tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post5286616131969875577..comments2024-03-15T01:23:24.071-07:00Comments on HANDPRINT: is van gogh the most overrated painter -- ever?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-85277717657603107092024-03-15T01:23:24.071-07:002024-03-15T01:23:24.071-07:00i love the Van Gogh rear guard, you guys are pluck...i love the Van Gogh rear guard, you guys are plucky and you stick to your guns and stand by your man. -- the Arles "drawings"? my god, those things are crewel on steroids, agnes martin a century before agnes martin. do you know agnes martin, have you seen her celebrated minimalist works? there's the essence of Van Gogh drawing for you, st. agnes saw the dim principle in vinny's compulsive, joyless, weirdly textureless textural "drawings" and propels it into pure abstraction, massive canvases and butcher paper wrought with idiotically redundant tiny pencil or pen scratches, just itsy bitsy, row after row after row in row or grid formation. van gogh loves the whole row on row thing, rows and rows to make grasses, or wheat, or night skies. but he cannot make lines, he can only use shortness. the idea that a line could scrawl out of a thumb and go up the arm to the armpit, the way they do in Schiele, or swoop up and down and all over the way they do in Twombly -- such things absolutely do not occur to Van Gogh, ever, for any reason. it's like he had a line agnosia or a kind of marking palsy, looking at his drawings is like listening to a woodpecker. the reproductions available online don't represent the larger body of work, which was genuinely dispiriting for me to see at the London show. but you don't need to look at many drawings, this compulsion to shortmark with pen or brush also appears in his choice of drawing subjects, such as flowery fields or grassy harvests or ruchy lawns or brittle trees, where he would seem to have permission to let his hatchlining run amok in the service of tonal variation or textural imitation. but his landscapes are a tactical choice, they are where his hatching compulsion can go to appear nostalgic. and even in the diligently done pieces the lines have a crudeness and lack of flavor about them, like the seeds you see on top of a bagel; his boast to his brother was that he could rattle one off in an hour. as for the portraits, his portraits of Roulin appear not as the impressions of a human being but as the realistic painting of a encrusted postal officer head, something Damien Hirst might jigger up with a skull and rubies; something Arcimboldo would make out of paint chips. and there's another good thing about landscapes, landscapes are where lines go to hide. -- for the rest i won't debate renoir against van gogh with you because renoir is another artist for whom line is a hazy concept. but take his heavily brushmarked portrait of the philadelphia "madame Renoir", which beams out with a human cheer and health and reciprocated good feeling; and look at the way the paint is cheerful to be about the image making, and yields to the gentlest folds and shadows of the homely attire. this seems to me something that compulsive markmaking is unable to achieve. Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06288025190937211574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-29750543960732102712024-03-14T18:42:01.151-07:002024-03-14T18:42:01.151-07:00I love Van Gogh's art. To me, he was one of th...I love Van Gogh's art. To me, he was one of the best portrait artist's of his time. Google his self portrait dedicated to Paul Gauguin or his portrait of Trabuc done at St. Remy. And people think Renoir had superior technique, haha! As far as draughtsmanship, check out his reed pen drawings from Arles. You really believe these are without merit? Well, to each their own.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14339541153019876709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-41528685920082666352024-03-12T16:13:20.771-07:002024-03-12T16:13:20.771-07:00You hit the nail right on the head. Art supply com...You hit the nail right on the head. Art supply companies love Van Gogh because they know he used handfuls of paint on his canvases. I even recall that he would "experiment" with unprimed canvases. I saw an unprimed canvas of a chair he painted, and the paint was still ungodly thick. That has to be the most wasteful and ignorant "experiment" I've ever heard of, and of course he was financially dependent on his brother while doing this. The man was a complete ingrate and it's no wonder he couldn't sell a painting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-30649824600691785482021-08-23T06:53:19.835-07:002021-08-23T06:53:19.835-07:00When cheap printing processes came in to being all...When cheap printing processes came in to being allowing the poor and middle class to have a "mona lisa" in their homes, painters had a dilemma. Art was more available to the masses and it certainly appears that snobby museums, art galleries and patrons were not real keen on that. Photopraphy was also a challenge in terms of realism. <br />That appear to have driven the need for art to change into something involving not just an explanation of what the realistic image was about as in the past, but into something that involved having to explain why it was good despite not looking realistic. <br />This excluded the uneducated and kept the whole thing exclusive. <br />Non representative art that shocked, that had to be explained and or had a great story behind it (suicide, poverty, ears cut off, insane asylums) all bumped up the interest and the price. <br />Art is now about selling a story. It is no longer about your painting being about something and telling a story, you have to convince others it is good, meaningful. <br />Art today is a con game and Van Gogh and the story around him is one of the biggest cons of all.<br />Van Goghs work is successful but take away the hookers, the ear, the suicide, the sanitorium etc and it would be trash to the vast majority of people and so I think it is trash, my eyes say trash.smokedsalmonedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948479373693284563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-19473365171527133532021-07-21T08:30:52.323-07:002021-07-21T08:30:52.323-07:00i'm a little unsure what to say to you, blue u...i'm a little unsure what to say to you, blue underscore waters, except to compliment your bluesy vibe. c'mon over to this table with me, we can order drinks and you can talk while i admire your legs.<br /><br />"you understand van gogh." wait, what? has he been talking to you or something? if you haven't read his biography or watched the movie, how do you know anything at all about him?<br /><br />"i don't understand money or marketing." well, uh, isn't that, uh, you know -- the theme of the post?<br /><br />"i don't understand anything in an organized or systematic way." uh, OK. so you mean things like "home address" or "bank account" don't mean anything to you? <br /><br />waiter, hold off on that second drink, the lady and i need to have a short chat here. <br /><br />so, how exactly do you understand things -- i mean, in your admittedly uninformed, unsystematic, disorganized way? does it involve your medications, perhaps?<br /><br />"art is just a way to cope for some; what good may come of it, or how good it is, is irrelevant."<br /><br />wow. this is what i really appreciate about genius. it can take two stale clichés of art lore — the fingerpainting art therapy view of art, the art-for-art's-sake view of art, and by putting those two nonsense clichés together seem to snap away any value in art at all, for any reason. i mean, isn't that what "irrelevant" means?<br /><br />"he gave it all he could; this is what i see, just my humble opinion." <br /><br />OK, look. here's how it works. if you offer your opinion, it's not humble. humble opinions are requested, then asked to speak louder. <br /><br />you don't have humble opinions. in your own uninformed, disorganized, unsystematic and nonsense spewing way of getting on with things, you're actually quite tactical. "he gave it all he could" is the barest cliché of art known to humankind: the cliché of the doting mother praising the incompetent child. even she — even she, the doting mother, looking at her child lying exhausted on the floor — even she can only muster, "well, he tried then, didn't he?"<br /><br />"well, i've never seen an original ..." <br /><br />yes, i've already heard your standards for knowledge.<br /><br />"but i can surely paint one stroke for stroke." <br /><br />well, uh, i'm sure you can, i'm sure you're good at it, why, i'm sure we're all good at it ... waiter, check ... we're all great painters, stroke for stroke!<br /><br />"however, the thought of him being overrated did cross my mind."<br /><br />yes, of course, the thought crossed your mind so you typed it into an internet search engine and, as you say, "and so i am here."<br /><br />where's an uber driver when you need one? no, twenty minutes is not OK.<br /><br />"thought processes are strange things."<br /><br />oh boy, aren't they though? i think my thought processes are -- well, what am i saying? where's that uber?<br /><br />"i'm not for or against any opinion or person." <br /><br />we've already established that you have only nonsense opinions to offer without knowledge, order or system. your ride is here. driver, she'll give you the address.<br /><br />"just passing by. god bless us all."<br /><br />religion. i just knew it. isn't religion the origin of all nonsense ideas that have no factual basis or logical explanation? doesn't that mean there's a religious mindset — an uninformed, disorderly, erratic mindset whose humble opinions are volunteered — a religious mindset toward art? that you can view van gogh as a kind of religious relic? <br /><br />... and now that i think about it, isn't that what all the marketing hype around van gogh is really about? nonsense opinions without any factual basis or critical scrutiny? and isn't that what this post is actually about?<br /><br />Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06288025190937211574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-24700218874765527202021-07-20T18:50:40.933-07:002021-07-20T18:50:40.933-07:00I understand Van Gogh; and his paintings, and his ...I understand Van Gogh; and his paintings, and his life and struggles, plus illnesses and tragic suicide (I've not watched the movie or read his biography).<br />I do not understand money and marketing, nor do I understand any organised or systematic way of observing or studying anything, including art.<br />Art is just a way to cope for some; what good may come of it, or how good it is, is irrelevant.<br />For himself, his paintings were the best, and he gave it all he could; this is what I see, just my humble opinion.<br />Well, I've never seen an original, so you have that. But I can surely paint one stroke for stroke.<br />However, the thought of him being overrated did cross my mind and so I am here.<br />Thought processes are strange things.<br />I'm not for or against any opinion or person.<br />Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience.<br />Just passing by, may god bless us all.<br />blue_watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461894726494803744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-25232229895188745742021-04-03T09:07:08.889-07:002021-04-03T09:07:08.889-07:00this is characteristic of the secretly fearful: wh...this is characteristic of the secretly fearful: why go into the substance when you can just fling ad hominems? <br /><br />certainly the van gogh marketing juggernaut depends on loyal consumers like these. Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06288025190937211574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-46975488077574656072021-04-02T23:40:41.035-07:002021-04-02T23:40:41.035-07:00Who ever wrote this or whoever thinks Van Gogh and...Who ever wrote this or whoever thinks Van Gogh and Picasso are overrated is a complete idiot who deep in their hearts wish they could have a great legacy that stands the test of time. Whenever any person reaches a point of major mainstream acclaim in any discipline there’s always that small group of jealous nobodies who want to knock them down a notch. “Often those that criticize others reveal what he himself lacks.”Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048539406468388830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-87104648097034973372020-12-05T08:06:07.520-08:002020-12-05T08:06:07.520-08:00"Lovely use of paint" sounds like a &quo..."Lovely use of paint" sounds like a "left handed compliment". Referring to it thus, belies a disdain for the honing of one's craft (my words) that your initial post seemed to reference. Dismissing the work of Bouguereau (perhaps I have misunderstood?) as such is like saying Hendrix made a lovely use of strings. As for the rest,it seems to me that this sort of over analysis is the very problem to which I spoke and speak; perhaps I misinterpreted your position. To the point: the European view of the "fine arts" has always been consumed with and driven by the cult of personality. Quite frankly, most of the "gods" of western art were simply accomplished craftsmen, (in the early days, one had to be very good at one's craft), who were lucky enough to know the right (read wealthy) people, be invited to the right parties, and make the right friends. Currently, facility with the materials and mastery of any process is completely beside the point. Just do something shocking, and get it noticed, and suddenly your are a De Kooning: producing absolute trash that a pseudo-intellectual crowd validates. Anyone not with the program of considering the artist's angst, the times, the history, is deemed simply too dim to get it all. The history surrounding the artist's environment, her/his (although it is almost always his) history, familial background, are absolutely not essential for enjoying a work of art. The Western European perspective on the arts always assumes the artist is more important than the art created by the same. This is why Warhol is considered a great artist. What he did was silly. Spectacle. Not great art. A con. Van Gogh made some paintings that can be nice too look at, if you like that sort of thing. It is no deeper than that. There is no genius there, only the adulation of an establishment who decided long ago that he was one of the chosen. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-82390544260528697082020-11-14T12:02:04.232-08:002020-11-14T12:02:04.232-08:00i agree with many of your points, although i don&#...i agree with many of your points, although i don't believe art comes down to canonical skills. <br /><br />warhol, for example, was among the first artists to seize on modern image reproduction technology and advertising assumptions as an artistic medium in itself: that was his unique skill and something i find very important and interesting in his works. you can't judge that kind of thing as a form of drawing. <br /><br />i was brought back to this blog by your comment, and was disappointed to find only a single comment to my two "travelog" posts (above), which lay out pretty clearly both my way of looking at art and what i find valuable about it (and where bouguereau gets brief shade). the fact that my comments about van gogh have gotten outsized attention is just more proof of the point i was making that fame and merit are completely unrelated.<br /><br />bouguereau is a useful example. you say he had technical skill (and i certainly agree), and you merit the skill by how easily you might reproduce it yourself. skill, in this view, is what you or i can do that most people cannot. in that view, rolling your tongue is a skill. <br /><br />there is a charming passage on this subtext where james elkins describes the difficulty he and a student had to reproduce the peculiar prickly, pocky impasto of a late monet. to them, it was a cryptic achievement of maestro skill; for monet, it's just his fat hand shoving paint around. the man and the paint become inseparable; to imitate his painting you may as well try to fit into his pants.<br /><br />with bouguereau the problems are different from van gogh, and have to do with his gender attitudes, his bourgeois visual world, his market sensibility, and his fundamentally vapid way of treating subjects as props, genre roles or saccharine caricatures. he painted dutifully for a clearly defined, historically contingent coterie of art collectors -- and the market has moved on. i can't really put a merit on his paintings, because i don't understand their attraction. but yes, lovely use of paint. <br /><br />artists need the discipline to learn common skill, sure, but they also have a temperament that leads them to value some skills more than others, and to refuse the bridle on certain individual traits. the "skill portfolio" isn't a measure of merit or training only but also of individuality and cultural moment. much of what we can achieve in art by being individual isn't a skill, but just "how we are." we can surmise, from his paintings, that bouguereau was a very good boy and charming at dinner, but wholly a careerist in his craft. van gogh seems to me to be a man who believed art was about straining very hard to be what you are not; marketing posthumously has crowned his aspriations with success and from that judgment spins a whole mythology. <br /><br />but these are digressions. i leaned into an "art critique" of van gogh only to document the undeniable and huge disparity between the merit of the actual physical works and the outsized, overblown, meretricious and absurdly counterfactual marketing narrative and market valuation that has parasitically attached itself to the poor failed preacher who decided art too could be a holy mission. and, fact of human nature, people seem to love someone who is willing to climb up on a cross, especially when they make the cross themselves and can hammer in their own nails. <br /><br />my topic was how that spectating impulse can be turned to profit, how the profit becomes its own imperative and takes on institutional and cultural life of its own; and, once it has a life of its own, how far it is able to grow beyond the subject of its attention and distort, through airy artspeak and photoshopped reproductions, what is actually available to the eye. marketers call it fame, and fame has very little to do with merit because it can be manufactured -- and manufactured in order to obtain a profit.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06288025190937211574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-52793805731132951132020-11-05T14:18:17.397-08:002020-11-05T14:18:17.397-08:00I saw a post on twitter of a Van Gogh painting, wh...I saw a post on twitter of a Van Gogh painting, which prompted me to search the term: "am I the only one who does not like Van Gogh?"<br />I agree with the blogger's opinion. "Heroes" (some actually call them gods!) of the "fine art" world are chosen rather arbitrarily.They are almost always of European descent, long dead, and male. If one disagrees with the "god makers", she/he is often deemed primitive with respect to taste and education. Basically, the Emperor is not only naked, but is grossly obese, and smells rather badly.<br /><br /> I find it interesting that Bouguereau was brought up, mockingly by one respondent. Bouguereau was an incredibly skilled artist, and it shows in his work. If Van Gogh, or Matisse, or Diebenkorn for that matter, could have painted like him, perhaps they would have. I find it interesting that people who claim talent and skill either do not exist, are irrelevant, or both, are people who are do not produce work of any note. I have been making pictures with pencils, brushes and cameras for several decades. It is rather easy to spot the "art gods" that did not have basic drawing skills. Picasso is an exception to the rule; he was as good a draftsman as Dali, yet chose to do...what he did. I may or may not like cubism, but cannot deny his skill, as is evidenced by his blue period paintings, and even works done prior to said period. I cannot say the same about Van Gogh. Nor Diebenkorn. <br />I would be interested in seeing the work of the people who disparage Bouguereau... The idea that one "feels something" when viewing a Van Gogh, is a rather weak argument. Making art "whatever the artist says it is" conveniently absolves one of honing and perfecting one's craft, if one bothers to practice a craft at all. Yes, art is subjective, but what passes for art these days is simply material selected by a mutual back-patting society, and presented at such. <br />Duchamp, Warhol, and many others produced the artistic equivalent of bovine excrement, yet the makers of the revered and writer's of the books on art agree, whether sincerely or not, that what they did is significant. When I view a Bouguereau, I marvel at the execution, the sheer beauty of the work, and envy his facility with skin tones, realistic as well as idealized. When I see a Van Gogh, and I have seen quite a few in person, I marvel that his work is revered by the art world. Seems to me that many people are too afraid of being ridiculed by bucking the trend, as it were, and calling a spade a spade. Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-68246572729912348822020-06-21T20:19:55.278-07:002020-06-21T20:19:55.278-07:00van gogh paintings are just plain ugly,van gogh paintings are just plain ugly,joyce a coleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-40161608097797812142020-05-21T05:15:36.813-07:002020-05-21T05:15:36.813-07:00The equivalent of todays period dot on a white can...The equivalent of todays period dot on a white canvas. ImoE.W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15098168993738262006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-73664783209784283172020-04-08T14:52:19.362-07:002020-04-08T14:52:19.362-07:00I have to say - I LOVE your refreshing take on my ...I have to say - I LOVE your refreshing take on my ancestor's work. THANK YOU a million million times for sharing your work. I am so very grateful and I know your work will become the primer for every watercolourist to come! (You and Cennini!)<br />Kathy van Goghvan Gogh Fossil Paint Collectionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037879773686984409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-25930361130826632882020-02-24T01:25:08.280-08:002020-02-24T01:25:08.280-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter Selginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04591449381318313508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-50880564488300612422020-02-23T19:39:30.956-08:002020-02-23T19:39:30.956-08:00I agree, no wonder at the time he only sold 1 pain...I agree, no wonder at the time he only sold 1 painting. In his time he was considered mediocre at best. Speculating at his state of mind, maybe his depression roots from his realization of his mediocre talents. Now he is considered great because he is dead and art is like any other commodity cost depends on supply. All this said art is in the eye of the beholder. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-73452663244978387582020-02-07T11:25:55.102-08:002020-02-07T11:25:55.102-08:00Hi
Although I know that technical-wise, Vincent va...Hi<br />Although I know that technical-wise, Vincent van Gogh wasn't the best painter, what I love seeing is the effort and patience he put into learning how to become at least better at it. Besides, the movements in his works, that are created by the maybe sometimes "hasty-looking" brushes in different directions, have always intrigued me. <br />However, I do understand your disappointment about the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. Being an admirer of Van Gogh's paintings, I was actually quite disappointment about the museum when I visited it last year. <br />For a look at some of his better paintings I would recommend going to the Kröller-Müller Museum at the Hoge Veluwe (about 1 hour from Amsterdam, in the middle of a beautiful national park where you can grab any bike and cycle and maybe even spot some deers). Their collection is, in my opinion, much better (even though it is a bit smaller). Some works I loved were the Olive Yard and Cipresses by night. <br />I hope you give it another chance!Astridhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03204620878759539009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-47512272139123731552019-11-20T21:05:57.065-08:002019-11-20T21:05:57.065-08:00I still question your definition of "draftsma...I still question your definition of "draftsmanship." How is Van Gogh a "superb draftsman" when I see total disregard in proportion, alignments and perspective in his drawings? And you are quick to call Alma-Tadema's work "kitsch" while defending Van Gogh's obvious lack of draftsmanship by saying his drawings were "innovative," and "revolutionary" as if being a good painter/draftsman is about being "innovative" or "revolutionary?" We are not talking about latest cell phone technology or politics here, are we?<br /><br />Draftsmanship, with regards to art, to me, is an acquired skill like any other. But it does take years of practice and patience to develop. When I see Van Gogh's drawing or painting, I just don't see any mastery in draftsmanship at all.<br /><br />Now if you are talking about what kind of emotion you feel when YOU see Van Gogh's drawing or paintings, then that's a different matter. After all, I doubt two people will react to a stick figure the same exact way. So if you feel that his drawings or paintings are that "superb," and Alma-Tadema's work is "kitsch," OK fine. But I hope it's not because you see decent perspectives or proportions in Van Gogh's work.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508240629699064310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-656098098952907502019-11-20T14:45:45.625-08:002019-11-20T14:45:45.625-08:00I replied earlier but am not sure it went through....I replied earlier but am not sure it went through. I suppose if you're able to dismiss van Gogh's paintings as less-than-superb then it's possible—if not reasonable—to do likewise regarding his draftsmanship, but they can't be reasonable dismissed independent of each other, since drawing or draftsmanship is the foundation of painting; one can't exist without the other. IF van Gogh was a great painter, he was a great draftsman, too. If he was an inferior draftsman, then he must have been an inferior painter. But based on the example you give of Alma-Tadema, that your notion of great draftsmanship—and perhaps of great art generally—is strictly classical (some would say reactionary); and that an artists' ability to render realistically is the point. To that all I can say is that as someone who studied art has made much of his professional living as an illustrator and painter (you can see my work online: look up "Selgin" and "paintings" or go to Flickr or my website), I know something about good drawing. No, van Gogh couldn't draw like Alma-Tadema; but could Alma-Tadema draw like van Gogh? And of the two whose work — whose drawing — was more innovative? Art historians don't always get it right, but in the case of van Gogh one doesn't even need the historians to see what an impact his work has had and how original it was or how fresh it remains to this day—whereas today Alma-Tadema's work is pure kitsch. Maybe you think van Gogh's style of drawing is relatively crude. I would say that it is bold. Look at his reed-pen drawings, at the landscapes in particular, and then name one artist who could better with pen and ink on paper (Rembrandt, maybe). I'll tell you this: I, who am not a bad draftsman myself if I may say so, WISH I were one-tenth as good as van Gogh. If I were to trade my technical skills for anyone else's, I would choose his.Peter Selginhttp://peterselgin.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-86574598530454728782019-11-20T11:38:30.462-08:002019-11-20T11:38:30.462-08:00Based on your example of Alma-Tadema, you equate g...Based on your example of Alma-Tadema, you equate good draftsmanship with the ability to render classical subject matter in a realistic style. This van Gogh didn't do, nor did he paint "classically." On the same basis would you say he's not a superb painter? I'm guessing that you wouldn't, since it would make you seem very foolish. Well, the same logic applies to his drawings, which as any artist will tell you—and as van Gogh himself learned early on—drawing or draftsmanship is the foundation of good painting; one cannot possibly be as great a painter as van Gogh and NOT be a superb draftsman. <br /><br />But even putting the paintings aside, if I'd never seen a single one of van Gogh's masterpieces and only had his drawings to go by, still I would know at a glance that he was a superb draftsman. I would know because, having drawn my whole life (for many years I made my living as an illustrator; my work appeared, among other places, in The New Yorker, Forbes, Gourmet, The Wall Street Journal, etc., and being a good draftsman myself (I'll let you judge for yourself the vaildiity of this claim: (https://www.flickr.com/photos/46362485@N02/albums/72157711402732408), I can say without hesitation that his drawings are masterful. Have a look at some of van Gogh's reed-pen landscapes, then show me an artist who has done as well or better in that milieu (Rembrandt comes closest, but even Rembrandt is not "better"; on this Picasso and I both agree). <br /><br />Is my judgment a matter of opinion? Sure, but there are informed and uninformed opinions.Peter Selginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04591449381318313508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-37442279465833483592019-11-20T08:16:15.187-08:002019-11-20T08:16:15.187-08:00Supreme draftsman? Van Gogh? You cannot be serio...Supreme draftsman? Van Gogh? You cannot be serious. Everything else you said about him we can say “it’s a matter of opinion”. But to claim Van Gogh to be a “supreme draftsman,” makes me wonder if you know the definition of draftsmanship. Take the worst painting of Alma-Tadema and take the best of Van Gogh painting you think showcases "draftsmanship." Then, compare which one gets the proper perspective.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508240629699064310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-53772360884317318992019-11-16T06:30:11.722-08:002019-11-16T06:30:11.722-08:00Contrarian opinions like this are bound to provoke...Contrarian opinions like this are bound to provoke and win approval for their novelty. But oh how wrong you are on every point. You ask for evidence, and yet what better evidence can there be than the work itself? Leave alone the fact that —with the help of the impressionists and pointillism—he invented a whole new approach to painting, Van Gogh was a supreme draftsman and an exceptional colorist. How to "prove" such things to someone who can't see them? I don't know that I can, anymore than I can "prove" to you that a meal prepared by a master chef tastes good in your mouth. However I can say, as someone who has practiced visual art his whole life, who has made a good part of his living as an illustrator, graphic designer and painter (among illustration clients: The New Yorker and other magazined), that the man REALLY knew how to draw. The calligraphic reed drawings that you so blithely dismiss as lazy and haphazards are in fact impressive for the very reasons for which you dismiss them: for the variety of textures and colors that van Gogh achieves with his language of dots, dashes, etc.. Indeed, despite being monochromatic, his ink drawings are almost as colorful as his paintings (compare the ink drawing of the fishing boats on the beach with its painted equivalent). That van Gogh's myth obscures his true values as an artist is undoubtedly true; but that isn't his fault, and nor does it by any means diminish his technical virtuosity and originality. In fact the opposite of what you say is true: if anything the unappreciated mad-genius "myth" obscures van Gogh's real achievement as a technically superb, revolutionary artist who worked extremely hard and was as passionate, serious, and devoted as any artist has ever been or will ever be. And the results show it. But again, if you can't or are unwilling to see it, no one can make you do so. But then that's your loss.Peter Selginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04591449381318313508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-75318254437632076392019-06-25T07:53:48.497-07:002019-06-25T07:53:48.497-07:00No hes right Van Gag was an amature and is over ra...No hes right Van Gag was an amature and is over rated. He paints like a 5 year old. His art sucks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317514709888617957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-67868538894055602202019-04-27T08:05:07.614-07:002019-04-27T08:05:07.614-07:00Most of it is pure nonsense. Hype about nothing, m...Most of it is pure nonsense. Hype about nothing, mostly made famous by people with far too much money to waste or people who are afraid to go against the grain. I've seen better art on public toilet walls. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4774942679475342472.post-36288677883857344272019-04-04T12:10:58.055-07:002019-04-04T12:10:58.055-07:00Hurray!!! I thought I was going mad. I've just...Hurray!!! I thought I was going mad. I've just spent 8 hours in art museums in Amsterdam and seen loads of amazing art, lots of mediocre art and not a small amount of rubbish art. I don't get Van Gogh. The best of his work is mediocre (most is rubbish) compared to the amazing art I saw. I totally agree that crowds make the fame. In the Rijksmuseum everyone was hustling to see the same paintings as everyone else. The best Rembrandts I saw were the tiny little sketchings that everyone walked straight past...antonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407611168305573273noreply@blogger.com