Interpreting Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son
by Bethany Vanderputten BDes MFA
“And while he was still a long way off,
his father saw him coming.
his father saw him coming.
Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him”
Luke 15:20b NLT.
Luke 15:20b NLT.
Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn painted his “Return of the Prodigal Son” shortly before his death. As a 17th century Dutch painter among contemporaries like Vermeer and Van Goyen, he worked within the Baroque period, defined as: “a style in art and architecture developed in Europe from the early 17th to mid-18th century, emphasizing dramatic, often strained effect and typified by bold, curving forms, elaborate ornamentation, and overall balance of disparate parts” (“baroque”). Rembrandt was not unaware of the Italian Renaissance that had occurred to the south. According to one 19th century writer: “The Dutch painters were ‘stay-at-home people’, – hence their originality. They were not, however, ignorant of Italian Art. Rembrandt had a large collection of Italian pictures and engravings… (Nash 55).” There are many themes that Rembrandt adapted from the Renaissance, including Chiaroscuro, Istoria, Mimesis, and Color vs. Design. His art was influenced both by Aristotelian empiricism and Neoplatonist thought. Rembrandt’s contemporaries in Holland were more interested in an empiricist observation with regards to art, in portraiture, landscapes, and the still life – in the Flemish tradition of a highly observed subject – than with the reigning Baroque passion for intense color and drama. Although Rembrandt wasn’t interested as such in realism, he …“frequently used that Netherlandish literalness which saw the events of the Bible in contemporary terms (37).” He was also a master of psychological insight within his art. Here I will attempt to interpret his painting of the “Return of the Prodigal Son” from both an aesthetic and a philosophical point of view.
Rembrandt followed his ambition to be a history painter, and this contrasts against the other art of his time and location. In this he continues the Istorian aesthetic defined by Leon Battista Alberti in the Renaissance. Though with less figures as per Alberti’s requested norm, Rembrandt’s paintings essentially “made a true moment in history seem real”. Before this period, in history painting, the “Mannerists took liberty with the texts while... Rembrandt’s ability to grasp the deep spirit and significance of a subject, his highly independent, personal reading of a text, was one of the major reasons for his unique stature as a history painter. (Fuchs 71).”
The story that Rembrandt painted late in his life, the “Return of the Prodigal Son”, was from the Bible, in the book of Luke, chapter fifteen. It is a parable Jesus Christ told of a son who received his inheritance early and squandered it with wild living. Broken and in poverty he finally decides to return to his father’s house. The painting picks up at one of the most emotionally charged moments in the story (Fuchs 76): “And while he was still a long way off, his father saw him coming. Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him” Luke 15:20b NLT. Later, while the whole house was celebrating his return, the father finds the elder brother outside resenting the way his brother was accepted back at face value. Rembrandt could also be including these later narrative elements in the painting. He portrayed members of the household, two women and two men in addition to the father and the son. They are dressed in 17th century clothing, and the man standing to the right of the couple, face in the light, could be understood as the elder brother, withdrawn and pensive. Even the architecture reflects the story, with a relief on the column of a figure playing a wind instrument, which could be alluding to the oncoming celebrations. This story was first portrayed in stained glass in French cathedrals during the 13th century, but during Rembrandt’s time it was a common theme (Hall 253), though he made it unique with his insight into the moment of father and son’s embrace.
Rembrandt made potent use of Chiaroscuro in this painting; in this he followed the Baroque way of emphasizing the dramatic. Although this painting certainly depicts a dramatic moment, it exudes a strange sort of calm atypical of Baroque art. Many of his figures almost glow in the light he created, coming out of a shadowy darkness. This helps create a warm, welcoming atmosphere reflecting the subject matter. His light and dark went beyond mere natural observation of the human form, and helped emphasize the psychological intensity of the moment.
This duality of light and dark also emphasized a continuation of the Psychomachia started in the Italian Renaissance. This painting is not just a description of a moment in history – it is a profound portrayal of the struggle within us – between light and dark, good and evil. Rembrandt powerfully describes the contrast: the corrupt ways we know led the young man to poverty, against the portrayed accepting embrace. This is a compelling meeting of two disparate souls. The State Hermitage Museum (where the painting is currently located) says about this painting: “These images represent the summit of Rembrandt's psychological mastery.”
Rembrandt mainly builds on the Venetian use of color (Colore), over the design principles inherent in Florentine Renaissance art. Much of this painting’s potency is in the vibrant hues Rembrandt uses to draw the viewers attention – the warm red of the father’s cloak (and that of the so-called elder brother) set against the yellow beige of the son’s ragged tunic. This intensity of color was also typical of the Baroque style.
Rembrandt’s “Return of the Prodigal Son” could be described as an example of Aristotelian mimesis – a poetic representation of a real event. In this he truly “imitates” reality. He represents many details like the clothing of the characters, and the father’s hands, with much clarity. But this is not a simply natural representation of character; Rembrandt succeeds in portraying the emotion behind the embrace of father and son, and even the onlookers. This could bring about an emotional catharsis in the viewer.
Although this painting reflects an influence of Aristotelian ideas, I regard Rembrandt as under more influence from Neoplatonism. In this painting he didn’t necessarily represent the Neoplatonic typical fondness for ideal beauty – the father being a gnarled old man, and the young man clearly emaciated and poverty-stricken. But, the insight he brings into the moment of the embrace breaks through the naturalist boundaries of Aristotelian empirical observation. “In contrast to the Scholastics, with their increasing empiricism and concretism, the Neoplatonic Humanists saw archetypal meaning in concrete facts, used myths as vehicles for communicating metaphysical and psychological insights, and were ever observant for the hidden significance of things (Tarnas 215).” As aforementioned, Rembrandt was unique in his grasp of the psychology of his subject matter. Another ideal from Neoplatonism this painting represents is the soul’s return to the One. Ficino argued that love was “only another name for that self-reverting current from God to the world and from the world to God. (Vess)”. The son’s return to his father could represent this current (Nouwen 58). Rembrandt’s painting is evidently under the influence of Neoplatonism.
As aforementioned, this painting describes a moment, unique among other artist’s many representations of the subject. But, because Rembrandt was aware of the Italian Renaissance to the south, this painting could reference, in Michelangelo’s “Deluge” on the Sistine Ceiling, the psychology behind the pose where the father upholds his drowned son.
Although many artists of his time were interpreting this narrative of the prodigal son, Rembrandt was unique in his choice of the exact moment of the embrace. He mirrors the Baroque trend toward the dramatic with his use of intense colorful hues, but was unique among his peers in his fundamental focus on history painting, and his psychological mastery of revealing a complex array of emotions within a single painted moment. He reflected many aesthetics from the Renaissance, including Istoria, Psychomachia, and Colore. He was markedly influenced not just by Aristotelian ideals, but also by those of Neoplatonism. Near the end of his life, when this work was painted, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was poverty stricken, and many of his loved ones had already passed on (Nouwen 33). This must have informed his unique, and personal, interpretation of the “Return of the Prodigal Son”.
Written by Bethany Vanderputten, 2007
___
For a works cited list please contact the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment