|
It is a story of great filial love and devotion. All his life, Van Gogh never made any fortune out of his paintings. Yet, he managed to continue making hundreds and hundreds of them. How? His brother Theo supported him, financially and emotionally all throughout his wild life. But it remains one of the little mysteries in art: after a lifetime of undying support, did Van Gogh never pay any tribute to his brother, Theo. Seems like the answer was right in plain view all along.
Artinfo.com
What did Van Gogh Museum senior researcher Louis van Tilborgh discover while gazing into the eyes of his subject of study? That maybe he wasn’t looking at old Vincent after all. The 1887 painting that Tilborgh was admiring, now on view in the show “Van Gogh in Antwerp and Paris: New Perspectives” at the Amsterdam museum, may not be a self-portrait, as was previously believed. Rather, it may be a likeness of the painter’s brother and loyal ally, Theo.
Van Tilborgh came to this startling conclusion when he noticed that the 1887 portrait, of some Van Gogh wearing a blue jacket and a straw hat against a blue backdrop, depicts a man with shaved cheeks and an ochre (not red) beard. “On top of that,” a press statement declares, “this man’s ear has a fine rounded shell, unlike Vincent’s but like Theo’s.”
If you remain skeptical that the work — which was completed during a period in which Theo and Vincent lived together in Paris — portrays Theo, just heed the advice of the press statement: “Once you start to ask questions, you may sometimes be surprised by the answers. Familiar works of art may appear in a new light: such discoveries help to keep one’s gaze sharp and fresh.”
Such wide-eyed wonder has also recently led the museum to figure out that a Van Gogh painting of laborer’s shoes dates from much later than originally believed and that “The Garden with Lovers,” depicts not the village of Asnières, as was formerly posited, but Montmartre, in Paris. Oh, and they’ve also cleared up that the painting “Wheatfield with a Lark” is actually a picture of a partridge.
|
In my opinion, the brothers look so similar that it could be either of them. It definitely does look like van Gogh, even if it really is supposed to be his brother.
van Gogh had photographs taken of him, it's not like some grand mystery of who he really is...I don't think this is much to get excited about, unfortunately 
Wikipedia: Self-Portraits of Vincent van Gogh
|
Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother?
|
On June 22 2011 12:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother?
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
|
On June 22 2011 12:30 Tatari wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother? 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
What I mean is. Why can't the portrait be a mix of both of him and his brother in one person/being.
|
It's just preliminary research, they're not sure of anything.
|
Looks like White_Ra to me.
|
On June 22 2011 12:35 LOcDowN wrote: Looks like White_Ra to me.
And you suddenly make me see him in that painting now..I, black magiks is this?!
|
On June 22 2011 12:23 Hikko wrote:In my opinion, the brothers look so similar that it could be either of them. It definitely does look like van Gogh, even if it really is supposed to be his brother. van Gogh had photographs taken of him, it's not like some grand mystery of who he really is...I don't think this is much to get excited about, unfortunately  Wikipedia: Self-Portraits of Vincent van Gogh Why post here then. If it does not interest you, simply leave. Don't be a dick. OT: Went to the Artinfo site, nice discussion going on there. Wish I could attend the exhibit and seminar.
here is one of the replies proving that Van Gogh indeed painted in reverse, possibly Theo.
|
On June 22 2011 12:32 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:30 Tatari wrote:On June 22 2011 12:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother? 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 What I mean is. Why can't the portrait be a mix of both of him and his brother in one person/being.
The portrait could be a mix of them. It's just that one of the brothers' face is hidden behind that hat. :d
I know what you're talking about. But if the brothers are so similar in appearance what's the point in mixing their faces? Unless Van Gogh wanted his audience to guess for all eternity who it was... which could be entirely possible.
|
On June 22 2011 12:37 Parnage wrote:And you suddenly make me see him in that painting now..I, black magiks is this?!
You're welcome bro T_T
|
Nice post OP, very interesting
|
On June 22 2011 12:35 LOcDowN wrote: Looks like White_Ra to me. Wtf it really is identical. Speshial paintings.
|
Maybe he ran out of red paint?
|
On June 22 2011 12:19 Qi wrote:
Coincidence?
|
On June 22 2011 13:20 Hikko wrote:Coincidence?
So basically, Van Gogh was painting White-ra, presaging the awesomeness that would emerge decades later. I can buy it ;D
|
Russian Federation905 Posts
On June 22 2011 13:24 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:20 Hikko wrote:On June 22 2011 12:19 Qi wrote: Coincidence? So basically, Van Gogh was painting White-ra, presaging the awesomeness that would emerge decades later. I can buy it ;D Van Goghstradamus?
|
On June 22 2011 13:07 VIB wrote:Wtf it really is identical. Speshial paintings.
More like speshial tactiks T_T
|
|
|
Interesting. I don't know about the beard color, because looking at other self portraits, he uses quite different colors, but the ear explanation is pretty reasonable. I looked at a few other self portraits from the link above and the ear always is painted in this odd shape. So a different ear is strange. The other thing I learn from this is that the names of the paintings are often not from the artist, but are added later.
|
|
Interesting, he may just have painted what he thought he saw a blend of himself and his brother. this doesn't really change anything...
|
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.
|
On June 22 2011 12:35 LOcDowN wrote: Looks like White_Ra to me.
hahaha, omg lol
|
On June 23 2011 08:55 emperorchampion wrote:hahaha, omg lol 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
|
On June 22 2011 13:20 Hikko wrote:Coincidence? just beautiful
|
On June 22 2011 13:29 Hikko wrote:
LOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOL :D
|
it's him but he's just not that good at painting.
|
On June 22 2011 12:30 Tatari wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother? 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.
|
On June 23 2011 10:11 Lochat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:30 Tatari wrote:On June 22 2011 12:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Why can't it be a picture of both people? Both himself and his brother? 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.
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.
|
Wow, that's an interesting revelation. I'm always awed by the greatness that is Van Gogh.
|
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.
|
Guys, you are making my mind fried with the White-Ra references!!!!
|
LOL at whitera. Seriously though, this is just an academic trying to make some waves. The beard is colored differently because the environment is cool in the blue one. Also, it was never Van Gogh's style to be precise, the paintings are close enough.
|
oh god TL i love you so much
I will never look at van gogh the same.
Gogh-Ra cannot b unseen
|
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.
|
I was so touched by the original OP. Then I saw WHITE RA and now im like van gogh best painter kthx.
|
On June 22 2011 13:29 Hikko wrote:
Ok so where is White-Ra in this picture anyways?... I only see Van Gogh.
|
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.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49781 Posts
I think this thread can tie into the White-Ra is everywhere thread.
|
White-Ra is immortal.
I don't know much about Van Gogh, but I always recognized that portrait as a portrait of Van Gogh. This is a pretty huge step in art history.
|
I can't believe I didn't see WhiteRa in it all this time.
The more I look at it now, the more I see our loveable protoss pro-gamer.
I'm fairly certain that Van Gogh was not painting either himself or his brother. He was painting WhiteRa.
|
On June 22 2011 20:24 RA wrote: Really? This made me laugh most of all. "Really? Are we really going down that path?"
This thread is now about White-Ra. XD
The fact that he painted 'in reverse' seems really... insignificant.
|
United States4796 Posts
I really wish I understood Van Gogh sometimes.
|
I agree with everything Tatari has to say.
|
Haha I never liked him a bit anyway. Even though he's supposed to be awesome, I never got the hype. There are a lot of classical painters who I think were absolutely great, but Van Gogh just looks like he ran out of small brushes. No art 'critic' I ever talk to can offer me an decent explanation of his greatness beyond this gimmick.
|
|
Duckload Van Gogh sounds alright to me.
|
On June 23 2011 18:46 Kaonis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Looks like the appraisers played it by ear... + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +... and they saw that something was off. + Show Spoiler +YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH On topic, it's pretty cool to see the art world being shaken up a little. I remember reeading about how close Van Gogh was to his brother. well fucking played
i dont mind the whole art word being shaken up thing, it can be revenge for the week i had to learn about impressionism in art history ><
|
On June 22 2011 13:20 Hikko wrote:Coincidence?
I think not!
|
|
|
|