EPT
The other thing I learn from this is that the names of the paintings are often not from the artist, but are added later.Van Gogh self-portrait actually not Van Gogh - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2364 Posts
The other thing I learn from this is that the names of the paintings are often not from the artist, but are added later. | ||
|
RA
Latvia791 Posts
| ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
| ||
|
Qi
China31 Posts
On June 22 2011 20:25 Mykill wrote: Interesting, he may just have painted what he thought he saw a blend of himself and his brother. this doesn't really change anything... To the usual dude it doesn't. But if you take this as a cultural text that it really is, it means a lot. Note that this is part of an exhibit called Van Gogh: New Perspectives. Sometimes there is more to art, especially those that we have seen so much that we already take for granted. | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
On June 22 2011 12:35 LOcDowN wrote: Looks like White_Ra to me. hahaha, omg lol | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
I can't stop laughing. Omg White-Ra, you really are everywhere. Obviously if it's him then it couldn't be Van Gogh's self portrait, unless of course... White-Ra IS Van Gogh. O_O | ||
|
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
just beautiful | ||
|
Rybka
United States836 Posts
On June 22 2011 13:29 Hikko wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nTkcq.jpg) LOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOL :D | ||
|
kikimama
Korea (South)297 Posts
| ||
|
Lochat
United States270 Posts
On June 22 2011 12:30 Tatari wrote: It's gotta be only one of them. I mean, if he wanted both himself AND his brother, he could have painted his face and his brother's face on one head, similar to how Voldemort appeared in the first Harry Potter movie :d Uh, he was an impressionist... it's quite reasonable his picture could be both of them at once. | ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
On June 23 2011 10:11 Lochat wrote: Uh, he was an impressionist... it's quite reasonable his picture could be both of them at once. This. Though I think he just changed his portrait.. its not that uncommon...I might run this by some of my Art professors but in my opinion its still his painting & self portrait. | ||
|
vectorix108
United States4633 Posts
| ||
|
StyLeD
United States2965 Posts
On June 23 2011 10:18 vectorix108 wrote: Wow, that's an interesting revelation. I'm always awed by the greatness that is Van Gogh. that is White-Ra, you mean. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Zedders
Canada450 Posts
I will never look at van gogh the same. Gogh-Ra cannot b unseen | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
On June 23 2011 10:05 kikimama wrote: it's him but he's just not that good at painting. And I'm guessing you're a painter yourself to know that. /sarcasm I can understand not liking his stuff, but to say he's bad at painting? No, he's a master. Making a painting like his is very, very difficult, and only an extremely skilled craftsman can pull off an impressionistic portrait like that. Each stroke has wonderful color temperature, placement, and color value. That's something very very few artists can pull off, he's sooooo far from bad. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On June 22 2011 13:29 Hikko wrote: Ok so where is White-Ra in this picture anyways?... I only see Van Gogh. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
On June 23 2011 10:05 kikimama wrote: it's him but he's just not that good at painting. eye of the beholder... not that good at painting would have meant we would have never known his name. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4qVvs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GCPDd.jpg)
