Ok, ok, enough back-slapping. Let’s get to the meat of the act:
Do you think Van Gough would have been as good (or famous) as he was if he had not developed a taste for his paint thinner? Seriously…
I was waiting soooo long for someone to finally ask this question.
What??? Are you out of your mind? Are you saying just because he ate the lead of of his brush and the thinner rotted his mind that it HELPED him paint that way? Hogwash! On the other hand…
Sorry, I frequently talk to myself. I hope I don’t get myself thrown into the pit.
Not a chance. A debate about artistic dementia is what this new forum is all about.
Personally, I feel that if Van Gogh had been fitted with a strong pair of distance eyeglasses at a young age, his work would have been MUCH more Norman-Rockwellish.
[ SouthPark ]
“…And I’m suing myself for sexually harrassing me…”
[ /SouthPark ]
And if he’d been given a lithium prescription and maybe some Prozac , he probably would have lived a long and happy life as a house painter.
I think it was his perscription for 600mL of absinthe twice daily was the cause.
…Well, yeah, there’s that.
So given all that - Was he a genius or do we view lunacy as such?
Put another way, would we know his name today if not for the lead white, thinner and absinthe?
Because if not, what is genius?
You are kidding, right? Have you seen his work in person? The brush work is incredible. In Wheat Field with Crows the strokes convey emotion in a way that was previously unheard of. Now you may argue that his slipping grip on reality gave rise to the emotions, but the conveyance of these emotions is where he shined.
[sub]{personal aside} The Van Gogh museum was the highlight of my two days in Amsterdam, bar none. I was almost moved to tears.[/sub]
Ah-ha!
I think you’ve hit on it, ShibbOleth.
First let me say that VG is my absolute fave painter. And, coincidentally, ‘Wheat Field withCrows’ is my favorite piece.
However, as a painter myself I can tell you that no matter how much emotion you put into a single brushstroke if the over-all composition is not good neither will the painting be.
Think of it this way, if I got my non-musically inclined 16 yr old daughter to write a song, and each note was played with emotion by one of the worlds greatist musicians, would the overall effect sound good? Of course not. Composition and concept are what humans respond to not individual notes or brushstrokes.
VG was certainly a genius. But did dementia contribute to abstract ways of thinking and painting that we as sober viewers perceive as genius?
Would you have ever heard of Hemingway had he never taken a drink?
Well, you may have noticed that I was kind of backpedalling a bit toward the end of that last post. If you have been in the Van Gogh Museum then you saw that they do arrange his art by period, and there is definitely something that happens between his early work and the stuff that most people know about. His early stuff seems to me, an admittedly unstudied appreciator of art, to be somewhat derivative of the earlier Dutch masters, as one might suspect of a young artist. Sort of that dark “I want to be the next Rembrandt realism”. Then something happens. I think it may have been his exposure to Impressionism, which his work surely follows, but he seems to go beyond that. I also love Wheat Field with Crows because it is almost three different paintings in one. It is Impressionistic, but it is more. The wheat flows, the sky is angry, the transition between the top of the wheat and the crows, you are in his head for a moment as you see the shapes which he saw. But did his madness inspire the genius? I think that the seeds were there somewhere, but something sparked this, for sure. But what?
I was diagnosed with Meniere’s Disease about five years ago. It is (simplistically) an imbalance of the equilibrium caused by yadda,yadda,yadda (just google it if you are interested).
Anyway, in my research I came across a theory that Van Gogh may have suffered from this himself. Valid theory? There is no way to really know, but the symptoms I’ve experienced could certainly explain some of Van Gogh’s work and life. It certainly seemed an interesting concept (at least to me).
I don’t have a cite. I’m sorry, it wasn’t really germane to what I was trying to find at the time and I didn’t save it and don’t remember where I found it.
Wow - almost a 5 year old zombie thread. I’m impressed.
BRAINS!!!
Good Lord!!
Sorry! I didn’t notice the date. I don’t know how I ended up on… Oh, I see now. Won’t happen again. :smack:
Ooooh…you’re gonna get it now! Dex is gonna spank!
Izzat right? I thought he said he was locking all the old threads. So it’s, um, Dex’s fault. Yeah, that’s it. 
No, we’re not locking old threads … yet. It’s been suggested as a way of speeding up reaction time, by putting old threads in some sort of read-only Archive, but so far, no safari.
I ain’t gonna spank. We do, in general, frown on resurrection of old threads, but in Cafe Society, we’re more tolerant. Besides, Van Gogh is never out of style.
I have edited the thread title slightly.
Well, I for one think that this new forum is a great idea.
Who do you guys think would win if Van Gogh fought Batman?
Oils or watercolors?
Re some of the posts above, Van Gogh’s image as a drug and achohol crazed madman/idiot-savant painting mostly out of mindless instinct is a myth. He was an extraordinarily intelligent and articulate person (he spoke three languages) who knew exactly what he was doing when not in the grip of one of his various mental or physical maladies or some substance he ingested. A site exists which contains all of his letters that are known to survive. These letters make for fascinating reading and illuminate his extraordinary intelligence. For those interested in learning about Van Gogh as he really was, they can be found here: