Storm 3's Liked Comments
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
For more great fun at other people's expenses, Google "Shelby Lee Adams".