她曾寫過三本關於倫勃朗的學術著作。“不管你做多少科學研究，主觀因素總是避免不了的。”Gary Schwartz, an American Rembrandt scholar and founder of Codart, an online resource for Dutch and Flemish paintings, said in an email: “The outcome of the new research does not surprise me. What is new is not the attribution itself but the minute attention to all the physical details of this complex canvas.”
來自美國的倫勃朗學者加里·施瓦茨(Gary Schwartz)是荷蘭和佛蘭芒繪畫資源網站Codart的創始人，他在一封電郵中表示：“這項新研究的結果並不讓我感到吃驚。新意不是畫作的歸屬，而是投射到這幅複雜油畫的全部物理細節上的無微不至的注意力。“Gordenker described the new exhibition as a “`CSI'-style forensic investigation” into the life, injury and revitalization of this work, and said she hoped that it would open up the matter to broader discussion. It is quite possible that still other experts, when they see the research for themselves, might draw different conclusions, she added.
戈登科說，這個新展覽是對這幅作品的生命、傷痕和恢復狀況進行的“《犯罪現場調查》(CSI)式的法醫調查”，並說她希望這能引發更加廣泛的討論。其他專家有可能在親眼看到研究過程後，得出不同的結論，她說。“We really don't want the `it is or it isn't?' question to dominate,” Gordenker said. “We take a point of view on it, but we're open to discoveries and new revelations.”
“我們真的不希望‘是真還是假？’這個問題主導了一切，”戈登科說。“對於這個問題，我們有自己的看法，但是也對各種發現和新的啓示持開放態度。”
