Neatorama » Blog Archive » E-Mail » Rediscovering Van Gogh.

E-Mail Post To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Rediscovering Van Gogh.' to a friend

Loading ...

17 comments to "Rediscovering Van Gogh."

Storm
September 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
This article really is a lot of nonsense, isn’t it? I mean… I love a good DaVinci codeish yarn as much as the next guy, but this one isn’t even the least bit reasonable.

First of all, Van Gogh wasn’t in Brussels in 1886, allthough he was in Antwerp, (which I understand is only about 30 miles away) being too broke to even take a short ride in a taxi.

Van Gogh was 33 years old in 1886 and obviously much younger than the man in the photo, even by 19th century standards of aging.

The article also states that prior to this, Van Gogh’s self portraits “did not have a strong sense of realism” whereas “subsequent self-portraits were as close to photo-realism as impressionist paintings could be”. This is not so. He was always able to do naturalistic studies, but his personal style (obviously) evolved more later in life, bringing him if anything further away from a naturalistic approach.

“If this newly found photograph does indeed turn out to be of the adult Van Gogh, and if it could be proven that optical projection was used by this great impressionist, the implications could change art history”. M’kay, but where does this talk of projection come into it? Wouldn’t he be a lot more likely to just hold the photo in his hand and look at it? That’s what I would have done. The older duch painters used another much simpler method of transfer by simply drawing a grid on the original sketch and then an identical grid on the canvas into which one could then manually copy the contents of each small square without worrying about the overall form being off.

What kind of projection system would he have used? One that could illuminate and enlarge a non-transparent photograph onto a canvas. It would have to be a closed light-sealed system working in a dimly lit room. How could poor old Vincent afford anything like that?

It is quite possible that Van Gogh tried using a photo as a source for some experiments. His friend Gaugin painted Tahiti women back in france from photographs shot by some other guy. Contemporaries like Degas often did the same. The simplest explanation for why Van Gogh would have used a photo to paint his mother is that she was living in another part of the country and he was likely to have had a photo of her with him.

He is a lot less likely to have had a photo of himself tho. Like I said before, Van Gogh was very poor. And he was an unusually ugly man, unlike the man in the photo.

I think the “forensic” evidence in this case is a desire to discover something in a thrift store. To be able to contribute to art history’s view of European painters without leaving the old neighborhood in Massachusetts. (Or do something complicated like studying). And to be able to sell it later on e-Bay. The guy in the photo really doesn’t even look that much like Van Gogh.
Morton
September 7th, 2006 at 12:52 am
What the problem is, is that the whole article has not been published here. If you read it in it’s entirety, you will see that all all doubt will be erased — for many more in-depth studies which are present in the article are not presented here. For one, the image of Vincent could have been projected using a simple hand-held mirror. If you overlay the tracing of Van Gogh’s portrait, you’ll also find it’s an EXACT match for the painting. There are also some fascinating comparisons of Vincent’s work prior to the photograph and also after. There are also very important letters from Vincent himself which lend credence to the story. I highly recommend checking it out: http://www.seventhhourblues.com or you can grab a copy on Amazon.
cannigan
September 17th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
I think that it is possible that the photo might be of Vincent.We have to remember that he was living with a bad case of depression,probably hunger at the best of times-and the hard core drinking of an alcoholic.If I could assume -he probably earned his keep in many places working outdoors under the hot sun as a labourer,where the suns rays can prematurely age skin.Not to forget,his system was also drained by the std’s of his time-all helping him age beyond the average stereo typed 30′ something middle class male.The eyes in the photo appear to be light in color,which can belong to a red headed person.

I think we have to remember that life is not about the amount of breaths we take,it is about the amount of times our breath was taken away.I believe Vincent tried to share that with us,and if he used a grid,or a photo or even a chunk of glass to help him on his self taught journey-so be it.Let sleeping dogs lie.
ann-marie johnson
January 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
How can you possibly say vincent was left handed when gouguin did a portrait of him clearly showing that he is right handed! why would he put the paint brush in his right hand if he wasn’t right handed????
joe
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
HA,HA,HA, Look at Vincent’s painting of Dr. Felix Ray, scroll up to do that,

Vincent painted his jacket and collar on Dr. Ray!
Alexander Barnett
April 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Since you are interested in Vincentâ€™s life and work, you might want to look at the Notes section on http://www.theeyesofvangogh.com. I am the writer and director of the new independent film on his life.
travvell
May 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Van Gogh was a great artist, and it doesn’t matter much to me whether he “eyeballed” or “traced” to create his paintings…but that’s just my personal opinion. I don’t think you can completely discredit the evidence laid out by this article, although we may never know for sure if Van Gogh used projection to create art or not.
Carolyn
July 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Van Gogh is a brilliant artist. It doesn’t matter if he used a short cut or what-nots. It may only prove that most likely, many other artists could have tried it just as well. And so what used a different method for some of his works? He probably experimented, and some of it worked for him. He feverishly painted around 900 paintings and more than 1,000 sketches/drawings in the last 10 years of his life. Give the man a break.

Besides, Vincent isn’t just famous because of his uncanny “exact” resemblence of pictures, people, or places to his arwork. He’s also famous because of his determination to find love, being accepted, and at what extent he took himself to try and get there.

I TELL YOU, THE MORE I THINK THE MORE I FEEL THAT THERE IS NOTHING MORE TUREULY ARTISTIC THAN TO LOVE PEOPLE –VINCENT VAN GOGH

And this is one of the many reasons why the world adores him so much.
john dohe
December 7th, 2007 at 8:44 am
people really do wanna believe that tracing is the only way to get to get decent results, dont they?

there are letter where vincent asked for, then talked about his study of Charles Bargue plates which explains to young artist how to get proportions for mass and shadows. at that time they were said to have been taught even in high schools.
the examples they give here aren’t too convincing since some major proportions are rather off.

has anyone considered that his drinking may have effect his motor skills from time to time?
it may explain why some were so sloppy and others weren’t too bad.
Brian Yoder
December 9th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I thought that David Hockney’s absurd assertions about the Old Masters were bad, but this is worse. The images that are supposedly so close as to prove tracing aren’t remotely similar with the exception of the fact that they are different pictures of the same person and not even all that similar renderings.

It is also downright weird that the author claims that Van Gogh’s paintings were realistic when they are so clearly not, in fact, his lack of realistic rendering is what some people prize his work for so much. Personally, I don’t think there’s much artistic value in his work at all. He just became famous for being mentally disturbed and now we are supposed to think that he was a genius somehow.

Anyway, this theory that the only way to create realistic images (which Van Gogh’s certainly were not)is to use some kind of optical tracing device is false as can be seen by anyone who even looks at these images and as can be demonstrated by just looking at what actual contemporary realist artists do in their studios every day. I wrote a more detailed critique of the Hockney theory at http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004/Hockney/yoder1.asp and Dr. David Stork pretty much put the issue to bed in his own studies (including a nice piece in Scientific American) which you can look up at http://www.diatrope.com/stork/FAQs.html and
http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/stork.html
John Adams
April 16th, 2008 at 5:43 am
There is a resemblance. But, after seeing one of Vincent’s paintings of his “twin”, Alexander Reid, I have to say I have to wait for further proof that the photo is really Vincent. Perhaps a photograph of Alexander Reid may be helpful.
In particular, the eyes don’t look right to me. Especially in John Peter Russell’s painting of Vincent. By all accounts this painting was the best likeness of Vincent. Doesn’t look much like the photo to me.
The eyes look more like Theo’s, very pale, not like the photo of Vincent as a teenager.
If you want to see a photo that looks more like Vincent, look at one of George Auriol (Jean-George Huyot). I thought I’d discovered a photo of Vincent and Theo at Chat Noir, but, no, it was George and Narcisse Lebeau.
JOEY
April 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Did you read the 7th Hour Blues Magazine starting on page 42 Neatorama.

Do you know who Pascal Bonafaux is?
Rianne
June 5th, 2008 at 4:40 am
If your interested in the live and work of Vincent van Gogh you should visit the web community Tracing Vincent: http://www.TracingVincent.com

Loads of information about Vincent, his great work and lots more. You can even vote on your favorite painting

- Rianne
natasha
July 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Regarding Van Gogh’s self portrait and the use of a photograph: Because the self portrait was done using his reflection in a mirror a photograph would not have helped as his portrait should have been a mirror image of his true self. However, if the self portrait corresponds directly to the photograph, it seems likely that he used the photograph and not the mirror to paint his picture. Hope this makes sense to the reader.
natasha
July 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I believe Van Gogh painted with his right hand. His self portrait shows him with the brushes in his left hand because it looked that way in the mirror he was looking at. Also, one of his self portraits shows his right ear covered when in actuality he cut his left ear. Again, the portrait is a mirror image of himself.
magatron
August 26th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I think if, even after more than 120 years, people still discuss the things Van Gogh did, he did something worth talking about.

If you like his work or not, it is different. And it does make a statement.

Is there ANYTHING we’ve done as individuals that will be talked about in 120 years?
rowan
September 5th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Please help me how was the portriat of Dr Ray made like wat did he use eg. Painting drawing, ink please help me

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!