Vincent Van Gogh: Hidden self-portrait discovered by X-ray
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Some of Van Gogh's paintings are so thick, that underneath an outer layer of dried paint, there's still liquid paint trapped underneath, which may not dry for another hundred years.
But yeah, he was known for re-using canvases, as were many impressionist and post-impressionist school painters.
The guy is the GOAT and while he was alive… many… many… other artists also saw him that way. His contemporaries absolutely adored him, and even tried to emulate him. His work was known to be important during his life to even the most financially successful of painters.
I suppose if you limit the concept of “success” to how much money one earns in their life, then fine Van Gogh was not very financially successful, but he was monumentally successful and recognized as such during his life by the only real measure that matters: Impact.
This is why as a journalist or a writer, it is important to confirm “what you know” before committing it to a piece. If you don’t verify everything you risk perpetuating myths instead of realities.
Edit: It occurs to me that also implicit in this popular definition of "successful artist" is that the majority of other well known artists were financially successful via their art, but I don't know if that's even true!
Edit: The parent was edited after I made this comment to be more explicit about financial success vs reputational success.
His brothers wife (his brother died from syphilis shortly after him) ended up with all his work and believed in it too. She was able to impress other with it and held a large show featuring his work a few years after his death and this is how he came into prominence.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is a reasonably famous and financially successful modern impressionist painter about the market selling his oil paintings. It’s more than just the right contacts, the entire thing sounds more awful than used car sales, honestly. Lots of game playing, politics, back stabbing, and scamming. Just asking him what I figured would be a straightforward question of what kind of percentage commission galleries charge led to about on hour long conversation that I could barely follow.
The short version seemed to be that if you’re naive or trusting, you’re screwed.
He was nearly completely unknown in his own country until after his death.
> This is why as a journalist or a writer, it is important to confirm “what you know” before committing it to a piece. If you don’t verify everything you risk perpetuating myths instead of realities.
I hazard to suggest the parent has not so much as read a biography of Van Gogh before posting such authoritative-sounding misinformation that is then silently edited to align with comments.
See:
https://artenet.it/en/removal-of-overpaint/
When the chemical properties of overpaint and underlayer are close this can get extremely hairy, removal speeds of a few square centimeters per day are not unheard of, you need to patience of a monk for this sort of thing.
In addition to Xray there is hyperspectral imaging and fluorescent imaging. Hyperspectral photographs at many different optical colors and extra-optical light. That revealed some techniques of creating the Mona Lisa.
Also part of the problem is that art is fragile and showing say: a painting can degrade it, as light breaks up pigment. Even in storage, certainly paints/mediums change their physical characteristics. Many "hidden" paintings reveal themselves underneath the oils that make up the final painting as the medium becomes more transparent.
Maybe it should be more clear to the public if the idea that art isn't so much given to museums, rather that artwork is used as a speculative investment by a private party until such a time it makes financial sense to transfer it to a museum. There is also the fact that if one is powerful/influential, you can influence the value of the artwork just by owning it and keeping it out of circulation. The whole private buying and selling of the artwork from gallery owners to auction houses works to raise the value of the artwork through hype, really.
It can be a hell of a grift.
van Gogh wasn't very good at playing that game, even when his brother was an art dealer - that's such a leg up and he blew that advantage. van Gogh isn't known to be all that easy to work with. Attempted murder doesn't help with this. We know him know since we celebrate his mental illness.
Museums acquire work through purchase and donation, the ratio varies among museums and divisions within a museum. Several years ago a collector donated several thousand pieces to the major museum in my region. Fortunately a few of my pieces were included and are now part of the museum's "permanent collection".
Obviously museums prefer donations but only if the museum gets the kind of work they're seeking. It's a lot like academia, very competitive among curators to have the "right" high-valued work in the museum's possession.
And it's true that an artist's success is largely a marketing game. Artists who are good self-promoters will do the best. Those who aren't typically remain obscure. Of course success doesn't necessarily indicate artistic merit. That's often not decided until much later, like 50 or 100 years down the road.
Conservation of work is a complex subject. Oil-based paint was the only real option from the 1400's until ~1960. Oil paint dries by polymerization of fatty acids, problem is it doesn't know when to quit.[0] A paint film continues to harden, eventually the film integrity fails and the paint flakes off the substrate (canvas, etc.). Oil paintings are very likely to require restoration after 100 years if not sooner.
Worth noting: unlike works on paper, oil paintings are less affected by light exposure. That's why museums often display paintings in brighter areas (200 lux) vs. drawings, prints, photos being exhibited in dimly lit galleries (50 lux).
Interestingly many great artists were lousy technicians. Da Vinci is said to have experimented with various additives to paint which affected stability. Fascinating subjects indeed, and certainly contribute to keeping conservators employed.
[0] https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acryli...
What is the difference between art and products when money becomes the sole focus of creating art?
Should an artist just be creating art for the buyers?
Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. The School of Athens was commissioned by Pope Julius II. You'll find that a massive number of famous art pieces were commissioned, and I don't think you'll find any serious people who think less of them because of it.
Art and the freedom of art have often been used to critise society.
Now if art becomes a product, where is the critical function of art? Critical art is part of healthy and diverse society, without we're one step closer to an orwellian utopia.
You're tapping into a single category of art -- art that is critical of society -- as if that's the only purpose of art.
The purpose of and the person who commissioned the piece of art is just part of the context and history of the piece. It says nothing of its impact and importance.
My main point is that the commoditization of art should not be detrimental to its critical purposes.
Artists should not be forced to create art that makes money happy.
Someone valuing art doesn't have to change the meaning or devalue the artistic merits of the art. Conversely, not allowing art to be private/bought doesn't increase the meaning or artistic merits of the art.
> What is the difference between art and products when money becomes the sole focus of creating art?
This doesn't have to happen. Artists often have works of love, and works of survival. And, is art still valid if it has more meaning, unintentionally or not, to the buyer than the artist? In the end, it's all personal interpretation. I think there's also value in an artist commissioning work, being able to help someone achieve what they can't by themselves.
In the end, artists need to eat, and, I believe, live a life that could fit some reasonable definition of "comfortable". If you remove the monetary aspect, doesn't this require that the state/society sponsor artists, almost certainly without merit or qualification, since anyone can produce meaningful art? If anyone can be an artists, at any time, wouldn't this have to extend to the whole population?
I think this is an interesting idea, but I think it would require a monumental shift in society, with either an "artist class" of citizens, who were treated better than the general public, something like UBI, to guarantee everyone can make their art for free, and most definitely tyranny, to remove the freedom from the artists, in doing what they wish with their art.
Every member of a society should have the right and freedom to intellectually critise that society. So an artist class might just be as successful as an journalist class (that we already have since journalists do enjoy certain rights that other classes don't).
What is important, IMHO, is that we don't lose sight of the fact that art also has a critical role to play in society.