He is known as one of the most important in the entire history of Dutch art, he portrayed a wide range of themes in his work, but what really set this artist apart was his keen observations of human society. 

And it was this spirit that made me look at The Night Watch with wide-eyed wonder. Several factors cemented The Night Watch (TNW) as one of the greatest works of art in history, and many things make this painting interesting, but one makes it revolutionary and comes less from its specific subject matter, but rather from the way the master chose to portray the group. In The Night Watch, Captain Banninck Cocq and seventeen members of his Kloveniers (military guards) commissioned the work and, as was customary, the people portrayed paid a fee based on their prominence in the painting.

First of all, I must say: the masterpiece is of colossal size, which contributes to its drama, detail, and uniqueness. Although portraits of the time used to highlight the characters uniformly, the revolutionary artist opted for a different path, and perhaps this is the biggest controversy. 

When compared to other portraits of civic guards, it stands out significantly for its originality, because instead of replicating the typically static arrangement – and, let's face it, very boring –, the master animates his portrait; the movement and action of the march, emphasized by the contrast, make the piece distinct, but the artist had to make a definitive decision: who to focus on from his technique.

It so happens that, as the saying goes, every choice brings a sacrifice and with every great work of art comes its fair share of controversy. It is difficult to be revolutionary without a little challenge and adverse reaction from the general public.

Sitters perform specific actions that define their roles as military men, but remember what I said above: the people portrayed paid a fee based on their prominence in the painting, so by choosing to highlight Captain Banning Cocq, Van Ruytenburgh, and the girl with the chicken, the other 16 members of the group disappear into the obscurity of darkness and you can imagine how much this pleased the others (not even a little). The choice to emphasize the captain and lieutenant makes sense to create a story and reveal the snapshot of a moment and, in fact, the scene has the appearance of a real historical event occurring, although what we are really witnessing is the creative genius of Rembrandt in action. Rembrandt did not want to conform to anyone's rules and, indeed, a man of bold and innovative ideas, the artist actively challenged the status quo in matters of art and, instead of simply evoking the image of a guild, chose to convey a story. It would be easy (and predictable) to sit all the members down and draw their faces, but the master chose to create something new. 

It so happens that, as the saying goes, every choice brings a sacrifice and with every great work of art comes its fair share of controversy. It is difficult to be revolutionary without a little challenge and adverse reaction from the general public. 

Artists like Rembrandts and Caravaggios pushed the boundaries and expanded the imagination, so we remember their names for the revolutionary work they produced. Rembrandt's originality and eccentricity may have cost him some friends, put him outside the boundaries of Amsterdam's more conservative circles, and taken away his consideration for public commissions and to record the images of some of the great and good but, as the aphorism of Hippocrates says, life is short, art is long and, if on the one hand Rembrandt's choices took a high price from him in life, on the other hand they made him immortal.

With Affection,
Maria Helena.