Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Wednesday, April 24th 2013

2:15 PM

Rembrandt van Rijn self-portrait on wood panel "1669"

In considering that Rembrandt is the greatest painter of the Dutch Golden age, just as is said that he possessed his own brilliant abilities in using techniques that he used himself in his portraits capturing life's little drama's,.... does make me a pretty lucky MFA collector,.... wouldn't you agree?

Wow!  I was just wondering to myself,.... What exactly did this eBay seller think they were doing when they decided to sell this so-called fisherman,... a portrait of this old man?  The eBay seller with their location reading as below. 

GALERIE DU LOUVRE, 
Country Canada
 
 
OLD MINIATURE ON WOOD PANEL NO RESERVE !!
Item # 1446493203
 
 
Aren't I about the most luckiest collector in this MFA world of ours?
well, anyway,... that is the way I see it,... and it seems to be,... when most all of what I have collected has been in existence for years,.... and believe it or not,... it just seems to come my way,.. when someone like the owner of this portrait, or ones who has not had the art works very long, happened to get a wrong opinion from the ones who are supposed to know,... and then,.... decides it is time to get rid of it.  Lucky lucky me!
 comparison2-1.jpg picture by vanrijngo
My provenance is below,.. of this seller no longer found on eBay.

Exceptional old hand painted miniature showing an old man, on wood panel , in excellent condition , no signature visible only a stamp on the back ( see pics ) , measures about 2 x 3 inches and 5 1/4" x 4 1/4" including the frame. Please note this is an original work of art not a modern reproduction. PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT MUST BE IN 15 DAYS AFTER ENDED AUCTION OR ITEM WILL BE RELISTED IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION , PLEASE DO NOT BID ON MY ITEMS .FULL REFUND ON ALL ITEMS IF NOT AS DESCRIBED .BUYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FEE'S, INSURANCE AND SHIPPING COSTS. CANADIAN RESIDENT ADD APPLICABLE SALES TAX.   FOR MORE FINE ART & COLLECTIBLES VISIT :
 
GALERIE DU LOUVRE



Country
Canada
 
 
Rather amazing,... wouldn't some of you e Bayer's think? No, I can't seem to find any information on this popular seller who was on eBay with a 573 feed-back profile then, and now no longer available. Do you suppose that someone had let some good art,.... Maybe,... slip right through their fingers?  You would not believe the final selling price! Bought January 2003.
 
 
MVC-002F.jpg picture by vanrijngo

 I shouldn't really say this,.. but,... while saying it anyway, what is said  by myself, mostly involves my studies, and I have come to the conclusion that this self-portrait was painted in 1669 the last year of his life. This was when Rembrandt's eye sight really started to fail him in the most extreme circumstance. He knew he was on the last leg of his art journey.   As you can, and should be able to see for yourselves, he actually painted this happening into this minature self-portrait painting. This self-portrait could infact be,... his last portrait of himself, other than the one he painted into the whole left-hand corner of his last impressionistic painting,... using the horses backs, as representing his own bottom lip, as he is kissing the world of his,... goodby.  Its a painting that includes his own funeral procession, his good friend van Loon along with the hole he'll be put in.  That painting will be put up a little later for your enjoyment.



This is Rembrandt's very last painting which he'd done in a impressionistic style, caused by the fact that he was going blind.  You should be able to see the complete service of his funeral as he had painted it for his 21st century viewers.  Rembrandt had said himself that it would probably take 400 years before technologies would catch up to his own eyesight to allow others to see what he already could,... that is if any of his works of art manage to survive that many years into the future.
1 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, April 18th 2013

8:48 AM

"The Night Watch", didn't the MFA expert's mean to say, "The Day Watch"?

Rembrandt's "The  Night Watch", Oh, pardon me,... didn't the MFA expert's mean to say, "The Day Watch"?



http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/rembrandt's_night_watch.htm

(The Company of Captain Frans Banning
Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenhurch)

from:
"The Legend and the Man," in The World of Rembrandt: 1606-1669 (Time-Life Library of Art), Walter Wallace, New York, 1968, pp. 107-111

Since this celebrated work will always be known by an incorrect title, and since those who have not seen it continue to believe, quite logically, that it is a nocturne Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenhurch, and not until late in the 18th Century did it acquire the name by which it is now known. Unfortunately, both "Night" and " "Watch" are wrong. The civic guards who are depicted had, by the time Rembrandt painted them, become quite pacific; it was no longer necessary for them to defend the ramparts of Amsterdam or to go out on watches by night or by day. Their meetings had been diverted chiefly to social or sporting purposes; if they may be said to have any particular destination in the painting, it is perhaps to march into the fields for a shooting contest or to take part in a parade.

Just look at what Walter Wallace had to say above about the Captain, the Lieutenant along with their men,..... almost as Rembrandt had explained this work of art to his good friend Dr van Loon.  I'll attempt to change these MFA expert's words into something that Rembrandt himself would say today in replacement for those words. 

Yes,... these Guardsmen's meetings were in the time of peace.  If the truth were to be told other than by Rembrandt's words, you would certainly think it would be depicted and be in the hidden secret in this very large abstract work of art. 

The wives and girl-friends of these solders  more than likely would not want to believe went on in their two week guard re-training period.  As these little get-together took place in these times of peace, Rembrandt was wondering just how could he paint this without someone being able to prove that this is what the true meaning was supposed to represent.

Like Rembrandt had said himself,...  this would be more of a social get-together than seemingly the painted parade with little children getting under feet as they usually do during a parade, or as the guard being in such a disarray getting their weapons ready in a immediate danger or threat.


"Night" is even less apt than "Watch." When the critics and the public attached that word to the painting, the canvas had become so darkened by dirt and layers of varnish that it was difficult to tell whether the illumination Rembrandt had provided in it came from the sun or moon. Not until after the end of World War II was the painting fully restored so that the viewer could get an idea of the brightness it had when it left Rembrandt's hand more than 300 years before. (Upon seeing the refreshed work, journalists promptly re-christened it the "Day Watch.")

Well,.... what Rembrandt had to say about "Night" and "Watch" is less apt to be seen by day,... but believe me, it had not been actually been seen by anyone, except me, as it was meant to be seen since the time of its creation in 1642 by Rembrandt.  I myself see no sun or moon, other than Rembrandt possibly bending down somewhere in a possible darkened miniaturized location of dirt and varnish piled up over the years since it was painted while mooning the MFA experts.  Rembrandt once said something like this,...  "it is not the things that one sees, but the things that one suspects one sees, things that cannot be proved that they are there",....  this is what he said made his life so interesting to himself.  So, in saying this, let's all take a closer peak at what Rembrandt painted into this lovely large painting of the now called "Day Watch",... while keeping all this what I'm saying in mind.

Rembrandt, possibly more than any other artist, has suffered from the ministrations of picture restorers. The infamous "Rembrandt brown" is their work, not his, and so too is the widespread impression that he was a monotonous colorist who invariably worked with a low-keyed palette. It is true that the forceful use of chiaroscuro in his paintings, with its emphasis on the mysterious, evocative qualities of shadow, has always disturbed certain critics, and so occasionally has his subject matter. John Ruskin, the 19th Century English emphasis on the mysterious essayist, who had a superb knack for being wrong in just the right words, remarked that "it is the aim of the best painters to paint the noblest things they can see by sunlight, but of Rembrandt to paint the foulest things he could see by rushlight." However even Ruskin, if he had seen a cleaned Rembrandt panel or canvas, might have directed some of his vitriol at the men who applied layer upon layer of toned varnish on the artist's pictures. In the past generation not only the Night Watch but many other Rembrandt paintings have been stripped of their dirty and discolored overlays-with a consequential appraisal by critics of his genius as a colorist.

Yes, and for these MFA so-called art experts saying an artist such as Rembrandt suffered from other artist imitating his style, is like saying most all composers of music imitated Beethoven along with all the rest of the famous musical composers. Its a little different when some thing's which are heard with our own ears,... rather than seen with our eyes, say like most all sightings being conditioned from youth, what is rightful to be looked at, how it is to be seen, and while looking at only what they say is to be seen and looked at. Did this confuse you? 

 This was absolutely a non-sufferable event of Rembrandt's, for most all artists at the time of him painting and after his death, most did not want to wind up like Rembrandt, becoming an outcast and a bankrupt asshole, while literally seeing for themselves or hearing about how the great mistral had gotten ran out of a city of Amsterdam, let alone being an artist able to paint like him.  It is also amazing that every so often some experts puts emphasis on the mysterious which pops up in his works of art, while other disturbed certain critics and so-called artists offers their own essays of what they think of the artist Rembrandt's works.

 There is an understandable, if not a good, reason why Rembrandt's works were so slathered with varnish. As he matured he became increasingly free in his technique, using bold strokes, passages of broken color, heavy impasto applied with the palette knife, and areas scumbled with his fingers. This highly personal stlye proved a mystery to most critics of the late 17th and 18th Centuries, who attributed it to laxness or perversity. Rembrandt himself seems to have suggested indirectly that his work was to be observed at a slight distance, so that the intervening space would make his strokes and colors fuse. According to Houbraken, "visitors to his studio who wanted to look at his works closely were frightened away by his saying, 'The smell of the colors will bother you.'" The probability is that Rembrandt was not at all concerned about the smell of fresh paint, which is pleasant to many people, but that he did not care to answer dim questions from his guests.

Unfortunately most were on the wrong road, or should I say wrong tracks, while going in the wrong directions. They weren't able to even come close to seeing what this artist did or was doing in his art. Other Dutch artists couldn't come close in making art as he did. Rembrandt as an artist, his own qualities and abilities of making master painting as he did in his prime was to be his own style. According to Houbraken, he says visitors to his studio who wanted to look at his works were frightened away by Rembrandt saying, the smell of the colors will bother you.  This is saying it like it was coming from his own  mouth,... him saying the wet paint with his thinning agents, not the smell of color.  How do you smell color.

 Rembrandt would have said it something like this,... "the smell of fresh paint will bother and make you very sick".'  "When the paint dries, it is not all that bad then, and only then will you be able to view your portraits up close without getting ill.  It will be soon enough for you to view my work of your portrait,... when they are finished and dried," while this was said primarily to the one sitting for their portraits or their family portraits.  This was the artist Rembrandt's main way and reasoning for saying these things so that the sitters would not want to see the unfinished works. Rembrandt's secret ways of achieving his finished effects he would produced would be kept secret, ready to be called a Rembrandt and to hang on the walls when he said they were done. 

To their credit, it should be recorded 'that there were a few early critics who admired Rembrandt's rough strokes and said so. In 1700 an English writer on art, John Eisum, published a poem dedicated to "An Old Man's Head, by Rembrant":

 

What a coarse rugged Way of Painting's here,
Stroaks upon Stroaks, Dabbs upon Dabbs appear.
The Work you' d think was huddled up in haste,
But mark how truly ev'ry Colour's placed,
With such Oeconomy in such a sort,
That they each mutualiy support. Rembrant! thy Pencil plays a subtil Part
This Roughness is contriv'd to hide thy Art.


Yes, let me say this,... poetry is great, if one can contrive the true meanings, what these poets are trying to get across and were saying.  Rembrandt knew many styles and used them, all of which was done in his own techniques, and he knew himself which ones worked well within the subject matter he was conveying, while showing us, and other feebler minded blind jackasses, like the one he drew donkey ears on in his drawing of  "Satire Against Art Criticism". Some of the Rest of this MFA experts 400 years later, who I'd say pretty much have continue to remain the same, i believe he'd also want them to be included in this sanario.

One or two theorists of Rembrandt's era agreed that his paintings, in their "coarse rugged Way," would appear more coherent if one stepped back from them, but they noted that a similar coherence could be obtained with varnish. As a result, for more than a century after Rembrandt's death liberal applications of varnish, frequently tinted, were applied to many of his paintings by dealers-and what is even more unfortunate-by collectors. Theoretically, the Night Watch should not have been a candidate for such treatment. Although it contains some wonderfully rich and complex areas, Rembrandt did not paint it in the freest style he would ultimately achieve. Nonetheless, this masterpiece received its full gallonage of Golden Glow and Toner. In fairness to the varnishers, it must be said that their intention was to protect the paintings from dirt as well as to "improve" certain of them by making the strokes and colors blend. Inadvertently, the varnishers also rendered a great service to the world of art. In 1911, when the Night Watch was still covered with a thick layer of hardened varnish, an unemployed ship's cook went at it with a knife. He seems to have had no reason for this act of apparent madness beyond the fact that the painting was famous and he was not. But its surface coating proved as resistant as glass, and the attacker was unable to cut through it.

Thank God for a dull blade, thick and strong varnishes, or a too small of knife, which ever the case happened to have been.  What a bunch of sickness we have in this screwed up MFA world we all are living in and could also say living on.  Varnishes were used in Rembrandt's day and time and it was nothing new to him or any other artist to use it, to be able to have their own works at the time be effective.  What rocks do you suppose these MFA people who represent the Masters of Fine art all crawl out from underneath?  Do suppose that they hide rocks in Closets?

 The Night Watch was commissioned by Captain Barining Cocq and 17 members of his civic guards; that this was the total of Rembrandt's clients for the work is assumed from the fact that 18 names, added by an unknown hand after the painting was completed, appear on a shield on the background wall. Doubtless the guardsmen expected a group portrait in which each member would be clearly recognizable, although perhaps not of equal prominence; it was often the practice for less affluent or junior members of a group to be represented only by heads or partial figures, for which they paid less than did those who were portrayed full length. The guardsmen, most of whom must have been familiar with Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp of a decade earlier, may also have foreseen that the artist would not produce a standard, static painting. But none of them could have been prepared for the thunderous masterwork with which they were confronted.

How do they really pronounce this captain's last name?  I'd guess this name only to be fitting for most the ones depicted in this painting, and also for way more than half I'd say of these MFA experts who would love that name themselves, and most others involved with the arts today.  Most people back then could not comprehend such a painting, and it is not saying too much for the ones today either.  I know what it is that you are all thinking,... who the hell does this guy  think that his is?  Personally,.. I could care less,... for I'm just venting again, and this seem to be a very good way of getting all this out of my mind and system without saying the hell with it.

The Night Watch is colossal. In its original dimensions it measured approximately 13 by 16 feet and contained not only the 18 guardsmen but 16 other figures added by Rembrandt to give still more animation to an already tumultuous scene. It was by far the most revolutionary painting Rembrandt had yet made, transforming the traditional Dutch group portrait into a dazzling blaze of light, color and motion, and subordinating the requirements of orthodox portraiture to a far larger, more complex but still unified whole. In Rembrandt's hands what was, after all, a commonplace affair became filled with Baroque pictorial splendor, loud with the sound of drum and musket, the thud of ramrods, the barking of a dog, the cries of children. In the forefront Captain Banning Cocq - in black, with a red sash - and his lieutenant in yellow lead the forward drive of the still unformed ranks. The sense of movement is reinforced by converging diagonal lines: on the right, the foreshortened spontoon in the lieutenant's hand, the musket above it and the lance still higher; and on the left, the captain's staff, its line repeated above by another musket and the banner. The effect on the viewer is direct; he feels that he had best get out of the way.

They say the most revolutionary painting Rembrandt had yet made, transforming the traditional Dutch group portrait into a dazzling blaze of light, color and motion?  Wow!  Who the hell wrote this?  How close can one really come without hitting the MFA nail on its head? I must say myself, these traditional Dutch groupies are still as dazzling today as Rembrandt had painted them back then, in all their dazzling blaze of glory, and emotions of the motion being caused by the abstraction lines of this shadow cast painting. Very remarkable!

The powerful contrast of light and shade heightens the sense of movement, but it is well to regard Rembrandt's use of light in this painting, as in many others, from an esthetic rather than from a strictly logical view- point. He was, in the phrase of one critic, "his own sun-god." The shadow cast by the captain's hand on the lieutenant's coat might suggest that the sun is at an apparent angle of about 45 degrees to the left, but the shadow of the captain's extended leg indicates quite a different angle. The picture was of course composed and painted indoors, not while the officers posed for him out of doors, and although his lighting in any particular detail may be true to nature, that is not the case overall. He regulated and manipulated light-opening or closing the shutters in his studio-for his own purpose, which was to create an atmosphere both dreamlike and dramatic.

Wow! Here we go again talking about that nail head that has been missed so many times before. Who in the hell ever said that Rembrandt was logical in his lighting and shadowing of his works of art? They also say the painting was of course composed and painted indoors while also the posing of its leaders and civic guardsmen were also done inside without direct sun light.  Let us all suppose that this is the case and was meant to give an impression of outside duty, but in reality was meant to leave a totally different impression in your subliminal mind and soul. Abstractly speaking and as if using strobe lighting as another way of explaining it, just maybe this was meant to be an indoor happening.

The Night Watch lies at the center of the most persistent and annoying of all Rembrandt myths. As recently as the tourist season of 1967, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines featured the painting by their illustrious countryman in an advertisement inviting travelers to visit Holland. "See Night Watch," said the advertisement, "Rembrandt's spectacular 'failure' (that caused him to be) hooted ...down the road to bankruptcy." The myth has been attacked by various critics, and a few years ago it was utterly demolished by Professor Seymour Slive of Harvard in Rembrandt and His Critics. But since the tale has a phoenix-like capacity for self-resurrection, a few of Professor Slive's observations will bear repeating here.

What exactly can one say that will ever change these MFA experts minds, and their own sick ways of tearing things apart and reconstructing them to fit their own sick ways of looking at things and the way they themselves want other to look at works of art.

The painting was not poorly received; no critic during Rembrandt's lifetime wrote a word in dispraise of it. Captain Banning Cocq himself had a watercolor made of it for his personal album, and a contemporary oil copy of it by Gerrit Lundens, now owned by the National Gallery in London, offers further proof of the picture' s popularity. The Night Watch was never hidden in some obscure location; it was first hung in the Kloveniersdoelen, the headquarters of the civic guardsmen, and in 1715 it was moved to the Amsterdam town hall, as prominent a place as could have been found for it. (Probably on the occasion of its transferal, but no doubt for reasons of space, the painting was cut down on all four sides. The greatest loss was on the left, where a strip about two feet wide, containing three figures, was removed. Nor did painting this supposed "failure" result in any abrupt withdrawal of patronage; Rembrandt received about 1,600 guilders for the Night Watch, and four years later the Prince of Orange gave him 2,400 for two smaller works.

Just listen to this sick MFA person talking here and what he is trying to convince us all of.  Shit,... if he keeps up talking like this, just maybe they will all get together and reinvent this artist into becoming the Prince of Orange right hand man, like Velázquez was to Phillip the Forth, the King of Spain. 

The fable of the Night Watch may owe its stubborn survival to the fact that it is a simple and convenient means of disposing of a complex matter. In 1642 Rembrandt was at the height of his popularity, and thereafter he slowly fell out of public favor, though never to the extent that romantic biographers suggest. What were the reasons for his "decline"? One of them, certainly, was a change in Dutch tastes in art. During the 1640s wealthy citizens, perhaps growing a trifle soft in their security, developed a fondness for showiness and elegance. They began to prefer the bright colors and graceful manner that had been initiated by such painters as the fashionable Flemish portraitist Anthony van Dyck- who, however fine an artist, lacked Rembrandt' s depth. Rembrandt's use of chiaroscuro dissatisfied them too, and they turned away from an artist who seemed "dark" and-what was perhaps worse-demanded that they devote some thought to what they were looking at.

Amazing talk here we are hearing from the MFA experts when they say that Rembrandt's use of chiaroscuro dissatisfied most and caused them to turn away from his paintings.  In their second breath they say what is perhaps worse his paintings demands the on-lookers to devote a little though to what they were looking at and seeing with their own eyes and this was causing some kind of pain.  If anyone were really the blame for this, I'd have to say it was Rembrandt himself.  In Rembrandt fame and glory as an artist, he wanted more that what could be given up by the artist communities and so-called MFA experts.  Rembrandt was the same as Vincent van Gogh or vice-versa, ones who wanted a whole lot more than what could actually be given. Their own visions would remain their own, no matter how hard they tried to make others see what they were doing and had done.

vanrijngo





"The Secret of The Night Watch"

More coming later.
3 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Friday, April 5th 2013

9:51 AM

Charlie Russell's saddle

vanrijngo's Story- Russell's Saddle
0 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Tuesday, March 12th 2013

8:40 AM

Self-Portraits of Rembrandt, Self-portrait Covaert Flinck. and Rembrandt's Mother

Rembrandt's Portrait goes on view at the Brooklyn Museum 3/18

http://art.broadwayworld.com/article/Rembrandt-Paintings-Go-On-View-at-the-Brooklyn-Museum-318-20130311

I'm in the process of putting this article together which will probably bother the hell out of a few MFA experts if the happen to see it's in progress.


     




The Rembrandts, Self-Portrait with Shaded Eyes(1634) and Portrait of Anthonie Coopal (1635), were both painted in Amsterdam when the artist was in his late twenties. Self-Portrait with Shaded Eyes was hidden for centuries under another portrait. According to Dr. Ernst van de Wetering, chairman of the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), "the overpaintings were so old one had to entertain the possibility that they had been done in Rembrandt's own workshop." The RRP brought in experts to conduct tests on the portrait's paint surface and assess whether there might be another composition underneath. Six years and several paint layers later, this long-unknown masterpiece was revealed in 2002.


Read more about Rembrandt Paintings Go On View at the Brooklyn Museum 3/18 - BWWVisual ArtsWorld by art.broadwayworld.com

Self-Portrait with Shaded Eyes was hidden for centuries under another portrait. According to Dr. Ernst van de Wetering, chairman of the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), "the overpaintings were so old one had to entertain the possibility that they had been done in Rembrandt's own workshop."


Read more about Rembrandt Paintings Go On View at the Brooklyn Museum 3/18 - BWWVisual ArtsWorld by art.broadwayworld.com








vanrijngo's hide-out

By Bob Miller (vanrijngo):  Well, I'm wondering why this painting below of Rembrandt was left out of Steve Wynn's most noteable purchases.  Wasn't this painting purchased by Steve from Sotheby's a couple of years ago when it was sold below?

http://rjmrvr.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/7-of-steve-wynns-most-notable-artpurchases-by-rebecca-clifford-cruz-contact-saturday-july-9-2011-2-am-casin.html

A Russian Count covered up and rediscovered
                                         Before and after
A framed Framed Rembrandt  Portrait

Maybe I'm wrong, or possibly it was returned when it was noticed it was framed twice.  Someone must have painted it right off a museum wall in the frame that it was in.  I don't believe that was Rembrandt's way of painting unless he was copying an Albretch Durer portrait or maybe one of his own hanging on the wall,.. Nah, I don't think he was any good at copying other finished works....

0 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Monday, February 11th 2013

5:44 PM

Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case by finding out who the real killer may be.


 vanrijngo's own feelings of this four-part video below that will seem to make it all very clear who the real killer could actually be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHMJ72Yhm9Y&feature=share&list=PLD9845DC99E12E94F

I do not understand what is the matter with these people who still want to hang the parents as the guilty ones, when it has already been proven by evidence that it wasn't possible for the parents to be the killers. DNA proof and much more dramatic evidence in this four part video shows us the lousy investigation of the Boulder Police dept and their detectives. In all the evidence in this four part series video I'd say holds all the clues and information needed in finding the real Killers.

Like I said, I still can't understand how people cannot accept DNA proof and other unheard of evidence whiling sticking to their guns that the Ramsey's are the guilty ones. I wound say and guess myself with all these irresponsible accusation continued being made is like someone out their in the cyber world is trying their damnedest to throw off and discredit important information in this video that possibly will solve this case that should have been solved with this information years ago.

You can see as for what is being said, I could care less the killer of JonBenet  feels like having me silenced or eliminated for getting close in identifying her or him as the only one now surviving. It looks to me the orchestrator of this crime did in-fact eliminate these idiot accomplices. The video shows me that the one who died by suicide was not really a suicide, & another accomplice not being found by DNA storage banks may have already a permanent sight somewhere out there in the desert. 

This name not revealed of a Partner of Helgarths that everyone back then seemed to be afraid should not have just disappeared and going off the radar. They both were supposed to be going to make a killer deal of about 58 thousand dollars each. This has to drive home a few strange thoughts in ones own mind. If nothing else, just think of a few years ago back in 91 where this Texas  cheerleader's mother tried to hirer herself a hit-man to kill her daughter's cheer leading competitor's mother before their try-outs began.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jonbenet-ramsey-detective-brings-new-clues-light-foreign-faction-article-1.1117814#ixzz2KdyDCMam

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jonbenet-ramsey-parents-indicted-prosecution-article-1.1249294#ixzz2KdwSuveQ
0 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Wednesday, January 16th 2013

9:00 AM

Johanna van Gogh & little baby Jesus, oops I mean Vincent.


Jo and little baby Vincent we'll call her with Theo's and her sweet little baby.






The way it looked when I bought this art work on eBay


Amazing little painting on a small tea towel cloth glued down on cardboard and matted by an artist named of S. J. Seiver.  The supposed artist evidently was the one who more than likely found this unsigned work on a tea cloth and decided to claim it as his or her own work of art. Thank god for small favors, for the asumed artist signed this work in pencil on the bottom right of the purple mat and on the bottom left named and called it Solitude.


It does really show the world how blind want-to-be artists can be and even most art experts are.  How much in solitude can a person be while holding their beautiful little one in their arms. This work of art was bought by myself from an eBay seller who had bought it many years before at a New York large estate sale and only now decided to sell it on eBay.

Vincent loved his sister-in-law Jo and his little nephew named after him. In fact he even made a nice little pencil drawing of her and a loving watercolor portrait of Theo and her wedding picture. 



Vanrijngo  More coming later
1 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, January 10th 2013

12:20 PM

The most astonishing attribution as of yet.

Vincent van Gogh drawing of Sien representing "Sorrow"

Sien in Blue

MVC-001S

Astonishing 


Amazing drawing by Vincent of the young woman he wanted to marry and save from working the streets as a protitute to support her mother, brother, and iligitament children.  Vincent named this drawing Sorrow for exactly what it stood for, he as the visionary artist that he was. If I were to tell you that this drawing had a similar meaning to it as the painting of the mother and child below, I'd probably lose over half of you by you leaving this blog page and going on to other meaningless works of art by other artists.

Vincent was very dramatic with his drawing of sorrow above, to actually show the real sorrow that both Sien and himself felt while showing us their actual long kiss goodby.  As the story goes, Sien eventually threw herself in some canal or water way and drowned herself.  If you really care to see this long kiss of theirs goodby, I'll try and help you see it.  Just use your imagination and imagine Siens arm as his hat rim with her upper leg as her other arm and her hand resting on it coming aroung Vincent's neck under the rim of the hat.

MVC-003S


The great lady was Sien, the woman in Vincent's life that he loved, her and her young children. Unfortunately, this was something that his family, the ones who also interfered with Vincent and his cousin Kee's relationship,  refused to let this relationship continue if he wanted to continue getting family help buying his art supplies and with his migger existence.  

 

MVC-005S

This is Siens oldest child with her baby brother when living with Vincent.  He was caring for them and Sien when she was pregnant with this new baby boy she was to give birth to while she & her daughter was living with Vincent as his live in model.

MVC-009S

Sien and her baby before Vincent was faced with having to abandon them to be able to keep his painting career in order.

 

MVC-010S

This happened to be where this family ate most of their meals when Vincent's very little money he was getting for support ran out.

MVC-011S

A painting of Sien sitting in a old hand carved Dutch chair while holding her little baby for its feeding.

MVC-020S

Above you can almost see, and if not, feel the the agony of their relationship coming to an end as this family is embracing with a last goodby kiss before Vincent walks away of them forever.

MVC-023S

I know that not one of you will see what I show and tell you, but just maybe you will be able to feel it.  Vincent is holding Sien and her baby as he is giving the great lady her long kiss goodbye before hugging the other child goodbye before heading out of the door and their lives forever.

MVC-012S

MVC-024S

This part of this painting represent Vincent walking away from this family. As he is leaving, below Sien, the great lady standing in the slightly opened doorway watching Vincent walk away in the night.

MVC-026S

You should be able to see a simulation of a partial open door with a figure of the great lady standing there looking out as he is walking away from them.  We'll,... Let us all just call this painting "Sorrow"  also.

0 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Saturday, January 5th 2013

11:00 AM

"C. M. Russell said "The West Is Dead", Quote.

"The West Is Dead"

"The West Is Dead"
Charles Russell forgot to mention before he died,... the art world and the supposed MFA experts represent mostly lies and believe it or not, they are mostly  floppy wrists thieves.
 
You say,...."Hey ... Back off!"   I vanrijngo says,.. Screw you!
 
 

C. M. Russell's Photograph 7 x 9"  Original, Signed and Dated (1924) on the back of the photo. 

 
I'm just telling this story as Russell himself would have told it if he had any idea how the MFA experts from his own foundation would be handling his works of art and refusing to except a lot of his earlier works of art which was produced by himself.  He would say himself,.... What a bunch of phony MFA's.

 

Chief Black Eagle, Charles Marion Russell, along with their common wife.

The works by Russell that the Russell museum would rather not acknowledge!

 


Gray Metal---

The experts give no number of how many were done of this particular "old Man Indian" medallion, only signature and date.  My bronze medallion below says it is 18/35 on its edge and has Russell's earlier signature.  Can you believe that a copyist made himself 35 of these bronze castings to actually reduce its value as being the only one?  Well, I believe it was produced by Russell himself, for the reasons stated below the picture of the real bronze.  Also it has the right signature for the time period it would have been in use, before he changed it in 1898 to what you see on the one above, when his new managing wife Nancy made him lose some of his old ways and abandon most his old cowboy drinking buddies.  Myself, I'd say, that is when he made some of his more inspirational art.  The ones after "98" were just reconstructions of his first actual paintings, while most earlier ones are not being excepted by Russell experts as his own works of art, and from his hand. 

It totally blows me away how art experts have change the whole ideas of making art around.  Russell was well known to make paintings in bar rooms to trade for drinks for his buddies, and even while out on the range while tending cattle, mostly to bring back to town to trade.  When he didn't have a brush to work with, he would chew the end of a wooden match sticks, so to act like a brush to add the paint from his paint box to his mediums.

Writings below was taken from a CMR book.

Russell also looked with some seriousness toward having the little wax and
clay figures that he made reproduced for sale. One small medallion ( and
probably two) was sent to the Roman Bronze Works in New York City to be
cast. One of these, "Old-Man Indian" (4 3/4" x 4") is signed and dated on
the back: "C.M. Russell 1898". Britzman gives the date as 1896 and lists a
second one. Presumably these were made in 1898 and were Russell's first
bronze castings.
  This writing above is from :The Charles M. Russell Book by Harold
McCracken. pg186-187 . 

 My question is;... Why would he have had them use grey metal, if this one above was considered to be his first bronze casting?  I have never seen that ugly lined framing around any of his other bronze bases like in the gray metal one and other knock-offs I've seen.


 
As most of you should be able to see with your own eyes, this Indian medallion I have would more than likely have been the "96" one as Britzman had discussed while he gives the date as 1896-8.  You can see how the end of his nose has been shined and worn down a little caused by being carried in the back pockets of wrangler or levy genes.   In stating these facts, one small medallion ( and probably two) was sent to the Roman Bronze Works in New York City to be cast. One of these, "Old-Man Indian" (4 3/4" x 4") is signed and dated on the back: "C.M. Russell 1898", he sounds as if he talking about the second one actually being the first, only 1896 would have been his first bronze casting. Presumably his ninety six signature just as you see it, while also looking at the 1898 signature on the one shown above it from a Russell book, mine would be the first medallion leaving theirs the second one.
 
To get right down to it, the fact is these first bronzes being made by Russell, was not to be sold at all for a profit.   These bronzes were made by Charlie to give away or at his cost only to his best friends.  The first bronze was produced in the amount of 35 and the second series I do not know because the experts failed to mention what the # was on the one in their possession.  My "Old Man Indian" medallion is not marked from the foundry which produced it for Russell, but marked it 18/35 and like I said, without their own foundry mark.  I wonder why?  Do you suppose it was due to the popularity of Indians at that particular time and refused to put their own mark on them?
 
Besides being a great work of art by Russell, these medallions were to be attached to the saddle straps of Russell's friends saddles, to be out in the open to let all of the Indian tribes know that who ever displayed this medallion was a friend of their besides being a good friend of Charlie Russell.  These were like passes through all of the Indian territories lowering their chances greatly of losing their scalps.  If these were made to hang from nails they would not have these particular slots on the top of the medallions.  Now just tell me where possibly you have heard that from before,.... and I'd kiss your ass, if you have ever heard something like this from the MFA experts of the Russell museum.  Do you suppose the one in the book might possibly be the copy, since they didn't give a #/oo of how many were produced?  Maybe Russell only had one friend to give it to who wanted to venture into Indian territories.
 
 
 
This small 10 X 12" oil on canvas, was as far as I am concerned, painted around 1885-1887.  It is a picture of Chief Black Eagle riding into Jake Hoover's and Russell campsite for the first time.  You notice he had left his wife hanging back incase he ran into trouble while his own rifle was at ready incase he happens to need it. 
 
 
Believe it or not, this above is Charlie's hidden signature in the orange area above signed with his enitails, CMR, with his early signature of Indian beaded Moccasins in the right hand corner.  I know some of you and all of the blind MFA experts will not see this.  Below is what they like to see and look at,.... outrageous copies of masterful works of art. What a piece of shit,... the copying MFA  artist might as well have taken a fucking snapshot of human actors!
 
 
Copy of a Russell Painting by MFA Paxton, I might add, in another art collection.
 
    
Another beautiful watercolor from my collection.  This is one of the mountain streams that helped keep this favorite haunt of Russell's filled.  You might also notice the rocks have the same folage & DNA clinging to their outer shells.  What the hell!... Is that a portrait of a head of a horse with a skull of a dead buffalo in its eye area?
 
 
Here below is what the blind MFA experts have to say about this landscape painting by Russell.
Russell never tired of the veiw from the summer home he called "Bull Head Lodge" in Glacier National Park, and this veiw of Lake McDonald appears in the backgrounds of a number of his paintings.  As Russell was not a lanscape artist, this is one the exceedingly rare examples of his work without a cowboy, an Indian, a horse, or some form of wild life.
 
Well,... I'll have to beg their pardon on this stupid ass statement made by some blind so-called MFA expert of Russell's works of art.  I'll start with what actually can be seen with the naked eye.  In the water more to the right in the lakes shore, you can see circles in the water to where in your own mind you can see where a fish just might have jump up out of the lake.  Now I would say that was a form of wild life, wouldn't you agree.  In the gold highlights of the trees accross the lake you can imagine in your own mind a cowpoke and his horse taking a siesta. There are many more of these kind of trates of Russell in the follage and rocks of the shore line, but I won't get into them all.  I will though bring up the shadows and follage on one of the rock to see if anyone of you might possibly see the little bear cub he painted into this exceedingly rare example.
 
 
 
Just possibly a bear cub in the shadow of a mossy rock?
 
 
 
The two boys are Black Eagle's and his wife's outside the tee-pee with their father while something looks to be going on inside the tee-pee.
 

 
 
S. T. , and you can see where it was re-designed and stich in a curve.
 
This saddle has its brand of ST on its back and I believe it was Russells first saddle which stayed with him throughout his years after his first job working for the ST ranch somewhere in Montana.  I will not get into where and how I became its owner and who its previous owners happened to be.
 
 
Reverse picture of saddle.  This saddle has the most spir tracks than any I'd have ever seen on other old west saddles.  The spir tracks are right there on the saddle which is in every picture Russell did of a cowboy with a red bandanna being emptyed and ejected from his saddle for all the known reasons which is in the paintings.
 
 
Black Eagle and his boys, while Russell is busy in the Tee-Pee most likely taken a nap as an expert would say, with his blood brothers wife.  This painting's tee-pee flap is a second piece of canvas and able to be lifted up to see the goings on inside. It said in one book that Nancy, Russell's wife heard about this painting and tried her damndest to have it destroyed.
 
Now,.. back to some more of  The works by Russell that the Russell museum would rather not acknowledge!

This is a great item, rare and unusual. Entitled "Anticipation and Exasperation" on the nameplate, this Charles Russell image depicts a cowboy on his horse with an Indian squaw in the distance. When you insert the provided key into the slot on the front nameplate, the lithograph opens to reveal another Russell image. This image depicts the cowboy off his horse cavorting with the Indian maiden. Though Russell was known for his western oils, and this is not signed, there is documentation from Petersen Galleries in Beverly Hills attached stating that these are copies of Russell's paintings. These were sold in 1975 as a limited edition of 950, at a cost at that time of $350 each. This x-rated bit of western Americana measures 17"x24", and is in very good condition. It is a great conversation piece and would be just the perfect gift for the man who has everything.

    

  

Oops,... how did he get away with that seen of coitus interruptus?  Isn't pictures like this concidered pornography?

    http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l136/vanrijngo/Charles%20M%20Russell/exas2.jpg

Copy & paste the above url if you want to see this coitus interruptus.

"Lock box",....  I guess that's how they got away with it.  The curious had to pay a dime to use the key to unlock it. A dime back then was a lot of money at the time.  You could probably buy the real thing.

     

vanrijngo



1 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Monday, December 31st 2012

8:41 PM

Vincent, Japan, Corot, isn't this what is supposed to be looked at?

Japan, Corot, Vincent, is that all what is looked at?

Can any of you tell me your own ideas of why Vincent van Gogh liked this painting and made such a marvelous and almost precise image of the same?


220px-Hiroshige_Van_Gogh_1

F_0354

This in a Vincent van Gogh with out a signature but did it really need one?  Does that Japan work of art above ring any bells in your head?

Have you ever asked yourself,.... Why me?

0 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment

Friday, December 14th 2012

12:51 PM

"The Danae" 1636 oil on canvas


A Mythological look at the Danae


The painting of the Danae by Rembrandt is depicting the Danae who was a princess of Argos, the only daughter of king Acrisius shown by Rembrandt standing behind her.  He is checking up on her to make sure she has no male visitors so she can't get pregnant.  Danae, a princess of Argos, the only daughter of king Acrisius and Eurydice, and with no direct male heir, Acrisius wanted to know whether his daughter would ever bear him a grandson to rule Argos. To find out what the future held, Acrisius decided to go see his oracle.

When the kings oracle, instead of good news, foretold the kings own death at the hands of a grandson.  Danae without a suitor, her father Acrisius decided to keep it that way. Danae was shut up in a tall inaccessible bronze tower. The tower could not be scaled and the only door was guarded day and night by his guards.

Zeus transformed himself into a shower of gold, so that he could cascade through the roof. Zeus was struck by the beauty of Danae and promptly impregnated her quite possibly while her father was near by. The result of this union was that Danae gave birth to a son, called Perseus. Acrisius of course discovers that his daughter has given birth to his grandson. Fearful of his life, he is equally fearful of the wrath of the gods if he directly kills one of their offspring since he knew that was the only way he would have been conceived.

Acrisius arrives at a plan to set Danae and Perseus adrift on the sea in a wooden chest. There are two possible results, they may drown, or they may drift far away where they could do no harm to Acrisius. Zeus has not totally abandoned Danae, though. With the assistance of his brother Poseidon, Zeus ensures that the wooded chest is washed ashore on the island of Seriphos. There they were taken care of by the fisherman Dictys, who was the brother of the king of Seriphus, Polydectes.



You might ask yourselves why the author of this blog would believe her father could have been present as to the way that Rembrandt painted this painting. You might also say Rembrandt expected it to be viewed in this way at a much later date just as in the drawings below explaining his idea of the Danae.  Well, I'd say what Rembrandt was really good at, was painting in his own way other painters were not able to, let alone able to comprehend what he had done and what he was doing.  If you can't see in it with your own eyes or to be able to prove he had actually painted in this way, the way he help bring out to the viewers their  emotions of what they are feeling as they view his works of art,... well, this is what he talked about was in his works of art, things that really made his life so much more interesting to himself.  He was sure he was on the right track and going in the right direction to become the master painter that his is known to be today.


Let us all analyze this painting of why an artist such as Rembrandt, why in this God fearing world of ours would he paint such a silhouette looking body unless their was some sort of a hidden meaning to it. I believe he wanted most of his secretes to come out in a much later date after he was dead and gone, to prove this track theory he had mentioned a few times himself, and what I myself have discovered about his way of painting.  

Let us take this simple drawing below to analyze a truer meaning than what the art experts had arrived at what they think it meant.
We'll just use our own eyes to help us derive at what we ourselves believe we see and are looking at as Rembrandt would have seen himself and used as his own drawn reference as he painted this painting of the Danae.  First off there is no denying in this drawing we do have the Greek King Acrisius as shown by Rembrandt standing behind his daughter princess Danae in this painting.  ----------- more's a coming!


Just look below before book marking how much more of my own knowledge will be coming your way.











Check this link out
The Ousting of Rembrandt & his Family

3 Comment(s) / Leave a Comment