First, just a few words on the reasons for this blog - nothing spectacular, just trying to create conversations about subjects loosely tied to western culture and history. Not requiring much in the way of supporting facts and so on, but also relying on the grace of any prospective participants to avoid partisan political, religious or personal invectives. I'd like to think of this blog as after dinner conversation - cordial at best but certainly always polite. So, here goes ....
Recently, a new biography of Vincent van Gogh was featured on the perennial news show, "60 Minutes."
Van Gogh: The Life by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, proposed than the end of Vincent's life was neither self-infliced nor in the cornfield made famous by his last painting. Simply put, the authors theorize that Van Gogh was accidentally or deliberately shot by a couple of wealthy French kids vacationing with their parents in Auvers at the time. The story goes, Vincent was familiar with these boys and he was teased and tormented by them over time, but his loneliness and alienation was so severe he tolerated their cruel acts, even to the extent of claiming he had shot himself, the story we are all familiar with. This begged the question to me of how we view Van Gogh as a result. Granted, he is seen from as many different perspectives as people familiar with his life and work (psychotic, epileptic victim (as the bio states,) saint, artistic genius, etc., but how much does the end of his life influence our overall view of his life? Is it an important fact if it's true? I know for me, being a lifelong fan of the well-known song, "Vincent (Starry Starry Night)" I became interested in whether the theories or facts surrounding a famous person actually also influence works ABOUT a figure? After all, the thrust of the Don Maclean song rests on the idea that Vincent took his own life ("You took your life, as lovers often do".) If you are rather religionless as I am and look to secular figures for inspiration, does the new theory alter your own views on your own assumptions and cultural choices, whether it's a new version of the end of Vincent van Gogh, or any other revision of history and its more well-known figures?
Certainly, the idea that Vincent was a tormented artist who committed suicide, fits well into the accepted vision of the romantic artist at war with society and his peers. The fact that he may have been accidentally murdered is still tragic - does it change our view of the artist and his work - probably not at this point. I wonder what would have been the result of this news if it had been known at the time of Vincent's death?
ReplyDeleteOne evening not long ago, I sat in a dark room with a bottle of wine and stared out at the moonlit night, trying to imagine I was Vincent van Gogh, living in Arles with my buddy Paul Gauguin.
ReplyDeleteIt was unsettling; quite so, and I switched to being Gauguin living with Vincent.
I came to the conclusion that Paul got hammered, waited in the dark for his housemate to come stumbling home, and sliced off Vinnie's lobe...
I don't know how this subject drifted but that's OK ... goes to show you how iconic Van Gogh has become .... maybe part of the attraction is that, unlike Jesus, he is certainly more historically demonstrable? That returns to the original question, maybe - is the myth more important than the actual truth, whether it's his suicide or like Bob says, a revision of his mutilation? For me, I still love the song in question, not to mention nearly everything Van Gogh painted and his personal magnetism whether we can ever separate the myth from the truth.
ReplyDelete