Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1653). Three Crosses (first and fourth states) [drypoint and etching]. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

This is a textbook example of a generally naturalistic work that has sacrificed it’s attempt at reflecting reality in favor of using formal choices to tell a story. In this way, both states approach the definition of conceptual art, but it remains perceptual. In addition, this series illustrates the value of effort, splitting the difference between creating from internal queues and a system of design guidelines.

In the first state, the use of negative space is stark, the global texture is harsh, values are placed on the terminals, and they are restricted to their shapes and areas. As iterations are completed, negative space becomes blended with solid, the value range is wider and the textural effect becomes unified with the use of line and value. This combination of choices creates a markedly more integrated composition, which in turn places less emphasis on form and more on content.

In the first state, the greatest source of depth is the relative detail development, even transparency, of the three major crowd blocks (combined figures) on the canvas. From right-to-left, the block bathed in light recedes the most, while the next two are embellished with stronger strokes until the last block, which has solid, dense areas, is closest to the picture plane. The first state’s pronounced value contrast and sharp texturing have a flattening effect. In the fourth state, oblique area-developing strokes instill a sense of projection into the center of the canvas, missing from the first state. In addition, the use of value shifts from defining edges to fleshing out subject surface areas, another space-developing measure missing from the first rendering. Last, details are treated with progressively sharper definition as the eye travels from the outside to the inside of the canvas.

In the first state of this series, quick gestural lines bind the canvas. The combined formal choices create a rough global texture. Near-equivalence in proportions create some tension. As Rembrandt progresses in the series, line is no longer the single active element and shapes become more developed. There is more varied use of sharp versus vague shapes. Vertically elongated forms contrast against a repeating pattern of small forms with touches of highlighting. A limited value palette is expanded to employ the full value range in roughly equal measure (ie, the midtones are filled). I believe Rembrandt’s use of value builds interest in the fourth state because of it’s rough versus smooth nature.

This transition in formal choices, specifically value range, textural blending and the fleshing out of pattern, describe the greatest difference in pictorial balance between the two states. Both are basically stable with the superb choice of vertically bisecting the compositions with the subject figure at an off-center axis. The formal choices of the fourth state are much more effective at unifying the canvas.  While this may not dramatically adjust stability when one composition is compared to the other, these choices are effective at narrowing the focus to the subject area and off of the limitations of the composition.

The formal choices that crystallize the first composition place the observe in a harsh, hard cavern where noises are not muffled but reflected and amplified by the unforgiving surroundings. In the fourth state, the surroundings become vague, and the immediate area is defined by a bright light that quickly loses luminosity, causing sights and sounds to become progressively less distinct until all sensory detail is lost in vagueness. Both compositions are equivalent in focal energy. The first spends it in a more global manner, defining the encircling crowd and surroundings. The fourth focuses most of its focal energy on the figure of the Crucifixion, stabbing into the space above it, in obvious directional opposition of the light raining down.

First state

Fourth state