Original subtitles

Rembrandt is perhaps the most familiar face in Western art.

He painted, sketched and etched it over and over again

as a way of exploring the range of human expression and emotion

and as a way of chronicling a life lived and a body growing old.

More than any other artist, Rembrandt makes us aware of our own mortality,

striking a chord which seems both timeless and universal.

Rembrandt van Rijn was born in 1606 here in Leiden,

then a prosperous university town in Holland's Second City.

He was the son of a thriving miller and the eighth of nine children.

Rembrandt's brothers became artisans.

Some actually worked at the family mill.

But Rembrandt himself showed academic promise

and so, in 1620, at the age of 14,

he enrolled here at Leiden's prestigious university.

But it soon became clear that his interests lay elsewhere

and he left to study art.

For three years, he was apprenticed to a local painter in Leiden.

Then, in 1625, he left for Amsterdam,

where he polished off his training with a stint in the studio of Peter Lastman,

who introduced Rembrandt to the styles and ideas of the Italian Renaissance.

Six months later, at the age of 20, Rembrandt returned to Leiden

and set up a studio with fellow artist and rival, Jan Lievens.

Rembrandt's earliest studies were of his family.

Faces fascinated him, especially those of elderly people

and the characters in his own neighbourhood.

He drew hundreds of these heads

and incorporated them as characters in his oil paintings.

Some of the drawings were also sold as completed works of art

or made into engravings

and marketed as inexpensive prints.

But the face which fascinated him most

and from which he learnt most

and which became the central vehicle

for his most profound painting

was his own.

And this little gem of a self-portrait

painted in 1629

is one of the earliest of a whole sweep

that ran for the next 44 years of his career.

There were over 75 self-portraits made

that one alt-historian's estimated

represents about 10% of Rembrandt's total output.

When you first approach this painting

it seems as if Rembrandt hasn't paid that much attention to the detail

but look closely and you see

the way that paint's been stabbed on

to create the rough of his collar

and how delicately the hair's painted

and how not only is he using the brush end of the brush

but the sharp end

to slice these little curls

that amplify and make the light dance on his head.

But the crucial thing of course is the eyes.

You can barely make out his eyes

but there they are

dark and piercing.

And this is one of a series of portraits

where sometimes we see the eyes

sometimes they're totally shaded

and it's as if he's playing a game of cat and mouse

with himself and with us.

Now you see me

now you don't.

In the Netherlands

artists used the self-portrait

in a variety of ways.

Some were designed for promotion

the artist as gentleman

others were for fun

the artist dressed up in costume.

Rembrandt's self-portraits show both.

In 1632 Rembrandt moved his studios

from Sleepy Leiden

to here

Amsterdam

the centre of the recently founded Dutch Republic

which was promoting a culture of tolerance.

There was a downside for artists though

in a predominantly Protestant world

where church commissions

had rapidly decreased.

However

on the upside

Amsterdam was boomtown.

Ships came in from the east

on their way out to the Americas

and the port was full of people trading

various commodities

wool, silk, rice

timber, grain and so on.

There was also a boat building centre

and a place where maps were made.

Consequently

a new wealthy urban middle class emerged.

They were building houses

they had plenty of disposable income

which meant they wanted paintings.

Rembrandt moved in with an entrepreneur

called van Aulenburg.

Rembrandt painted

Van Aulenburg dealt.

Their unconventional arrangement

meant that Rembrandt wasn't constrained

by the usual restrictions

of an artistic guild

and was free to do a variety of work.

Within a year of arriving in Amsterdam

at the age of 26

Rembrandt received a commission

from the Guild of Surgeons

to paint this picture

and it still takes your breath away.

It's called

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Tulp

and features the eminent doctor

there in the centre

performing a dissection

on a dead human body.

Now anatomies were common enough

at this time

and annually

there was a public anatomy

that in some ways

provided a kind of garish entertainment.

They were able to buy tickets

and spend the day watching.

We know in fact

that this was a criminal

so he was convicted

and executed

on the 31st of January

1632

the same day

that the dissection

took place

in front of the Amsterdam public.

In other words

you needed a fresh body.

It might look slightly garish

when we first look at it

but in fact

Dr Tulp would have started

with the stomach

the guts

the intestines

and that would have made

for a very messy picture.

I don't think it's in the interest

of decorum

that Rembrandt is not showing us that.

I think he wants us to focus

on the tendons of the arm

because

this is about human dexterity

and if you look

what he's doing

is cutting away at the tendons

revealing them

but at the same time

demonstrating what the real

left hand of the human figure

can do

when it's alive

so it's death and life

and showing those mechanics

but there are other things

happening too.

He shows us

seven other eminent surgeons

and so this is a group portrait

but it's so much more dynamic

than standard images

of anatomy classes

where the surgeons

are all lined up frontally

looking out of the canvas

at a corpse

that's there

in the front of the canvas

because Rembrandt

puts the body

at an angle

but he also composes

the surgeons

in this amazing

arrowhead formation

so it focuses us all in

on a scene

that of course

is amplified

by Rembrandt's wonderful use

of light and darkness.

The anatomy lesson

of Dr Nicholas Tulp

made Rembrandt's name

in Amsterdam.

He started to receive

many commissions

for portraits

of the city's well-to-do

traders,

naval officers

and figures of civic importance.

At the age of 33

in the prime of life

this self-portrait

shows a man

who's obviously made it.

To enhance his status

Rembrandt dresses up

in clothes

which belong

to a bygone era

as if he's already

casting himself

as a distinguished

old master.

Although big in Amsterdam

Rembrandt still felt

that he was painting

in the shadow

of his older

more famous contemporary

Peter Paul Rubens.

Rubens lived 80 miles south

in Catholic Antwerp

and his work

was held in high esteem

by all the major courts

of Europe.

Back in the Netherlands

Rembrandt got his chance

to compete with Rubens

when he received

this commission

for a series of pictures

exploring the passion

of Christ.

Painted during the 1630s

for the governor

of the Netherlands

these small panels

were designed

for private contemplation

and show scenes

from the life

and crucifixion of Christ.

It's this panel

which is the most interesting

and which we can

directly compare

with Rubens' great work

The Descent from the Cross

a vast altarpiece

which hung in Antwerp Cathedral

and to which Rembrandt

directly alludes.

Rubens shows the moment

when Christ's body

is taken down

from the cross

the stress is on action

and reaction

all the figures

have dramatic expressions

on their faces

and everybody seems

to be wanting to touch

the body of Christ itself

which in the Catholic faith

was a powerful symbol

and at the heart

of the Eucharist.

People ate the host

that they believed

to have been transformed

quite literally

into the body of Christ.

But here

Rembrandt

has an altogether

different stress.

He simplifies

he strips down

the real power

of the picture

lies in these figures

that surround

Christ's body

they're there

as observers

they look at the tragedy

they're helpless

but in good Protestant

or Calvinistic terms

what Rembrandt

is showing us

are people

who are contemplating

who are thinking

who are bearing witness

to what is happening

and that's a fundamental shift

from the Catholic vision

of Rubens.

There's also

a lovely neat twist

that you often find

in Rembrandt's paintings

and if you look at

the figure closest to Christ

holding his arm

in blue

look again

at the frizzy hair

and those very distinctive

if sometimes shaded eyes

and what we have here

is Rembrandt himself

right at the heart

of his picture.

His reputation

continued to grow

and at the age of 28

he married Saskia von Ahlenberg

the niece of his art dealer

who had good social connections

and quite a large inheritance.

In 1639

Rembrandt bought this house

in a good district

of the city.

He wanted an address

that was worthy

of his reputation.

Rembrandt's house

is now open to the public

as a museum.

It holds many of his etchings

and sketches

and serves as evidence

of Rembrandt's personal fortune

in the 1640s.

He began to indulge

his passion for collecting

on a large scale.

Not only did he own

engravings by Raphael,

Bruegel, Rubens

and Van Dijk

but he also would buy objects

that might feed his imagination.

Costumes,

feathers,

swords,

sculptures

even a lion skin

an eclectic mixture

of curiosities

which would often turn up

as props

in his paintings.

Rembrandt painted

prolifically in this house.

His studio was upstairs

and on the very top floor

were more studios

used by his pupils.

He was a popular master

and had numerous

paying apprentices.

But despite his increasing success

and recognition

his experience

on the home front

was tragic.

He and Saskia

had lost three of their children

when they were only weeks old.

Rembrandt also had lost his mother

and his sister-in-law.

In 1641

their fourth child

Titus was born

and survived.

But less than a year later

when she was just 30

Saskia herself died.

However

the next 10 years

of Rembrandt's life

were to produce

the most staggering work

of his career.

In 1642

Rembrandt received

an important commission

to take part

in the prestigious

decoration

of the Banqueting Hall

at the headquarters

of the Civic Guard

in Amsterdam.

Specifically

one Captain

Franz Banningcock

and his lieutenant

William von Reitenberg

asked Rembrandt

to paint a group portrait

of their particular

precinct guard.

And this

is the result.

But instead of

painting people

like in a school photograph

or a rather stiff

group portrait

what Rembrandt does

explodes off the canvas.

It's a wonderfully

dramatic

frozen moment

with the whole militia

seemingly about

to step out

towards us

on the orders

of the captain

on the left

and his lieutenant

on the right.

Van Reitenberg

is dressed very elaborately

in this shimmering

golden tunic

that seems to imply

that he's the man

in control.

He's certainly

the most flamboyant figure.

But in fact

there's a neat twist here.

He seems to be

a rather vain man

and in fact

we're under no illusion

as to who's really

in control

even though he's

wearing a darker outfit.

Not least because

of the red sash

that dramatically

cuts across his front

but also

because of the way

his hand is held out

giving the order

and the fact

that it casts a shadow

right across

the lieutenant's front.

People admired

very much

the foreshortened hand

that gives the order.

It's a piece of real

painterly dexterity

by Rembrandt

and it was admired

from the moment

the painting was unveiled.

It's an unorthodox

painting too.

Each of the 16 figures

behind the two officers

paid a hundred

guilders to Rembrandt

to have their portraits

painted

and he brings them

to life.

These are members

remember

of a civic guard

a civic militia

who come from

all walks of life

butchers,

bakers,

preachers,

one or two aristocrats

who gather together

for the common good

to defend their city.

They're an amateur army

rather than a professional one

and you get people

from all walks of life

and different character types.

On the left hand side

and clad rather comically

in the helmet

of an antique warrior

is a man

with a shady past.

His mirror image

on the other side

wearing black and white

and that distinctive ruff

is a Calvinist deacon

almost preaching

to the militia

in front of him.

The two girls

clad in gold and blue

the colours

of this particular brand

of the civic guard

the clovenier

with a chicken

on their belt.

The chicken wing

is a symbol

of one of the emblems

on the clovenier's

drinking cups

and then a dog

and then on the extreme right

a drummer

who's been hired

for the day

to beat the rhythm

as the men march forward

following the orders

of their commanders.

It's comical

but it's also serious.

It's also

a fantastical

baroque composition

where the play

of lightness and dark

and this dynamism

and movement

is usually associated

with art

in the south

proclaiming

the counter-reformation

the values

of the catholic church.

This is how

Rubens

Rembrandt's great rival

used the baroque.

Here though

he uses it

to proclaim

the idea

of civic pride

and civic virtue.

this is about

proclaiming Amsterdam

and its values.

But with a final twist

the master self-portraitist

puts himself

right at the heart

of the picture.

Just above the black hat

of the captain

we see that distinctive nose

and those distinctive eyes

looking off into the distance

and there's Rembrandt.

Rembrandt's vision

and genius

as an artist

was undeniable

but his powerfully

psychological portraits

began to draw

some criticism.

While his clients

wanted just a snapshot

likeness to hang

on their walls

Rembrandt wanted

to delve deeper

and he was particularly

demanding of his sitters

making them pose

for hours on end.

New trends in art

also dented

his popularity.

The lighter tones

and colourful strokes

of Van Dijk,

Poussin

and other French artists

were in vogue.

Many of Rembrandt's

former pupils

and imitators

soon followed

in this fashion

but their master

remained stubborn.

Rembrandt seemed

to turn in the opposite

direction.

From the mid-1640s

onwards

his work became

increasingly introspective.

During this period

he made more intimate

studies of people

and landscapes

mastering the etcher's needle

with great sensitivity.

In the years

following Saskia's death

Rembrandt continued

to live lavishly

spending his former

wife's inheritance

and with rumours

beginning to circulate

that he was dipping

into his son

Titus' share as well.

The boy's nursemaid

became his mistress

but when she pressed

him to marry her

Rembrandt had a scent

to the poorhouse.

From 1645

Hendrik Stoffels

took over

as Rembrandt's

new lover.

Twenty years his junior

she lived in his household

until she died

but they never married

probably for fear

of losing

his first wife's

inheritance.

When Hendrik

was pregnant

in 1654

she was summoned

to the Calvinist church

to answer the charge

that she had

quote

committed the acts

of a whore

with Rembrandt

the painter.

She acknowledged

the charge

and was banned

from communion.

Rembrandt's creative life

was changing too.

His impasto

became thicker

and more uneven.

Some of his contemporaries

ridiculed his style

and dismissed it

as smearing.

This work

shows why

they might have been

so shocked

by his technique.

This is a real gem

of a painting.

Many art historians

thought because of the presence

of this ornate robe

in the background

that it was perhaps

a biblical subject

the Old Testament story

of Susanna and the elders

or maybe even a classical

mythological story

of Diana bathing.

But in fact

people now think

that this is

Hendrik Stoffels

and that if you look

at the way

Rembrandt depicts

this woman

the intimacy

of vision

that perhaps

it's a painting

that he made

for himself

and for Hendrik

and it's something

that we really

shouldn't see.

What I like most

about this image

of Hendrik

is that she seems

totally self-possessed.

She looks at her reflection

and we can see part of it

in the water.

But what's really radical

about this painting

is the technique

and the way that

Rembrandt produces it.

There are elements of it

particularly her right hand

and her left shoulder

that are very sketchy

and people say in fact

that it's unfinished.

But it is finished.

Rembrandt signs it

and dates it.

And art historians

often make the mistake

that if an artist veers away

from the technique

that they've established

there must be an aberration

or this maybe even

isn't by Rembrandt.

And what he's doing

is liberating himself

from the constraints

of the fashion of the day.

That other artists

were trying to have

a very finished

surface to their paintings.

But Rembrandt

is disobediently

and joyfully

unfinished.

And there's something

provocative in that

but it also sets the tone

for the remaining

15 or so years

of his life.

Rembrandt began

incurring heavy debts.

He was spending

vastly more than he had

on his bizarre collection

of objects and art.

He was constantly

buying from sale rooms,

dealers,

peddlers

or sellers of old clothes.

If he thought

a piece of clothing

was interesting enough

he'd buy it

and hang it on his wall

even if it was filthy.

But with the economic slump

hitting the pockets

of his patrons

Rembrandt's extravagance

proved catastrophic.

In 1656

his assets

were liquidated

his curiosities sold

his paintings auctioned off.

He was forced

to move

from his splendid house

to a much smaller one

in a poorer

working class area.

To enable Rembrandt

to keep working

whilst bankrupt

Hendrik and his son Titus

went into business

as art dealers

formally employing

the artist.

A good deal

is made of the fact

that for the last

14 or 15 years

of his life

Rembrandt faced

financial ruin

and some people

claim that his reputation

plummeted too

but that isn't true.

But there's no doubt

that his life

was relatively hard

compared to how

it had been

in the previous

two or three decades.

But I think

what emerges

from looking at his art

is how as an old man

he transcends

the mundaneness

of everyday life.

And on a personal level

for me

it's nowhere more

powerfully expressed

than in this painting.

This is called

The Flayed Ox.

It's painted in 1655

the year in fact

that he's forced

to sell off his house

and a lot of his

studio contents.

And in some ways

on a superficial level

it looks as if

the old man

is taking his revenge

on the world at large

and on humanity

by the savage

and brutal way

with which he depicts

the carcass

of this ox.

But look again

as always with Rembrandt

if you scratch

beneath the skin

or the surface

much more is happening.

There's a young servant girl

peering round a door

looking at this

rotting carcass

and the symbolism

is clear isn't it?

Young life meets

ageing putrid death

and sometimes

when I look at this

painting

it does almost

seem to stink

but I think it's

wonderfully ambiguous too

and that when I look

at it on other occasions

there's a freshness

almost as if

Rembrandt has managed

to beat some life

back into this

ailing or dead corpse.

And then you look at

the way he's painted

the corpse itself

and it's as if

he's transformed

his brush

into a butcher's knife

or machete

and he's hacked

and prodded

and paired

and gouged

at the carcass

and then on other

occasions it looks

like he's wallowed

in it

or smoothed it.

It looks like

a martyr sometimes

or some human corpse

has had horrendous

torture done to it

suspended on an

almost cross-like

structure

and it seems to me

that Rembrandt's

career has come back

or almost come round

full circle.

Think of the anatomy

lesson of Dr. Tulp

Rembrandt the young

curious individual

in a relatively

detached way

painting the dissection

and observing

what a corpse is like

from the inside.

Here though

this is pure

physical expression.

And so in the last

phase of Rembrandt's

life and career

what we see

is him wrestling

explicitly

with the big questions

mortality

life

and death

and the confrontation

of death

and the fact

this stuff

of which Rembrandt

is made

and we're all made

flesh and bone

eventually

will decay

and rot.

Hendrik remained

devoted to Rembrandt

until her death

in 1663.

Five years later

his only son Titus

died of the plague.

Rembrandt followed him

in 1669

and on the 4th of October

he was buried

in a rented grave

in the Vesterkirk.

He left only his clothes

and a few artist's materials.

But he also left

an immense body

of work

that has never

been surpassed

in its insight

into the human condition.

An artist

who portrayed himself

and the world

as it really was

rather than

it might like

to see itself

who could paint

something close

to perfection

but who celebrated

the idea

of physical imperfection

whose art reads

as one painter

put it recently

like a road map

of human experience.