Talk:The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Xiaoxiao0727.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Identity of Observers

The entry stated that the observers were not medical professionals, then several lines later contended that they were colleagues of Doctor Tulp. I chose to delete the second statement. If there is information that the observers were indeed doctors, please correct this.

JNW 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Rembrandts oeuvre Once a year a public anatomy lesson was given in the months December or January, when it was cold and the corpse could be preserved for a few days. The public lessons were an event where not only members of the guild were present, but also many other, prominent persons. A fee was charged, the proceeds went to the guild.
The names of the patrons are actually known: Jacob Blok, Herman Hartmansz., Adriaen Slabraen, one of the councilmembers of the guild in the year 1631/1632, Jacob de Witt, also a councilmember, Mathys Kalkoen, Jacob Koolvelt and Frans van Loenen. Their names are on the piece of paper that Hartmansz., next to Tulp, has in his hand. JdH 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: I take exeption to the statement above that the painting was of a real event. While the anatomy lesson was real enough, the painting itself is a composition that has little to to with the actual event. The corpse was painted separately, as can be seen from the fact the arm that Dr Tulp is dissecting is positioned in an unnatural way wrt to the corpse itself. The arm was dissected after it had been removed, and was added later to the painting of the corpse.

Thank you for the elaboration. JNW 15:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

umbra mortis

Is this a painting technique? I found a literal translation of it as "shadow of death" from the Wikipedia page for "O Antiphons". It would be nice if this were explained. Nowax 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Nowax

Death of Aris Kindt

The article states that Kindt died from being "strangled", however his own article says he was sentenced to hanging. While the cause of death is, in a sense, strangulation, being hung and being strangled are two rather different methods of death. -- MacAddct1984 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone once edited this article saying that criminals of the time in the Netherlands were strangled, rather than hanged. This abstract says 'hung' [sic] rather than 'strangled'; however it is possible this is a case of lax language rather than a definitive statement. It would be useful to clear the matter up unambiguously. — BillC ^talk 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki version of the painting

Wikipedia Lesson of Dr Tulp

Not sure whether that really fits in the article, but I thought I'd at least mention it here. ---- Daniel Mietchen 05:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikita Shalennyi 2014 photograph

Not sure whether this is relevant enough to enter the article. There is also a 2014 photograph by Nikita Shalennyi, titled "Where is Your Brother?" inspired by this painting: [1] or [2] (slider). bamse (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sapere aude

1) "One person is missing: the Preparator, whose task it was to prepare the body for the lesson. In the 17th century an important scientist such as Dr. Tulp would not be involved in menial and bloody work like dissection, and such tasks would be left to others. [b]It is for this reason that the picture shows no cutting instruments.[/b]

But there is an instrument, held in Dr. Tulp's hand?

2) The analysis part leaves much to be desired:

a) For example, why is the hand being dissected rather than the abdomens which are usually dissected before anything else. What is the significance of the dissection of the hand and the fact that the man was a criminal, a thief who presumably used his hands to commit robbery?

b) And why are several observers in the painting staring at the atlas and not the victim or the doctor? Why are they not looking at the hand that is being dissected or the corpse at all? Hmmmm

c) The hand that is being dissected, why does it look like the right hand and why is it so large compared to the left hand resting on the operating table? Rembrandt would not make a mistake, would he?

You see the atlas? It's an anatomy atlas and they're all staring at it. And the hand is painted like a depiction in the atlas. Rembrandt includes something that we (audience) can't see; only they can: the depiction of a hand. Due to this mistake we no longer look through the doctors' eyes. We see him, Aris Kindt. The victim. We are with him, not with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926154457/http://www.handsurg.eu/resources/rembrandt_en.pdf to http://www.handsurg.eu/resources/rembrandt_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my first time to evaluating and editing an article on Wikipedia. Place remind me if there’s any mistake. The subject is a famous picture named The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, which is an oil painting that painted by Rembrandt in 1632. Through this picture, I can see how anatomy, visual culture and art bring together. I learned what is autopsy and what is visual culture in past few weeks during the IAH209 class as well. After that, this picture also showed up in our week 3’s lecture materials. This subject has a clearly written lead section, which is given reader a briefly introduction about the picture such as who did this oil painting, what happened in the picture and why the painting is important. The article is well structured. There are one big heading on the very top of the article and seven subheadings to split the whole article to few parts. By click the contents; readers can jump into different subheadings that they are interested in. This article has 11 citations, 3 references, and 3 external links. This article is natural, balance and unbiased, because there’s no any personal view in the whole article. The article just tells the reader some facts such as the painting’s background, what the corpse is and some related works. There are seven sources in the talk page; they all provided some useful information. One of editor thinks the Aris Kindt died was not from being “strangled” and believes Kindt was sentenced to hanging. The editor by provided some evidence to support his opinion. After that, another editor by providing some extra information and ask questions to help the article more complete. Those are all useful suggestions for this article. From my evaluation, I think there may have a subheading named "Influence", which talks about “what’s the influence about this painting for human and society?” --Xiaoxiao0727 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[[Category:]]

Evaluation by Xiao Zhang

This is my first time to evaluating and editing an article on Wikipedia. Place remind me if there’s any mistake. The subject is a famous picture named The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, which is an oil painting that painted by Rembrandt in 1632. Through this picture, I can see how anatomy, visual culture and art bring together. I learned what is autopsy and what is visual culture in past few weeks during the IAH209 class as well. After that, this picture also showed up in our week 3’s lecture materials. This subject has a clearly written lead section, which is given reader a briefly introduction about the picture such as who did this oil painting, what happened in the picture and why the painting is important. The article is well structured. There are one big heading on the very top of the article and seven subheadings to split the whole article to few parts. By click the contents; readers can jump into different subheadings that they are interested in. This article has 11 citations, 3 references, and 3 external links. This article is natural, balance and unbiased, because there’s no any personal view in the whole article. The article just tells the reader some facts such as the painting’s background, what the corpse is and some related works. There are seven sources in the talk page; they all provided some useful information. One of editor thinks the Aris Kindt died was not from being “strangled” and believes Kindt was sentenced to hanging. The editor by provided some evidence to support his opinion. After that, another editor by providing some extra information and ask questions to help the article more complete. Those are all useful suggestions for this article. From my evaluation, I think there may have a subheading named "Influence", which talks about “what’s the influence about this painting for human and society?” --Xiaoxiao0727 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Rembrandt_-_The_Anatomy_Lesson_of_Dr_Nicolaes_Tulp.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 9, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-06-09. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 13:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp is a 1632 oil-on-canvas painting by Rembrandt housed in the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague, Netherlands. The painting is regarded as one of Rembrandt's early masterpieces. In the work, Nicolaes Tulp is pictured explaining the musculature of the arm to a group of doctors. Some of the spectators are various doctors who paid to be included in the painting. The painting is signed in the top-left hand corner Rembrandt. f[ecit] 1632. This may be the first instance of Rembrandt signing a painting with his forename (in its original form) as opposed to the monogram RHL ("Rembrandt Harmenszoon of Leiden"), and is thus a sign of his growing artistic confidence.

Painting credit: Rembrandt

Recently featured:

• Robert Bruce
• Paratroopers at the Western Wall
• Monument to Alfonso XII

Citation and speculation

The following text in the article lacks citations, and the final sentence seems to be pure speculation.

“ In the 17th century an important scientist such as Tulp would not be involved in menial and bloody work like dissection, and such tasks would be left to others. It is for this reason that the picture shows no cutting instruments. Instead we see in the lower right corner an enormous open textbook on anatomy, possibly the 1543 De humani corporis fabrica (Fabric of the Human Body) by Andreas Vesalius.”

While it may have been true in the 1530s that the anatomist would not have participated in dissection, by the 1630s I’m not convinced that it was still true. Does anyone have sources to provide to substantiate the claims of this portion of the article? (Wiki user MorbidAnatomy; not presently signed in) 2600:6C4A:767F:9D12:6C7C:8A7A:2DDD:5838 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)