Write an article based on this summary:

– After centuries of mistreatment and nearly 50 years of mystery, a biblical painting in a Dutch museum has finally been declared an authentic Rembrandt. Experts say they needed "CSI-style" tools to authenticate Saul and David, which had been repeatedly over-painted in long-ago restorations and even cut in two at some point in the 19th century, possibly in an attempt to sell it as separate portraits of Saul and David, the New York Times reports. The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery put the painting on display as a Rembrandt in 1898, but a leading expert cast doubt on its origin in 1969. A restoration expert tells the AP the skepticism now seems unsurprising because there had been so much paint added there was none of Rembrandt's left to see. Researcher used tools such as advanced X-ray techniques and paint sample analysis to determine that the Dutch master himself, not one of his followers, created the painting in two stages starting around 1645, the Times reports. Saul and David will now be the centerpiece of an exhibition focusing on the investigation's years of detective work. "The analysis helped us to determine that the painting is in fact made up of 15 different pieces of canvas; three main parts—the Saul, the David, and an insert of a copy of an old painting in the upper right corner plus strips all around the edges," the museum's director tells the AP. "So it's a real patchwork." (Another recent art find: Hitler's long-lost bronze horses.)
Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 THE HAGUE — The painting was sliced down the middle and straight through its center in the 19th century, probably to be sold as two Rembrandt portraits. At some point in the next 40 years, it was sutured back together with pieces of an entirely different canvas, and layered with paint to cover up its scars. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 In 1898, the director of the Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery here proudly displayed it in the museum as “Saul and David,” one of Rembrandt’s most important biblical works. Then in 1969, a top Rembrandt authority discredited the painting, and for years it hung next to a label that read, “Rembrandt and/or Studio,” a serious demotion. 
  
 Now, after eight years of examination and restoration by the museum’s own conservators — with support from researchers from various outside institutions, like the Delft University of Technology, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the Netherlands Institute for Art History and Cornell University — the Mauritshuis has reclaimed the painting as an authentic Rembrandt, saying it was painted in two stages by the master’s own hand, one of hundreds of surviving Rembrandt paintings. 
  
 Photo 
  
 The museum is to reveal its findings on Tuesday two days before it opens an exhibition, “Rembrandt? The Case of Saul and David.” The show is devoted entirely to this single work, which depicts the young hero David playing a harp for an elderly King Saul, who is moved by the music and uses a curtain to wipe away his tears. 
  
 “It’s a very special occasion,” said Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, a leading authority on Rembrandt and one of eight members on the museum’s independent advisory committee. “They must feel lucky. They have another addition to their fantastic collection of Rembrandt.” 
  
 Mr. van de Wetering, speaking in a telephone interview, added that the work was “a rare history painting from Rembrandt’s middle period.” 
  
 Other Rembrandt scholars who were not on the panel but who learned about the conclusions from a reporter, responded largely with approbation. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 “It seems to me a reasonable proposition,” said Christopher White, a Dutch art specialist in London who is the former director of the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology in Oxford, England. “I’ve looked at it over the course of many years, and to me it really looks like a Rembrandt. It fits the style of Rembrandt and also his kind of handling. If I compare it with other Rembrandts it fits in perfectly well.” 
  
 Gary Schwartz, an American Rembrandt scholar and founder of Codart, an online resource for Dutch and Flemish paintings, said in an email: “The outcome of the new research does not surprise me. What is new is not the attribution itself but the minute attention to all the physical details of this complex canvas.” 
  
 If the attribution to Rembrandt seems largely uncontested now, why was it in limbo for almost 50 years? And what led the researchers to conclude that it was painted by the master, and not by one of his pupils or followers? The answer lies in evidence gathered using new technologies combined with a reinterpretation of the original painting by leading scholars. Determining a painting’s authorship is always a matter of art and science, though, and some Rembrandt researchers were tentative about weighing in before they had read all the new data. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 “This painting is in a very bad state and that makes it harder to analyze,” said Stephanie Dickey, a professor in Northern Baroque art at Queen’s University in Canada and the author of three scholarly books about Rembrandt. “No matter how much scientific research you do there is always a subjective element. The most trustworthy aspect of this is the part that’s based on careful scientific analysis and the other is individual subjective analysis by select connoisseurs.” 
  
 Photo 
  
 Emilie Gordenker, the director of the Mauritshuis, said new scientific data gleaned from paint sample analysis and a new X-ray technique allowed restorers to look beneath the overpainted surface and gain fresh perspective on aspects of the painting that had been obscured by damage and previous restorations. 
  
 Attribution problems for the painting began in 1969 when the German-Dutch art historian Horst Gerson questioned its authorship in his reference book, “Rembrandt. The Complete Edition of the Paintings.” He suggested that it was the work of one of the master’s pupils, because “the painterly execution is superficial and inconsistent” and he didn’t “recognize Rembrandt’s touch in it.” 
  
 Mr. White, the Dutch art specialist in London, said the pronouncement “caused a storm at the time” and “then other people took it up,” though some scholars, like Mr. Schwartz, who was Mr. Gerson’s editor at the time, still had their doubts. The Mauritshuis nevertheless accepted Mr. Gerson’s decision, and changed the wall label next to the work to “Rembrandt and/or Studio” — as it has remained until now. 
  
 In 2007, the Mauritshuis began its own investigation, led by the head of conservation, Petria Noble, who is now chief conservator at the Rijksmuseum. 
  
 Ms. Gordenker, the Mauritshuis director, said: “The painting looked awful. The varnish had gotten very yellow, and it was very hard to read.” 
  
 There were two key questions that Ms. Gordenker said she hoped to answer. 
  
 “First, we knew that it had been cut apart, but we didn’t know what the original format was. How much was cut out?” she said. “And second had to do with iconography: The whole middle of the painting had been overpainted. Was it covering something up?” 
  
 To answer those questions, the Mauritshuis teamed up with Delft University of Technology and the University of Antwerp, which had developed a new mobile tool that allowed them to scan paintings using macro X-ray fluorescence analysis. This technique isolates individual elements in pigments used to make the paint, allowing researchers to identify a greater range of colors than was ever possible with previous technology, said the team’s leader, Joris Dik, a professor in Delft’s department of materials science. 
  
 Photo 
  
 Once researchers could differentiate original pigments from those that were added later, the museum could more easily start to conceptualize the original work. Knowing which part had been overpainted, they began gently to remove the yellowed varnish and overpaint to reveal the original work. Rather than taking the step of stripping the painting back to its most raw state, they chose to make the work “presentable” but not to hide its complex history. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 The final assessment of attribution was made through the judgments of curators, restorers and members of the international advisory board of Rembrandt scholars. Ms. Gordenker, the Mauritshuis director, made the final call. 
  
 Examining the painting after the cleaning convinced Mr. van de Wetering that it was indeed a Rembrandt, but one that must have been painted earlier than thought. “For me, the clue was the dating,” said Mr. van de Wetering, who thinks that Rembrandt started the work in 1645 and completed it in 1652. 
  
 “Once you make that move to the earlier dating, suddenly you find other examples in his work of these lovely cloudy plays of light and flesh,” he said. “There’s so much color in this earlier phase of the painting, and there are certain things you find in the major parts of the turban of Saul and the brushwork and the type of detailing.” 
  
 He added, “These things together make it to me very convincing as a Rembrandt, and it’s not so much technical data but more re-dating and suddenly understanding the stylistic properties of the work.” 
  
 Ms. Dickey, the expert in Canada, said dating could often be very helpful in Rembrandt attribution issues. 
  
 “His style was not static and it was constantly evolving, so the way his art looks in 1640 is very different from how he was painting in 1650,” she said. 
  
 In the end, there is no single “smoking gun” that determined attribution, said Ms. Gordenker, who is also the curator of the exhibition. The new conclusions, she said, are only one aspect of an exhibition that showcases the museum’s conservatorial expertise. 
  
 Ms. Gordenker described the exhibition as a “‘CSI’-style forensic investigation” into the life, injury and revitalization of this work, and said she hoped that it would open up the matter to a broader discussion. It is quite possible that yet other experts, when they see the research for themselves, might draw different conclusions, she added. 
  
 “We really don’t want the ‘it is or it isn’t?’ question to dominate,” Ms. Gordenker said. “We take a point of view on it but we’re open to discoveries and new revelations.” ||||| THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — After a CSI-style investigation and restoration spanning eight years, the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague has declared that one of its star paintings really is by Dutch master Rembrandt van Rijn. 
  
 A Dutch television reporter strokes a 3D printed version of Rembrandt's "Saul and David" at a press preview of a new exhibition at the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague, Tuesday, June 9, 2015. After a CSI-style... (Associated Press) 
  
 This photo provided Tuesday, June 9, 2015 by Mauritshuis shows Rembrandt's "Saul and David" after restororation. After a CSI-style investigation, the Mauritshuis museum has declared on Tuesday that one... (Associated Press) 
  
 This photo provided Tuesday, June 9, 2015 by Mauritshuis shows Rembrandt's "Saul and David" after restororation. After a CSI-style investigation, the Mauritshuis museum has declared on Tuesday that one... (Associated Press) 
  
 The announcement should end years of is-it-or-isn't-it debate about whether "Saul and David" was a real Rembrandt. 
  
 Researchers used advanced X-ray techniques to peer through several coats of paint that had been applied during previous restorations and establish that the original pigments were the same as those Rembrandt used in the 17th century. Paint sampling showed that the primer used was typical of Rembrandt's studio in the 1650s and 1660s. 
  
 For decades, there was no question. A former director of the museum in The Hague, Abraham Bredius, bought the painting more than a century ago, but in the late 1960s Rembrandt expert Horst Gerson cast doubt on who actually painted the Biblical scene of King Saul using a curtain to dab a tear from his eye while David, kneeling below the king, plucks the strings of a harp. 
  
 Restorer Carol Pottasch said it was no surprise that Gerson questioned who painted the oil-on-canvas work, because previous restorations had added so much paint. 
  
 "I guess that was the biggest problem that he faced. He couldn't see a painting by Rembrandt because there was no painting to see," she said Tuesday. "And now we've taken off all these layers now you can actually see the original paint again and then there's no doubt." 
  
 Now newly re-attributed to Rembrandt, the painstakingly restored canvas is the centerpiece of an exhibition opening Thursday and running through Sept. 13 that goes into forensic detail on how the museum unraveled the mystery of who painted "Saul and David." 
  
 Part of the team that confirmed the attribution was renowned Rembrandt expert Ernst van de Wetering. 
  
 Like many crime-scene investigations, the Mauritshuis probe had to deal with a "victim" that had suffered much abuse. Cut up, painted over and faded over time, "Saul and David" even had part of another painting stuck into its top right-hand corner. 
  
 "Before the painting was treated, before it was cleaned, it became clear that the painting had been overpainted a number of times, that the painting had discolored, that its original dimensions had been changed in the past," said Joris Dik of Delft Technical University, whose high-tech scans helped establish the painting's authenticity and guide restorers. "It's been really treated brutally, this painting, in multiple past restoration campaigns." 
  
 Emilie Gordenker, the director of Mauritshuis, said the investigation turned up plenty of surprises. Peering through the paint, experts saw a canvas that almost resembled a jigsaw puzzle. 
  
 "The analysis helped us to determine that the painting is in fact made up of 15 different pieces of canvas; three main parts — the Saul, the David, and an insert of a copy of an old painting in the upper right corner plus strips all around the edges. So it's a real patchwork," she said. 
  
 It remains unclear why the painting was carved up in the past. 
  
 One result is that the painting now hanging in pride of place in the Mauritshuis exhibition — "Rembrandt? The case of Saul and David" — is smaller than Rembrandt's original. 
  
 But, in keeping with the high-tech nature of the investigation, the museum also commissioned a 3D printed version of the painting in its original size that visitors can touch to get a true feel for the Dutch master's brush strokes. 
  
 Director Gordenker said the museum did not set out to prove that the painting was indeed a Rembrandt. 
  
 "In fact, we only came to the conclusion about a month ago," Gordenker said. "We would have been happy to do this show and come to the conclusion it wasn't (a Rembrandt)." |||||
Skriv en artikel baserad på denna sammanfattning: – Efter århundraden av misshandel och nästan 50 år av mystik, har en biblisk målning i ett nederländskt museum slutligen förklarats som en autentisk Rembrandt. Experter säger att de behövde "CSI-stil" verktyg för att autentisera Saul och David, som upprepade gånger hade övermålats i long-ago restaureringar och till och med skurits i två någon gång under 1800-talet, möjligen i ett försök att sälja det som separata porträtt av Saul och David, New York Times rapporterar. Det kungliga bildgalleriet Mauritshuis ställde 1898 ut målningen som Rembrandt, men en ledande expert ifrågasatte dess ursprung 1969. En restaureringsexpert berättar för AP att skepticismen nu verkar föga förvånande eftersom det hade lagts så mycket färg att det inte fanns någon av Rembrandts kvar att se. Forskaren använde verktyg som avancerade röntgentekniker och färgprovanalys för att avgöra att den nederländske mästaren själv, inte en av hans anhängare, skapade målningen i två steg med början omkring 1645, rapporterar Times. Saul och David kommer nu att stå i centrum för en utställning med fokus på utredningens år av detektivarbete. "Analysen hjälpte oss att fastställa att målningen i själva verket består av 15 olika dukbitar; tre huvuddelar – Saul, David och en del av en gammal målning i övre högra hörnet plus remsor runt om kanterna", berättar museets chef för AP. "Så det är ett riktigt lapptäcke." (Ännu ett nyligt konstfynd: Hitlers sedan länge försvunna bronshästar.)
Write an article based on this summary: – After centuries of abuse and almost 50 years of mystery, a biblical painting in a Dutch museum has finally been declared an authentic Rembrandt. Experts say they needed "CSI-style" tools to authenticate Saul and David, who had repeatedly been overpainted in long-ago restorations and even cut in two sometime in the 19th century, possibly in an attempt to sell it as separate portraits of Saul and David, the New York Times report. The royal picture gallery Mauritshuis exhibited the painting in 1898 as Rembrandt, but a leading expert questioned its origin in 1969. A restoration expert tells AP that skepticism now seems unsurprising because there had been so much paint that there was none of Rembrandt's left to see. The researcher used tools such as advanced X-ray techniques and color sample analysis to determine that the Dutch master himself, not one of his followers, created the painting in two steps starting around 1645, reports the Times. Saul and David will now be at the centre of an exhibition focusing on the year of the investigation of detective work. "The analysis helped us establish that the painting in fact consists of 15 different pieces of canvas; three main parts – Saul, David and part of an old painting in the upper right corner plus strips around the edges," says the museum's head of AP. "So it's a real patchwork." (Another recent art find: Hitler's long-lost bronze horses.)
Foto Annons Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen HAGEN — Målningen skars ner i mitten och rakt igenom sitt centrum på 1800-talet, troligen för att säljas som två Rembrandt porträtt. Någon gång under de följande 40 åren suturerades den tillbaka tillsammans med bitar av en helt annan duk, och skiktades med färg för att täcka över sina ärr. 1898 visade direktören för Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery här stolt upp den i museet som ”Saul och David”, ett av Rembrandts viktigaste bibliska verk. 1969 misskrediterade sedan Rembrandt-myndigheten målningen, och under flera år hängde den bredvid en etikett som löd: ”Rembrandt och/eller Studio”, en allvarlig degradering. Nu, efter åtta års granskning och restaurering av museets egna konservatorer — med stöd av forskare från olika utomstående institutioner, som Delft University of Technology, National Gallery of Art i Washington, Nederländernas institut för konsthistoria och Cornell University — har Mauritshuis återtagit målningen som en autentisk Rembrandt, och sagt att den målades i två steg av mästarens egen hand, en av hundratals överlevande Rembrandtmålningar. Foto Museet ska avslöja sina fynd på tisdagen två dagar innan det öppnar en utställning, ”Rembrandt? Fallet Saul och David.” Showen ägnas helt åt detta enda verk, som skildrar den unge hjälten David spela en harpa för en äldre kung Saul, som rörs av musiken och använder en gardin för att torka bort sina tårar. — Det är ett mycket speciellt tillfälle, sade Ernst van de Wetering, en nederländsk konsthistoriker, en ledande auktoritet på Rembrandt och en av åtta ledamöter i museets oberoende rådgivande kommitté. — De måste ha tur. De har ytterligare ett tillägg till sin fantastiska samling av Rembrandt.” Mr van de Wetering, som talade i en telefonintervju, tillade att verket var "en sällsynt historiemålning från Rembrandts mittperiod". Andra Rembrandt-forskare som inte var med i panelen men som fick reda på slutsatserna från en reporter, svarade till stor del med approbation. Annons Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen “Det verkar vara ett rimligt förslag”, sade Christopher White, en nederländsk konstspecialist i London som är den tidigare chefen för Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology i Oxford, England. — Jag har tittat på det under loppet av många år, och för mig ser det verkligen ut som en Rembrandt. Den passar stilen på Rembrandt och även hans typ av hantering. Om jag jämför det med andra Rembrandts passar det perfekt in.” Gary Schwartz, en amerikansk Rembrandt-kännare och grundare av Codart, en online-resurs för nederländska och flamländska målningar, sade i ett e-postmeddelande: “Resultatet av den nya forskningen förvånar mig inte. Vad är nytt är inte själva tillskrivningen utan den ringa uppmärksamheten på alla de fysiska detaljerna i denna komplexa duk.” Om tillskrivningen till Rembrandt verkar i stort sett obestridd nu, varför var den i limbo i nästan 50 år? Och vad fick forskarna att dra slutsatsen att den var målad av mästaren, och inte av någon av hans elever eller anhängare? Svaret ligger i bevis som samlats in med hjälp av ny teknik i kombination med en omtolkning av originalmålningen av ledande forskare. Att bestämma en målnings författarskap är dock alltid en fråga om konst och vetenskap, och vissa Rembrandtforskare var trevande om att väga in innan de hade läst alla nya data. Annons Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen "Denna målning är i ett mycket dåligt skick och det gör det svårare att analysera," sade Stephanie Dickey, en professor i nordbarockkonst vid Queen University i Kanada och författare av tre vetenskapliga böcker om Rembrandt. – Oavsett hur mycket vetenskaplig forskning man gör finns det alltid ett subjektivt element. Den mest tillförlitliga aspekten av detta är den del som bygger på noggrann vetenskaplig analys och den andra är individuell subjektiv analys av utvalda finsmakare.” Foto Emilie Gordenker, direktör för Mauritshuis, sade nya vetenskapliga data som hämtats från färgprovanalys och en ny röntgenteknik gjorde att återställningsapparater kunde titta under den övermålade ytan och få nytt perspektiv på aspekter av målningen som hade skymmats av skador och tidigare restaurering. Attribueringsproblem för målningen började 1969 då den tysk-holländske konsthistorikern Horst Gerson ifrågasatte dess författarskap i sin uppslagsbok, "Rembrandt. Den fullständiga utgåvan av målningarna.” Han föreslog att det var ett verk av en av mästarens elever, eftersom ”det måleriska utförandet är ytligt och inkonsekvent” och han inte ”erkände Rembrandts beröring i det”. Mr White, den nederländska konstspecialisten i London, sade uttalandet ”orsakade en storm på den tiden” och ”då andra människor tog upp det”, även om vissa forskare, som Mr Schwartz, som var Mr Gerson redaktör på den tiden, fortfarande hade sina tvivel. Mauritshuis accepterade trots detta Gersons beslut, och bytte väggetikett bredvid verket till ”Rembrandt och/eller Studio” – som det har stått kvar tills nu. 2007 inledde Mauritshuis en egen utredning, ledd av konservationschefen Petria Noble, som numera är chefskonservator på Rijksmuseum. Ms Gordenker, direktören för Mauritshuis, sade: ” Målningen såg hemsk ut. Fernissan hade blivit mycket gul, och det var väldigt svårt att läsa.” Det fanns två nyckelfrågor som Ms Gordenker sade att hon hoppades kunna svara på. — Först visste vi, att den hade blivit sönderskuren, men vi visste inte, vad det ursprungliga formatet var. Hur mycket var utskuren? sade hon. — Och andra hade att göra med ikonografi: Hela mitten av målningen hade blivit övermålad. För att svara på dessa frågor samarbetade Mauritshuis med Delft University of Technology och University of Antwerpen, som hade utvecklat ett nytt mobilt verktyg som gjorde det möjligt för dem att skanna målningar med hjälp av makroröntgenfluorescensanalys. Denna teknik isolerar enskilda element i pigment som används för att göra färgen, vilket gör det möjligt för forskare att identifiera ett större utbud av färger än någonsin varit möjligt med tidigare teknik, sade lagets ledare, Joris Dik, en professor i Delfts avdelning för materialvetenskap. Foto En gång forskare kunde skilja originalpigment från dem som tillkom senare, kunde museet lättare börja konceptualisera det ursprungliga verket. Eftersom de visste vilken del som hade blivit övermålad, började de försiktigt ta bort den gulnade lacken och övermåla för att avslöja det ursprungliga verket. I stället för att ta steget att ta bort målningen tillbaka till sitt mest råa tillstånd valde de att göra verket "presentabelt" men inte att dölja dess komplexa historia. Annons Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen Annons Fortsätt läsa huvudberättelsen Den slutliga bedömningen av attributionen gjordes genom bedömningar av kuratorer, restauratörer och medlemmar av Rembrandts forskares internationella rådgivande styrelse. Ms Gordenker, Mauritshuis regissör, gjorde det sista samtalet. Att undersöka målningen efter rengöringen övertygade mr van de Wetering om att det verkligen var en Rembrandt, men en som måste ha målats tidigare än man trott. — För mig var ledtråden dateringen, sade mr van de Wetering, som tror, att Rembrandt började arbetet 1645 och fullbordade det 1652. — När man väl gör den där flytten till den tidigare dateringen, finner man plötsligt andra exempel i hans verk på dessa härliga mulna pjäser av ljus och kött, sade han. "Det finns så mycket färg i denna tidigare fas av målningen, och det finns vissa saker du hittar i de större delarna av turbanen av Saul och penselverket och typen av detaljering." Han tillade, "Dessa saker tillsammans gör det för mig mycket övertygande som en Rembrandt, och det är inte så mycket tekniska data men mer omdaning och plötsligt förstå de stilistiska egenskaperna i arbetet." Ms Dickey, experten i Kanada, sade dating kan ofta vara mycket användbart i Rembrandt attribution frågor. “Hans stil var inte statisk och det var ständigt utvecklas, så hur hans konst ser ut 1640 är mycket annorlunda än hur han målade 1650,” sade hon. I slutändan finns det ingen enda “rökpistol” som bestämde attribuering, sade Ms Gordenker, som också är kurator för utställningen. De nya slutsatserna, sade hon, är bara en aspekt av en utställning som visar museets konservatoriska expertis. Gordenker beskrev utställningen som en rättsmedicinsk undersökning i “CSI-stil” om livet, skador och vitalisering av detta verk, och sade att hon hoppades att det skulle öppna upp för en bredare diskussion. Det är fullt möjligt att ytterligare andra experter, när de ser forskningen själva, kan dra olika slutsatser, tillade hon. — Vi vill verkligen inte att 'det är eller det är inte?' fråga att dominera, sade miss Gordenker. “Vi har en synpunkt på det men vi är öppna för upptäckter och nya avslöjanden.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . En nederländsk TV-reporter stryker en 3D-tryckt version av Rembrandts "Saul and David" på en pressförhandsgranskning av en ny utställning på Mauritshuis museum i Haag, tisdagen den 9 juni 2015. Efter en CSI-stil... (Associated Press) Detta foto tillhandahålls tisdag, 9 juni 2015 av Mauritshuis visar Rembrandts "Saul och David" efter restaurering. Efter en undersökning i CSI-stil har Mauritshuis museet på tisdagen förklarat att en... (Associated Press) Detta foto tillhandahålls tisdagen den 9 juni 2015 av Mauritshuis visar Rembrandts "Saul och David" efter restaurering. Efter en utredning i CSI-stil har Mauritshuis museum på tisdagen förklarat att en... (Associated Press) Tillkännagivandet ska avsluta år av is-it-or-isn-it-debatt om "Saul and David" var en riktig Rembrandt. Forskare använde avancerade röntgentekniker för att kika igenom flera färgskikt som hade applicerats under tidigare restaureringar och fastställa att de ursprungliga pigmenten var desamma som de Rembrandt använde under 1600-talet. Målarprovtagning visade att den grundfärg som användes var typisk för Rembrandts ateljé på 1650- och 1660-talen. I årtionden var det inget tvivel. En före detta chef för museet i Haag, Abraham Bredius, köpte målningen för mer än hundra år sedan, men i slutet av 1960-talet kastade Rembrandtexperten Horst Gerson tvivel på vem som faktiskt målade den bibliska scenen av kung Saul med hjälp av en gardin för att snudda en tår från hans öga medan David, knäböjande nedanför kungen, plockar strängarna på en harpa. Restaureraren Carol Pottasch sade att det inte var någon överraskning att Gerson ifrågasatte vem som målade olje-på-kanvas-arbetet, eftersom tidigare restaureringar hade lagt till så mycket färg. "Jag antar att det var det största problemet han stod inför. Han kunde inte se en målning av Rembrandt eftersom det inte fanns någon målning att se", sade hon tisdag. "Och nu har vi tagit av alla dessa lager nu kan du faktiskt se originalfärgen igen och då är det ingen tvekan." Den omsorgsfullt restaurerade duken är nu nyligen återtilldelad till Rembrandt och är mittpunkten i en utställning som öppnar torsdag och löper genom 13 september som går in på rättsmedicinska detaljer om hur museet löste mysteriet om vem som målade "Saul och David". En del av det team som bekräftade attribueringen var känd Rembrandt expert Ernst van de Wetering. Liksom många brottscensutredningar fick Mauritshuis-sonden ta itu med ett "offer" som hade utsatts för mycket övergrepp. Skuren, målad och bleknad med tiden, "Saul och David" hade till och med en del av en annan målning fast i sitt övre högra hörn. "Innan målningen behandlades, innan den rengjordes, stod det klart att målningen hade blivit övermålad ett antal gånger, att målningen hade missfärgats, att dess ursprungliga dimensioner hade ändrats förr," sade Joris Dik vid Delft Technical University, vars högteknologiska skanningar hjälpte till att fastställa målningens äkthet och guideåterskapare. "Det har verkligen behandlats brutalt, denna målning, i flera tidigare restaureringskampanjer." Emilie Gordenker, direktör för Mauritshuis, sade att utredningen dök upp många överraskningar. Experter såg en duk som nästan liknade ett pussel. "Analysen hjälpte oss att avgöra att målningen i själva verket består av 15 olika dukar; tre huvuddelar – Saul, David, och ett inlägg av en kopia av en gammal målning i övre högra hörnet plus remsor runt kanterna. Så det är ett riktigt lapptäcke", sa hon. Det är fortfarande oklart varför målningen ristades upp förr i tiden. Ett resultat är att den målning som nu hänger på plats i Mauritshuis-utställningen — "Rembrandt? Fallet Saul och David" — är mindre än Rembrandts original. Men i enlighet med den högteknologiska karaktären hos utredningen beställde museet också en 3D-tryckt version av målningen i sin ursprungliga storlek som besökarna kan röra vid för att få en sann känsla för den holländska mästarens penseldrag. Direktör Gordenker sade att museet inte föresatte sig att bevisa att målningen verkligen var en Rembrandt. "I själva verket kom vi bara till slutsatsen för ungefär en månad sedan", sade Gordenker. "Vi skulle gärna ha gjort denna show och kommit till slutsatsen att det inte var (en Rembrandt)." Â°°
Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story HAGEN — The painting was cut down into the middle and right through its center in the 19th century, probably to be sold as two Rembrandt portraits. At some point in the next 40 years, it was sutured back along with pieces of a completely different cloth, and layered with paint to cover its scars. In 1898, the director of the Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery proudly presented it in the museum as “Saul and David”, one of Rembrandt’s most important Bible works. In 1969, the Rembrandt authority then discredited the painting, and for several years it hung next to a label that read: ‘Rembrandt and/or Studio', a serious degradation. Now, after eight years of review and restoration of the museum's own conservators — with the support of researchers from various outside institutions, such as Delft University of Technology, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the Netherlands Institute of Art History and Cornell University — Mauritshuis has reclaimed the painting as an authentic Rembrandt, saying it was painted in two stages by the master's own hand, one of hundreds of surviving Rembrandt paintings. Photo Museum will reveal its findings on Tuesday two days before it opens an exhibition, ‘Rembrandt? The case of Saul and David.” The show is devoted entirely to this one work, depicting the young hero David playing a harp for an older King Saul, who is moved by the music and uses a curtain to wipe away his tears. — It is a very special occasion, said Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, a leading authority at Rembrandt and one of eight members of the museum's independent advisory committee. — They must be lucky. They have another addition to their fantastic collection of Rembrandt.” Mr van de Wetering, speaking in a telephone interview, added that the work was "a rare history painting from Rembrandt’s mid-term". Other Rembrandt researchers who were not on the panel but who learned the conclusions of a reporter, responded largely with approbation. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “It seems to be a reasonable suggestion,” said Christopher White, a Dutch art specialist in London who is the former head of the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology in Oxford, England. “I’ve looked at it over the course of many years, and to me it really looks like a Rembrandt. It fits the style of Rembrandt and also his type of handling. If I compare it to other Rembrandts, it fits perfectly in.” Gary Schwartz, an American Rembrandt scholar and founder of Codart, an online resource for Dutch and Flemish paintings, said in an email: “The results of the new research do not surprise me. What is new is not the attribution itself but the little attention to all the physical details of this complex canvas.” If attribution to Rembrandt seems largely undisputed now, why was it in limbo for almost 50 years? And what led scientists to conclude that it was painted by the master, and not by any of his students or followers? The answer lies in evidence gathered using new technology combined with a reinterpretation of the original painting by leading researchers. However, determining the writing of a painting is always a matter of art and science, and some Rembrandt scholars were tentative about weighing in before they had read all the new data. Advertisement Continue reading the main story "This painting is in a very poor condition and it makes it harder to analyze," said Stephanie Dickey, a professor of North Baroque art at Queen University, Canada, and author of three scientific books on Rembrandt. “No matter how much scientific research you do, there is always a subjective element. The most reliable aspect of this is the part based on careful scientific analysis and the second is individual subjective analysis of selected connoisseurs.” Photo Emilie Gordenker, Director of Mauritshuis, said new scientific data taken from color sample analysis and a new X-ray technology allowed resets to look below the overpainted surface and get new perspectives on aspects of the painting that had been obscured by damage and previous restoration. Attribution problems for the painting began in 1969 when German-Dutch art historian Horst Gerson questioned its writing in his encyclopedia, "Rembrandt. The full edition of the paintings.” He suggested that it was a work by one of the master’s students, because “the painterly performance is superficial and inconsistent” and he did not “recognize Rembrandt’s touch in it.” Mr. White, the Dutch art specialist in London, said the statement “caused a storm at the time” and “when other people brought it up”, although some scholars, such as Mr. Schwartz, who was Mr. Gerson’s editor at the time, still had their doubts. Mauritshuis nevertheless accepted Gerson's decision, and changed the wall label next to the work to ‘Rembrandt and/or Studio' – as it has remained until now. In 2007, Mauritshuis began his own investigation, led by the head of conservatory Petria Noble, who is now the chief conservator at the Rijksmuseum. Ms. Gordenker, director of Mauritshuis, said: “The painting looked terrible. Fernissan had turned very yellow, and it was very difficult to read.” There were two key questions that Ms. Gordenker said she hoped to answer. “At first we knew that it had been cut apart, but we didn’t know what the original format was. How much was cut out? she said. “And others had to do with iconography: The whole middle of the painting had been painted over. To answer these questions, Mauritshuis collaborated with Delft University of Technology and the University of Antwerp, who had developed a new mobile tool that enabled them to scan paintings using macro-ray fluorescence analysis. This technique isolates individual elements in pigments used to make the color, allowing researchers to identify a larger range of colors than ever been possible with previous technology, said team leader, Joris Dik, a professor in Delft's Division of Materials Science. Photo Once scientists could distinguish original pigments from those added later, the museum could more easily begin conceptualizing the original work. Knowing which part had been overpainted, they carefully began to remove the yellowed lacquer and overpaint to reveal the original work. Instead of taking the step of removing the painting back to their most crude state, they chose to make the work "presentable" but not to hide its complex history. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story The final assessment of the attribution was made through assessments by curators, restorationists and members of Rembrandt's researchers' international advisory board. Ms. Gordenker, Mauritshui's director, made the final call. Investigating the painting after the cleaning, Mr. van de Wetering convinced that it was really a Rembrandt, but one that must have been painted earlier than you thought. “For me, the clue was the dating, said Mr. van de Wetering, who believes that Rembrandt began work in 1645 and completed it in 1652. “Once you make that move to the previous date, you suddenly find other examples in his works on these gloriously cloudy pieces of light and flesh,” he said. "There is so much color in this earlier phase of the painting, and there are some things you'll find in the larger parts of the turban of Saul and the brushwork and the type of detailing." He added, "These things together make it very convincing to me as a Rembrandt, and it's not so much technical data but more reshaping and suddenly understanding the stylistic qualities of the work." Ms. Dickey, the expert in Canada, said dating can often be very useful in Rembrandt attribution issues. “His style was not static and it was constantly evolving, so how his art looks in 1640 is very different from how he painted in 1650,” she said. In the end, there is no single “smoking gun” that decided attribution,” said Ms Gordenker, who is also the curator of the exhibition. The new conclusions, she said, are just one aspect of an exhibition showing the museum's conservatory expertise. Gordenker described the exhibition as a forensic “CSI-style” study on life, injuries and revitalization of this work, and said she hoped it would open up for a wider discussion. It is quite possible that other experts, when they see the research themselves, can draw different conclusions, she added. — We really don’t want ‘it is or it’s not?’ question to dominate, said Miss Gordenker. <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ) <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ))))))) <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ) )) ) ))) )) <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ) ) ) ) ) ) <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ) <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk> ) A Dutch television reporter deletes a 3D printed version of Rembrandt's "Saul and David" on a press preview of a new exhibition at the Mauritshui Museum in The Hague, Tuesday, 9 June 2015. After a CSI style... (Associated Press) This photo is provided Tuesday, June 9, 2015 by Mauritshuis shows Rembrandt's "Saul and David" after restoration. Following a CSI-style survey, the Mauritshuis Museum has on Tuesday declared that a... (Associated Press) This photo is provided Tuesday, June 9, 2015 by Mauritshuis shows Rembrandt's "Saul and David" after restoration. Following an investigation in the CSI style, the Mauritshui Museum on Tuesday has declared that a... (Associated Press) announcement is to end years of is-it-or-isn-it debate on "Saul and David" was a real Rembrandt. Scientists used advanced X-ray techniques to peer through several color layers that had been applied during previous restorations and establish that the original pigments were the same as those used by the Rembrandt in the 17th century. Painting sampling showed that the primer used was typical of Rembrandt's studio in the 1650s and 1660s. For decades there was no doubt. A former head of the Museum in The Hague, Abraham Bredius, bought the painting more than a hundred years ago, but in the late 1960s Rembrandt expert Horst Gerson cast doubt on who actually painted the biblical scene of King Saul using a curtain to rub a tear from his eye while David, kneeling below the king, picks the strings on a harp. Restorer Carol Pottasch said it was no surprise that Gerson questioned who painted the oil-on-canvas work, because previous restorations had added so much color. "I guess that was the biggest problem he faced. He could not see a painting by Rembrandt because there was no painting to see," she said Tuesday. "And now we've taken off all these layers now you can actually see the original color again and then there's no doubt." The carefully restored canvas is now recently reassigned to Rembrandt and is the centerpiece of an exhibition that opens Thursday and runs through 13 September that goes into forensic details on how the museum solved the mystery of who painted "Saul and David". Part of the team that confirmed the attribution was known Rembrandt expert Ernst van de Wetering. Like many crime scene investigations, the Mauritshuis probe had to deal with a "victim" who had been subjected to much abuse. Cut, painted and faded over time, "Saul and David" even had part of another painting stuck in its upper right corner. "Before the painting was treated, before it was cleaned, it was clear that the painting had been overpainted a number of times, that the painting had been discolored, that its original dimensions had changed before," said Joris Dik of Delft Technical University, whose high-tech scans helped determine the authenticity and guide re-creaters of the painting. "It has really been dealt with brutally, this painting, in several previous restoration campaigns." Emilie Gordenker, director of Mauritshuis, said the investigation showed up many surprises. Experts saw a canvas almost like a puzzle. "The analysis helped us determine that the painting in fact consists of 15 different canvases; three main parts – Saul, David, and a post of a copy of an old painting in the upper right corner plus strips around the edges. So it's a real patchwork," she said. It is still unclear why the painting was carved in the past. One result is that the painting now hanging on the spot in the Mauritshuis exhibition — "Rembrandt? The case of Saul and David" — is smaller than Rembrandt's original. However, according to the high-tech nature of the investigation, the museum also commissioned a 3D printed version of the painting in its original size that visitors can touch to get a true sense of the Dutch master's brushstroke. Director Gordenker said the museum did not set out to prove that the painting was indeed a Rembrandt. "In fact, we only came to the conclusion about a month ago," Gordenker said. "We would have liked to have done this show and come to the conclusion that it wasn't (a Rembrandt)." <unk>