[HN Gopher] Vincent Van Gogh: Hidden self-portrait discovered by...
___________________________________________________________________
Vincent Van Gogh: Hidden self-portrait discovered by X-ray
Author : samizdis
Score : 116 points
Date : 2022-07-14 06:42 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| Geonode wrote:
| Interesting if they separate it and it becomes part of his body
| of work. I hope not to be judged by the discards of my work, I
| wonder if this should be an artist's right ?
| mftb wrote:
| The idea that we control how others judge us is largely an
| illusion.
| trhway wrote:
| i think it is an established practice to research and publish
| "full work sets", including the archives of letters, notes,
| incomplete/preparational drawings, etc. of big artists,
| writers, etc. Whether the discards of your works would be worth
| of such an attention is up to you :)
| mc32 wrote:
| If you are of sound mind and decide you don't want something
| you produced seen, destroy it irreversibly (burn, melt,
| shatter, degauss, whatever it takes. Don't leave it for others
| to destroy --often they ignore your will and then we see
| posthumous works come to light.
| ComputerCat wrote:
| It's kind of depressing that art can be owned privately and
| stored away. If this was never donated to NGS then I doubt any
| private owners would have had it x-rayed and the self portrait
| would never have been discovered.
| nomel wrote:
| How would you suggest that artists get paid? Someone bought
| this painting from an artists, just as artists want you to do
| right now, so they can pay their bills. At what point would the
| painting be seized, from the buyer?
| User007b wrote:
| Isn't Art produced for money just another product?
|
| What is the difference between art and products when money
| becomes the sole focus of creating art?
|
| Should an artist just be creating art for the buyers?
| yupper32 wrote:
| You're asking a lot of deep sounding questions, but at the
| end of the day they don't matter much.
|
| Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel.
| The School of Athens was commissioned by Pope Julius II.
| You'll find that a massive number of famous art pieces were
| commissioned, and I don't think you'll find any serious
| people who think less of them because of it.
| User007b wrote:
| But isn't the - at least partially - purpose of art to be
| a critical mirror of society?
|
| Art and the freedom of art have often been used to
| critise society.
|
| Now if art becomes a product, where is the critical
| function of art? Critical art is part of healthy and
| diverse society, without we're one step closer to an
| orwellian utopia.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Again, you're getting too deep where you don't need to
| be. You say "if art becomes a product" while I'm showing
| you examples from 500 years ago where people were paid to
| create some of the most famous pieces of art in history.
|
| You're tapping into a single category of art -- art that
| is critical of society -- as if that's the only purpose
| of art.
|
| The purpose of and the person who commissioned the piece
| of art is just part of the context and history of the
| piece. It says nothing of its impact and importance.
| User007b wrote:
| There are also plenty of examples of paid works that were
| critical. Mostly in very subtle ways.
|
| My main point is that the commoditization of art should
| not be detrimental to its critical purposes.
|
| Artists should not be forced to create art that makes
| money happy.
| nomel wrote:
| > Isn't Art produced for money just another product?
|
| Someone valuing art doesn't have to change the meaning or
| devalue the artistic merits of the art. Conversely, not
| allowing art to be private/bought doesn't increase the
| meaning or artistic merits of the art.
|
| > What is the difference between art and products when
| money becomes the sole focus of creating art?
|
| This doesn't have to happen. Artists often have works of
| love, and works of survival. And, is art still valid if it
| has more meaning, unintentionally or not, to the buyer than
| the artist? In the end, it's all personal interpretation. I
| think there's also value in an artist commissioning work,
| being able to help someone achieve what they can't by
| themselves.
|
| In the end, artists need to eat, and, I believe, live a
| life that could fit some reasonable definition of
| "comfortable". If you remove the monetary aspect, doesn't
| this require that the state/society sponsor artists, almost
| certainly without merit or qualification, since anyone can
| produce meaningful art? If anyone can be an artists, at any
| time, wouldn't this have to extend to the whole population?
|
| I think this is an interesting idea, but I think it would
| require a monumental shift in society, with either an
| "artist class" of citizens, who were treated better than
| the general public, something like UBI, to guarantee
| everyone can make their art for free, and most definitely
| tyranny, to remove the freedom from the artists, in doing
| what they wish with their art.
| User007b wrote:
| In a sense, inequality is also a potential source for
| art. Wealthy artists are less likely to critise their
| wealthy patrons.
|
| Every member of a society should have the right and
| freedom to intellectually critise that society. So an
| artist class might just be as successful as an journalist
| class (that we already have since journalists do enjoy
| certain rights that other classes don't).
|
| What is important, IMHO, is that we don't lose sight of
| the fact that art also has a critical role to play in
| society.
| tobylane wrote:
| Research is done for some private sales, or for loans from
| private collections to public exhibitions. I can't think of any
| specific examples that went as far as xraying though.
| justinator wrote:
| Most art is owned privately and stored away (as an investment).
| Most art that's owned in a museum is stored (and is "donated"
| to the museum by the private collector).
|
| Also part of the problem is that art is fragile and showing
| say: a painting can degrade it, as light breaks up pigment.
| Even in storage, certainly paints/mediums change their physical
| characteristics. Many "hidden" paintings reveal themselves
| underneath the oils that make up the final painting as the
| medium becomes more transparent.
|
| Maybe it should be more clear to the public if the idea that
| art isn't so much given to museums, rather that artwork is used
| as a speculative investment by a private party until such a
| time it makes financial sense to transfer it to a museum. There
| is also the fact that if one is powerful/influential, you can
| influence the value of the artwork just by owning it and
| keeping it out of circulation. The whole private buying and
| selling of the artwork from gallery owners to auction houses
| works to raise the value of the artwork through hype, really.
|
| It can be a hell of a grift.
|
| van Gogh wasn't very good at playing that game, even when his
| brother was an art dealer - that's such a leg up and he blew
| that advantage. van Gogh isn't known to be all that easy to
| work with. Attempted murder doesn't help with this. We know him
| know since we celebrate his mental illness.
| jrapdx3 wrote:
| You make a number interesting points. FWIW I've been a
| printmaker for many years and know many artists "successful"
| and not.
|
| Museums acquire work through purchase and donation, the ratio
| varies among museums and divisions within a museum. Several
| years ago a collector donated several thousand pieces to the
| major museum in my region. Fortunately a few of my pieces
| were included and are now part of the museum's "permanent
| collection".
|
| Obviously museums prefer donations but only if the museum
| gets the kind of work they're seeking. It's a lot like
| academia, very competitive among curators to have the "right"
| high-valued work in the museum's possession.
|
| And it's true that an artist's success is largely a marketing
| game. Artists who are good self-promoters will do the best.
| Those who aren't typically remain obscure. Of course success
| doesn't necessarily indicate artistic merit. That's often not
| decided until much later, like 50 or 100 years down the road.
|
| Conservation of work is a complex subject. Oil-based paint
| was the only real option from the 1400's until ~1960. Oil
| paint dries by polymerization of fatty acids, problem is it
| doesn't know when to quit.[0] A paint film continues to
| harden, eventually the film integrity fails and the paint
| flakes off the substrate (canvas, etc.). Oil paintings are
| very likely to require restoration after 100 years if not
| sooner.
|
| Worth noting: unlike works on paper, oil paintings are less
| affected by light exposure. That's why museums often display
| paintings in brighter areas (200 lux) vs. drawings, prints,
| photos being exhibited in dimly lit galleries (50 lux).
|
| Interestingly many great artists were lousy technicians. Da
| Vinci is said to have experimented with various additives to
| paint which affected stability. Fascinating subjects indeed,
| and certainly contribute to keeping conservators employed.
|
| [0] https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-
| acryli...
| [deleted]
| sachdevs wrote:
| Wonder if there is any way to separate this from the painting on
| top
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, but not non-destructively. This has been done to some
| paintings where the painting 'underneath' was considered to be
| far more valuable (either monetary or historically). Personally
| I think this should never be done but obviously opinions on
| such stuff differ.
|
| See:
|
| https://artenet.it/en/removal-of-overpaint/
|
| When the chemical properties of overpaint and underlayer are
| close this can get extremely hairy, removal speeds of a few
| square centimeters per day are not unheard of, you need to
| patience of a monk for this sort of thing.
| peter303 wrote:
| Besides often being broke, Vincent had a strong compulsion in his
| final years to complete a painting every day. Sometimes he was
| forced to reuse canvas then. (Part of his final style too to get
| the paint on as fast as possible with large strokes.)
| Pokepokalypse wrote:
| The problem was; he also used very thick impasto-style
| brushstrokes. With Oil Paint, this often takes a long time to
| dry (and leaves a physical texture which will be visible if you
| overpaint that).
|
| Some of Van Gogh's paintings are so thick, that underneath an
| outer layer of dried paint, there's still liquid paint trapped
| underneath, which may not dry for another hundred years.
|
| But yeah, he was known for re-using canvases, as were many
| impressionist and post-impressionist school painters.
| googlryas wrote:
| Will this internal drying of the liquid paint affect the
| looks of the painting in any way? ie will the painting look
| different in 100 years than it does today, assuming it is
| kept perfectly preserved and untouched in the ideal
| environment?
| jacquesm wrote:
| No, but it can lead to trouble when the painting is re-
| framed or cleaned because any kind of manipulation of the
| canvas can crack the paint. This is specialist work
| (especially on paintings with this kind of value) so
| they're in good hands but the problem is much less
| pronounced with thinner layered paintings.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Over his life as an artist (bout 10 years) he produced on
| average a piece of work every 36 hours. 900 paintings and a ton
| of drawings and sketches. He was incredibly prolific and
| although he had no real training, he practiced constantly and
| studied relentlessly. 100% dedicated to the craft.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Not saying it is, but tbh that story sounds like a canard or fake
| if there ever was one.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Frances Fowle looks like the peasant woman! The xray image is
| bound to end up as an NFT somewhere soon
| mhb wrote:
| Why did the x-ray it? Do they x-ray all paintings?
| peter303 wrote:
| To also learn how the drawing was executed. Original sketches
| may underlay the final paint. Van Gogh was a rapid painter and
| didnt paint in stages that much. But someone like DaVinci who
| worked on the same painting for years, if not a decade, reveals
| various changes from original conception.
|
| In addition to Xray there is hyperspectral imaging and
| fluorescent imaging. Hyperspectral photographs at many
| different optical colors and extra-optical light. That revealed
| some techniques of creating the Mona Lisa.
| rwmj wrote:
| Van Gogh, well known for reusing canvases, you'd probably want to
| X-ray any of his paintings to see if there was anything
| underneath, or in this case on the reverse.
| kitanata wrote:
| Just a minor myth busting here. Vincent Van Gogh was absolutely
| well known and well liked as a painter while he was alive. He
| didn't make a lot of money at it, and rich people didn't fawn
| over his paintings, and he definitely suffered from mental
| illness before he committed suicide, but the myth that he was a
| failure as an artist during his life while he was alive is just
| that... a myth.
|
| The guy is the GOAT and while he was alive... many... many...
| other artists also saw him that way. His contemporaries
| absolutely adored him, and even tried to emulate him. His work
| was known to be important during his life to even the most
| financially successful of painters.
|
| I suppose if you limit the concept of "success" to how much money
| one earns in their life, then fine Van Gogh was not very
| financially successful, but he was monumentally successful and
| recognized as such during his life by the only real measure that
| matters: Impact.
|
| This is why as a journalist or a writer, it is important to
| confirm "what you know" before committing it to a piece. If you
| don't verify everything you risk perpetuating myths instead of
| realities.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Isn't the trivia that he only sold one painting during his life
| (where I assume the definition of "sell" includes paid
| commissions), and it was to his brother? Are you saying that is
| true, _but_ he was popular as an artist (just not successful
| financially as an artist)? Or is that bit of trivia also
| untrue?
|
| Edit: It occurs to me that also implicit in this popular
| definition of "successful artist" is that the majority of other
| well known artists _were_ financially successful via their art,
| but I don 't know if that's even true!
|
| Edit: The parent was edited after I made this comment to be
| more explicit about financial success vs reputational success.
| coldcode wrote:
| He might not have sold many paintings, but after he died by
| suicide Monet saw Irises (I think) and remarked something
| like "How can someone who paints with such joy be so sad".
| Selling art requires the right contacts, even today, and
| Vincent was unable to attract the right connections. If he
| had not shot himself, I think within a few years he would
| have been as famous as Monet.
| nemo44x wrote:
| His brother was a successful art dealer and helped Vincent
| out and believed in him, but wasn't able to get much
| traction with his work. He was pretty well connected in
| this way. However, he wasn't liked (Vincent) by many people
| and struggled to build valuable connections with other
| artists, etc. due to his awful personality, which was in
| large part due to his mental illness I'd assume.
|
| His brothers wife (his brother died from syphilis shortly
| after him) ended up with all his work and believed in it
| too. She was able to impress other with it and held a large
| show featuring his work a few years after his death and
| this is how he came into prominence.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > Selling art requires the right contacts, even today
|
| I was talking to a friend of mine who is a reasonably
| famous and financially successful modern impressionist
| painter about the market selling his oil paintings. It's
| more than just the right contacts, the entire thing sounds
| more awful than used car sales, honestly. Lots of game
| playing, politics, back stabbing, and scamming. Just asking
| him what I figured would be a straightforward question of
| what kind of percentage commission galleries charge led to
| about on hour long conversation that I could barely follow.
|
| The short version seemed to be that if you're naive or
| trusting, you're screwed.
| Finnucane wrote:
| History is full of artists (whether painters, musicians,
| writers, etc.) who were known and respected by their peers,
| but failed to get much traction with the general public, and
| particularly with people who would pay money for their work,
| during their lifetime.
| failTide wrote:
| Are there some good examples of living artists/creatives
| who fit this description? I'd love to take a look.
| bag_boy wrote:
| Willis Alan Ramsey is an example of a musician who is
| really admired by musicians but not very well known.
| jb1991 wrote:
| This comment is not quite accurate. He was known by some
| collectors but did not make any money from his art and
| generally considered a failure.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Also although he had many friends in the art space, he had
| trouble getting along with most of them. He wanted to make an
| artist colony in southern France, but for the most part it
| just ended up being him and his one friend, and that one
| friend eventually left. It's that kind of failure that
| brought loneliness and his feeling of isolation.
| mkolodny wrote:
| That one friend was Paul Gauguin - a famous painter who Van
| Gogh looked up to. The two artists lived and painted
| together in Arles for two months. They had "excessively
| electric" debates about art that they emerged from
| exhausted. When Van Gogh could sense that Gauguin was going
| to leave, they had a heated argument. That night Van Gogh
| had a psychotic episode and cut off his own ear with a
| razor blade. Gauguin left right afterwards.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Too late to edit, but to add: the parent edited the comment
| after I posted mine.
| jb1991 wrote:
| > he was monumentally successful and recognized as such during
| his life by the only real measure that matters: Impact.
|
| He was nearly completely unknown in his own country until after
| his death.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-14 23:00 UTC)