Van Gogh's sunflowers are wilting as yellow paint fades to brown

It was awesome! I looked a bit into it and it looks like there are thousands of people just like him where he is: the dafen village in shenzhen. It looks like you can buy these reproductions directly on aliexpress but also order paintings based on pictures of yourself (although I couldn’t find where and the examples I looked at seemed to indicate that you should stick to a reproduction).

"I've painted Van Gogh for 20 years but all my work together isn't worth one piece in the museum."

It's sad that he discovers that he just copies but never created something his own. I hope for him that he will some day.

Great documentary!

Did he say his work was real or a copy? If defrauding then I can't be sympathetic.

This is so key to discussions about an "accurate" restoration of a piece of art. Just look at the restorations done of classic films. There's so much argument, in many of these cases, about whether or not the restoration is true to the artist's original vision but, even in the case where the original artist is involved in the restoration, there continues to be argument over whether that artist's own vision changed. I mean, just look at George Lucas and the restorations/updates of the Star Wars franchise. Fans are now clamoring to "properly" restore these films to their original versions while others claim that George Lucas's updates are the proper ones because he's the original artist. The idea that technology has allowed him to create what he "originally wanted" instead of what he had to release is a really interesting argument.

And then you have the case of monkey Jesus where an attempt was made to restore a piece of art that, arguably, either made it better or worse depending on what your view of the original piece is. I find it hilarious but a lot of people have suggested that the original piece wouldn't have been viewed by as many people or gained such popularity if it wasn't for that terrible restoration job.

/shrug

And there have been entire art movements based on ignorance of the artists' intentions, like the stately white statues of neoclassicism, in imitation of statues that were originally painted.

Art restoration is art too, as is film restoration. You just have to hope that the people making the choices are good enough artists to keep the spirit of the original work, and give you something closer to what the artist intended.

  the restorers' choices would likely have been in conflict with the artist's original intention

Like this, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Martínez_and_Giméne...

Along those lines, let's not forget the well-intentioned disaster that is "monkey jesus" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28Mart%C3%ADnez_and...

I you restore a work over and over is it the same work of art? A serious philosophical question goes: if you replace the planks of wood on a boat until eventually all the wood is replaced, is it the same boat?

Pigment durability was reasonably well understood. Oil paints are much more lightfast than watercolors, because the oil medium offers some protection from UV. Varnishes added another layer of protection. When applied as watercolor or gouache, many pigments will visibly fade in a matter of days if exposed to direct sunlight. Lightfastness was a major motivation for pigment research, especially in exterior applications like signwriting.

Even today, many artists pay little attention to the lightfastness of pigments, despite most manufacturers providing extensive information on lightfastness. The great watercolorist J.M.W. Turner was notorious for using pigments that were known to have poor lightfastness; many of his watercolors were severely faded within his lifetime. The relative lightfastness of oil paints may have lulled some artists into a false sense of security.

The latter half of the 19th century saw a huge increase in the number of available pigments due to advances in synthetic chemistry. Cadmium yellow was starting to replace the less durable chromium yellow, but it remained relatively expensive and was used infrequently by an artist as impoverished as Van Gogh. The chemistry of these new pigments was not fully understood, so some lightfast pigments used at that time have degraded due to chemical reactions with additives and impurities in the oil paint medium or varnish.

Lead-based pigments are really stunning—shame about the toxicity. Lead(II) iodide is another lovely yellow, albeit less stable than the chromate. I had a chemistry teacher in high school who used to work on paints and inks—he showed us several demonstrations of making beautiful and highly toxic pigments.

If he was color blind, why would his painting be far more vibrant than his reference points: what he saw in nature? No matter if he was or not, his paintings are more saturated in color than his reference points because that was what he wanted them to be.