William Hogarth, The Graham Children (1742)

A painting full of the joy of childhood.

This is William Hogarth’s most famous large-scale portrait at the National Gallery in London. He was the key figure of English Rococo.

It shows the four happy children of Daniel Graham, the apothecary (pharmacist) to King George II. So, obviously a family of considerable wealth and standing.

The painting’s sweetness is undercut be the sad fact that the youngest child, Thomas, in his go-cart, died before the painting was finished. 😞 He is dressed in a skirt - which was, apparently, common for that time. So, it is also a meditation on the fragility of life. He quite possibly steals the show.

I have always loved the detail of the cat peering greedily at the caged bird - it has obvious connotations apropos the ever-present threat of death (i.e. cat) which looms over the fragile & innocent soul (goldfinch - also a significant & recurring allegory/symbol in art history).

✲✲✲

In researching this painting, I was struck by an essay by Diana Francocci about Hogarth’s efforts to improve the lot of impoverished children in 18th century Bloomsbury:

Hogarth’s marriage was childless and yet he had a great affinity with children from all walks of life and this was clearly shown not only in the way he depicted children in paintings and engravings, but also in his position as a Governor of the foundling hospital. He played a considerable part in setting up this institution to take in abandoned children from the streets of London and the surrounding countryside. Coram and his helpers were besieged when the doors opened in March 1741, becoming full in a matter of a mere 4 hours. Hogarth was forced to plead with mothers not to abandon their offspring in the streets to an almost certain death.

This must have had a huge effect on his work as an artist and although he painted beautiful and sensitive paintings of children such as the one discussed above and for which he received payment, much of his work was inspired by the underclasses of the London streets. It has to be realised that the mortality of rate of children during this period was high. There was an enormous disparity between the children if the rich and the poor. Children as young as four or five were expected to help earn the daily bread, by such work as stone picking, bird scaring and berry picking in the countryside. Of course with the Industrial Revolution they had to take on much less healthy work in the factories.

The Poppy Field by Claude Monet (1873)

A fleeting visual impression of a breezy, summer’s day.

A simple subject: Monet’s wife, Camille, and their son, Jean, taking a casual walk; integrated in their environment.

This painting was exhibited at the first-ever Impressionist exhibition. He returned to France (from the UK) on the ending of the Franco-Prussian War:

Claude Monet painted The Poppy Field near Argenteuil in 1873 on his return from the United Kingdom (in 1871) when he settled in Argenteuil with his family until 1878. It was a time that provided the artist with great fulfillment as a painter, despite the failing health of Camille. Paul Durand-Ruel, Monet’s art dealer, helped support him during this time, where he found great comfort from the picturesque landscapes that surrounded him and provided him with plenty of subject matter from which to choose. It was a time that Monet’s Plein air works would develop, and this particular painting was shown at the first Impressionist exhibition of 1874. 

✲✲✲

   

The dabs of red paint were revolutionary for their time.

 The loose & sketchy field of poppies - step towards modern abstraction.

Self-Portrait by Thomas Gainsborough (1759)

Born May 14th 1727.

It features the artist in his early thirties (wikipedia).

Himself in the dignified & refined pose of the Rococo.

More impressionistic and less rigid than his Mr and Mrs Andrews of a decade ago.

From the National Portrait Gallery.

Why the Supreme Court should strike down Trump’s tariff authority

I have two points to make on this issue: first is a broader point, and, second, a legal analysis. 

✲✲✲

1. MAGA have given up on the American system of government

President Trump justified the tariffs, as usual, by invoking a national emergency.

And, why is that?

I think it’s because MAGA is that contingent of the right-wing that regard the Constitution as a museum relic.

It’s almost always a response of “but the Democrats ...”. If the Democrats abused power, then abuse of power is the new norm. In a very real sense, MAGA doesn’t really believe in the democratic republic anymore. They aren’t concerned with things like separation of powers, federalism, constitutional conventions etc.

MAGA are liberated from the quondam ideals of conservatism. They don’t at all believe in things that I regard as a virtue in government: self-restraint, the inherent desire for limited-government, checks-and-balances, deep skepticism of concentrated power, the norms of due process, not being swayed by the “passions of the moment”.

For example, judicial review, or the complex process of passing a bill, are classic examples of especially conservative governance that we get from the Founders. They are mechanisms of restraint to force compromise, reconsideration and long-term thinking. The separation of powers and federalism are not merely tools of efficiency; they are designed to limit power by dividing it and making it compete with itself.

MAGA see an opportunity, and call it a “crisis” or “emergency”, because they consider these old-fashioned notions outdated & frustrating obstacles towards their goals. MAGA doesn’t understand that, as a result of the system itself, they’ll lose occasionally. Many don’t even understand that the system was designed that way. For them, every defeat becomes a missed opportunity to solve a problem. They are Nietzscheans, just like the post-modernists. Radicals even. 

To me, it seems so obvious that national security is the inherent competence of Congress. To the extent that we are threatened, it is upon their authority to control trade with hostile nations. For example, by imposing on transactions the cost of its related externalities (such as regulating oil with Iran, or the fishing industry to mitigate the blight of overfishing etc). However, such power should be as limited as possible - not as expansive as possible (see below). Especially if the President turns out to be a moron.

✲✲✲

2. Is it against constitutional principles?

It doesn’t look it.

Andrew C. McCarthy has written (in “Trump Is Down, but Not Out, in the Tariffs Court Case”, NR) that, while it seems elementary that taxes are the business of Congress, the courts (including liberal judges) have accepted that the Presidency has in fact been empowered by the IEEPA. 

The IEEPA granted the President power to “regulate international commerce” after declaring a “national emergency” in response to “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. As he says, “even though Trump lost, he persuaded seven of the eleven judges that the IEEPA gives presidents tariff authority, to some extent”.

I have excerpted him at length below as he raises some very interesting points about how our constitution has (unfortunately) evolved towards greater executive power. Against this tide, the US Supreme Court has ruled (in favour of strengthening the legislature’s inherent power) by ruling that, in respect of “major questions” of public policy, legislative power cannot be assumed to have been delegated via vague and general language. It needs to be expressly rendered. This was the basis on which the judiciary - correctly, in my view - struck down Biden’s efforts to govern without Congress in the student loan forgiveness case of Biden v Nebraska (2023).

✲✲✲

Trump Is Down, but Not Out, in the Tariffs Court Case
By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 6, 2025 6:30 AM

This is not a constitutional law case; it is a statutory interpretation case. It is not about delegation; it is about what is meant by Congress’s grant in the IEEPA of presidential authority to “regulate” imports — i.e., are tariffs encompassed within regulatory power? (in other words, we just have to accept that Congress has empowered the President - the question is to what extent). We must stop focusing on delegation. That ship has sailed. Let’s just stipulate that we conservatives would like to pare back Congress’s penchants to delegate its powers and to prescribe vaguely defined “emergencies” as a pretext enabling presidents and executive agencies to legislate (a joke) ...

Fretting over delegation will cause you to miss one of the best arguments against the tariffs ... Remember, in the IEEPA, neither the word tariff nor any of its close analogues (e.g. duty, surcharge, or tax) appears. Sure, maybe Congress should never have delegated tariff authority in any statute; but the statutes in which it has done so powerfully illustrate that, when Congress truly intends to delegate tariff authority, it requires the executive to jump through many procedural hoops, and it restricts the amount of exaction the executive may prescribe, as well as its duration ... That’s a strong argument against the tariffs, especially when conjoined with two other points (lack of conditions and oversight by the legislators). First, in the IEEPA’s near half-century on the books, no president prior to Trump had invoked it as a rationale for imposing tariffs. Second, in enumerating Congress’s powers, Article I of the Constitution separately confers the powers (a) “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and (b) “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”; if the Framers had intended the power to tax (including to impose tariffs) to be subsumed by the power to regulate foreign commerce, there would have been no need to have discrete provisions (an interesting point that goes to regulating being separate conceptually from taxing).

The tariffs were challenged in Yoshida International v. United States (in the Nixon era) ... Just as in the Trump tariffs case, the lower court ruled against the president, concluding that the TWEA’s authority to regulate did not include the power to impose tariffs. On appeal, however, the CCPA reversed, reasoning that the word “regulate” encompassed tariffs that were “appropriately and reasonably related . . . to the particular nature of the emergency declared.” ... These judges thus rejected Trump’s tariffs only because they were not as deliberative and reasonable as Nixon’s. By contrast, the four dissenting justices would have gone all the way with Trump — deferring to a president’s foreign policy and national security judgments — a position Yoshida plainly supports. (This shows that the courts (incl. liberal judges) have been minded to agree with Trump on the history/scope of the power).

Why the Nixon Precedent Is Inapposite ... one of the salient purposes of the IEEPA — in conjunction with another post-Watergate statute, the 1976 National Emergencies Act — was to curtail the president’s ability to usurp legislative authority by the facile declaration of emergencies. Over time, ironically, the statutes seem to have had the opposite effect ...

For originalists, that should be the end of the case. Nevertheless, because the non-political branch is self-aware that national security or foreign policy are political matters that lie outside the judicial ken, there is a tendency to defer to the president in cases touching on such matters. Perhaps that makes sense when a private litigant, particularly a non-American, is challenging a president’s actions on the world stage, or when national security risks are palpable. But deference to the president is inappropriate in a case that turns on the separation of powers between the political branches. In that situation, any deference to the president could only come at Congress’s expense. (Good argument here, that the scope of the power is abridged by the separation of powers considerations - but I don’t think the courts are that concerned about Congress’ powers). The Framers gave Congress, not the president, the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs on imports. If anything, then, there should be a presumption against presidential action absent an unambiguous congressional grant of authority ...

Second, it is worth revisiting Biden v. Nebraska (2023), in which the Court rejected the last administration’s attempt to massively cancel student loans. I invite your attention, in particular, to Justice Elena Kagan’s spirited dissent. She berated her conservative colleagues over what she portrayed as their textualist pretensions. The statute at issue (the so-called HEROES Act) empowered the executive branch (the secretary of Education) to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” and to replace old loan agreements with new “terms and conditions.” For Kagan, the plain reading of the text — i.e., giving the words their most commonly understood meaning — easily embraced cancelation (indeed, she faulted the majority for overhyping the word modify in isolation, decoupling it from waive, which is undeniably close to cancel). Further, she scolded her conservative colleagues for resorting to the “major questions” doctrine — the concept that Congress must be especially clear if it intends to empower the executive power to take actions that have vast economic or political significance. In Kagan’s telling, this is just an artifice by which self-proclaimed textualists evade text when they don’t like the result it portends. (This contention prompted a thoughtful response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who concurred in the ruling against Biden’s loan cancellations. Barrett countered that the major questions doctrine is a valuable tool for illuminating the context of the statute, not for nullifying its text.) Intriguingly, the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion against Trump’s tariffs relies heavily on the major questions doctrine. (I think Justice Elena Kagan is trapped and exemplifies the flaw of contextualism. She excoriated her judicial colleagues against adopting the “major questions” doctrine when it came to Biden’s desire to override an inherently Congressional power. How does she push back against Trump? Her school of thought is purposive interpretation. I.e. we should interpret the text in light of the context for which it was written (national emergency) and to achieve its stated purpose (regulate international commerce)).

Of course, the tariffs case is different from the loan forgiveness case because the contested statutory word in the former, regulate, has constitutional pedigree (as we’ve seen, Article I does not subsume the power to impose tariffs in the power to regulate foreign commerce). Even with that said, her Biden v. Nebraska dissent makes it hard for me to foresee Justice Kagan voting against the Trump tariffs, and she is one of the most influential justices on the Court. Consider that in conjunction with the number of Democratic-appointed judges who have signaled sympathy for the premise that the IEEPA empowers a president to impose tariffs. Doing so convinces me that many progressives like the idea of a future Democratic president unilaterally imposing tariffs in an effort to manage the economy — even if they have to let Trump wield that power for the next three years. (I think so too - that ship has sailed already).

Whalers by J.M.W. Turner (1845)

Beautiful.

I came across this sublime painting at the Tate recently.

This painting is typical of Turner’s atmospheric style characteristic of his later years (died in 1851).

According to the Tate:

This painting shows the violence and danger of a whale hunt. Turner uses an arc of white paint and downwards strokes of grey – a flurry of rain and wind – to draw attention to a whaler dressed in white. He draws back a lance, aiming for a bleeding whale. Turner had read about whaling in Thomas Beale’s Natural History of the Sperm Whale (1839). Describing a hunt in Japanese waters, Beale talked of the whale as ‘a victim to the tyranny and selfishness’ but also the ‘great power’ of man. Turner was no doubt drawn to this tension – between the idea of whalers as heroes and murderers.

Interesting that you can barely make out the whale’s emergent head (adding to the unease?) ... and the whaling ship appears ghostly in the background.

I love the power & energy of Turner’s atmospheres - the terrifying ocean depths and man’s inherent vulnerability. A great contrast between the modesty and the cruelty of man.

Boy Bringing Bread by Pieter de Hooch (1663)

Wonderful.

Pieter de Hooch moved from Delft to Amsterdam around 1660-61, so this masterpieces is from the outset of his Amsterdam period (so, still Delft-influenced).

It’s the classic theme of Dutch virtue in genre paintings - a polite/industrious boy, with a basket of bread, offering some to a respectable lady standing in the doorway of her perfect & orderly home.

As always with de Hooch, a technical tour de force.

 

Beautiful way the light & shadow interact with both people.

Skirt’s red-orange silky vividness greatly contrasts with her black velvet jacket.

   

The doorkijkje technique of nested spaces that draw the viewer deeper into the painting.

A distant female figure - perhaps the boy’s mother?

Incredible window, with the stained glass windows and the yellow curtains filtering the light softly.

The BBC Bias Dossier - It Can No Longer Be Trusted

The Telegraph has just got a major scoop from a whistleblower about the rot at the BBC. 

It is a private internal dossier (made public) on the corporation’s blatant biases which then, even worse, after having made serious journalistic errors, BBC executives opted to hide them from the public rather than correct the record.

This is huge news. 

I’m going to comment on the three aspects in the reports.

✲✲✲

Dishonest editing of President Trump

Being biased is one thing - but deliberately distorting and lying is quite another. 

The internal memo on the BBC’s Panorama programme about Donald Trump is utterly damning. The BBC had artificially spliced together two v. different and unrelated sections of video to create an impression that President D. Trump had said something he did not actually say. The BBC wanted audiences to get an impression that the former President expressly incited the Jan-6 riots. Not true.

In America, the best example of an organisation crossing-the-line was CBS, last year. It surreptitiously & selectively edited their much-vaunted “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. She gave a ridiculously meandering “word salad” answer on the subject of Israel. And so, the network distorted and edited it to create an alternative version in which she looked “better”. It gave an impression that she rendered a more “succinct” answer (as opposed to a kindergartener fumbling to find words). I think Mr Trump was right that these were covert attempts - by the quondam “reputable” establishment - to sway the presidential election in their preferred way. 

Some people hate Donald Trump so much that they’re prepared to accept a major broadcaster breaking its own rules of impartiality merely to read negative news on Trump - I don’t accept this compromise at all.

✲✲✲

Trans ideological capture

The memo accuses the BBC of “effective censorship” of its coverage of the transgender debate.

This is completely true. 

The BBC has been completely and ideologically captured by the “progressives” in the trans debate.

E.g. JK Rowling recently attacked BBC gender identity “ideology” after the BBC used the word “she” to describe a male neo-Nazi who was jailed for incitement of hatred in Germany after switching genders through a simple declaration. The BBC’s use of language couldn’t be clearer. It’s a rolling back on the rights of actual women and spreading of misinformation about reality.

Then, there’s Dame Jenni Murray. Host of BBC Radio 4’s show “Woman’s Hour” (a joke, right!!). She says she was “banned” from discussing her TERF views for fear of a backlash at the organisation. Why can’t a decent & honourable lady, like her, express reasonable views in the organisation? Why.

Or, as Suzanne Moore has pointed out (“The BBC is spouting gender nonsense again with its new trans drama. When will it learn?”, Telegraph), a new BBC drama What It Feels Like for a Girl is based on a 15-year-old boy’s transgendered memoirs. Yes, an adult man is supposed to tell us all what it feels like to be a girl.

✲✲✲

Pro-Hamas bias

This is the worst part of the BBC.

I’ve been cataloguing the BBC’s failures for some time. It’s not just that they make mistakes - it is, as the memo reveals, they consistently take a pro-Hamas slant in their reportage (particularly the BBC Arabic service which is basically a toilet, at this point).

First, the BBC didn’t, and probably still doesn’t, wish to call Hamas “terrorists”, esp. after Oct-7. From the point of view of the BBC, they don’t think it’s their function to demarcate the bad guys from the good guys. I don’t have the words for this dereliction. It strikes me as total insanity. How can you equivocate on using the correct moral language to describe an event/phenomena? Then, as an example of bias, the rush to blame Israel for negative things even before the facts arrive (same blog: in the context of the Al-Ahli Hospital).

Then, there’s the tendency on the BBC (and especially Channel 4) to dispatch a reporter to discuss a bomb site in Gaza to report on the tragedies of that day, without ever correspondingly addressing what Israel had to respond to. The net effect is that viewers get only the half story. Israel made to appear to kill for the heck of it.

There are plenty of other things - like allowing the son of a Hamas official to narrate a documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone for the BBC. That’s basically terrorist propaganda on the waves of the UK’s major broadcaster! Hamas, and their civilian sympathisers, have been playing the media for decades. Channel 4 eventually bought the rights and broadcasted this garbage.

Well ... in breaking this news, Mr Gordon Rayner writes in “BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’” (Telegraph, Nov 2025):

The BBC’s Arabic news service chose to “minimise Israeli suffering” in the war in Gaza so it could “paint Israel as the aggressor”, according to an internal report by a whistleblower. Allegations made against Israel were “raced to air” without adequate checks, the memo says, suggesting either carelessness or “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel”.

BBC Arabic, which is funded partly by a grant from the Foreign Office, gave large amounts of space to statements from Hamas, making its editorial slant “considerably different” to the main BBC website even though it is supposed to reflect the same values, managers were warned.

The BBC also gave “unjustifiable weight” to Hamas claims about the death toll in Gaza, which are widely accepted to have been exaggerated for propaganda purposes, and incorrectly claimed the International Court of Justice had ruled that genocide was taking place.

An aspect which I found v. interesting in Mr Rayner’s report is the BBC’s prevarication over their dishonesty with regards to the much-repeated genocide claim against Israel:

The BBC repeatedly reported that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had ruled in January 2024 that there was a “plausible case of genocide” in Gaza.

It was mentioned by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s International Editor, among others, and on Newsnight and various television and radio reports.

Joan Donoghue, the former ICJ president, told the BBC’s HardTalk programme that the media had widely misinterpreted its findings and it was not correct to say the ICJ had found a plausible case of genocide.

An internal BBC review into the matter found that the ICJ’s ruling “is very clear and explicitly states that the court is not making any determination on the merits” of claims of genocide, but only on whether what was being alleged was covered by the genocide convention.

Mr Prescott said in his letter: “The ICJ report runs to just 26 pages and is written in non-technical language. Had no BBC reporter troubled themselves to read it?”

It took months for the BBC to issue a clarification.

Mr Prescott wrote: “The BBC is prone to downplaying criticism by saying it receives similar numbers of complaints from both sides. Looking at the evidence set out above, it seems very hard for any pro-Palestinian observers to make a compelling case that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias.”

Here is a video of Mr Rayner on the pro-Hamas bias.

The Balfour Declaration is a Milestone of Moral Clarity

The Balfour Declaration is celebrating its centenary. 

It’s a short letter from the British Foreign Secretary to Lord Rothschild, leader of the British Jewish community, dated November 2, 1917. 

The full key sentence says:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

✲✲✲

The Balfour Declaration represented, not just a diplomatic statement, but the moral recognition that the Jewish people - long persecuted, displaced and/or impoverished - had the right to safety in the restoration of their homeland. 

More than a mere political document, it carried deep symbolic weight. It affirmed that a people without a state could still claim a history, an identity, and a belonging. Since this recognition was granted from one of the world’s great powers, it endowed that promise with legitimacy and hope - suggesting that safety and justice was not beyond reach.

It is a testament to humanity’s nobler instincts in the age of our history often degraded by its cruelties.

At a time when antisemitism was open, casual and systemic - from the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the prejudices of Western capitals (e.g. mob violence, the Dreyfus affair etc.) - it was a rare spark of moral courage. In hindsight, it shines all the brighter against the tragedies that have ensued, as hatred and denial continue to target the Jewish story.

The standard rebuttal against the Declaration is that it disregarded the Palestinian aspirations of independence. But, it’s important to note that the Declaration expressly recognised the need for a homeland without detracting from the civil rights of Arabs already living there. The Peel Commission ended-up recommending that the Arabs receive 77% of what was said to have been the “Jewish homeland in Palestine” promised in the Balfour Declaration. If anything, the Jews got shafted. So, it’s completely untrue to argue that the Arabs were disregarded.

The Declaration is not a relic of a empire, but a declaration of principle - even in darkness, safety and justice can still have a voice.

The troubles that Israel has endured since are because of Arab rejectionism, and not at all due to the Balfour Declaration. I think that might be my next post.

The Haredi community and Israel’s defence

This is a thorne for Israel, and I’m not sure I know what the answer is.

On the one hand, I can understand the moral resentment by the serving soldiers (and their families), especially those that have lost their loved ones in the war. The IDF is the backbone of Israel’s continuing survival. And while Israel should respect religious identity, so it should  respect defending the land that guarantees the study of the Torah. Zionism preserves Judaism.

On the other hand, I see young men that simply want to live a humble life studying the Talmud. Additionally, the Haredi community seem to live in a bubble, from what I can see in London. That’s how they developed in Eastern Europe centuries ago. The IDF is a secular institution, and the Haredi are the complete opposite. I don’t think they can cope. It’s not cowardice or disloyalty to Israel as much as their belief in their lifestyle.

It’s also not just Torah study per se. I understand that it’s the Torah lifestyle they wish to preserve which guarantees Jewish survival. Otherwise, generations down the line, Jewish continuity may be impaired by secularism.

What do you all think?

“Colour and Illusion”: The Rembrandt-Hoogstraten Exhibition - Part 2

Note: This is a continuation of my write-up of the Rembrandt & Hoogstraten exhibition that I visited earlier this year. Part 1 can be read on Rembrandt-Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion. Unfortunately, I forgot to finish this write-up.

✲✲✲

Room 3 - Emulation and eclecticism

This part of the exhibition focuses on the theme of emulation. 

The two artists collaborated in Rembrandt’s studio, and obviously came to dominated the market for portraits in Amsterdam for his use of light and his illusionistic styles. 

The exhibition explains that Van Hoogstraten adapted and became an eclectic artist whose works covered a broad range painting styles - from Pieter de Hooch and Gerard ter Borch, to Anthony van Dyck.

This part of the exhibition was excellently curated.

✲✲✲

Still Life with Two Dead Peacocks and a Girl by Rembrandt (1636)

Rembrandt rarely painted still lifes. 

Two dead peacocks next to a girl. She is looking out of a dark window at the colourful feathers of the hanging bird. A pool of blood forming under the body of the left peacock on the left.

Bird’s head, with impressive shadow, protruding beyond the boundaries of the pictorial space.

✲✲✲

Still Life with a Dead Cockerel and a Cat by Van Hoogstraten (1669)

Stunning.

Exhibition suggesting this might be a response to Rembrandt’s Still Life with Two Dead Peacocks (above).

Unlike Rembrandt’s painting, Van Hoogstraten’s features a cat - and not a girl - gazing at the viewer.

✲✲✲

Man in Oriental Costume by Rembrandt (1632)

This painting was popular theme for Rembrandt (known as tronies which means “head, face, or grimace”) and often depicted anonymous people with interesting facial features or costumes rather than a formal portrait.

This is the Alte Pinakothek version.

The man in a turban and rich clothing is consistent with Rembrandt’s interest in “Oriental” style, exoticism and trade.

✲✲✲

The Prophetess Anna by Rembrandt (1635)

Love it.

This is Rembrandt’s mother. 💕

According to the Bible, the Prophetess Anna recognises that the infant Jesus in the temple is the Redeemer. 

The way the light falls on her face highlights her realisation.

Portrayed with quiet dignity and quiet resilience. 

The model for this paintings was probably his mother, Neeltgen Willemsdr. van Zuytbrouck.

Reddened eyes and slightly opened mouth draw our attention.

✲✲✲

Titus van Rijn, the Artist’s Son, Reading by Rembrandt (1658)

Affectionate.

This picture depicts the love of a father.

Titus van Rijn was Rembrandt’s only surviving son from the marriage to his first beloved, Saskia van Uylenburgh. He is a recurring subject to Rembrandt.

Here, Rembrandt captures his son - probably a teenager - absorbed in his readings. His soft chiaroscuro illuminates Titus’s face giving him a focused expression.

This was painted during the time of Rembrandt’s 1656 bankruptcy which was a financially and emotionally devastating event for the artist.

✲✲✲

View of the North Transept of Westminster Abbey in London by Van Hoogstraten (1662-67)

A monumental painting of the interior of Westminster Abbey from Van Hoogstraten’s time in London.

He combines different genres into a single architectural focus and perspective.

✲✲✲

Inner Courtyard of the Vienna Hofburg in a Feigned Picture Frame by Van Hoogstraten (1652)

A trompe-l’oeil painting.

Van Hoogstraten blurs the line between the painted world and the viewer’s reality with a feigned frame.

✲✲✲

The Slippers by Van Hoogstraten (1658)

Outstanding. 

This was, apparently, once confused with a Pieter de Hooch.

A masterful doorkijkje (vista) of a Dutch interior.

A mysterious scene devoid of human figures - with slippers in the middle of the floor & a broom leaning against a wall - in which the viewer is trying to piece together what has taken place. 

In Dutch 17th-century art, discarded slippers were an erotic/amorous symbol, and so are keys (which are very conspicuously dangling). As Louvre DNP says:

Despite the absence of figures in this peaceful interior, a human - specifically female - presence is skillfully suggested by several details such as the typical 17th-century Dutch slippers that have been carelessly removed and left in the hallway, and the book that lies open on the table.

As the eye moves from one room to the next, it encounters a number of objects of varying significance, from the broom that leans against the wall to the painting in the background. The longer the viewer looks, the more he is drawn into this scene with its aura of mystery.

It’s also a nod to Gerard ter Borch’s painting, The Gallant Conversation, which is depicted on the wall of the back room. One of themes of that painting is courtship. This is the painting:

✲✲✲

The Portrait of Joris de Caullery by Rembrandt (1632)

This painting comes from San Francisco.

Rembrandt was 26 years old when he painted this portrait (same year as Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp).

He had moved from Leiden to Amsterdam and was establishing his reputation as the finest portraitist. This was an age when portraits were no longer the preserve of the Royalty and Popes etc.

According to the San Francisco museum:

Joris de Caullery was serving as an officer in the city’s guard of armed infantrymen when he posed for Rembrandt. At the outset of his career in Amsterdam, the young artist met De Caullery while working on commissions from the Dutch chief magistrate’s court in The Hague.

Rembrandt captures the officer’s energy - the direct gaze, left hand confidently on hip, and casually gripping a musket. His signature chiaroscuro across the face gives a his face a vivid & fleshy quality, and a rather reddy nose. The self-assured pose of his subject.

✲✲✲

Portrait of a Woman by Rembrandt and workshop (1632)

See below

✲✲✲

Portrait of a Man by Rembrandt  (1632)

Very engaging expressions.

These two portraits are said to be pendant portraits - husband & wife.

The identity of the sitters is not known, easily the upper bourgeoisie.

The man is easily Rembrandt, but apropos the woman’s portrait:

The somewhat stiff and passive posture of the woman led the researchers involved in the Rembrandt Research Project to determine that this portrait was not an autograph work (by his own hand). Ferdinand Bol, who, however, only began working in Rembrandt’s studio after 1635, was proposed as the artist.

✲✲✲

Portrait of Sir Norton Knatchbull by Samuel van Hoogstraten (1667)

Excellent.

Sir Norton Knatchbull has an interesting biography as a biblical scholar and politician who sat in the House of Commons.

Recently sold to The Dodrechts Museum, it “makes clear the portrait painted in 1667 in London takes inspiration from both Van Dyck and Rembrandt (van Hoogstraten’s teacher)”. 

Thus, the detailed & character-filled realism of Rembrandt and the grand full-length manner of the English portraits style, of Sir Anthony van Dyck.

Knatchbull’s presence is both convincing and commanding.

✲✲✲

Portrait of the Preacher Eleazar Swalmius by Rembrandt (1637)

The preacher depicted was a minister for the Dutch Reformed Church in Amsterdam.

Swalmius’s portrait is beautiful. 

He has a kindly face with a warmth. The mastery of chiaroscuro means the preacher’s face and white ruff stand out from the darker background.

Rembrandt masterfully depicts the psychological hallmarks of his sitter.