Yes, you are correct. He committed suicide.
request for opinions on my art please
- Thread starter Rice2715
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Yes, you are correct. He committed suicide.
He tried to kill himself- shot himself in the chest- but he survived the incident only to die from the injuries 2 days later. He had many problems just like most major artists from back then. Everyone was crazy with syphillis (like his brother). But not Van Gogh, he was just mental- literally. The last 2 years were insane- and that's when he created his most memorable pieces- and also when he cut off his ear.
False statement. His family was a bunch of art brokers- and he was too for a long time. He couldn't take it anymore and then studied at The Royal Academy of Arts. He then did commissioned work- he didn't make much though. Because of his mental disorder and addiction to absinthe it was hard for him to hold any job. His brother supported him so he could continue to paint. Many say he was bi-polar or that he did have syphillis. My personal guess is lead poisoning. Most artists used to lick their brushes to get the 'perfect point' on the tip of the brush and well, oil paints will kill you.
P.S. His 'art career' lasted all of 8 years- but he created over 2,000 pieces- he def. had exhibitions while he was still alive. When you work with the likes of Gauguin, C?zanne, Toulouse-Lautrec, Rousseau, Pissarro and Seurat you're bound to get discovered at some point.
Last edited:
Van Gogh's art is quite impressive. I was in Amsterdam and went to the Van Gogh museum. It was quite extrodinary to see how his work drastically changed with his emotions. From the colors he used, to the style. Anything from angry slashing strokes to delicate touches with the brush.
Having distinctly recall reading that he never sold one of his own paintings, I decided to do a bit of reading about Van Gogh. I never studied art or art history, so I was a bit curious to learn if I misread what I thougt I read. I'm not sure who you are quoting in your above statements. Perhaps you can cite the source. It reads much like Wikipedia's version.
I found the following:
from www.montana.edu
Vincent never sold a painting in his entire life. It is commonly agreed (although has never been proven) that one painting was traded to pay off a bar tab for the equivalent of about forty American dollars in today's currency value. This is very interesting in light of the fact that his paintings now sell in the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars at auction. The world was "abuzz" when his painting "The Iris" sold for $40,000,000.00 US in the mid 1980's to a Japanese buyer at auction. The reason for the commotion was that no painting by any artist had ever sold for nearly that much in the history of art auctions. A wave of outrageous bidding ensued and does not seem to have stopped even today, and Van Gogh's painting started it. Of course, the fact that he never sold a painting during his natural life was the topic of many an editorial and magazine article for a long time to come.
Never having sold a painting, you may wonder how Vincent made a living. His brother Theo, who lived and worked in the family business in Amsterdam, regularly sent Vincent money for his living expenses and his paint. Vincent was very close to his brother Theo. Their relationship is one of the most well-documented in history because of their devotion to each other through letter-writing.
******************
From emptyeasel.com
"We all know his name, and he might even be the most famous historical painter today?Van Gogh?s paintings are instantly recognized by people everywhere, but during his life he never knew fame at all. Supposedly, he only sold one painting out of the hundreds that he created."
******************
From www.gardenofpraise.com/art19.htm
"Some say that during his lifetime he only sold one painting. It is a fact though that he would trade paintings for art supplies, and the dealers sold some of those paintings. He had no idea that he would become so famous, but after his death people began to appreciate his work. One of his paintings sold for $82.5 million. That's the most anyone has ever paid for a painting."
Reading Van Gogh's Wikipedia version, I'm not sure that I would say that he
"survived" as an artist. His art has survived, but it sounds like he struggled at best, as an artist. His brother was displeased with both commissioned works which he gave Vincent.
"His father and uncle sent him (Vincent) to Paris, where he became resentful at how art was treated as a commodity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1 (this was while he was working as an art broker), and he manifested this to the customers. On April 1, 1876, it was agreed that his employment should be terminated."
School or no school, as T. Cline said, draw, and draw everyday. Draw to please yourself, and you are sure to capture some audience. Art isn't supposed to be about the viewer. It is about the art.
why are you trying to start an arguement? You just contridicted yourself!
You say he never sold one, and then you say he sold exactly one. Well, I said it wasn't many, but he did do some commisions in the beginning- which you stated as well. But apparently with contidicting sources you have, we'll never know.
I didn't need a reference to look at- I studied him in school and took a personal interest in his story and read a book that was comprised of letters between the two brothers. 'Letters from Theo' (?) I believe...
NOT trying to argue here- I just don't believe in false hope- I believe in working your tail off for everything. Art isn't an exemption. You should take all advice (critical and non) and all the classes you can if you want to try and sell/improve your work.
As my professor said when I was at Pratt on first day of classes in my LCD (light, color, design) class-
"An 'A' is for masters of the subject, you are no where near that. Good luck keeping your scholarships." I have never learned more in a year than I did my freshman year. I think it's a never-ending battle... and everyone needs to be pushed creatively.
You say he never sold one, and then you say he sold exactly one. Well, I said it wasn't many, but he did do some commisions in the beginning- which you stated as well. But apparently with contidicting sources you have, we'll never know.
I didn't need a reference to look at- I studied him in school and took a personal interest in his story and read a book that was comprised of letters between the two brothers. 'Letters from Theo' (?) I believe...
NOT trying to argue here- I just don't believe in false hope- I believe in working your tail off for everything. Art isn't an exemption. You should take all advice (critical and non) and all the classes you can if you want to try and sell/improve your work.
As my professor said when I was at Pratt on first day of classes in my LCD (light, color, design) class-
"An 'A' is for masters of the subject, you are no where near that. Good luck keeping your scholarships." I have never learned more in a year than I did my freshman year. I think it's a never-ending battle... and everyone needs to be pushed creatively.
While I agree about art being about the art- in this case- it is about the viewer- if they don't like it- it won't sell or make it into stores- which is the goal in this situation.
BlueFox, I'm just trying to learn. The reason I cited the three different sources, along with yours, is that they all seem to vary. You imply that Van Gogh was a successfull artist, and just as art, that is in the eye of the beholder.
Apparently Van Gogh's entire life is one of controversity and speculation. No one will ever know the entire truth. One controverstiy is over this "last" patining, Wheat Field with Crows. There is a symbolic Interpretation saying it was his last painting and others who dismiss that.
The point I originally was trying to make about the anger in the posters painting can be described by a quote from Van Gogh's letter number 649-
"and I did not need to go out of my way to try to express sadness and extreme loneliness. I hope you will see them soon--for I hope to bring them to you in Paris as soon as possible, since I almost think that these canvases WILL TELL YOU WHAT I CANNOT SAY IN WORDS."
Point being that many or most times art is an emotional outlet for creative people to express themselves. In the black and whie paintings of the women's faces, I see anger.
The point I originally was trying to make about the anger in the posters painting can be described by a quote from Van Gogh's letter number 649-
"and I did not need to go out of my way to try to express sadness and extreme loneliness. I hope you will see them soon--for I hope to bring them to you in Paris as soon as possible, since I almost think that these canvases WILL TELL YOU WHAT I CANNOT SAY IN WORDS."
Point being that many or most times art is an emotional outlet for creative people to express themselves. In the black and whie paintings of the women's faces, I see anger.
How did you get the idea from the poster that "selling his art" is the
primary reason he wants to market to galleries. I dont think selling art is all that fuels the creative spirit and I also think with new (young) artists that validation of sorts unconnected to monetary gain is more the motivation.
Well, correct me if I am wrong- but aren't art galleries in it to make money and to sell the art they show? I see this is what you do. You sell art. Am I wrong here? Would you fill your gallery with a bunch of pieces you thought were sub-par?
You have some nice work I might add...
You have some nice work I might add...
Last edited: