/ic/ please red pill me on Van Gogh.

>>2342468
He was a weeboo ahead of his time

>>2342468
Guy was an absolute madman, but did u know he
>was totally colorblind
>didn't learn how to tie shoelaces until he was 32 yrs old
>got angry when he lost at board games
>never washed his hands
>cut off his own ear as a dare, just cus
>killed his pet turtle in a mental hospital
>lived in a tree

File: A163819.jpg (121KB, 607x455px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 607x455px

Over sensitive fruit that got pretty good

OP here,

just wanna ask why people like his art. personally I like the colours and brush strokes in his paintings, but is there something else i'm missing?

File: 9489676062_faa095e26a_k.jpg (2MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1365px

>>2342470
Pretty much this.
His use of color and technique was pretty good for the time.
I just wanted to post this image, nothing much to say.

I MISS CRACKY-CHAN

>>2342491
That's about it. He uses colours people like, and has distinctive brushwork that is easier for non-artists to say "wow, interesting!" than someone who uses brushwork in a more advanced way (like Sargent). Combine this with his sad life story filled with mental illness and lack of recognition, plus some craziness like cutting off his ear and committing suicide, and you get a classic "misunderstood artist/genius" that people can like.

>>2342504
>work in a more advanced way (like Sargent)

All of his skill was used in pandering to the rich. Did he ever have anything to say other than sycophancy to some posh birds?

>>2342512
His art isn't particularly profound or deep in most cases, no. But his technical skills and paint handling are undeniably some of the best off all time. And a few of his paintings can be argued to have statements within them and something deeper than just superficial paint--The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit and The Hermit come to mind. Given how large his body of work is I'm sure he has others.

Also, do you really feel that Van Gogh's work has more to say? He painted some self portraits and some flowers. Nothing particularly psychological about it. Most of the analyzation of his paintings and discussions about how meaningful they are are just projections based on the fact he had a crappy life.

Anyways, it doesn't change the fact that a random person on the street can recognize a Van Gogh from the brushwork, but not a Sargent. They wouldn't see the difference between Sargent and any other portrait painter, even though to artists Sargent is in another tier entirely.

File: rouault-5118-12.jpg (217KB, 750x1078px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 750x1078px

>>2342524
>technical skills and paint handling are undeniably some of the best off all time. And a


THE BEST OF ALL TIME

!!

oh lordy spare us.

have a tombstone by Rouault

Its a style thing. Very Very few painters innovated a style as unique as vince, he could paint anything in the world and itd be immediately recognized as his work. His understanding of color theory And impasto are god tier, and easily made up for his lack of perfect perspective, form, anatomy etc. The other main thing is that his work is easily appreciated by casuals because its a purely visual experience, no context or meanings to decipher even tho arthist fags will always try, and i think this is a good thing about vince. His self portraits are some of the most revered ever because of the deep, painful expressions he captures and the way he uses color to heighten the emotional pull. He also had just the right amount of abstraction and observational elements in his work and is one of the foundations for modern art along with cezanne. Dude was also a pure artist, did his thing for no reason but a love of the game, had no economic, social or political incentives behind his practice which isnt true for many of the big names, and he worked like a slave and pumped out canvases like a machine. I could go on for a long time, to me van gogh is the greatest painter of all time and is way more deserving of his status than picasso who is really the only other person with comparable cocksucking in the modern era

>>2342545
I said "some of". As in, he is up there along with a handful of others. It's a pretty common opinion in the art world, not sure why you are so shocked by it.

>>2342571
more bored by it than anything

it's a standard /ic fall back position

"Saregnet tho was rrly grate"

>>2342576
Just because an opinion is popular somewhere, doesn't mean that it will make you cool to hate on it purely based on its popularity (pretty sure we used to call these people 'hipsters' back in like 2011)

>>2342676
It's a hippy cliché in the first place

>>2342576
You're trivializing his opinion without reason.
Just say what you think instead of making jokes and deflecting what this guy says.

>>2342692
where are you in my threads???

>>2342569
Finally a good explanation, thanks anon

>>2342569
>k is easily appreciated by casuals because its a pur

but at the time it wasn't, and even now it's a very abrasive style

>>2342569
>purely visual experience, no context or meanings to deciph

that's not true

>>2342569

>ad no economic, social or political incentives

again, I'd question this.

>>2342569
>nd pumped out canvases like a machine.

he wrote how he stopped for long periods due to depression

>>2342569
>f his status than picasso

I think the status or hierarchy of artists is a nonsense , a parlour game for critics parroted by the public. maybe you agree?

File: vanGogh_field.jpg (4MB, 2397x1949px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2397x1949px

His sense of rhythm , form and color are fantastic. Its harmony.

Some people here will tell you its not cool to like him because drawing is all about rendering things JUST AS THEY ARE AND NO DIFFERENTLY - but what the fuck is the point of mastery if you can't take it then and experiment? Why not learn to spin a pencil between your fingers instead?

I'm not about to say that you should try to understand every art movement that ever existed, but if you can't extend yourself to like VanGogh or at the very least deeply understand WHY his art is so popular, as an artist, you'll put yourself at a severe disadvantage.

Hi ya Kanye

File: vincent-van-gogh-paintings-from-arles-1.jpg (39KB, 400x498px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x498px

Van Gogh was not so much an artist as he was a wacky guy
He just enjoyed painting, he wasn't obsessed with trying to create some new age shit and fight against the machine. He paints like he does because that's fun for him.
He didn't care about his painting, he didn't care about what people thought of them. He simply enjoyed the process of standing in a pretty place and painting it. It was just a hobby for him that just happened to take over his life and he didn't care about making a lot of money with a career of any sort.
I believe he painted as an escape from his depression
He was charmingly autistic

>>2343131
Van Gogh railed against the public for not purchasing his work, blamed his brother for not convincing dealers around Paris to represent him, refused steadfastly from altering his working methods, hated most of the things he created, puzzled for hours over the problems of painting, got in very heated debates with his contemporaries about past masters, would write lengthy passages about the meaning and use of color, and claimed that painting was his salvation. To say he was merely a hobbyist is so factually incorrect as to be criminal.

Like all the greats from history, he's memorable because he took huge risks.

It's well known that the hierarchy of admiration is winners, losers, average schmucks, in that order. Van Gogh was a failure in his own time, but that's still more admirable than being totally average and completely boring. That's the main lesson any artist can take from his life and work

>>2343131
you are literally talking out of ones ass.

>>2343131
have you ever read anything about vincent van gogh or taken a look at his letters? he was VERY serious about the things he wanted to express!

> He simply enjoyed the process of standing in a pretty place and painting it. It was just a hobby for him that just happened to take over his life and he didn't care about making a lot of money with a career of any sort.

that's such hooey! he really wanted to sell his paintings and he put a great deal of thought into the art of painting and the images and ideas he wanted to express. he painted because he saw great beauty in the world, but he was very methodical and introspective in the way he portrayed it. he also hung around many contemporary impressionists and worked alongside them to make ART. see the comment below yours for more facts directly contradicting your statements. also, talking about his mental illness in those terms is grossly simplifying the matter, and also incorrect. yikes, i'm a bit of a vvg nerd.

>>2344846
>>2344969
>>2345234
Well shit I just googled him now and you're right
I deeply apologize for potentially misleading some people.
My sources of information were clearly inaccurate.

>>2345257
This now makes more worried about plenty of other things I have misunderstood.
I was totally oblivious.
Let us all learn this lesson to learn from only the best sources of information in whatever we do

File: 2171.jpg (458KB, 951x1200px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 951x1200px

>>2342479
I'm pretty sure none of that is true
>>2342468
>/ic/ please red pill me on [x]
no
fuck you, stop making these threads
like who you want to like, and get your own opinions

>>2345234
there was some other guy on /ic/ that said something to the effect of "some people could just go out into nature and come back with a masterpiece without thinking about it like vincent van gogh".

i don't think it was ever as easy as "I'll just go out there and screw around cause fuck it I'm amazing" for van gogh. He was very intent on finding meaning in his work it was clearly all he ever thought about. And he was extremely critical of his work.

>>2345489
>some people could just go out into nature and come back with a masterpiece without thinking about it like vincent van gogh
we have early work of van goh when he started out and sucked, we have good proof that he had to work at it before he got gud

curious what your guys' opinion is on van gogh's understanding of anatomy. Do you think he had a firm grasp on how the body worked, and what was underneath skin ( I never see any studies of his of bones except for that skeleton with the cigarette) or was he not concerned with that/only concerned with drawing what was in front of him and not how it worked.

>>2345504
his anatomy and perspective are pretty fucky,his strengths were in colour and brushwork and pretty much everything else was a dump stat

>>2345512
i haven't read all his letters but i know he always said how he struggled with perspective, and he doesn't really talk about anatomy much at all. guess it just wasn't a priority for him.

>>2342468
he is only famous because he is dead
>took like 7 years to learn fundamentals
>clinically insane
>had to be supported by his brother

fucking aspie neet trash

>>2342468
>Worked as an art diller for a long time and learned all useful stuff about art theory and market
>Knows what is trendy and sells good
>Aimet to take same niche as Millet, whos paintings about poorfags selled for a lot of cash
>Was conveinced by hipster brother Theo that postimpressionism going to be big deal in a few years, unlike poorfagrealism which is too depressive and will not sell well
>Signed contract with him, according to which he will get guaranteed weekly payment for his paintings
>Had a mid tier succes during his lifetime
>All nonsense about him being batshit crazy genius was totally made up by some jew Julius Meier-Graefe, for the purpose to sell his art for a higher price

File: haystacks-in-provence-1888.jpg!HD.jpg (540KB, 1489x1200px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1489x1200px

>>2345571
>he is only famous because he is dead
that's retarded. there are tons of dead artists who aren't famous, so obviously it takes something else.

File: pollard-birches-1884.jpg!HD.jpg (425KB, 1625x1200px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1625x1200px

>>2347874
>nonsense about him being batshit crazy
he cut his own fucking ear off. he later shot himself in the stomach. he was committed to a fucking asylum, why are you talking out of your ass?

also
>art diller

>>2347984
All off this happened shortly before his death. He was totally sane during most of his lifetime.
>art diller
I'm from /int/

>>2348007
uh, no shit it happened shortly before his death, his death was likely due to his mental illness. the fact remains that he was fucked in the head, regardless of when it manifested fully.

I mean, I'll agree that the romantic myth of the mad genius is a bit much, but he really was disturbed.