Archives Scrapbooks

Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts

New York, March 21 (A.P.)—With the possible exception of “The Gilder,” every painting labeled Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art is spurious, Dr. Maximilian Tech, chemist, told the New York Microscopical Society at the American Museum of Natural History. Bryson Burroughs, curator of paintings at the Metropolitan, had nothing to say when asked to comment.

Microscopical, chemical and X-ray studies of the canvases had convinced him, Dr. Toch said, that they did not show “any traces” of the Dutch artist’s brush work. The painting “Old Woman Cutting Her Nails” was the work of Nicolaes Maes, an understudy of the Dutch artist, he said, and “Pilate Washing His Hands” and “The Artist’s Son Titus” were copies by competent students of genuine works of old masters other than Rembrandt. They were presented to the museum by the late Benjamin Altman.

Dr. John C. Van Dyke, professor of the history of art at Rutgers University, said in 1923 that none of the works then in the museum, highly authenticated as Rembrandts, were genuine. He said further that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to the master actually was his art.

Dr. Toch is professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design. During the war he was in charge of camouflage work.

Transcript
March 21, 1931

The image is a newspaper clipping dated March 21, 1931, titled "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." Here's a detailed summary of the content:

1. Main Claim:

   • The article reports that a chemist, Dr. Maximilian Tech (or Max Tech) from Maxwell Tech, has stated that almost every painting labeled as a work by Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art is spurious, with the exception of "The Gilder."

2. Supporting Evidence:

   • Dr. Tech utilized microscopical, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases to make this claim. These studies did not reveal any traces of Rembrandt’s brushwork.
   • He specifically identified several paintings:
     • "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails," which he identified as the work of Nicolaes Maes, an understudy of Rembrandt.
     • "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist’s Son Titus," which he considered copies by students of genuine Rembrandt works.

3. Comments from Other Experts:

   • Bryson Burroughs, the curator of paintings at the Metropolitan Museum, had no comment on the findings.
   • Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of art history at Rutgers University, had previously noted in 1923 that none of the highly authenticated Rembrandt works in the museum were genuine. He also mentioned that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to Rembrandt were actually his.

4. Background and Expertise:

   • Dr. Tech is described as a professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design. During World War I, he was involved in camouflage work.

5. Additional Note:

   • The bottom right corner of the newspaper has a handwritten note, reading "Transcript March 21, 1931" by someone named "Transcript."

The article highlights a dispute over the authenticity of Rembrandt paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, based on the findings of a scientific analysis by Dr. Tech.

The image shows a news clipping from 1931 with the headline "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article, dated March 21 from New York, reports that Dr. Maximilian Tech, a chemist, presented findings to the New York Microscopical Society at the American Museum of Natural History. According to the article, Dr. Tech's studies using microscopic and X-ray techniques indicated that almost all the paintings labeled as Rembrandts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art were spurious, with the possible exception of "The Gilder."

Dr. Tech's findings were based on the lack of traces of the Dutch artist's brushwork and the identification of some works as copies or the work of other artists. Specifically, he claimed that "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" was by Nicolaes Maes, and that "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist's Son Titus" were copies by competent students of genuine works of old masters rather than by Rembrandt himself. These paintings were presented to the museum by Benjamin Altman.

The article also references Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of art history at Rutgers University, who stated in 1923 that none of the works in the museum then highly authenticated as Rembrandts were genuine. He suggested that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to the master were actually his work.

Dr. Tech is noted as a professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design and was involved in camouflage work during the war.

The clipping is dated March 21, 1931, and has a handwritten note at the bottom, "Transcript, March 21, 1931."

The image shows a newspaper clipping from March 21, 1931. The headline reads "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article states that Dr. Maximilian Tech, a chemist from the American Museum of Natural History, claimed that every painting labeled as a Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, with the exception of "The Gilder," is spurious.

Dr. Tech's conclusion was based on microscopical, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases, which showed no traces of Rembrandt's brushwork. He asserted that some paintings, such as "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails," were actually the work of Nicolaes Maes, and others like "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist’s Son Titus" were copies by students of genuine works by old masters.

The curator of paintings at the Metropolitan, Bryson Burroughs, did not comment on Dr. Tech's findings.

The article also mentions that Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of the history of art at Rutgers University, had previously stated in 1923 that none of the works then in the museum, highly authenticated as Rembrandts, were genuine. He estimated that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to Rembrandt were actually his work.

Dr. Tech is noted as a professor of the chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design and was involved in camouflage work during the war. The clipping is signed "Transcript" and dated March 21, 1931.

The image is a newspaper clipping from March 21, 1951, featuring an article titled "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts."

The article reports that Dr. Maximilian Toch, a chemist, claimed that nearly all the paintings labeled as Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art were not authentic. According to Dr. Toch, microscopic, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases revealed that they did not show any traces of the Dutch artist's brushwork.

Dr. Toch specifically identified several paintings:

• "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" was attributed to Nicolaes Maes.
• "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist's Son Titus" were considered to be copies made by competent students of old masters, not by Rembrandt himself.

The article also mentions that these paintings were presented to the museum by the late Benjamin Altman.

Additionally, Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of the history of art at Rutgers University, had previously stated in 1923 that none of the works authenticated as Rembrandts in the museum were genuine, suggesting that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually his work.

Dr. Toch is noted as a professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design and was in charge of camouflage work during the war. The bottom of the clipping includes a handwritten transcription dated "March 21, 1951."

The image is a newspaper clipping with the headline "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article, dated March 21, 1931, reports on a claim made by Dr. Maximilian Toch, a chemist, who asserted that all but one of the paintings labeled as Rembrandts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art are spurious. Dr. Toch presented his findings to the New York Microscopical Society, stating that microscopical, chemical, and X-ray studies revealed no traces of Rembrandt's brushwork on the canvases.

Specifically, Dr. Toch identified "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" as a work by Nicolaes Maes, and "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist's Son Titus" as copies by students of old masters other than Rembrandt. These paintings were presented to the museum by Benjamin Altman.

The article also mentions Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of the history of art at Rutgers University, who had stated in 1923 that none of the works in the museum, then highly authenticated as Rembrandts, were genuine. Dr. Van Dyke estimated that only about thirty-five out of the hundreds of paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually his art.

Dr. Toch is noted as a professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design and had been involved in camouflage work during the war.

The article concludes with a note that Bryson Burroughs, the curator of paintings at the Metropolitan Museum, had no comment on the matter.

The image consists of a newspaper clipping with an article titled "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article, dated March 21, 1931, reports that Maximilian Toch, a chemist, declared that all but one of the paintings labeled as works by Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art were spurious. The article mentions that microscopical, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases did not show any traces of the Dutch artist's brushwork. It identifies the work "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" as being by Nicolaes Maes and states that "Pirate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist's Son Titus" were copies by other masters, not Rembrandt. Dr. John C. Van Dyke, an art history professor at Rutgers University, previously concluded in 1923 that none of the museum's Rembrandts were genuine. The article closes by noting that Dr. Toch is a professor of chemistry of artists' painting at the National Academy of Design and had been in charge of camouflage work during the war. The clipping also has the handwritten note "Transcript March 21, 1931" at the bottom.

The image shows an aged newspaper clipping with the headline "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article is dated March 21 and seems to pertain to an event from a year ending in "1," which looks like "1931". It is about a chemist named Dr. Maximilian Toch who told the New York Microscopical Society at the American Museum of Natural History that every Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art is spurious. The article mentions that the Metropolitan curator of paintings had no comment. Toch's analysis involved microscopic, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases.

Notable artwork names mentioned are "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" and "The Artist’s Son Titus." The article explains that Dr. Toch believed the paintings were copies, not genuine works by Rembrandt but by competent students or imitators. Additionally, Dr. John C. Van Dyke of Rutgers University is cited, agreeing that none of the works in the museum attributed to Rembrandt were authentic. It is also mentioned that Toch was a professor of chemistry at the National Academy of Design, suggesting his authority in the matter. There is handwriting on the bottom right of the clipping that appears to say “Transcript March 21,” referring to the date of the sourced article.

The physical condition of the clipping itself looks slightly worn, with yellowing of the paper indicating age. It's an interesting historical artifact that captures a moment of art history debate and scholarship.

The image shows a newspaper clipping with the headline "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts." The article dated March 21, 1931, reports from New York that Dr. Maximilian Toch, a chemist, declared nearly every painting labeled as a Rembrandt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art to be spurious. This statement was made to the New York Microscopical Society at the American Museum of Natural History.

Dr. Toch mentioned that microscopic, chemical, and X-ray studies of the canvases convinced him they did not show any traces of Rembrandt's brushwork. He identified some paintings like "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails" as the work of Nicolaes Maes, an understudy of Rembrandt, and others such as "Pilate Washing His Hands" and "The Artist’s Son Titus" as copies made by competent students of genuine old masters other than Rembrandt. These paintings had been presented to the museum by the late Benjamin Altman.

Additionally, Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of art history at Rutgers University, had stated in 1923 that none of the works then in the museum, although highly authenticated as Rembrandts, were genuine. He estimated only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to Rembrandt were actually his.

Dr. Toch is also noted as a professor of chemistry of artistic painting at the National Academy of Design, and he was in charge of camouflage work during the war. The clipping has a handwritten note at the bottom that says "Transcript March 21, 1931."

The image shows a newspaper clipping or printed article with the headline "Chemist Rejects Museum Rembrandts". The article is dated March 21 and appears to be from 1931, as indicated by the handwritten note at the bottom of the page.

Content Summary:

• Location and Date: The article is from New York, dated March 21 (A.P.), and discusses an event related to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
• Main Subject: A chemist, Dr. Maximilian Toch, has rejected a set of paintings attributed to the famous Dutch artist Rembrandt at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
• Details of the Rejection:
  • Dr. Toch, a specialist in microscopic, chemical, and X-ray studies, conducted analyses on the paintings.
  • He concluded that the paintings did not show any traces of Rembrandt's brushwork.
  • Specific paintings mentioned include:
    • "Old Woman Cutting Her Nails": Identified as the work of Nicolas Maes, an understudy of Rembrandt.
    • "Pilate Washing His Hands": Attributed to Titus, Rembrandt's son.
    • "The Artist's Son Titus": Also identified as a genuine work by Titus.
  • These paintings were copies or works by competent students of Rembrandt, not authentic Rembrandts.
• Additional Context:
  • Dr. John C. Van Dyke, a professor of art history at Rutgers University, had previously stated in 1923 that none of the works then in the museum were highly authenticated as Rembrandts.
  • Van Dyke noted that only about thirty-five of the hundreds of paintings accredited to Rembrandt were actually his.
  • Dr. Toch is described as a professor of chemistry at the National Academy of Design and had worked on camouflage during the war.

Visual Elements:

• The article is printed on aged, slightly yellowed paper, suggesting it is a historical document.
• At the bottom of the page, there is handwritten text that reads:
  "Krawscult March 21, 1931", indicating that the clipping was likely saved or annotated by someone named "Krawscult" on the same date as the article.

Overall Impression:

The image captures a historical moment in art authentication, highlighting the skepticism surrounding attributions of famous artworks and the role of scientific analysis in verifying authenticity. The article reflects the challenges faced by museums in distinguishing genuine masterpieces from forgeries or student works.