Talk:Vincent van Gogh

New Yorker piece

Interesting piece in the January 4 New Yorker [1] by Adam Gopnik, on the cutting-off of the ear as a turning point in modern art. JNW (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find, we should work it into the legacy section...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More ink has been spilled than blood: in the December 29 NYTimes there's a piece about van Gogh scholar Martin Bailey concluding that the artist cut his ear upon learning that Theo was getting married. One small self-mutilation, so many theories. JNW (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that takes Gauguin and his rapier off the hook...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you artsy guys going to do this, or are you going to leave it to the unschooled like me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

The lady who died in 1997 and met VG when she was a child.[2] Refs can be found at Jeanne_Calment#Recognition. Seems like something that should have a presence in some form in the article. Ty 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"15 francs month" correction

Current: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs month

Corrected: On 1 May, he signed a lease for 15 francs a month

Jvhays (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

the ear again

I've found an interesting article, dealing with the question if it was the whole ear or just a lobe of it, which was cut off. "Dr. Rita Wildegans. The Corpus Delicti Is a Corpuscle". [3] 188.192.54.120 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

I have noticed that the article has two conventions for dating VvGs works. Which is correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good observation Tony, either way is correct - however I have placed brackets on all the dates of his paintings for consistency...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. but now sometimes you have a comma before the date, sometimes after and sometimes both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jzjohnson, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to point out that the painting "The Bedroom in Arles" is located in The Art Institute of Chicago, the painting "The Bathroom in Arles" is in the Van Gogh Museum.

Jzjohnson (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As explained in Bedroom in Arles, there are three versions, of which the pictured one is in the place claimed. Algebraist 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Uniltìranyu (Uniltìranyu) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (AEST) When he gave the Ear lobe to the Prostitute, she fainted.

Main image

Former main image

Current main image

I prefer the former main image. Am I alone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why my edit summary included "feel free to rv if the other painting is preferred". So revert. APK whisper in my ear 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to complicate this, but I like the current image--I think it's the better painting. But honestly, you can't go wrong with either one. JNW (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Change is good, when its good - I think the new picture is fine...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know art, but to me the former seems to be more clear in terms of showing the reader what he looked like. Which of these is more well-known in the art community?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They are both well known. The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. and the Chicago Art Institute are both important and well attended institutions...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the former main image be completely removed from the article or should it be moved elsewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets try to keep it in, maybe a section on self portraits...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like them both! I think maybe the current one has more of the yellows and blues that are associated with his more popular works? 81.103.196.19 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I like them both too. We should just swap ever other month. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As he did so many, I think we should have a new one on the first of each month. My proposal for July: File:SelbstPortrait VG2.jpg. Or maybe one he had painted in the relevant month... Ty 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support your proposal for July as it stands, warming now to a revolving lead. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree the changes are welcome. The imagery in the self portrait section can also rotate with the lead from time to time...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal preference aside I would say go with the current image. It seems most true to his typical style and will be more identifiable for viewers who are not completely familiar with his art.--GothExpression 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothExpression (talk • contribs)

I like the rotation idea, but shouldn't the opening -infobox- image at least be "identifiable" (as the previous user also stated) and typical for Van Gogh's image known throughout the world? Joost 99 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so far this is my least favorite, I'll change it in a day or two...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronuciation

Can someone find/make a definitive guide to the pronunciation of "Gogh"? I'm an American and always heard it said as "Go". Recently, Vincent featured in an episode of Doctor Who where they consistently pronounced it "Goff". Which (if either) is the proper Dutch way to say his name? --174.70.117.125 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 1 gives quite a lot of detail on different pronunciations. Algebraist 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary

A user (Modernist) has reverted my edit.

The whole summary in the preferred version is repetitive. It describes van Gogh as underappreciated/unknown and an influence on twentieth century/moderna art in three places, my version makes the former assertion twice - I should have gone further. The summary also contains peacock and weasal terms which editors are supposed to avoid, for example: "Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters"; the peer of Titian, Rembrandt or Picasso? Not quite I would suggest.

The sentence closing the second paragraph is problematic: "Today many of his pieces ... are among the world's most recognizable and expensive works of art." The point about recognition may well be true, if we restrict it to the sunflowers series, but who says so? The current version is an exaggeration. "Expensive"? The few which remain in private hands sell for very high prices when they they are auctioned, but prices of impressionist and post-impressionist art have only risen dramatically, to be the most "expensive" works of art, in the last thirty years or so. A substantial portion, those long in the collection of van Gogh's nephew for example, have never passed through the art market. Many entered public collections before the war. The summary is thus imprecise, claiming more than can be sustained or misleading.

My version of the second paragraph cuts out anything superfluous to an outline of the qualities the artworks possess. Philip Cross (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

response

Uh, I disagree profoundly with this user - Philip Cross and his assertions. Common sense, almost every museum and history book refute the nonsense I am reading above in this thread. Vincent van Gogh is simply one of the five most revered artists of the last 200 years. His career was short, profound, and as described in the lead relatively unknown in his lifetime. His story has become a major modern myth. Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters"; the peer of Titian, Rembrandt or Picasso? - I see absolutely no problem with that comment. Editor Philip Cross asserts - Not quite I would suggest, and I reject that comment, yeah - Philip Cross - Van Gogh is regarded as one of history's greatest painters, are you kidding me?

While I do not reject the idea of improving the introduction - I see none in the Philip Cross proposal...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• In terms of popularity -

Wikipedia facts

In June 2010:

• El Greco - 17,861 hits
• Titian - 21,406 hits
• Paul Cézanne - 29,621 hits
• Henri Matisse - 43,633 hits
• Raphael - 46,607 hits
• Rembrandt - 47,852 hits
• Jackson Pollock - 54,574 hits
• Claude Monet - 69,519 hits
• Michelangelo - 114,712 hits
• Andy Warhol - 149,632 hits
• Pablo Picasso - 165,881 hits
• Vincent van Gogh - 205,264 hits
• Leonardo Da Vinci - 236, 101 hits

suggested remedies

I see contention on several specific facts in the lead. We should consider each as a separate fact for inclusion with the requirement that each has a fully cited expanded explanation in the main text. The following are contentious facts for consideration and in need of fully cited explanation in the main body:

• his fame grew in the years after his death - done - see legacy, I added one more reliable source..,

• Firstly we have this article: Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh which discusses this question at length. As did world renowned art historian John Rewald in The posthumous fate of Vincent van Gogh 1890-1970, (first published in Museumjournaal, August-September 1970), and reprinted in John Rewald Studies in Post-Impressionism, p. 248, published by Abrams 1986, ISBN 0-8109-1632-0. Aside from the enormous interest in Post-Impressionism in the early 20th century, exemplified by Matisse, Picasso and German Expressionism, Lust for Life and the Letters to Theo (that were published first in German and then in several languages) ignited enormous public interest in his work that grew stronger and stronger. The Hollywood movie with Kirk Douglass and Anthony Quinn pretty much made him a household name, but the paintings simply strike a basic chord in people...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters - The 10 greatest painters of all time - [4], and the 10 most expensive paintings [5]

• I think the auctions confirm that...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• he is an important contributor to the foundations of modern art - done many times over - see legacy and influence sections

• His paintings are among the foundations of Expressionism...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• his work was a strong influence on the Modernist art that followed - done added another RS in the influence section, - added reliable sourced reference and how about this book? - The Genesis of Modernism: Seurat, Gauguin, Van Gogh, and French Symbolism in the 1880s by Sven Loevgren. (I used a newspaper article from 2007)

• As above - His paintings are among the important foundations of Expressionism - which is one of the most important modernist movements, his understanding of the psychology of color had an impact on several movements in abstraction of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Today many of his pieces. . .are among the world's most recognizable and expensive works of art - How's this? - [6], Carol Vogel, New York Times...

I consider each bulletpointed claim a constestable point. If it is not explained in the text with adequate citations it should be removed. Otherwise removal is dubious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I agree each point should be backed up with referenced text, back to the books...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are arguing rather than trying to construct the encyclopedic facts with respect to WP:RS and WP:ATT. I am really concerned about ATT with respect to each of the fact. Please see that they are reffed in the article or remove them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, please read the post immediately preceding yours: "I agree each point should be backed up with referenced text, back to the books...". Ty 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess not to have anything at hand, but I don't think any of this is problematic. Van Gogh is one of the very few artists for whom these claims are justifiable--his status is iconic--and my guess is that it won't be too difficult to find sources. If there's repetition in the paragraph, that can be cleaned up. JNW (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would be surprised if this material wasn't in the article, as it reflects wide opinion. A quick search of Google Books, for example, turns up several good sources for Van Gogh as one of the greatest painters. Ty 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a Google search in reference to his paintings' prices: [7], and his influence on 20th century art is not even in doubt. Of course all this is strengthened with sources, but these are not controversial claims. JNW (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing I'm just stating the facts here on the talk page. Only reliable sources will be added to the article, as they have been consistently added all along...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Using RS will end debate. Whether Modernist or Cross is right citing sources is what WP is about. Say things in the lead that you can back up in the text with RSs and there will be no debate. That is all I am saying. The debate is about specific facts regarding Van Gogh's excellence. Just cite your points and all will be fine. I am not standing behind anything in the LEAD that is not reffed in the body regardless of whether I believe it to be true. I am not going to stand behind removal of any of the contentious points above if they can be reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion all of the points are referenced in the article by reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Van Gogh's ear

It seems that recent research has suggested that Van Gogh's ear was cut off by his friend Gauguin in a heated argument. While it's not yet definitive, I think someone should add some mention of it to the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/5274073/Van-Goghs-ear-was-cut-off-by-friend-Gauguin-with-a-sword.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/04/vincent-van-gogh-ear dilcoe

That issue has been discussed [8] and is unproven speculation by those authors; and does not accurately reflect what many others have written and said about the events of that night...Modernist (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Thanks!

dilcoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding Van Gogh's self-mutilated ear

Can someone just tell me how to fix the Vincent Van Gogh article? in the "Self Portraits" section it states twice that "All of the self-portraits Van Gogh executed in Saint-Rémy show the artist's head from the left, i.e. with the side opposite his mutilated ear, showing only his good side." This implies that he mutilated his right ear, but earlier in the article (in the "Arles" section) it states "In panic, Van Gogh left their quarters and fled to a local brothel. While there, he cut off the lower part of his left ear lobe." These two statements conflict... the self portrait section says his left was his good side, and the Arles section says it was the side with the mutilated ear.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buffalothunder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalothunder (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of Van Gogh's self portraits are depicting his face as it appeared in a mirror i.e. his left side in the image is in reality the right side of his face...Modernist (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it would be more precise to state that all of his self portraits give the mirror image.--RPD (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, appreciated...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, since "...show the artist's head from the left, i.e. with the side opposite his mutilated ear, showing only his good side" is incorrect, why didn't you fix it? --Espoo (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hoegi7, 26 August 2010

The location of the painting "Sunflowers" is not Munich. It's in the National Gallery of London. Please view the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gallery.

with best regards

hoegi7

Hoegi7 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. Actually they are related but two different paintings of Sunflowers...Modernist (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Sunflowers, third version: blue green background
  Oil on canvas, 91 × 72 cm
  Neue Pinakothek, Munich, Germany
• 
  Sunflowers, fourth version: yellow background
  Oil on canvas, 92.1 × 73 cm
  National Gallery, London, England

Vincent van Gogh Article links issues

I'm planning on fixing most links that are either broken or doing redirects, with such 301 / 302 / 404 http Status. I've already started by changing the webexhibits.org letters that used to redirect to www.webexhibits.org (31 Links in Total)

If you have any question regarding my modifications, please let me know over here.

Cheers. (EllenHodges (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Need some help, evidently

I've tried to alter the header of "Vincent van Gogh", i.e. I've tried to substitute the image in the header, and hoped to supply additional commentary with the altered title & tops. But evidently I did not succeed, so I have to ask for assistance - Ty, Modernist &c, are you around? --RPD (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gremlins, likely. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh 'Mental Illness'

The section concerning his 'mental illness' is completely unfounded, and unjustifiable in being kept in this article. The fact stated in which 150 psychiatrists were not able to place a stigmatized label upon the artist is proof of the pseudo science psychiatry truly is, thus, it has no place in the biography of this man.

Basically, to state Vincent van Gogh as mentally ill, is unproven, it would be better to state him as in a state, or states, of 'mental distress' throughout periods of his life, which ultimately perhaps played a role in his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.27.214 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Last painting

In the Auvers-sur-Oise part of the biography section it says that Wheat Field With Crows is often mistakenly believed to be his last work, but that Jan Hulsker lists paintings that postdate it. But then further down the article, under the Wheat Fields part of the Work section, there's a poetic little ending on there claming "A depiction of the golden wheat in bright sunlight was to be his final painting, along with his usual easel and paints he had carried a pistol with him that day". Okay, maybe both of these can be sourced, but as a reader I want consistent information that doesn't contradict itself within a few hundred words. Which should stay? --78.105.178.62 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the latter claim, which may well refer to this wheat field painting [9]. However, a Google search of 'van gogh last painting' turns up several possibilities.... JNW (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I'm not 100% sure of my ground here either on the facts about the subject or about Wikipedia's editing policies. You're right, it probably does refer to that painting, which could make my comment earlier a little hasty, but perhaps if it was confusing to me it may possibly have been confusing to others too. Thanks for responding to my concerns, it's appreciated. --78.105.178.62 (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the conflicting information, for the moment I'd choose to go with Hulsker's account. If someone can provide a more recent and credible view, please jump in. JNW (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dkenner77, 23 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

An edit suggestion/addition for the legacy section.

Vincent Van Gogh was the subject of a specific episode in the Doctor Who television series. A link to the episode is here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_and_the_Doctor

It dealt with his madness and a number of his issues. He also reappears in a later episode of the series.

Regards,

Dkenner77 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds a bit trivial, in terms of the actual topic, so I'll decline it for now. If discussion results in others agreeing, then we could add it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the artist and his works, not about a TV show, really not suitable here, however it might do well here: Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to list of works?

I'm in the process of making as many additions to the List of works by Vincent van Gogh page as I can find (image, location, works not listed, etc). Currently there is no link to this page within the main Vincent Van Gogh page, only to specific series of works (sunflowers, self-portraits, etc). Can it be added under the "Work" heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.250.62.225 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The main van Gogh page is protected from additions by ips, but you should be able to edit from you main account which I presume is User:Chimino. Anyway thanks for the additions to the list. Also, have you been looking at the van Gogh nav box at the foot of the page, might help you. Ceoil 12:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And I apologize for leaving the comment unsigned...still learning the fine points of "wikispeak". -Chimino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.206.29 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Theres a lot to learn....Ceoil 00:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Sinhala

Please add si:වින්සන්ට් වැන් ගෝ to the bottom of this page. Thanks! පසිදු කාවින්ද (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)