Does anyone else not understand the hype behind this painting

due to it being so ubiquitous, i think its hard to understand its nuances.
come back to it later in life and see if you see its gravity. i love it once thought it was a beautiful thing that it was universally loved, but now understand why people might not like it; do to it being saturated by pop culture.

>>3120757
The paint strokes give us feeling of high tension in this painting, furthermore, this turns what would be realistic rendition of same city and sky into something more than just that

File: _fronts_N-0186-00-000118-WZ-PYR.jpg (73KB, 584x800px)

73KB, 584x800px

>>3120757
I don't know about hype, but the reason it is a notable piece is because of the time period it was created in. When I look at paintings that revolutionized the art world they were ground breaking. 1434, Jan van Eyck. The Arnolfini Portrait is an example.

>>3120757
Van Gogh ruined it with the shitty lettering.

>>3120757
If you see something enough you'll start to think it's good.

>>3121631
Been looking at my shit before flushing it for years, can confirm.

File: 1431781812030-a-game-of-bowls-ightham-mote-kent-1889.jpg (95KB, 1040x455px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1040x455px

>>3120757
Remember it was created in 1889. Here's a painting Sargent did 1889. Van Gogh is extremely childish and amateurish in comparison and he had mental issues.

But Van Gogh seems to be saying something about our inner natures in his work, whilst Sargent is merely representation.

>>3121629
have you ever tried making such a straight lines with a brush? I think Van Gogh nailed the lettering perfectly