Rembrandt's sparkle effect

[Karin Wells]

Why you seem to be ignoring the Rembrandt factor is beyond me Karin.

I really do not know what you mean by "the Rembrandt factor." If you are saying that he added something shiny to his paint to make the light "glow," I disagree. He used ordinary "home made" lead white paint as did most artists of his time and place....he just knew how to use the paint that he had better than most.

But like it or not his paintings glow, and jump out at the viewer. Some more than others. It's more than technique. You probably have to see it in real life to know what I mean

I disagree, the combination of technique, talent and skill is exactly what makes Rembrandt's work outstanding. I too have spent many hours in front of many of his paintings and the paint has no "special sparkle," it is his use of the paint that makes the "sparkle."

In blazing saddles you are going to rush ahead into dangerous territory using the notoriously toxic marble powder.

Blazing Saddles? I found some marble powder at Utrecht in NYC this past weekend and can't resist trying it. Breathing it is the danger and I do not intend to breathe it.

Pardon me for scolding but, why not just stick with what you've got going so far?

Hmmmmmmmm. To begin with, it is in my nature to experiment...every time I pick up a brush I try something new.

Also, it is my understanding that marble powder when added to paint does not alter the color in any way. It does, however, alter the way the paint handles and I am curious about that.

I love to build light thickly (Rembrandt did too) and I have added various things to my paint to make this handling of light better for me. I have tried Oleopasto and Dorland's wax medium to mention a couple of recent experiments. I did not like the effect. Marble dust is something else to try and I really like to play around with paint.

If I were ever going to experiment with mica, pearlescent paints or shiny stuff in a painting, I would use them where they did not show....i.e., in the bottom layer. Maybe they would enhance the bounce of light through the layers....but I think maybe not. In any event I have no plans to try to add shiny stuff to my paint.

One other thing....I really do not think that it is necessary to seriously study Rembrandt if you wish to learn portraiture. Rembrandt is definitely in a category by himself. It is also much easier to study and apply the valuable lessons taught by many other great painters (such as Vermeer).

[Jim Riley]

I would agree with Karin for the most part and could think of a number of things that I would warn against putting up your nose before I worried about marble dust. I would also say that upon the next opportunity to see a Rembrandt in the real I will look more closely for the physical characteristics you describe. I guess I have always been smitten by the extraodinary ability by so many artists that I admire to conceive, execute, provoke, and excite the viewer so well that even poor reproductions fail to diminish that appreciation as they make me feel humble and at the same moment give me the incentive to do better. I don't think I would appreciate the Hals painting anymore if it had real gold or good imitation.

Seeing the real works is always better and the connection with the artist is moving as you can better see his/her "hand" in the effort.

Having said this, I must say that I have no axe to grind regarding new materials and may try some of the pearl materials. They are not "shiny" but rather produce a lustre much like you would see in a natural pearl. I would also guess that they might be best used as a palette of colors rather than a contrivance for special effects.

[Rochelle Brown]

There's no doubt Rembrandt was one of a kind and his technique unsurpassable. I also believe that this technique, in comparison with Vermeer's, is very impractical.

I find it relevent that the book and evidence of glass and quartz powder mentioned in the beginning and other parts of the thread seem to be invisible. If it is possible to use marble powder with excellent results I may consider using it myself.

I thank you for your posts. I'm pleased with the interest this topic has recieved and continue to invite the opinions of anyone else who would care to post.

[Michael Fournier]

I think we have discussed this topic to tedium. I thought it might be interesting to experiment. And although I don

[Karin Wells]

I find it relevent that the book and evidence of glass and quartz powder mentioned in the beginning and other parts of the thread seem to be invisible.

I really do not understand what you are saying here...could you elaborate?

[Rochelle Brown]

This topic does seem to be getting exhausted. There is an organisation called the Rembrandt Research Project. This is one of their sites: http://park.org/pavilions/culture/rembrandt
These people are very serious and the info offered here might be useful reading for anyone who is really interested in this. Enjoy!

[Karin Wells]

The link you gave us doesn't go anywhere so maybe you could just give a simple explanation as to what you meant by your reference to "invisible"?

Heck, I took the time to answer your question....are we talking a right-wing conspiracy to suppress information? Or are you saying that some substance Rembrandt added to paint can't be seen?

[Rochelle Brown]

Karin,

Sorry the link didn't go through. Instead you might type in Rembrandt Research Project and see where you get. I'm not an expert but these people are. And, Yes to your last question!

[Cynthia Daniel]

Is this is the correct link? http://park.org/Netherlands/pavilion...ure/rembrandt/

[Jim Riley]

Cynthia,

The link is correct but it is going to take some time to find the specific reference to this subject. I skimmed through the "invisible" stuff and found mostly discussion regarding the methods to varify Rembrandt paintings.

All,

If someone has more patience and success, post the key links that address this special effect.