Photo by R. Gerhardt
The Consultation. The doctor is examining a flask of urine.
the interaction with the patient, empathy with the patient, and gentleness. However, statements for publication are only accepted if they are factual and can be backed up by objective, not subjective, data – the best example being the double-blind study. Art is art and, in a gross simplification, art history is subjective, not pure science, in that detailed data is difficult, if not impossible to find.” Objective data on economic conditions and political and social conditions exist, and new discoveries that likely influence art can be examined and studied, but, Gerhardt asserts, “there is no double-blind study to select the ‘best’ style of art in an era. It is in the eye and
24 ■ PENN MEDICINE
perception of the beholder, set in the time period that the work is viewed.” Data can be found on the value people place on art works at different times, but depicting one subject or another is a highly subjective choice, says Gerhardt. In the same way, he argues, “much of the writing in the history of art is also subjective and cannot be supported by statistics. Unfortunately, this often leads to subjective conclusions which are then taken as fact by subsequent authors.” An art historian, like a scientist, looks for clues and patterns when examining the works of an artist. For example, a rare, early Van Musscher double portrait – known
only through a print of one of the sitters produced by another artist – was in a private British collection since at least the 1700s. Donated to a small museum a few years ago, the print was recently displayed on the museum’s website. When an art historian viewed the image, the relationship to the original portrait was recognized, the sitters were identified, and a long-lost, early Van Musscher portrait was rediscovered. Through photographs or personal examination, Gerhardt has identified 119 portraits, 19 genre paintings (which represent scenes or events from everyday life), 6 self-portraits, 9 drawings, and 7 prints that he believes are definitely by Van Musscher. “I am sure that there are more,” he said, adding that some paintings may be in private collections. “I would estimate his output at somewhat over 500 works. Even of the works I have identified, some are from turn-of-the-century photographs and have not been seen since. They may not have survived the destruction of two world wars.” Combining his previous scientific training and his new training in art, Gerhardt began to research the works of Van Musscher and the times he lived in, seeking to be able to answer this question: “Why isn’t Van Musscher better known?” “I think there are several basic reasons. First, he was at the end of the Golden Age of Dutch art. By 1680, all of the most famous artists of the period – Hals, Rembrandt, Steen, Vermeer, and others – were dead, which to many signaled the end of this great period, and subsequent artists were ignored or considered inferior. The apex of Van Musscher’s career occurred in the 1680s and 1690s, shortly after the deaths of those great artists. In courses on Dutch art history, the end of the 17th century, after the deaths of the so-called Golden Age artists, is generally ignored.” The second reason, according to Gerhardt, is that most of Van Musscher’s