.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
In this beguiling unfinished print, an artist is shown seated in his studio, drawing from a live model who stands on a pedestal, her back and rear facing the viewer. The background is dark and densely hatched, with the white leaves of a palm frond in the model’s hand and the contours of a sculpted bust emerging from the darkness. Of the two lifetime states - New Hollstein records only two impressions of the first state - the main changes include added shading to the background, particularly the upper part of the easel and the drapery over the model’s arm, as well as minor adjustments to foreground elements. The lightly but energetically sketched outlines in the incomplete areas suggest that Rembrandt likely began drawing directly onto the etching plate without a transferred preparatory drawing. This is supported by the model’s feet being sketched in two different positions and pentimenti visible in the artist’s face.
There is debate over whether the incompleteness of the print was due to Rembrandt abandoning the work or if it was intentionally left unfinished. A related drawing in the British Museum (inv. no. Gg,2.248) suggests that Rembrandt was trying to resolve the composition but ultimately decided not to make further changes. Stogdon proposed that the drawing was likely made from an early counterproof of the second state, to help the artist explore how the image could be completed. However, he convincingly argues that 'the fact that he was still taking counterproofs from a relatively unworn plate, over a decade later, tells us that he never resolved the problem and abandoned the plate.' (Stogdon, no. 77, p. 128) The print’s unfinished quality is particularly fascinating and offers rare insight into Rembrandt’s creative process, which is typically revealed only through early states and working proofs of other subjects. It also engages with broader themes, such as the dynamic between artist and model and the act of drawing itself, which Rembrandt explored further in Man drawing from a Cast (see lot 92). The alternative title occasionally given to this print, Pygmalion, seems forced, trying to attribute a narrative to a print that clearly depicts an artist drawing from a live model - not a mythical sculptor obsessed with his creation.
Despite never completing the print, Rembrandt evidently did not view it as a failure. It circulated during his lifetime, suggesting that both the artist and contemporary collectors valued the work and were likely captivated by its dramatic contrast of light and dark and its compelling, unfinished quality.
There is debate over whether the incompleteness of the print was due to Rembrandt abandoning the work or if it was intentionally left unfinished. A related drawing in the British Museum (inv. no. Gg,2.248) suggests that Rembrandt was trying to resolve the composition but ultimately decided not to make further changes. Stogdon proposed that the drawing was likely made from an early counterproof of the second state, to help the artist explore how the image could be completed. However, he convincingly argues that 'the fact that he was still taking counterproofs from a relatively unworn plate, over a decade later, tells us that he never resolved the problem and abandoned the plate.' (Stogdon, no. 77, p. 128) The print’s unfinished quality is particularly fascinating and offers rare insight into Rembrandt’s creative process, which is typically revealed only through early states and working proofs of other subjects. It also engages with broader themes, such as the dynamic between artist and model and the act of drawing itself, which Rembrandt explored further in Man drawing from a Cast (see lot 92). The alternative title occasionally given to this print, Pygmalion, seems forced, trying to attribute a narrative to a print that clearly depicts an artist drawing from a live model - not a mythical sculptor obsessed with his creation.
Despite never completing the print, Rembrandt evidently did not view it as a failure. It circulated during his lifetime, suggesting that both the artist and contemporary collectors valued the work and were likely captivated by its dramatic contrast of light and dark and its compelling, unfinished quality.