Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspective on Van Gogh's art is itself interesting, so this is a great read, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions.
Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspective on Van Gogh's art is itself interesting, so this is a great read, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions.
I wonder if any other famous artists saw their work differently than the rest of us?
Ludwig van Beethoven's hearing started to deteriorate early on and eventually he became completely deaf though he continued to compose.
Of course there has to be a substantial difference between losing a sense or never to have had it but we don't know whether Van Gogh's altered vision was there from birth or the alteration happened later in his life.
I agree with both of you, most of the pictures lose a lot of character and uniqueness in the "corrected" versions; though one or two of them gain an incredibly realistic feeling of ambiance.
Better or not? Shouldn't even be the question - but it is an interesting theory and result!
Along those lines, John Eliot Gardiner conducted Beethoven's 9 Symphonies with Beethoven's metronome markings and with instruments that would have been used at that time period. It's a very different sound that I'm a huge fan of, though I think it wasn't particularly embraced by traditionalists.
If you have problems with this word then it may help to think of it as De[finite]ly - and tie that in your mind to "finite" meaning "measurable".
(Sorry to be a spelling nazi but the use of the 'a' in defiantly indicates this is not a typo.)