I used to "not get" why Van Gogh is considered to be so special. After reading his biography and his letters, I am now in the know.
Van Gogh is an interesting case. He was very familiar with the art world, even before he started drawing and painting. He worked as an art dealer and traveled a lot when he was young.
Where it gets interesting is when he sets out to become an artist himself. Over the course of only ten years he produced a staggering 900 paintings. (I typically spend a few months on only one drawing. And most of those don't even have color.)
It's not that I now like his work, but I sure have learned to appreciate the man and his mission. Looking at the progression in his work and reading his letters gives a wonderful insight in the mind of a very sensitive person.
To me it wasn't until I saw his painting in person at the Van Gogh museum. I had never seen painting with just so much physical, 3D realism to them (the paint projects off the canvas some 5-10mm in places). I've never seen anything quite like it from that era.
Some others that I've gained appreciation for over time: Rembrandt (seeing the Night Watch in person, alone, was amazing), Vermeer (he was barely known until fairly recently), Suerat (didn't quite appreciate pontillism until I read more about color theory).
Seeing them in person makes an enormous difference. And the Van Gogh museum is spectacular. I already liked his work, but I felt like I understood it much more, including how tactile his process was.
A particular piece that really blew my mind to see in person was Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" at the Prado in Madrid. It left a lifelong impression (I've returned to see it several times). What I realized was, panning all over a high res digital version, you never get the sense of the whole or the theatrical scale of the thing. It's like watching a movie on your phone versus at an IMAX.
I had the same experience with the Garden of Earthly Delights: it leaves a lasting impression. It's so incredibly weird; parts of it look like a seventies comic (or perhaps older sci-fi book cover art) instead of a half a millennium old painting.
If I may give a recommendation :-) Another painting that left a lasting impression on me was "Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele", located in Bruge, in Belgium. It doesn't have the weirdness of the Bosch painting, but it's just so incredibly detailed, and unlike the more famous Lamb of God, you can come to within 5cm of it.
I stood in front of The Starry Night at MOMO in New York City for a long time, trying to imagine what it felt like for him to stand in front of a blank canvas, thinking what should I do today, and come up with that.
One thing that most people don't realize is that the "in person" experience of these paintings is dramatically different to seeing a picture in a book or on a screen.
This got driven home when we visited the Musée d'Orsay in Paris.
All the pictures are quite good. But if you put a bunch of different artists works together in a room, even as a rank amateur some of the paintings just immediately jump out at you. It's quite staggering just how much they jump out--and those are almost always done by one of the masters.
Another thing that people don't realize is that paintings have a third dimension--and that a lot of the masters used it. Again--the in-person experience mattrers.
Last month, my wife and I visited the Musée d'Orsay (as visiting American tourists). As it happens, we were in line when the museum opened and I had the bright idea to go straight to the top floor...partly because I was interested to see the van Gogh room, and partly because the large body of people entering the museum were still milling around on the first couple of floors.
And so it was that, as we wandered the relatively empty top floor, I walked through the entryway to the van Gogh exhibit room, looked left...and I just stopped, absolutely stunned as I looked upon Starry Night Over the Rhône. It completely took my breath away. I've never had that reaction (or much of any reaction) to a work of art before. My wife ended up wandering a different direction, and I had the pleasure of taking her back into the van Gogh room and watching her have the same reaction.
So, yeah...definitely nothing like looking at it on a screen or in a book.
The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam tells you everything you need to know about the person and his craft. It’s carries his name because it’s a whole museum building filled with his work. Literally 1000 drawings and paintings. And it’s definitely a must see in person and no matter how many times I’ve been, every visit to Amsterdam is accompanied by a visit to the Van Gogh museum.
I think this is true of most things "in person", what's surprising is what you point out: exactly what ones will jump out at you. I was totally unprepared when I turned the corner in St Peter's and be confronted with the Pietà right in front of me. No joke, I was literally in tears.
Or Laocoon And His Sons- just sort of sitting in a corner of a courtyard. A 2,000 statue carved by human hands... almost as beautiful as the day it was made (it received some damage).
I don’t seek out particular exhibits when visiting museums. I more so feel in the mood for it and just go for whatever’s on display. Any time an art museum I visit has a Van Gogh it catches me off guard. There’s a room full of different artists but his will jump out every time. They’re stunning.
>Over the course of only ten years he produced a staggering 900 paintings. (I typically spend a few months on only one drawing. And most of those don't even have color.)
Prolificness is the underappreciated aspect of genius. Most talented artists can produce a few great works in their lifetime, with total dedication to the craft and endless toil. Geniuses are the ones who pump those out effortlessly, and once they get bored with that, the masterpieces start to come.
I agree. The man's work was impressive. What many see as his signature style was not a quirk or a limit to his talent, but the result of his talent and his drive. He had got proficient in painting in multiple styles and had been intentionally developing a style to be his own.
> I used to "not get" why Van Gogh is considered to be so special. After reading his biography and his letters, I am now in the know.
Funny thing is this was the reality of his lived experience as well. He sold three (though there is some debate it was four) paintings in his life. The majority of them to his brother, and the rest by his brother.
He died a relative unknown leaving all of his paintings to his brother.
When his brother's wife read their correspondence she recognized what you did, and decided to publish them.
Upon publishing the letters Vincent's work became respected and in demand.
Van Gogh is an interesting case. He was very familiar with the art world, even before he started drawing and painting. He worked as an art dealer and traveled a lot when he was young.
Where it gets interesting is when he sets out to become an artist himself. Over the course of only ten years he produced a staggering 900 paintings. (I typically spend a few months on only one drawing. And most of those don't even have color.)
It's not that I now like his work, but I sure have learned to appreciate the man and his mission. Looking at the progression in his work and reading his letters gives a wonderful insight in the mind of a very sensitive person.