VAN GOGH MUSEUM JOURNAL 2002 JOURNAL 2002 Van Gogh Museum Journal 2002 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam The Van Gogh Museum Journal 2002 The Van Gogh Museum Journal is published annually in Editor-in-chief g P Y December. Manuscripts should be submitted no later Chris Stolwijk P l than 1 April of the previous year for consideration for P P Y the following issue. Editors g Rachel Esner Sjraar van Heugten, Leo Jansen, ,l g For more information about the Journal, please contact John Leighton, Chris Stolwijk ~P g ~ J the editors, Van Gogh Museum Journal, P.O. Box 75366, ~ ~ 753 1070 AJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Subscription and Managing editor 7 ~ P g g back-issue requests should be addressed to Esther Suzanne Boman Bog ma q Hoofwij at the same address. Catalogue authors g er and binding of this book meet all guidelines Maartje de Haan, Louis van Tilborgh, pP g g forermanence and durability. Marije Vellekoop P p Y Abbreviation: VGMJ Translators John Broden Sue Dyson, Michèle Hendricks g ~ Unless otherwise indicated, allhoto ra hs are courtesy g P Y of the institution orerson owning the work illustrated. Research assistance P g Monique Hageman, Esther Hoofwijk, Fieke Pabst q ~ ~ J~ Nota bene: References to Van Go h's letters are given in g g the form of two numbers. The first refers to De brieven Design g van Vincent van Gogh, ed. Han van Crimen and Crimp e Studio Roozen, Amsterdam g~ Monique Berends, 4 vols., The Hague 1990, and the sec - q ~ g , and to Verzamelde brieven van Vincent van Goh, ed. Printing g V.W. van Gogh, 4 vols., Amsterdam & Antwerp 1952-54. Waanders Printers, Zwolle g P Distribution Waanders Publishers, Zwolle and the Van Gogh g Museum, Amsterdam Table of contents Director's foreword Vo'téch Jirat-Wasiutyriski 1 ~ 78 A Dutchman in the south of France: Van Gogh's g `romance' of Arles VAN GOGH 150 Michael F. Zimmermann Stefan Koldehoff 90 `... which dazzle many an eye': Van Gogh and Max Y Y g 8 When myth seems stronger than scholarship: Liebermann Y g P Van Gogh and the problem of authenticity P Y Martha Op de Coal p Leo Jansen, Hans Luiten and Fiche Pabst Luijte 104 In search of Van Go h's Nuenen studio: the Paper endures: documentary research into the life exhibitions of 1903 P Y 93 and work of Vincent van Gogh g Madeleine Korn Ann Dumas 120 Collectingpaintings by Van Gogh in Britain beforegP g Y g 40 The Van Gogh literature from 1990 to the present: the Second World War g P a selective review Ste an Koldehoff f Richard Thomson, Cornelia Homburg, g~ Shift' 138 The Wacker forgeries: a catalogue g g and Linda Nochlin 52 Vincent van Go h's Parc Voer d'Argenson: g y g four scholars, four views DOCUMENTATION 150 Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings and drawings g q P g g VAN GOGH STUDIES August 2001 July 2002 g Y Wouter van der Veen 158 Exhibitions 2002 64 `En tapt que quant a moi': Vincent van Gogh and the French language 159 Works on loan to the Van Gogh Museum 2001-02 Director's foreword In 200 the Van Gogh Museum will have been in existence 3 g foro years. Our museum is thus still a relative newcomer 3Y on the international scene. Nonetheless, in this fairly short Y eriod the Van Gogh Museum has established itself as P ~ g one of the liveliest institutions of its kind, with arowin g g reputation for its collections, exhibitions and research P ro programmes. The past year has been marked b P g P Y YarticularP success: the Van Gogh and Gauguin exhibition attracted g g record numbers of visitors to its Amsterdam venue. And in this Journal weublish our latest acquisitions, including q ~ g Manet's Thejetty at Boulo ne-sur-mer the first important 1 y g ~ A work by this artist to enter any Dutch public collection. Y Y P B a happy coincidence, our 3oth anniversary coin By PPY ~ 3 Y - cides with the 1 oth of the birth of Vincent van Gogh. As 5 g we approach this milestone it seemed to us a good mo PP - o g ment to reflect on the current state of Van Gogh studies. g For this issue of the Journal we asked a number of exerts P to look back on the most significant developments in g P Van Gogh research since the last major anniversary in g major Y 1 o the centenar of the artist's death. Our authors 99 , Y were asked to filter a mass ofpublished material in differ- P in areas, from exhibition publications to writings about g ~ P g fakes and forgeries. To complement this, we also invited g P a number of specialists to write a short piece on one P P icture from our collection an exercise that is intended to P evoke the variety and resourcefulness of current writing g on Van Gogh. Theicture we offer in this publication, however, is P P far from complete. For example, we have not provided a P P~ P detailed account of technical research into Van Gogh's g a line of enquiry that has become increasingly paintings, q Y gY important in recent years, providing insights into the way Y ~P g g Y the artist worked and helping to clarify issues of authentici- P g Y ty. Nevertheless, our survey suggests that interest in Van Y ~ Y gg Go h remains not only undiminished but has even intensi- Gogh Y fied since 1990. It is also possible to identify a number of 99 P Y trends. It would appear, for example, that scholars are pay PP ~ - P in more attention to the original source material, strivingg forreater accuracy as the details of the artist's life and his g Y oeuvre areieced together. At the same time, there is an P g increasin focus on the context in which Van Gogh worked increasing g and on studying the development of his art in relation to his Y g P contem contemporaries. The Van Gogh and Gauguin exhibition is P g g just one prominent example of this. just P P As with so many fields of research, the more new in- Y formation that comes to light on Van Gogh, the more one g g~ becomes aware of thea s in our knowledge. It is clear gP g that there is work enough to keep us busy far beyond the g P Y Y nexto-ear period. The Van Gogh Museum intends to con 3 Y - P g tinue tola a key role in research on Van Gogh, through top lay Y g g its ownro'ects and offering opportunities, such as this P l g PP ublication to stimulate the work of outside specialists. publication, P This edition of the Journal then, is not just a tribute to an > J artist whose work remains alive androvocative a century P and a half after his birth, but also to all those scholars who have dedicated their time and energy over the years to VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 1 Portrait of Camille Pissarro, from sale Collection Coray Stoop, Lucerne (Theodor Fischer) and Amsterdam 8 (A. Mak), 29 July 1925, lot 107 VAN GOGH 150 When myth seems stronger than scholarship: Van Gogh and the problem of authenticity Stefan Koldehoff Whenever in theast months and years the name of P Y Vincent van Gogh has been mentioned in the international g ress the reason was not necessarily a large exhibition or press, Y g a spectacular record sale at an auction. The biggest head P gg - e lines have always been reserved for allegedly revela Y g Y - new tions in the debate on the authenticity of the artist's works. Y Frequently,the theories proffered from various A sides in this debate have indeed been closely bound u Y up withrecisel those events which in themselves have a P Y strong public appeal, namely exhibitions and auctions. gA PA ~ Y This article examines the authenticity debate both as an Y art-historical necessity and as a media-psychological he Y- P nomenon. It also seeks to determine the extent to which the Van Gogh myth, which was deliberately generated soon g Y ~ Yg after his death, must be made responsible for the fakes that P have cropped up again and again over the course of the AP A g g past century. For the last 15 or so years, in widening the scope of 5 Y ~ g P their research to include the sociological and commercial g aspects of art, a number of art historians have examined A the interaction between art, the art market, collectors and theublic. In i 8 Nicholas Green identified those factors A 9 7, responsible for the changing strategies of the art market in A g g g the second half of the 19th century in France: 'Li the rapid rise in- our articular forms of modern art ... ; the role of j P ~ ) nalism and historical expertise in securing the cultural and P g investment value of art works; and, crucially, the strange Y g alliances between P s eculative collectors, critics and deal- ers. In fact, though unnamed, the operations of the latter g P were ever-present throughout all this enthusiastic hype A g YP i c nnoi eur hi and precious o s .'1 s s P P The following year, Robert Jensen likewise saw the gY shift of the art scene from the Salons andublic exhibitions A torivate galleries at the beginning of the loth century as A g g g Y the cause of fundamental changes to art marketing during g g its early development: `In our century, alliance with a ri Y - P Y A vatealley became considerably more important for an g Y Y P artist's career than membership in a Secession or raduat P - g '2 The strategies from one of the state art academies. he strate es g g used by art dealers to promote the artists they represented Y A Y A as unique contemporary figures -and in such a way that q P Y g Y they became firmly lodged in the awareness of potential Y Y g P collectors - were formulated by Jensen, again ain verypointed- Y YP 1 six years later: `To market modernism artists, their deal- Y~ Y ers, critics, and historians required above all to establish its q historical legitimacy. The historiographic enter rise was as enterpris apart of merchandising Impressionism the in P g - res as P creasin 1 refined practices of art dealers to promote not gY A A onl individual paintings but whole careers, and to do so Y A g not only through conventional publicity, through t g A Y~ - care g full constructed exhibitions and a mode of personal Y - er P A suasions that variously appealed to the speculative and/or Y PP P connoisseurshi skills of the potential client, the amateur.'3 P P The challen e therefore, was to make one's own g~ artist stand out g a ainst the mass of other artists in the mar- ket, either by (prematurely VAN GOGH MUSEUM cal aspects of the artist's life were made increasingly im P gY - P ortant, to such an extent that in some cases the artist's bi- o ra h was considered just as significant his work g P Y as just g - provided, of course, it was able to set him apart from the P ~ P rest. This certainly applied to Van Gogh in the years follow Y PP - ars g Y in his death,perhaps more so than to any other artist of g P P Y classic modernism. His biographyra idl became rapidly came a s promoting myth, touting him the lone wolf whose art P g Y ~ g - as no bodynderstood and who, for this reason, (allegedly) sold Y ~ ~ g Y only one painting during his lifetime. Whilst reliable re- Y P g g search has meanwhile succeeded in disproving most such P g legends, the art world and the art market have refused to g be robbed of their illusions withoututtin up a fight. What P g P g the have sought to preserve is the aura of the most ex pen- - en g P P siveainter of all times, one whose name still guarantees P ~ g hi h circulation figures in media. The outcome of the dis- g ~ cussion is, in the final analysis, reminiscent of the uinte- Y ~ s q sential message of Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's pendu- lum: one has only to believe strongly enough in one's the o- gY - ones o g r and one will always find the matching roof - not to Y Y gP mention the means of makingt public. g P An one who has paid close attention to the relevant Y P cor specialist literature knows that time and again careful - e g rections have been made to Vincent van Gogh's oeuvre. g The acceptance or rejection of works have in the past been P rejection P based onainstakin examinations of style and analyses of P g Y Y material on a reconstruction of the respective picture's P P rovenance, and on comparison with works of un stion P - ue P q able authenticity. During the past ten years, however, the Y g P Y discussion on the authenticity of certain Van Gogh works Y g has clearly been gathering momentum, not least through Y g g ~ g the activeartici ation of the press, radio and television. P P P In order to comprehend the media-psychological P mechanisms and continuities of the authenticity debate it is Y essential to take a look into theast for it is the past that P ~ P furnishes therere uisites for our present understanding q P g of thishenomenon. P The Van Gogh myth and the problem e oblem of authentic- g y p it prior the Second World War yp a One of the countless myths surrounding Vincent van Y g Gogh that has stubbornly persisted since his death,passing YP P g from oneeneration of authors to the next without even g the slightest attempt at verification, is that of the artist's g P endurin lack of success. That this legend - like so many g Y others - at best only touches on historical fact has long g been beyond dispute. Only a short time after his brother's Y P Y arrival in Paris, Theo van Gogh(1857-1891)wrote to his g mother in June 1886: `He is also much more cheerful than in theast and people like him here. To give you proof: P P P g Y P hardl a day passes or he is asked to come to the studios of Y YP well knownainters or the come to see him.'4 While in P , Y the French capital Van Gogh made the acquaintance of P g q Paul g Gau uin Emile Bernard and Henri de Toulouse- Lautrec and he worked together with Paul Signac and g g Camille Pissarro. The letters of condolence received by the Y Van Gogh family after the artist's demise testify to the high g Y Y g esteem he already enjoyed amon his contemporaries.5 Yamong P 10 4 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh JOURNAL 2002 Moreover, the essay by Roland Dorn and Walter Y Y Feilchenfeldt on the history of early Van Gogh forgeries Y Y g g shows how soon after his death his works were considered worth faking.6 This circumstance, too, testifies to Van g > Gogh's popularity and his market value. g P A Y Meier-Graefe and the origins of the Van Gogh myth g Y This development was decisively influenced by two P Y Y virtually simultaneous phenomena. Firstly, strategy P Y~ gY adopted by his sister-in-law, Jo van Goh-Boner P Y Gogh-Bonger (1862-1925), Theo's widow and executor of his estate, for exhibiting and selling Van Go h's works was so clever and g g Gogh' that soon after the turn of the century the artist Y already counted among the most sought-after and ex pen- g - en g P siveainters on the German art market. - Once private col p p lectors had become dedicated - buyers of Van Go h's ic Y Gogh's tures, numerous museums followed suit, and in so doing sent out unmistakable signals as to Van Go h's significance g g g and acceptance as an important artist.8 A P Secondl there was the enormous legend-making in Y~ g g- fluence of the books on Van Gogh that appeared in Germany Pp Y prior to the Second World War, especially those published in P ~ p Y P ver large editions by the publicist and art historian Julius Y g Y P ei r-Grof 9 which transformed Van o h in one of the M e a e,G into e Gog celebrated rtis of he modern mov ment.10In these mostartists t e e es P years, g supposedly tragic Van Go h's su osedl tra ic fate and its al- leed im act on his art became familiar even in those strata g lep ac society that until then had taken little or no interest in art Y and artists. It wasrecisel during this period that the still- e Y g P popular notion of the artist as a misunderstood genius hov P - oP g erin on the brink of madness was born. g In 1906 Meier-Graefe still described Van Gogh as 9 g first and foremost an impassioned socialist 11 but he later P came toresent a maniacal picture of the artist and his A P works: `A rain temp has thrown them onto the g g P canvas. Trees shriek, clouds scud in horror across the sky. Y Suns blaze likelowin holes, in chaos. The pictures are, g g ~ P we know, oftenainted in a blind frenzy. Cézanne would A Y have shrugged his shoulders at this lapse of consciousness. gg P ... As an artist, he sought a substitute for the Church, and g so it never occurred to him to make capital out of his most P e personal manner. Indeed he was unaware of it. If he con- tented himself with transforming revered masters in his g own simple way, it was because he wished to seek refuge in P Y g their sphere of influence and also to preach and act on P ~ p their behalf.... Andrecisel because he was pure and P Y p upright and of an unshakeable simplicity, and because he took foros el that which is in fact only personal, his g A YP lack depth and are threatened by the rational. We paintingsp Y know who was behind them. Futureenerations will know, g too. His historyill r rattle at every r.'12 will a e a e e door.'12 Y Thus Van Gogh, known from his letters to be quite g q ca able of astute reflection both on his situation and on his capabl was metamorphosed into a man of `rain tempera- P 'raging - era A ment' `blind frenzy' and `unshakeable simplicity.' The le - Yg end of the supposedly deranged artistic genius that has PP Y - re g g mainedo ular to this day was born here - as was the basis PP Y for all the religious hype about the painter Meier-Graefe was g YP P de Langlois (F 570 JH 1421) to its Roulin portrait; the Stadtische Kunsthalle Mannheim bought Bowl with sun- flowers, roses and other flowers (F 250 JH 1166) from Cassirer; the Zurich patroness Emy Roth donated Orchard in VAN GOGH MUSEUM toursue in the following years, repeatedly recycling,var P gY A Y - Y in extending Gogh in variety b k 13 and extend his Van Go texts a va et of oo s. g g g Y An initial hagiographic climax was reached after the First World War with Meier-Graefe's novel Vincent, first published in 1 21. Its subsequent editions all subti- A were 9 q tled significantly,Roman eines Gottsuchers `The story of a Y od-seeker' . `The purpose of the novel Vincent,' wrote g A A Meier-Graefe in the book'sro rammatic conclusion, `is to P g further the creation of legend. For there is nothing we need g g more than new symbols, legends of the humanity that Y ~ g Y comes from our own loins.'14 In his memoirs of theears Y 1921-24, Elias Canetti recalls that 'following the ublica g - P tion of Meier-Graefe's Vincent, Van Gogh became the most g revailin topic of conversation around the boarding g A g house dining table. [... That was the time when all the sacraliza- g tion of Van Gogh was beginning,and Miss Kundi once said g g that only now, after learning about his [Van Go h's life, did Y ~ g g h realise what Christ b ' 15 Thismythologizing s e rea se wha Chr1s was a out. s reduction of Van Gogh's complex personality to the simple g P A Y A olarit ofgenius and madness did not fail to have its effect P Y g on Canetti's mother, either, even though, as the author himself wrote 'painting had never meant much to her.' ,A g When Canetti, then still in his late teens, asked her about Van Gogh in the wake of Meier-Graefe's book, he received g a description that in all probability corresponded to the A A Y A eneralperception of the artist at that time: `A madman g A P whoainted straw chairs and sunflowers, always in yellow, A ~ Y Y he didn't like any other colours, until he got sunstroke and Y ~ g blew his brains out.'16 Thanks to Meier-Graefe's arbitrary, pathos-filled interpretation, a complex life and an oeuvre comprising a good 2,100 works could at the time be sum- A g g marised in just one sentence. He presents Van Gogh as the just A g of the romantic, unrecognised artistic prototype~ enius g g whose disregard by society nevertheless redounds to his g Y Y greater honour. Sjraar van Heugten has shown that many of Meier- Sjraar g Y Graefe's 'inventions,' some of which were first formulated in the novel, have to this day shaped the general public's Y P g A erce perception of Vincent van Go h.17 They also account for A A g Y the fact that immediately after the First World War Van Y Gogh came to symbolise the solitary Nordic artist, the lone g Y Y wolf, as distinct from the French Bohemian.18 The art trade's need for fakes Naturally, the Van Gogh myth did much to increase Y g Y the artist's market value. In an essay written in 1 1 Y 9 3, Meier-Graefe noted: `Van Gogh's current ranking in the g g market is virtually the same as that of Cézanne and has Y during the last ten years risen a good 20 to times, and g Y g 4 since his death, that is to say, barely two decades, Y~ Y betweenoo and boo times. Such works as Sternheim's 4 L'Arlési nne19 or The courtyardo th hos it atAr be e o e al le - Arles, hospita to The dor Behrens in Ham r 2° which had cost o bu a g 10o francs in 1890 and between 1 000 and 2 000 francs in 9 > 190o, would at present veryprobably sell for even more 9 ~ A YP Y than Cézanne's most expensive works.'21 P The supply of fresh paintings was regulated quite PAY A g g q strictl . Jo van Gogh sold works from the estate primarily g A Y through only a few dealers, with whom she collaborated g Y closely. What the collector JOURNAL 2002 found elsewhere. Works obviously deliberately forged and Y Y g false) signed appeared in various galleries and exhibi falsely g pp - s g tions already early on. Roland Dorn has suggested that Y Y gg Still life with mackerels, lemons and tomatoes (F 285 JH f 5 1118 is one of the first of these intentional g for eries - in- tentional because it is clearly signed Vincent - and that it Y g v been early 1 .22 He and his - may have bee executed as ea as 8 a s co Y Y 99 author Walter Feilchenfeldt have at any rate been able to Y demonstrate that the first clearly forged Van Goghs a - Y g g p eared in an exhibition held at Bernheim-Jeune in Paris p in Berlin in 1903.23 1 - n 1 0l and at the Be hn Sezession n 1 0 . Shortly a 1901 93 Yf terwards theainter Judith Gérard-Moline discovered P that a copy she had done of an authentic Self-portrait F pY 476 JH 1 81 given by Van Gogh to Gauguin as a present, 47 5 ~g Y g g p had been offered for sale (with a changed background) as g g an original Van Gogh (F o JH - evidently through the g 53 ), Y g mediation of theainter Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, a P n of Gauguin, and hisbrother A é .24 Théodore d o au In a d s med re e e o g Duret's Van Gogh monograph, first published in 1 16 al g - p 9 read contained five dubious drawings and six dubious Y g intro s.25 Works wronglyscribed to Van Gogh a pa g s ascribed o - g p eared repeatedly at exhibitions and auctions during p Y g the years that followed, one of the most amusing ones being, ~ g , g in 1925,a Portrait o the painter Camille Pissarro (fig. 1) ~ g wne by the Swiss art dealer Han C ra .26 The two owned e - uc s e a o a Y Y tioneers commissioned to sell the work were evidently al- t read aware that they were faced with a fundamental Y Y problem of authenticity, for in the auction catalogue entry Y g Y they explicitly stated: `Dr de la Faille believes he is unable Y p Y to recognise the hand of the master in this painting.' g P g Finally, 1 o the author of the first Van Gogh cata Y~ 93 ~ - g logue raisonné, the Dutch lawyer J.-B. de la Faille g ~ Y 1886-1 felt obliged to publish his own compilation 959 ~ g P P of Van Gogh fakes.27 Already comprising as many as 1 g Y p g Y 174 works, it was not unreservedly accepted in the years fol- Y P Y lowin its publication, and certainly not by the collectors g p ~ Y Y hpicturesi on me .28 whosetc ce d This catalogue of fakes had become necessary fol- g Y lowinghe publication of D la Faille's four-volume cata g - De P s - 1 e r i onn' 29 for the latter had been accompanied b a o u a s e, o e tte ad e gby forgery scandal on a scale never before encountered. In the g Y spring of 1 28 in the run-up to an exhibition at Paul p g 9 ~ P Cassirer'saller initially three and, later, as many as o g Y~ Y Y 3 turned out to be fakes. They had all come from a paintingsY certain Otto Wacker, an art dealer who shortly before had Y moved his business from Dusseldorf to Berlin. Wacker claimed to have taken theaintin s in commission from a P g Russian aristocrat and then, from the mid-192os, to have 9 offered them for sale through other art dealers, chiefly in g ~ Y Berlin.30 Wacker was charged with fraud and forgery and g g Y eventually sentenced to one year's imprisonment for re Y - Y P Bated fraud. X-rayphotographs, never before used for this p Y proved to the court beyond all doubt that the purpose,p Y works were forgeries; materials found in the Dusseldorf g studio of Wacker's brother constituted further evidence. The court of appeal to which Wacker's solicitor, Iwan pP Goldschmidt then took case increased the sentence to one year and seven months plus a fine of o 00o Reichsmark VAN GOGH MUSEUM as 16, he performed a piece entitled Zouave (An Vincent 94~ P P i van Goh at the Theater des Tanzes in Weimar.32 g De la Faille's role The Wacker scandal revolved not just around the J question of the authenticity of these particular works of art. q Y P Ver soon after the trial bean the focal point of interest in Very began, P the enor a news ers and journals of the period became the - PP journals P mous embarrassment the scandal had caused for many of the Y most renowned art historians of the time.33 The paintings now under suspicion had all been declared genuine by one or P g Y several exerts of note and dul furnished with certificates of P Y authenticity (figs. 2a and 2b . The Berlin newspaper Der Y g Abend headlined one of its reports `Art Exert on Tri 1 '34 p Experts a, while the Berliner Bórsen-Courier- ex osed the question: `Are P q erts' opinions worth the paper they're written n?'35 Das p p o PP Y Kunstblatt published by Paul Westheim, titled its report on Kunstblatt, Y ~ P the case even more th succinctly: `The Expert Myth.'36 Y P Y De la Faille himself had contributed to the forma- tion of this lowly view of the art expert, for once the Y P Wacker scandal had broken he changed his opinions sever- g P al times and on a variety of works. The fact that he o erat Y - P ed occasionally as an art dealer, obtained money in return Y ~ Y for his expert opinion, had a financial interest in the Dutch P P auction house A. Mak, and had himself been involved in the sale of the Wacker works threw an additional dubious light g on his conduct anderson. P Julius Meier-Graefe likewise changed his mind in g the course of the trial - so drastically that his volte-face - ace trig- f Y g ered the following response from the Vossische Zeitung: g : A g `Meier-Graefe who has issued certificates of authenticity for 25 of the fakes, was asked: "What value do experts' 5 ~ P o opinions have at all?" He replied: "Terribly little! People P P Y P who- urchase paintings on the strength of experts' o in P P g g P op in- deserve nothing else but to be taken in by them." Now g Y fig. 2a Still life with herrings and cheese Meier-Graefe himself hasiven his expert opinion on g P P and it is on the strength of his opinion that these paintingsg P aintin s have been sold for large sums of money. Is it e - con g g Y ceivable that someone should make fun ofrecisel those ofprecisely eo le who have laced their unlimited trust in him?'37 P P P Meier-Graefe's reputation sustained permanent P P dama e in consequence of the Wacker scandal. Like many q Y 14 32 Programme in the Deutsches Tanzarchiv, Cologne. wish to thank Frank-Manuel Peter for this information. 33 Cf. Nicole Roepers strijd der deskundigen: H.P. p strijd g Bremmer en het Wackerproces,' Jong Holland 93 (1993), no. 2, pp. 25-36. 34 'Die Kunstexpertise vor Gericht,' Der Abend (19 April p 1932). 35 'Hat die Expertise Wert and Zweck?,'Berliner Bórsen- Courier (17 April 1932). 36 'Expertisenaberglaube,'Das Kunstblatt 16 (May 1932), pp. 34-39. 37 Vossische Zeitung (19 April 1932): 'Meier-Graefe, der fur 25 der falschen Bilder Echtheitszertifikate ausgestellt g hatte, wurde gefragt: "Welchen Wert haben Expertisen p Oberhaupt?" Er antwortete. "Einen ungeheuererin en g g Wert! Leute, die auf Expertisen hin Bilder kaufen, sind auch nichts anderen wert, als auf sie hereinzufallen." Nun aber hat Meier-Graefe selbst die Expertisen gegeben, auf die hin die Bilder zu hohen Summen verkauft wurden. 1st es da mtiglich, sich Ober die Leute lustig zu machen, die g ihm grenzenloses Vertrauen bewiesen haben?' JOURNAL 2002 fig. 2b Expertise by Meier-Graefe on the back of 2a of his colleagues, he had become so fascinated with the Van Gogh myth that he was no longer able to make proper 'ud g Y g - er P P) g ments. In June 1929, Ludwig Justi, the then- director of the g Nationalgalerie in Berlin, wrote to his colleague Heinrich g ~ g Alfred Schmidt in Basle: `I am indeed very pleased that you YP Y have taken a stand in this case against Meier-Graefe. Many Y colleagues have written to me expressing their approval, g P g PP and some have even stated it- you ublicl . I think - like P Y Y that all serious scholars should join forces against the kind g of superficial scholarship that thrives on enormous pro pa- P - a P P anda and gross assertiveness.'38 g g In 1932, Grete Ring summed up the quintessence of 93 ~ g P q the Wacker scandal as follows: `The art lover, and P es ecial- 1 the German art lover, does not make his choices based Y purely on the visual aspect: his preference for particular P Y P P P artist often stems from an intellectual, literary approach. Y PP He sees in Van Gogh not only the creator of beautiful) g Y beautifully colourfulaintin s but also reveres him as the tragically P g g Y fated genius, the writer of distressing confessions: for him, Van Gogh's paintings are - to put it rather pointedly - a g P g P P Y kind of author's autograph. And this is why a collector's Y wish for a Van Gogh cannot be satisfied by the work of an g Y any other artist; and, by the same token, even a relatively poor Y YP m the master's art is desirable t' X39 example oft e maste sat 1s still des ab e at times. '39 Thus the decisive criterion by which Van Gogh had Y g now come to be judged was no longer the quality of his g g q Y but rather the supposed story behind them. The paintingsPP Y debate on the authenticity of Van Gogh's works had be- Y g come, even at this early stage, a matter of faith, and the Van Y g Gogh myth the gospel of the faithful. And Van Gogh forgers g Y ~ P g g have exploited this fact right up to the present day. P g P P Y Post-war attempts at establishing Van Gogh fakes P g g The debate on the authenticity of manypaintings, Y Y drawings and watercolours supposedly originatingfrom g PP Y Van Gogh's hand has remained an issue of creed to this g da . During the last ten years, however, it has assumed a Y g Y > newualit insofar as since 1994 it has been concerned q Y~ 994 not merely with hitherto unknown works that have come Y up for sale on the market. The discussion concerning the P g authenticity of a version of the Sunflowers (F JH 1666) Y 457 and the Garden atAuvers (F 814 JH 2107) represented the 4~ 7 P first large-scale investigation into the authenticity of works g g Y that had previously been indisputably accepted as genuine. Whereas before the Van - Gogh myth had served to legit- g Y g imise fakes, the assertion that works earlier considered au- 15 38 Berlin, Zentralarchiv der Stiftung Preu(iischer Kulturbesitz, I/NG 723: 'Es freut mich sehr, dass Sie in dieser Sache gegen Meier-Graefe Stellung nehmen. Viele Kollegen haben mir zustimmend geschrieben, aber einige ihre Zustimmung óffentlich erscheinen lassen. Ich finde – wie Sie, – dass alle ernsten Wissenschaftler gegen die mit grossen Propagandamitteln und gewaltigem Anspruch auftretende Halbwissenschaft zusammenhalten mussen.' 39 Grete Ring, 'Der Fall Wacker,' Kunst & Kunstler 31 (May 1932), pp. 161-62. "Der Amateur, besonders der deutsche, kauft nicht ausschlieRlich nach optischen Gesichtspunkten: die Neigung zu einem Kunstler geht bei ihm oft obers Gedankliche, das Literarische. VAN GOGH MUSEUM thentic were also forgeries now gave rise to a new set of g g le ends. g Perpetuating the myth P g Y Durin the post-war years, too, works of dubious During P Y > quality cropped up time and time again, their alleged authen q Y PP P g~ - g ticit being substantiated more by Vincent van Go h' che Y g Y - s g uered biographythan b an thin else. Helping to dissemi q by anything P g - nate ander etuate the Van Gogh myth at the time were, P P g Y amon other things, the novel Lust or life b the American among g~ Y author Irvin Stone, which sold over a million copies world Irving ~ - s P wide, and in 1956, Vincente Minelli's film version, starring > g Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh and Anthony Quinn as Gauguin. g g Q Y g The number of fakes appearing in these years increased to PP g Y such an extent that in i M.M. van Dantzig could even ub 953 g - P lish a whole book about them; entitled Vincent? itromised `a P new method of identifying the artist and his work and of un- Y g maskinghe forger and his products.'4° g g P Amon the most spectacular `discoveries' of the im- Among P mediate post-war period was the so-called Self-portrait: 1 P study by candlelight (F 6a . The American film magnate y g 47 g William Goetz, who hadurchased this large-formatpaint- P g P in in i 8 first exhibited it a year later. Its authenticity, 94 ~ Y Y, which had been highly disputed from the very beginning, g Y P Y g g, was said to beroven by the inscriptions on the back of the P Y P canvas. These, too, were in keeping with the Van Gogh myth > P g g Y and the - legend of the countless works the artist was sup- P posed to have given away: `Portrait par V. Goh échan é P g Y P g g contredessins japonais - Arles 8 déc. 1888. // Peinture 9 JP re résentant le portrait du peintre Van Gogh par lui-même. P P P g P Achetée ledécembre i i en même temps qu'une autre 7 97 Pq sur bois du mêmeeintre (et représentant des fleurs, un P P livre et unei e a un vieux pensionnaire du restaurant de PP P la rue des Petits-Carreaux. Provient de chez son oncle àui q un Pasteur nommé Salles l'avait offerte vers 1893. // P 25.~41 93 The editorial commission of the revised De la Faille edi- ti n42 o did not have the courage to pronounce a definitive g P 'ud judgment on the painting, least on account of the di J g P g~ - lo P matic complications the matter had already been causing Y g between the Netherlands and the United States and also the owner's own threat to institute legal proceedings.43 g p gs Significantly,the editors even cite the novelist Irving Stone g as one of their witnesses to theaintin 's authenticity. P g Y Consequently,this more than dubious work has to this day Y not been officially written out of Vincent van Gogh's oeuvre. Y g Besides areat many other individual pictures, some g Y P of which received extensiveublicit (figs. and 44 the l P Y g 3 4),44 - a le ed new discoveries not infrequently comprised - as in the g q Y P Otto Wacker case - whole bundles of works proof of their ,P authenticity likewise being based on myths and legends that Y g Y g had long since been discredited. g The Jelle de Boer Collection When the Amsterdam art dealer Jelle de Boer an- nounced an Exposition des im ressionistes ran ais to be P P f held at his Rozengracht gallery in June i 66 the art world g g Y 9 was electrified, for de Boerromised to show 'paintings P and drawings by Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cézanne, Manet, g Y g Renoir Toulouse-Lautrec and Matisse hitherto unknown and never before exhibited.' The Dutchress celebrated P the show as an art-hist JOURNAL 2002 fig. 3 fig. 4 Harvest in front of the Alpilles Peasants in front of a fireplace ticity: `In 1 o the Van Goghs were being peddled at Breda Y 9 3 g gP forand 10 cents. From that time I have a good many ic y g Y - P tures, which have wandered about forears. In Paris they Y were sold inarcels of 1 o together for one or half a franc, P g from the household effects of the Café du Tambourin; Van Gogh had given them all to the landlady. They were not g g Y Y worth aenn .'47 P Y De Boer is here referring in part to an episode the g P P Dutch Van Goh researcher Benno Stokvis had reconstructed g in 1926, a good 40 years after the event, and which has ever 9 g 4~ Y since served as a source of numerous alleged Van Goghs.48 g g Accordin to Stokvis, when Vincent van Go h's mother, Anna According Gogh' Carbentus181 –1 0 , and his sister Willemina 9 97 (Wil) Jacoba1862-1 1 moved from Nuenen in 1886, the 94~ work her son had left behind when he went to Antwerp was P packed into crates and deposited with a Breda carpenter enter P P whom he calls Schrauer, along with some furniture. Stokvis g mentions 'portfolios containing drawings, and P g s g~ - wa tercolours, and also canvases which had notet been Y stretched on frame .'49 Although M the V n Gogh later r sMother a Go ater e- g cu erated her furniture, Van Gogh's works remained with P g Schrauer - who was in fact one Adrianus Schrauwen (5834-592o)- and ultimately found their way into the hands Y Y of a junk dealer named Couvreur in 1903. In reply to Stokvis's junkPY question concerning theuantity of works he had acquired, q q Couvreur replied: 'Sixty framed paintings, - o 1 loose canvas P Y P g 5 es, twoortfolios containing approximately 8o pen-and-ink P g PP Y P drawin s and between loo and 200 crayon drawin s.'5° g Y drawing s25 44 There are many examples. Here are a few of the prominent ones: Marc Edo Tralbaut, Récolte de blé dans la plaine des Alpilles (in Bulletin II des Archives Internationales de Van Gogh, 1968), idem, Vincent van Gogh, Lausanne 1969, p. 205 (Flowers), p. 239 (Countryside around Arles) and p. 245 (Harvesting wheat in the Alpilles plain); exhib. cat. Les Impressionistes d`Auvers-sur-Oise, Auvers-sur-Oise (Salle des fêtes de la mairie)1973, no. 52 (Les chaumes de gré); exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh: Zeichnungen and Aquarelle, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurter Kunstverein) 1970, no. 33 (F 1127a, Garden in winter), no 66 (F -, Two peasants with wheelbarrow) and no. 67 (F -, Study), A.J. Rehorst, De Hogeschoolrijdster: een onbekend werk van Vincent van Gogh, Utrecht 1976; and exhib. cat Autour du Docteur Gachet, Auvers-sur-Oise (Musée Daubigny)1990 (Couple des paysans devant une chem- inée, without catalogue number, ill. on title). 47 Exhib. cat. Exposition des impressionistes francais, Amsterdam (Jelle de Boer) 1966. 48 See Benno J. Stokvis, Nasporingen omtrent Vincent van Gogh in Brabant, Amsterdam 1926 See also the es- say by Martha Op de Coul in this volume of the Van Gogh Museum Journal. A selection of contemporary press reports is kept in the archives of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. 49 Ibid. 4. p 46 I wish to thank David Brooks in Toronto for this infor- 50 Ibid., p. 7 matron, VAN GOGH MUSEUM ortraits of Van Go h's brother Theo and their father P g Theodorus - which were also supposed to have come from PP studio in Nuenen.51 Klusmann claims have to ave found these works, 260 in all, in the attic of an old people's home in > P P Breda: 'Examining them more closely, noticed that some g Y~ of the canvases were g si ned `Vincent.' As both the tech- ni que and the subject matter were reminiscent of Van q I believed I had found something special. I was able g P tourchase the whole box and its contents for a negligible P sum.'52 His story, sto ,however was called into question at the Y however, q end of 2001: a Swiss journalist ascribed the 'discovery' ofjournalist Y the collection to a Dutchman named Marijnissen, with whom Klusmann, he wrote, had not been in contact until the 1 8os.53 9 The works now belong to diverse owners. g Klusmann's firstublished painting - Girl in white walpin P P g g in aforest clearing (fig. 5)54 - is said have sa d to ave been sold to a g g5 rivate collector in Israel for over 00 000 Swiss francs, 5 > while various other works are back in Breda. None of them, however, is listed in either of the two recognised Van Gogh g g oeuvre catalogues (De la Faille and Hulsker). And although g g man , even the most marginal, are signed with cons icu - Y g ~ g P ous clarity, none of the acknowledged Van Gogh scholars Y g g or experts have testified to their authenticity. For there is P Y oneroblem that not even the best provenance story can P P Y help resolve: the paintings are quite simply of abysmal P P g q PY Y quality,P and would never stand up to a critical examination of their style and execution. Y The Raynal-Bey Collection Y Y fig 5 There is also a collector in France who has been Girl in white walking in a forest clearing, from Georg Klusmann, Vincent van Gogh: Unbekannte fruhe Werke, waiting in vain for positive expert opinion for the past g P P P P Mainburg 1987, p 132 nineears: in December 1 , Paris Match published the Y 993 P stor of the Paris art historian Jacques Ra nal-Be who Y q Y Y~ had come intoossession of an unknown quantity of Van P q Y The Klusmann/Marijnissen Collection Goghs. Raynal-Bey claimed he had purchased them from a J g Y Y P If all the newly discovered works that have been as- junk dealer at the flea market in Saint-Ouen - some of Y l cribed to Vincent van Gogh did in fact originate from this them originatingfrom a suitcase belonging to Gauguin, g g g g group, Schrauwen and Couvreur must have been in posses- others from a box belonging to Emile Bernard. The dealer g g sion of a farreater number, as sundry other owners like - hadurchased them `autour des années o ... - a l'é o ue g ~ Y P 3 Pq wise cite them as their source. In 1987,the German h si - oil ils ne valaient rien.'55 However, oweeer, neither the mediocre PY cian Georg Klusmann published a book entitled Vincent quality of the works themselves nor Ra nal-Be 's romantic g P q Y Y Y van Gogh: Unbekannte fruhe Werke. It contains a selection story of their provenance correspond to historical reality: g Y P P Y ofworks on paper, canvas and wood - including alleged b the 1 os, Van Gogh's works had long since counted 95 P P g ~ Y 93 g g 18 JOURNAL 2002 fig. 6a fig. 6b Street in Les-Baux (from the so-called Album japonais) Postcard showing the street seen in 6a among the best known and most expensive the art mar - views of Tarascon Castle, the harbour of Marti ue the mu- ~ q ket• they were no longer the kind of thing one bought at the nici al park of Arles and a street in Les-Baux-de-Provence Y g g g P P aces for next to nothing. . g fi . 6a the latter having obviously been copied from a g ~ g Y P ostcard printed after Van Gogh's death (fig. 6b) - are of P P g g The 'Albuma onais' breathtakin 1 amateurish quality, once again, all the 1P q Y~ g It was also throug junk h a junk dealer that the French- acknowled acknowledged authorities have refused to testify to their g Y couple Valérie Noizet and Francesco Plateroti authenticity. Nonetheless, Plateroti continues to tour the P Y claimed to have made their supposedly sensational discov- world with an exhibition of what he claims to be genuine er . At a press conference in Paris on 17 November i 2, Van Goghs – and Van Goghs enriched with extras, too: con- Y P 7 99 g g they maintained to have purchased an album containing P cealed in the six drawings, Plateroti claims, are portraits of g g P six large-format Van Gogh drawings three years previously g Camille Roulin Leonardo da Vinci, Eugène Boch, Félix g Y P Y g in Arles in the south of France - foroo francs.56 Not until Fénéon Diego Velazquez, Rembrandt, Petrarch, Paul 4~ they arrived home did the couple notice the signature Gauguin and, last but not least, Van Gogh himself. Y P g g g `Vincent.' Once again, these drawings - which include g ~ g However he writes, these hidden references reveal them- 51 See Georg Klusmann, Vincent van Gogh: Unbekannte 54 Klusmann, op. cit. (note 51), p. 132 (ill.). fruhe Werke, Mainburg 1987. 55 Francois Chaigneau, 'Les Van Gogh de Saint-Ouen,' 52 Ibid., p. 20 Paris Match (23 December 1993), pp. 96-102. 53 Hanspeter Born, 'Auf Schatzsuche,' Das Magazin 51 56 See Valérie Niozet and Francesco Plateroti, Vincent (22-28 December 2001), pp. 36-47 van Gogh: L'album laponais Regard sur six dessins 19 retrouvés, Paris 1993. selves only if one turns the drawings to an angle of between fig. 7 Y g g Wheatfield with sheaves (JH 1478) 45g grea romantic is g into Van Gogh the great mystic! g g Y With the inception of the Internet the number of P Van Gogh fakes on the market has increased beyond con- - had triggered De Robertis' doubts was his suspicion that Y gg P trol. eBay alone - one of the world's leading online auction - various labels on the reverse side of the canvas and the Y g eers - offers dozens of works ascribed to Van Gogh, includ - frame had been either faked or swapped. g PP in an additional version of the ever-popular Sunflowers. g Very often, not even the slightest attempt is made at equip- - Public andrivate theories Y ~ ~ P q P p ping in these works with a plausible provenance. rovenance In 1997, Landais, a French amateur re- P P 997> searcher living in the Netherlands, likewise expressed his g ~ P Genuine works in the authenticity debate — doubts about the Sunflowers and other Van Gogh works. In Y a mediahenomenon p The day the Van Gogh authenticity debate took on Y g Y an entirely new aspect can be indicated precisely. On 2 Y P P Y 27 57 Carlo Bertelli and Flavio Fiorentino, 'Ma quests January 1 the Italian daily Corriere della Sera ub - Y 994~~ Y p Girasoli non sono di Van Gogh,' Corriere della Serra (27 lished an article on the land surveyor Antonio de January 1997). Y r i 57 De Robertis, an amateur Van Gogh enthusiast, t s. g , 58 Martin Bailey, 'At least forty-five Van Goghs may well here maintained that the version of the Sunflowers now in be fakes,' The Art Newspaper 7 (July-August 1997), p. 1. Tokyo, had hitherto been acknowledged as a gen- - g g uine Van Gogh beyond any h be and an shadow of a doubt, was not au- 59 Cf. Dorn and Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 6). thentic. Heut forward the theory that this painting, p Y P g~ is unsigned and is not mentioned in the artist's letters, was 60 At thisoint in time, the painting had already been g p ublicl declared by the museum as a fake (cf. note 63). in fact a copy made by Claude-Emile Schuffenecker. What p Y PY Y 61 Jan Hulsker, The new complete Van Gogh: paintings, drawings, sketches, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1996. 20 JOURNAL 2002 the sameear, the British journalist Martin Bailey, writing Y journalist Y~ g in the monthly magazine The Art Newspaper, re orted that Y gP at least 45 Van Goghs might well be fakes, including such 5 g g g prominent works as the aforementioned Sunflowers and the repetitions of the Portrait o Dr Gachet (F JH 201 P 754 4 and L'Arlésienne F88 JH 162 .58 4 4 Many of the works named in Bailey's article had al Y - s Y read been questioned by other experts. Bailey cited, in Y q Y P Y addition to Landais, the still unpublished research of P Roland Dorn and Walter Feilchenfeldt. This team had al- read expressed their doubts in 1 59 concerning the Y P 993 g - au thenticit of Van Gogh works at the Gemeentemuseum in Y g The Hague (F 1 8 JH 528; F 1 8v JH 1198; F 286 JH 112 g 7 5 ~ 7 7; the Villa Flora Museum in Winterthur (F 222 JH 1 1 o8 • the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen in Rotterdam (F 2 ~ 237 JH 1131); the Detroit Institute of Art (F 243 JH 112 43 9; the Van Gogh Museum (F 253 JH 1121 F 2 a JH 12 g 53 ~ 53 2 3; the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford (F 268 JH 12 F 2 99~ 279 JH 1104); the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo (F 2 8 4 7 JH 1103), the Von der Heydt Museum in Wuppertal (F 28 3 Y PP 287 JH 1128); the Fogg Art Museum (F 332 JH 12 gg 33 1234); The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (F 6 v 1 P 3 5 1354); the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid (F 438 JH 1571); Y 43 the ; 80 Nasjonalgalleriet in Oslo (F 528 JH 1 the National- ] g 5 7 museet in Stockholm F6o JH 1482); the Musée d'Orsay Y in Paris (F 653 JH 1840); the Osterreichische Galerie in 53 Vienna (F 1672a JH 1 60 and in private collections 7 344 P F2 aJH 11 6;F286aJH 1128;F 2 JH 1 ;F 796 JH 35 3 7 5 744 79 2110; F - JH 1478). Dorn and Feilchenfeldt have fully sub Y - stantiated their claims. The revised edition of Jan Hulsker's oeuvre cata- lo ue 61 which was published shortly - as ub s ed sho tl before Bailey's art) g P Y Y cle, has only added to the confusion. Hulsker- ues laces P q tion marks against the catalogue entries of works, but g g 45 left the issue open as to whether he was querying the P q Y g - au thenticity of the respective pictures or merely casting doubt Y P P Y g on their hitherto accepted dates. Conversely, various works P Y that have meanwhile been definitively identified as fakes Y and eliminated from Van Gogh's oeuvre - such as the Self g portrait in Vienna62 or the Still-life with t ife wl h bottle of wine, two glasses and a plate with bread and cheese (F 253 JH 1121 at g ~ 53 the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam63 - are still listed as g authentic.64 Highly dubiouspictures, such as Wheat ield g Y f with sheavesfi . 7), which first appeared on the scene in g 7 PP 1977,65 are accepted by Hulsker as genuine without 977~ P Y - ues g q tion or hesitation. At least one of the works he catalogues g does not even exist.66 The media did their bit to ensure that the fakes de- bateuickl gathered momentum. In Germany, the art his q Y - g Y torian Matthias Arnold immediately followed up Landais's Y P contentions; in the United Kingdom, the journalist g J Geraldine Norman succeeded inublicisin the debate on P g a national scale. Sudden) the Van Gogh myth was drawing Y~ g Y g its sustenance from a completely new source. Art-historical P Y research had apparently exhausted the Van Gogh theme in PP Y ~ all its aspects, and in so doing had altogether demystified it: P ~ g g Y the - one legend that he had been able to sell just that fa g J mousaintin during his lifetime had lost its ma is 67 as P g g g had the story of the severed ear and the long-held romantic Y g notion that his lack of success was voluntaryven Y, desired.68 No VAN GOGH MUSEUM Davids in the form of PP Y impartial supposedly im artial amateur re- searchers fighting against the seemingly all-powerful g g g gY P Goliath represented by the Van Gogh Museum in P Y g Amsterdam which spoke out regularly in defence of the P g Y authenticity of the Sunflowers. The fact that the museum Y had allowed a new exhibition win the cost of which ran g, into the millions, to be financed by the owner of thepaint- Y P in the Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company Ltd, g~ P Y completed the conspiracy scenario. Hardly a single j- P P Y Y jour- nalist has since omitted to insinuate, discreetly or other- Y wise that the museum has lost its integrity and impartiality g Y P Y - journalists, as we know, love the kind of story that can be Y told entirely in terms of black and white. Y That the media soon focussed its attention solely on Y the Sunflowers controversy and, moreover, .~ Y - moreover unquestioning 1 accepted the theories put forward by De Robertis, Y P P Y Landais and Arnold, isuite astonishing, inasmuch as not a q g sin le item of roof has been furnished in the course of the g P debate so far. De Robertis and Landais have, from the very outset, based their theoriesurel on circumstantial evi- P Y dence. Neither has had an opportunity to view the painting PP Y P in the original. From 1934 until its sale at auction in March 934 1987,the painting was in the possession of the family of the P g P Y British mining engineer Chester Beatty. During this period g g Y g P it was loaned to the National Gallery in London on two oc- Y casions from 1955-59 and from 1983-87. While the painting 59P g was at the National Gallery, in next to the museum's Y~ hanging own version of the Sunflowers F JH 1562),no material 4~54~ or stylistic examinations were undertaken by any outside Y Y Y researchers.69 The painting was immediately shipped to ese p g y pp Tok o following its purchase by Yasuda. Y g P Y The theory that numerous Van Gogh paintings are Y g P g actually the work of Claude-Emile Schuffenecker - a theory Y that has likewise been all too willingly endorsed by the me gY Y - dia - is still awaiting proof. Two facts alone are indis- gP putable: the Schuffenecker brothers had access to a variety Y ofictures and the also made what the considered to be P , Y Y 'improvements' to a great many of the paintings that passed P g Y P g P g through their hands. Judith Gérard-Moline states, for ex- ample, that both were responsible painting onsible for aintin out the 'in- P trusive' cat in the foreground of Daubi n 's garden (F 776 g g y g 77 JH 210 and addinggrey clouds to Houses atAuvers (F 802 4~ gg Y JH 2001 .70 When Ludwig Justi purchased the former for J g p the Nationalgalerie in Berlin in 1 2 for over 200,000 g 99 Reichsmark, he triggered not only a political controversy Y P Y but also one of the earliest debates on the authenticity of Y h' works.71 Schuffenecker was evidently also Van Gogh's y - re g s onsible for enlarging the canvas of the Tokyo Sunflowers. p g g Y However Y an one who saw the Schuffenecker exhi- brtlon in Pont Aven in the autumn of 1 6 _ 72 and has 99 97 since worked his way through the oeuvre catalogue pub- - g g P lished by Jill-Elyse Grossvogel four years later will realise Y Y g Y that despite the more than scanty information and the poor P Y P ualit of reproduction in the second publication, 73 quality ublication P P Schuffenecker did not even have the ability to produce a Y P fake of theualit found in the version of the Sunflowers q Y under discussion. This observation is further borne out by Schuffene JOURNAL 2002 spective in Martin in 2000, curated by Ronald Pickvance, inals. Between 1949 and 1 , Gachet's heirs had donated P Y 949 954 journalists raised questions on several of the exhibited nineaintin s, six drawings and an etching by Van Gogh, l q p g g g Y g works.76 as well as numerous memorabilia, to the Louvre. This do- One of the biggest stirs was created by a report on nation included such famousaintin s as Self-portrait gg Y p p g the Garden atAuvers 77 a work that had once before been F 627 JH 1 2 and Church atAuvers (F 789 JH 2006 2006). 7 77 7 9 the focus ofpublic interest. When its owner, Jacques Doubts were expressed, among others, about Cows (after p q p g Walter, t it f r auction in Paris in December 1992,78 Jordaens) (F 822 JH 2095), which was originallyowned b by 95 the Frenchovernment declared it a `monument classique' Gachet, and the repetition of the Portrait of Dr Gachet g q p and forbade its export, although it did not assert its right of FJH 201 . However, the Paris show (which later trav- P g g 754~ 4~ first refusal. The banker Jean-Marc Vernes thereupon ur - elled to New York and Amsterdam) and the results of the p p chased theaintin for the relatively small sum of mil - concomitant examination of the material and style of the e g Y 55 Y lion francs. The French Supreme Court ordered the ov - exhibited worksave no reason to doubt the authenticity of p g g Y ernment toa Walter's heirs compensation amounting to those works with a Gachetrovenance.82 PY p g p 145 million francs. Positive, too, was the outcome of the examinations 45 When fourears later it became known that undertaken on Thearden of St hospital (F 659 JH Y g ~ 59 ' painting for sal e,79 the 185o), which Gachet's son had donated to the Van Gogh P g ~ Frenchress expressed some scepticism - a good two and Museum in 1954. Even Theo's son, Vincent-Willem van p p p g 954 half monthsrior to the auction - regarding this unusual Gogh, had expressed his doubts about the picture's authen s - p g g g p p authenticit .80 Here, too, subjective judgment ticit . However, Louis van Tilborgh was able to prove that Y g P won out over objective, provable argument, whereupon the it is aenuine variant of the original aintin in the g P gpainting buyer. failed to find a bu er. The owners and the auction- F lk n Museum in Essen (F JH 18 .83 p g g 4~9 eer have been legal engaged in a le battle ever since - Although the Sunflowers controversy had in the g Y notwithstanding the fact that in 1999 experts from the meantimeuietened down, it was revived again when in g 999 p q g Réunion des Musées nationaux confirmed theaintin 's the run-up to the exhibition Van Gogh and Gauguin: the p g p b ~ authenticity beyond a shadow of a doubt.81 studio o the south experts from The Art Institute of Chicago Y Y f p g and the Van Gogh Museum were afforded the unique - g 1 p Museums must react ortunit of examining the Tokyo Sunflowers and its P Y g Y As the ongoing fakes debate showed no signs of sub ns - Amsterdam counter art in detail.84 The results of this ex- g g g p siding, the end of the 1 os several museums felt obli - amination wereresented by Ella Hendricks and Louis van g~ by 99 g p Y ed to react to the various forgery accusations. Tilborgh in a comprehensive stud 85 and also presented at g Y g p Y p In 1999, within the compass of an exhibition on the a symposium held at the Rijksmuseum in March 2002. The 999 p collection of Dr Gachet held at the Grand Palais, the Musée largely accepted the authors' conclusions, according Y p g d'Orsay responded to the charge that Dr Gachet, too, had to which there was nothing that spoke against, but plenty Y p g co copied Van Gogh's works - or had had them copied by his that spoke in favour of, the authenticity of the Yasuda ver - P g p Y P Y pupil Blanche Derousse - and then passed them off as on- sion. Even Martin Bailey, who had previously allocated a Pup p g Y p Y 76 Idem, 'Der Baron and der falsche Van Gogh,' Das Le Monde (27 September 1996), p 25 Burlington Magazine 143 (March 2001), pp. 145-58 Magazin 24 (17-23 June 2000), pp. 10-13 81 Réunion des musées nationaux (ed.), Jardin à Auvers 84 The third version for comparison, from the National 77 Cf. Vincent Noce, Descente aux enchères. les couliss- dit aussi Jardin avec parterre, Paris 1999. Gallery in London, did not join the other two exhibits un- es du marché de I'art, Paris 2001, pp. 295-316. til the exhibition was shown in Amsterdam. The Yasuda 82 See Anne Distel and Susan Alyson Stein, exhib. cat. Semi Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art has still 78 Paris (Binoche et Godeau), 6 December 1992, lot 7. Cézanne to Van Gogh the collection of Dr Gachet, Paris not consented to a full physical and scientific examina- (Galeries nationaler du Grand Palais), New York (The tion of its painting. 79 Importants meubles, objets d'art et tableaux mod- Metropolitan Museum of Art) & Amsterdam (Van Gogh ernes, Paris (Binoche et Godeau), 10 December 1996, lot 1. Museum) 1999. 85 Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendricks, 'The Tokyo Sunflowers a genuine repetition by Van Gogh or a 80 See Alain Franco and Michel Guerrin, 'Jardin à 83 Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendricks, 'Van Gogh's Schuffenecker forgery?,' Van Gogh Museum Journal Auvers, le roman tumultueux d'un tableau dans le siècle,' The garden of St Paul's hospital. genuine or fakes' The (2001), pp. 16-43. VAN GOGH MUSEUM great deal of space to the forgery arguments, now wrote: Institute of Art (F 243 JH 112 ; the Wadsworth Atheneum g P g Y g 4~3 9 Yasuda Sunflowers au e r th ntic."'86 (F 279 JH 110 ; the Nas' onal alleriet in Oslo (F 28 JH 1 80; 79 4~~ 1 g 5 7 However, at the same symposium Benoit Landais and the Museum of Art in Providence (F 800 JH 2122). Some joined forces with Hans peter Born in attempting to estab- of the museums cited have themselves in recentears ubli- P P g Y P lish a clumsily executed watercolour as `Vincent van cised the fact that works originallyattributed to Van Gogh Y g Gogh 's first sunflowers.'87 acknowledged Gogh fir t nflowers.'87 No acknowled ed Van Go h ex- ma no longer be considered genuine. These are, among oth - Y g g g ert has hitherto considered this work to be authentic. In ers the Van Gogh Museum (F 1 1 JH ; F 21 a JH -; F 21 b A g 4~ 94~5~ 5 5 addition, Landais has also contributed to efforts at authen- JH 1205; cJH-•F21 dJH-•F2 JH 118o;F2 5~ 5 ~ 5 ~ 33 53 ticatin - and hence rendering marketable - works from JH1121;F2 aJH12 2; F1363eJH10 ;F1364cJH108 ; g g 53 3 ~4~94~ the aforementioned Klusmann/ a M ri'nssen collection.88 He F168JH101;F1 8JH11 ;Flo JH 39 74~~ 4~ 5 7 7 is, moreover, the author of a certificate testifying to the au - • F 1 1 JH 116 ;91 the Von der Heydt Museum (F 287 y > Y g 74~ 7 7 3 •92 thenticit of Two diggers in the afternoon, a painting which, JH 12 1 the Nationalmuseet in Stockholm, (F 601 82 ;93 Y gg f P g 3 ~5 4~ despite its having been attributed to Van Gogh, is generally g and the Osterreichische Galerie in Schloss Belvedere in g g Y not recognised as genuine. This work, which the UK-based Vienna 67 a 34,q, .94 The museums are indeed tack - g g art dealer Bouwe Jans claims to have discovered at an auc- linghe issue and it would certainly be wrong to say that they Y g Y Y tion in Groningen o 7 a 993, on 17 May 1 89 and which Hulsker are keeping quiet about it. g Y P gq likewise considers to be by Van Gogh's hand, is said to be of In 1990, Sotheby's withdrew the painting Street and Y g 99 ~ Y P g Schrauwen/Couvreurrovenance. So far nobody has been stairs with five figures (F 796 JH 211 o prior to a planned aue - p Y f fi g 79 P P able to explain why the conspicuous signature `' Vincent nt f its dubious authenticity.95 However, on account o y , three P Y p g hadreviousl gone unnoticed. years later, precisely the same auctioneers sold a doubtful P Yg A Y Whilst De Robertis, too, was not unimpressed by the Van Gogh -Landscape with church and arms (F 18 a JH 761) > P Y g5 7 results of the Hendricks and Tilborgh study, he still sticks the first known owner of which was himself a painter.96 n g Y P to his opinion, expressed over the past years with equal ve - Thus the debate on the authenticity of Van Gogh's P ~ A P Y q Y g hemence and frequency,that the picture cannot possibly P works as conducted in theublic sphere during the past ten P Y P P g P have beenainted by Van Gogh; however, during the years is not first and foremost an art-historical one. Indeed, P Y g g Y Amsterdam symposium in March 2002 he did have a it has meanwhile become a media-psychological henome - P change of heart: he now no longer attributes it to non in which amateur researchers, scholars and theress g P g Schuffenecker but rather to Paul Gauguin. have formed an alliance for their mutual benefit: whilst au- g thors use the media as a means of spreading their own fame, P g Positive consequences the latter uses the ever-new Van Gogh theories put forward g P q Still, the fakes debate has not been withoutositive b these authors as a way of attracting new readers and P Y Y g consequences: no matter how unfounded and absurd all the viewers. q man forgery theories may have seemed, numerous muse- Correspondingly,little attention has been paid in the Y g Y Y P ums have in fact begun to subject their Van Gogh works to subject past to the results of the academic treatments of the theme - g g P critical examination - and with interesting results. In July Y they are evidently too dry and uninteresting. Whereas the Y Y Y g - press ress could not get its fill of reports on the suspicions sur - 1998, The Art Newspaper ublished a preliminary report ac g P P 99 ~published A Y P cordin to which 'eighteen "Van Goghs" in public collections roundin the Sunflowers, the Garden atAuvers and Thegar- g g g A g ~ g ... have been downgraded as fakes or are works ofquestion- den of St Paul's hospital, the experts' reports testifying to the g q A~ A p Y g able authenticity. Most of them have been taken off display P Y authenticity of these same works barely received a mention. Y Y '90 The published list tallies largely with the list of works • p g Y considered dubious fiveears earlier by Dorn and Q uestionset to be answered Y Y Y Feilchenfeldt. The museums named include the Krdller- Thishenomenon can hardly be expected to change P Y p g Muller Museum (F 219 JH 111 ; F 2 6 JH 11 ; F 2 8 JH 110 ; ver much in the future, either, for Van Gogh's oeuvre will ~ 9 7~ 4~ 33 7 3 ~ g F2 JH 1126; F 724 JH 1 ; F 8 JH 2000); the Detroit ; continue toive rise to questions - those concerning the 3 7 ~ 7 4~ 74~5~ 5 g q g 24 JOURNAL 2002 posthumous changes to his works, for example. Various on account of the extraordinarily rapid development of the P g P Y P P Van Gogh paintings were altered or retouched after the m th surrounding him. g P g Y g artist's death - by whom and for what reason is unknown. It isrecisel for this reason that the meticulous and Y P Y Typical examples are Peat boat with two figures (F 21 scholarly approach of museums and academic institutions YP P g Y PP JH1 which a small fence was added at some oint•97e will always be called for. Of course - and one does not need q, 5 ,to P , Y 824), to have theift of prophecy to forecast this - we can also g p g 7 g P P Y which since being illustrated in De la Faille in 1939 has un - expect to be confronted by even more theories based on g 939 P Y der one changes to the cottage roof and to the branches of circumstantial evidence, assumptions and the seemingly g g g P gY the tree standing next to it. These changes possibly became indestructible Van Goh le end. And the media, too, will g g P Y g g necessary after the sky had been retouched. continue to spread and celebrate forgery theories, at - Y Y e g Y Otheraintin s that might also be examined under ter how absurd and unfounded they may be: Van Gogh is al - P g g Y Y ~ this aspect are Peasant woman digging up potatoes (F 1 147 was good for a headline, and Van Gogh fakes every time. P gg g ~ ~ g Y JH 891) and The Nuenen vicarage by moonlight, seen from 9 g y g thearden (F 183 JH 2 . There are earlphotographs of g 3 95 Y bothaintin s showing skies that seem to be different than P g g those featured by the paintings today. Clarification is easier Y P g Y in the case of some of the laters aintin that have evident- P g 1 been altered. Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, for example, Y ~ P is clearly responsible for enlarging the format of the Tokyo Y P g g Y Sunflowers and for over painting the cat in Daubi n s ' ar - P g g g den. The apples in Still life with apples, pears, lemons and PP f PA p ra es (F 382 JH 1 may have been added by Edgar g~ 3 337 Y Y g De as who was one of the very earliest owners of the Y The still life Vase with peonies (F 666a JH 110 7, which is untypical of Van Gogh anyway,bears not only a YP g Y dubious signature but also the year `188 ' while in no way Y 9~ Y matching a work allegedly produced in Paris, hence, it like- g g YP > wise awaits clarification. Van Gogh and the questions concerning the origin g q g and authenticity of his works will thus continue to occupy PY us in the future. Theosition he holds in the history of art, P Y both as an artist and as a human being, is unique - not least g q 86 Martin Bailey, 'Yasuda Sunflowers "authentic,"' The 91 See Evert van Uitert and Michael Hoyle (eds.), The 95 Impressionist and modern paintings and sculpture, Art Newspaper 13 (April 2002), p 1. Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam 1987 and part 1, London (Sotheby's), 26 June 1990, lot 18. The Sjraar van Heugten and Marne Vellekoop, Vincent van Japanese owner had likewise purchased the painting, the 87 Hanspeter Born, 'Vincent van Goghs erste Gogh: drawings. Vol. 3: Antwerp and Paris, 1885-1888, first reproduction of which did not make its appearance Sonnenblumen,' Die Weltwoche 70 (7 March 2002), p. Amsterdam & Blaricum 2001. until 1921, from Sotheby's on 26 June 1984. 35. 92 Label next to the painting in the museum: 'Vincent 96 Impressionist paintings, drawings and sculpture, part 88 Born, op cit. (note 53). van Gogh (zugeschrieben)' ('Attributed to Vincent van I, New York (Sotheby's), May 11, 1993, lot 36. Gogh'). 89 See Bouwe Jans, Artquakes and Vincent van Gogh, 97 Cf. Mechteld de Bois, Vincent van Gogh De Weybridge 2001. 93 Per Hedstr6m and Britta Nilsson, 'Genuine and false Turfschuit, Zwolle 1999. De la Faille illustrated the work Van Goghs in the Nationalmuseum,' Art Bulletin of the in 1939 without the addition, though he may have been 90 Martin Bailey, 'Downgraded or questionable,' The Nationalmuseum Stockholm 7 (2000), pp. 98-101. using an even older photograph Art Newspaper 9 (July-August 1998), p. 15. 94 See Koja and StSbe, op. cit. (note 62). VAN GOGH MUSEUM tT t a /ft ((Jo-et-At e/((, c/(- 4' 4. (42j ift /4.4- ea t- a- 17 LA--C4vi (?" )0'1-4 ,tvi? e`f, e(eff 7 IA C/1- e- • reY' 67 e Prt• ei 6.r/Cf ee/14 (-1.1 VV----1A-7 AmbtM-- '11If 1.1747 65 . vc.„(„c44..:, et etc, cQz p a (..,/ --v 0-1t, kg. 14,-....el)c„ve, f 7tLA (t7 jt1r5Rizvvia"0Vat sx.,,eem it PS; 4 $ Ott 4./t fig. 1 Letter from Gustave Geffroy to Theo van Gogh, 29 May 1888, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh 26 Foundation) VAN GOGH 150 Paper endures: documentary research into the life and work of Vincent van Gogh Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten and Fiere Pabst The funeral of Vincent van Go h held in Auvers-sur-Oise main to be written. It will, though, be necessary to consider g~ g~ Y ono July 18 o inadvertently launched a worldwide cam - the history of the Van Gogh Museum, for this institution has 3 Y 9 ~ Y Y g ue - raduall secured an important place in documentary Y re ai n which has yet to be completed: the quest for docuq P P Y- P g Y P ments and other historical evidence and testimony that search. Y may contribute to our knowledge of the artist's life and Y g work. In theears immediately following Van Gogh's death Before Jul 1890 Y Y g g Y various individuals began applyingthemselves to the task The idea that Van Gogh received no acknowledge- - g g g of bringing his paintings and drawings to the attention of ment for his work during his lifetime is as tenacious as it is g g P g g g critics collectors and theublic while others undertook to understandable. However, it needs to beualified. The ef- P q promote the publication of the letters, or fragments of forts made to- ublish extracts from his correspondence im P P ~ g P P mediatel following his death would not have been as suc - them. This allowed a wider audience to become acquainted Y g q cessful as they were if they had not been preceded by a va - with the eventful career and epistolary talent of a man who Y Y P Y P Y had created a body of unique works of art. In essence, riet of earlier activities. It is well known that in January Y Y q these early efforts set out the two main lines along which 1890 the avant-garde critic Albert Aurier dedicated a Y g 9 g subsequent Van Gogh research would develop. More than favourable article to Van Goh in the Mercure de France, a q g P g an other modern artist, Van Gogh has been the subject of journal read by everyone with an interest n mode a in modern art.2 Y ~ g J J Y Y biographical stud conducted alongside consideration of Emile Bernard would later claim that- rior to the ublica Y~ g P P his work. tion he had shown Aurier the letters Van Goh had sent g In both these fields the letters have always provided him and that the sketches and ideas these contained had i - YP g aoint of reference and the same holds true for this survey Y nited the young critic's e enthusiasm.3 Y g of a number of trends evident over the almost iooears of Bernard was not the only person who sought to Y YP g research into Van Gogh-related docu ments.~ The material draw attention to Van Go h's correspondence at this early P Y is closely interwoven with factors such as the reception of date. Theo regarded the letters as an instrument in ener- Y P g g Van Gogh's work, the history of the publication of the let - atin sympathyfor his brother's way of thinking; he must g Y P g ters and the development of the Van Gogh myth. However, have sensed that their exceptional character could help - P g Y P P re these can only be touched on indirectly here, pending ub - duce or even bride the a that existed between Vincent's Y Y P g P g gP lication of the monographs on these subj subjects e that still re - unconventional art andublic understanding. A letter to 1 P g 1 This summary of major research trends cannot Mercure de France 1 (January 1890), pp. 24-29. Another be exhaustive, and no attempt will be made in what admiring critic was J.J. Isaacson, who in De portefeuille follows to cite all relevant publications or individuals. of 17 August 1889 described Van Gogh as a promise for g The main focus of this article is research that has the future However, this journal reached only a relatively concentrated on the documents themselves, the histori- limited and entirely Dutch audience; Isaacson's proposed Y cal sources and testimonies – and not therefore on review of Van Gogh's work never appeared, mainly at the g p Van Gogh documentation, i.e. the totality of informa- insistence of Van Gogh himself. tion and data that forms the background against which the letters can be read and the drawings and 3 See the'Préface' in Emile Bernard, Lettres de Vincent paintings viewed. van Gogh à Emile Bernard, Paris 1911, p 7 Bernard's first meeting with Aurier, described by the artist himself, v 2 Albert Aurier, 'Les isolés: Vincent van Gogh,' took place in the spring of 1888. VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig 2 Jo van Gogh-Bonger in 1893, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) Theo from the writer and critic Gustave Geffroy illustrates Y thisoint - and provides direct proof of the importance of P P P P such documentsfi . 1 . Evidently Geffroy intended to pen an g Y Y P article on Vincent, for he wrote to Theo on 29 May 1888: 9 Y `Cher monsieur, Je suis entré, l'autre jour, chez M. Tan u , l gY au moment ofi vous veniez d'en sortir. J'étais en compagnie d'un amtui désire se rendre acquéreur de deux toiles de q q Vincent Van Goh et désire vous voir à - ce sujet. Voulez Gogh, q sujet lui écrire un motour lui donner rendez-vous, soit chez P vous, soit chez lui. Adresse: M. Paul Gallimard,, rue Saint 79 Lazare. J'ai été fortris tons ces temps-ci. Dans quelques P P q q jours, je vous demanderai de bien vouloir venir avec moi chez Tan u oil j'achèverai de voir l'oeuvre de votre beau- g Y~ frère4 et derendre mes notes. Remerciez M. Bernard, je P ~l vousrie pour les extraits de lettres, ui lui seront renlus P ~P ~q fidèlement. Y Cro ez cher Monsieur, a mes meilleurs senti- ments Gustave Geffro 88, rue de Belleville.'5 Moves were thus already afoot on several fronts to Y obtain recognition for Van Goh before his death. When g g Vincent died Theo wanted Aurier to have the honour of he- in the first critic to devote a more extensive publication to g P his lamented brother; he informed the critic that other writers had also shown an interest in the subject, which J once again indicates that Van Gogh was no longer g g - er a com P lete unknown. On various occasions reference had been made in exhibition reviews to the unusual nature of the artist's work. P Des ite the fact that attitudes were some- times dismissive, at the very least critics who had not al- Y read been won over were generally intrigued by its Y g Y g Y strangeness.6 Regarding Van Gogh's early reputation one g g g g Y P must also refer to the letters of condolence Theo received in response to Vincent's death. Although many of the com po g y - liments they contain are probably infected with the P Y P Y ro ensit `not to speak ill of the dead,' almost inevitable in P P Y P such missives, a sincere appreciation of the artist can PP nonetheless often beeeceived. P The firstublications of the letters p Thus, when in 1893 Emile Bernard began publishing g P g passages in the Mercure de France from the letters he him- Pg self had received, accompanied by an extensive introduc- P Y tion he found that somere arator work had already been P P Y Y done. After four instalments he switched to extracts from Vincent's letters to his brother, secured through contact g with Jo van Gogh-Bonger, the widow of Theo, who had died g g > on 25 January 18 1 (fig. 2 . By this time she had settled in 5 Y 9 g Y Bussum in the Netherlands, from where she sent Bernard letters to read and select. These wereublished at intervals P until early 18 with a `final spark' in August 1897 - roba Y 95~ P g 97 - P bl a deferred contribution to the journal, for Bernard had Y l alread returned the borrowed material in June 18 6. In the Y 9 accompanyingletter to Jo he had expressed the hope P P ` u'elles soient editées un jour dignement et en leur q l g n ier.'8 This evident devotion to Vincent is characteristic of et Bernard, who alsoublished several articles on the artist P and had Vollardroduce a richly illustrated, luxury edition P Y Y f e letters in his possession in 1911 fi . . o the3).9 P(fig contributions to the Mercure de France had far-reaching consequences. In 1 o and i o the g q 94~ 95 Berlin- ublisher Bruno Cassirer reprod JOURNAL 2002 fig. 3 fig. 4 Cover of Emile Bernard (ed.), Lettres de Vincent van Johan Thorn-Prikker, Vignette accompanying the intro- Gogh à Emile Bernard, Paris 1911 duction to the letters published in Van nu & straks 1 (August 1893), p. 1 decades immediately following the turn of the century. As Theo's widow, Jo had control over all the corre- Y g Y For his edition Cassirer was able to make use of the s ondence and works of art Vincent had sent or left to his P lettersublished in the Mercure de France and the first, brother.10 Anyone who wished to see or exhibit his work, or P Y more extensiveublication for a Dutch-speaking public, to read orublish his letters, had to apply to Jo. Julius P P gP A ~ PA Y which had appeared in the August 18 issue of Van nu & Meier-Graefe, for example, who published his PP g 93 straks. This Flemish avant-garde literary journal also re g Y l - Entwickelungsgeschichte der modernen Kunst in 1 0 - a 94~ produced fragments rather than complete letters, mostly aean to Van Goh - must have had access to the letters in P g P Y P g chosen from the Dutcheriod (fig. 4). Jo's care.11 Within her own circle she allowed men of let- P g4~ 4 This reference to 'beau-frère' (brother-in-law) must 8 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh be a mistake, for in this context Geffroy cannot mean Foundation, b 831 V/1962 anyone other than Theo's brother Vincent. 9 See Bernard, op. cit. (note 3). 5 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Foundation, b 1199 V/1962 10 It isart' chance that has governed which parts of P Y Van Gogh's correspondence have survived and which p 6 See Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov (ed.), Van Gogh in have not. Vincent's letters to Theo from the years 1872- perspective,g Englewood Cliffs 1974; Carol M. Zemel, The 77 were forgotten by the latter when he left home and g Y formation of a legend: Van Gogh criticism, 1890-1920, only came to light again at their mother's house in August Y Ann Arbor 1980; and Susan Alyson Stein (ed.), Vincent 1890, after Vincent's death. And during preparations for van Gogh: a retrospective. New York 1986, pp. 176-94. the publication in Van nu & straks a package containing a drawing and letters seems to have briefly gone missing, g 7 Published in Ronald Pickvance (ed.), 'A great artist is although fortunately it later turned up again. g dead'. letters of condolence on Vincent van Gogh's death, Zwolle & Amsterdam 1992 11 See Julius Meier-Graefe, Entwickelungsgeschichte der 29 modernen Kunst, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1904, vol 1, p 128. VAN GOGH MUSEUM ters and art critics such as Jan Veth and Frederik van Eeden Berlin1 0 ; and the Sonderbund exhibition in Cologne 95 ~ to read them. At an early stage she herself resolved to pub- - 1 12 ,14 g P 9 lish an edition of the letters, whose exceptional value Theo Van Gogh's increasing renown was followed by the P g g Y had recognised already upon Vincent's death. However, it familiarhenomenon of people dredging up recollections of g Y P P P P g g P took her far longer to transcribe, edit and classify the thou - famous figures they had once known. In 1910 Vincent's own g Y g Y sands ofa es than she had foreseen. On 24 February 18 2P g 4~ Y 9 sister, ElisabethLies published her Persoonli'ke herinne ~ P I - journal: on the let- rin en, which instantly introduced into the growing Van g g g Y g g ters in earnest and with diligence, before the summer rush Gogh myth all kinds of hard-to-verify assertions regarding g g Y Y g g comes they have to be read .'12 Initially, she con- the artist'south.15 Details of various episodes f V n Go h' ouo a s Y Y Y> therefore, YGogh' siderably underestimated the task. were further revealed by individuals such as his former Y Of course, Jo did not have all the correspondence to roommate in Dordrecht, P.C. Gbrlitz his teacher M.B. P > > hand. Apart from those to Bernard, letters in the possession Mendes da Costa, hisa it A. Kerssemakers, and artist col- P ~ P P P in 16 of thirdartiss included Vincent's missives to his youngest leagues like A.S. Hartrick and Paul a a au G u u Others re- r P Y g g g Ra ard. The Dutch 'our- traced Van Gogh's steps, searching for places and people g P~ g P P P nal Kritiek van de beeldende kunsten en kunstnijverheidub- who hadla ed a role in his life. The Dutch journalist M.J. journalis P P Y lished letters and extracts from Van Gogh's exchange with interviewed residents of Dordrecht, the Belgian g g g fellow artist Van Rappard throughout the year 1905; the Louis Piérard tracked down Van Gogh's movements in the PP g Y g August issue was even devoted entirely to Van Gogh and Borina e and Antwerp. g Y g g P contained an extensive article by Albert Plasschaert. Consequently, in 1 1 Jo's three-volume edition of Y 94 the letters to Theo,ublished simultaneously in German P Y 1914: Letters to his brother translation, fell on the most fertile soil imaginable.17 She g Van Gogh's biographyand work had begun to attract could now finally lay down the colossal burden she had as- g g Y Y ublic interest thanks to the publications mentioned above sumed after Theo's death: her mission was complete. P P P and admiring studies such as those produced by Meier- Regarding the late date ofpublication she wrote in the fore- g P Y g g P Graefe and the DutchrtpedagogueH.P. Br mm r.13 a e e word - somewhat contradicting her original inal intentions, ex - g g Equally significant were the exhibitions, large and small, ressed in the years immediately following 18 o that she q Y g ~ g P Y Y g 9~ which brought Van Gogh's work increasing attention and a - wished toublish the letters quickly `It would have been a g g g P P q Y 2 9 disservice to the deceased [Vincent], to have aroused interest P Bernheim Jeunealler in Paris(19431); the Stedelijk in hiserson before the work to which he gav his life was g YStedelij ~ in Amsterdam1 0 ; Paul Cassirer's gallery in acknowledged and appreciated as it deserved. Many years 95 g Y g PP Y Y 12 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Persónliche Erinnerungen an Vincent van Gogh, Munich Foundation, b 4550 V/1962. 1911. The numerous inaccuracies in the book were im- mediately denounced by Johan de Meester, who ap- 13 H.P. Bremmer's Vincent van Gogh: Inleidende pealed to Jo van Gogh-Bonger for support; see J. de beschouwingen (Amsterdam 1911) is a didactically for- Meester, 'Over kunstenaar-zijn en Vincent van Gogh,' mulated introduction to Van Gogh's work for a broad au- De Gids 75 (1911), pp. 274-92, in particular the ex- dience; the aim of the book was 'not to commend this tremely long note, note 6, on pp. 289-92. person and exalt him above all others in abstract argu- mentation or enthusiastic phraseology, but to demon- 16 These and other recollections are brought together in strate his greatness, with his work as example, therefore Welsh-Ovcharov and Stein, op. cit. (note 6), passim. based on that work' (p. 1). Among the reminiscences published by Gauguin were those of the time he had spent with Vincent in Arles, 14 See Andreas Bluhm, 'Displaying Van Gogh, which appeared in Avant et après in 1903. Hartrick looked 1886-1999,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1999), pp. 62-83. back in 'Post-impressionism: with some personal recollec- tions of Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin,' published 15 E.H. du Quesne-Van Gogh, Vincent van Gogh: in The Imprint in May 1913; this article had limited distrib- Persoonlijke herinneringen aangaande een kunstenaar, ution, however, and his memories only became better 30 Baarn 1910. The work was translated into German as known when they were reprinted in A painter's pilgrimage JOURNAL 2002 passed before Vincent was acknowledged as a painter; P now g P one can come to know and understand him as aerson.'18 P Jo's introduction was also the first more extensive biography of the artist to be based on reliable sources. Although we now g know it contains various errors and omissions, this outline of the artist's life was certainly a good start given the resources Y g g then available. The task of supplementing and correcting the PP g g material could now begin. Unfortunately the timing of the g Y g publication was all wrong: in August the First World War P g g broke out, completely disrupting Europe for years to come. P Y P g P Y However, work wasuickl resumed in the 1 2os. q Y 9 Between two editions The decades that followedroduced a steadily Y - row g in stream of information and publications largely along the g P gY g lines that had already been laid out, with details on Van Y Gogh's life and works supplemented by research in situ. In g PP Y 9 1 26 Benno Stokvis wrote an account of his search for refer- ences to Van Gogh in the various places in Brabant where the g P artist had lived and worked. Gustave Coquiot and Piérard also q conducted research at various locations for their highly influ g Y - ential biographies, ublished during the 1 205; this, however,P g 9 > does not alter the fact that their books have not- roved entire P 1 reliable.19 Both authors wereevidently driven by an dmi- y o o ee y e y a ration for the artist bordering on adoration. In his 'Avant-pro- - ro P os ' for example, Piérard boasted that he had made a copy ~ P ~ PY of Van Gogh's death certificate while in Auvers-sur-Oise and g s spoken to the artist's fellow students from the Antwerp art A P academy; 'Partout, j'ai voulu mettre "mesas dans ses ."'20 Y> > l pas pas ."'2° Coquiot took a similar approach, visiting such individuals as q PP ~ g the son of Paul Gachet, who hadlaced `les plus surs et les P P lus rares des documents' at his dis osal.21 P P Although several further successful attempts were g P made to encourage people from Van Gogh's milieu to speak g P P g P out the number of informants naturally diminished over the Y r .22 hi point virtually one of ea s At this oft rtua no o e was aware o the exis- Y P Y tence of the rather substantial body of correspondence Y - ex P chap changed between other members of the Van Gogh family. g g Y But the editions of Vincent's letters to Bernard and Theo nat- urall prompted the question of whether or not there was YP P q more; in this area at least there was stillreat progress to be g P g made. During the 1 2os and os Van Gogh's surviving 9 3 g g - corre s ondence was augmented with the sporadic publication of P g P P his letters to Paul Gauguin, Paul Signac, Joseph and Marie g ~ g ~ P Ginoux John Peter Russell and Arnold Koning. 1 2 saw the g 93 publication of Theos letters to Vincent, followed in 1 6 b P ' ~ 93 by an English translation of Vincent's letters to Anthon van Rappard, the original Dutch version of which appeared a PP ~PP ear later. Y In the meantime, efforts had been made to define Vincent van Gogh's entire oeuvre. The first edition of J.-B. de g la Faille's catalogue was published in early 1928. An im - g P Y i9 imp or- tant event in itself, it is also self-evident that De la Faille madero er use of the available correspondence when P P P makin his identifications. Simultaneously, in making Y> however, - an ternational discussion arose concerning the authenticity of a g Y large number of works attributed to Van Gogh - attributions g g made VAN GOGH MUSEUM as evidence, and Vincent Willem van Gogh(189o-1978),Jo kind of supplement. In addition to the published material - g PP P and Theo's son, referred to the inheritedP a ers in the fam- taken both from a news ers and journals and from indejournal - P PP it 's possession when appearing as a witness.24 Personal publications and studies, `the Engineer,' as V.W. Y P PP g P P ~ g documents were thus shown to contain information that van Gogh was sometimes known, also included his own g was essential torovenance-related research. notes on a diverse connected e with his un - P g l cle Vincent, and his father, Theo.27 The broad scope of the P e 1952-54: Collected letters book ensured that V.W. van Go h who wrote that he had g~ Vincent Willem van Gogh also edited the bulky edi - maderateful use of his mother's newspaper cuttin s fullyg~ g Y Y tion of Van Gogh' s Go h' letters that marked the ooth anniver iooth - met his aim, which he had formulated as follows: `Final) I 'Finally of the artist's birth and that would form a defining g mo - point out, that this edition is exclusively documentary Y Y in ment in Van Gogh scholarship. The four volumes of the character,' and: `Vincent's character must come to the fore g P Verzamelde brieven wereublished successively in the in all its a t .'28 This ec s sedition was reprinted several P Y P P years 1952-54. Althou h the i i publication provided the times and translated in its entirety into languages that in Yg 9 4~ P P Y- nucleus, V.W. van Gogh restored a large number of as - cluded English(1958),Italian i French(196o), g g P g 959 ~ saes that `had reviousl been omitted for one reason or German(1965)and Japanese(1969); naturally these trans- g P Y P Y X25 another. This edition also contained the letters to Van lationsave rise to a multitude of anthologies in even more g g Gogh's artist friends and people from his circle that had languages. It would therefore be difficult to overstate the g P P previously appeared in various publications and journals in journal influence of this centennialublication; it represented the P Y PP P P ~ P range of countries. Substantial supplementary material culmination of Van Gogh-related knowledge at the time g PP Y g g included 21, mostly undated or incomplete letters and fra - and would become an abundant source of research materi- Y P g ments addressed to Theo, mainly from Vincent's time in al for decades to come. As aendent to J.-B. de la Faille's Y P Nuenenlus 22 letters to Willemien.26 V.W. van Gogh also a Go a catalogue raisonné, it may unreservedly be described as P g g ~ Y Y mana managed to bring a number of previously unpublished mis- the most important Van Gogh source of the loth century. g g P Y P P g Y sives to light. Several fine sketches from Vincent's letters A monumental edition may sometimes prove P the fi - g Y were included as illustrations. nal word on a- articular subject and the author's re uta P P For both art historians and the now-large public in- tion; in the case of the Dutchman who by now had evolved g P Y terested in Van Gogh it was extremely useful to have access into an icon of modern art however, this new compilation g Y > P to the artist's total correspondence. But the publication was had exactly the opposite effect,pointing the way to a large P P Y PP P g Y g of additional merit in that it also incorporated many of the area of fallowround awaiting cultivation. Jan Hulsker has P Y g g documents mentioned above, as well as much of the docu- become the embodiment of all that could be harvested mentar information published over the preceding P here. Driven by an ambition to set as many facts as possible P g Y Y P decades. To some extentassa es were inserted according g about Van Gogh's life in their precise context, from the g g P to theeriod with which they were associated, while others i os onwards he tirelessly devoted himself to studying the P Y 95 Y Y g werelaced together at the end of the fourth volume, as a letters. This intensive investigation was greatly facilitated P g g g Y 24 See Walter Feilchenfeldt, 'Van Gogh's fakes: the 27 V.W. van Gogh also included a biographical article he Wacker affair, with an illustrated catalogue of the forg- had written about his mother, as well as two articles that eries,' Simiolus 19 (1989), no. 4, pp. 289-316, in partic- had been published on the occasion of her death on 2 ular p. 292. September 1925; see Verzamelde brieven, cit. (note 25), vol. 4, pp. 243-53. In addition to the supplements on var- 25 Verzamelde brieven van Vincent van Gogh, ed. ious periods in Vincent's life, the documentary section al- V.W. van Gogh, 4 vols., Amsterdam & Antwerp 1952- so provided a sketch of the Van Gogh family's ancestry, 54, vol 1, p. v. For various reasons his mother had sup- based in part on a 'family history' written by an aunt pressed many passages. 28 Ibid., vol. 1, p. vi and vol. 2, p 5. 26 These 22 letters had come into V.W. van Gogh's pos- session after Willemien's death in 1941, together with a 29 Hulsker's research into the dating of the letters ulti- letter to her from the postman Joseph Roulin, dated 8 mately resulted in Vincent van Gogh: a guide to his work 32 January 1889, that mentions Vincent (W10). and letters, Zwolle 1993. JOURNAL 2002 by the privilege V.W. van Gogh accorded him of examining A g g g the family documents before these were housed in a public Y P collection. Hulsker's dating of the letters - - ro various g P posed adjustments by later researchers notwithstanding adjustments Y g - is still the foundation on which Van Go h's biography g rests.29 Heublished new documents, such as the im A ~ - or P tant letters written to Theo by Reverend Salles and Dr Y Peron from Arles and Saint-Rémy, the passages y Y~ - s p g con cernin Vincent in Theo's exchange of letters with his par- - g P ents. Hulsker subjected various episodes of Van Go h's life subjected P Gogh' critical scrutiny, connected passages in the letters to Y~ P g his drawings and paintings where possible. His insights g P g P g narticlesin books and journals.3o were published in many ~ P Y 1'an Gogh door l an Gogh: De brieven als commentaar o g g op zijn werk was a pioneering volume for the identification of 1 A g r nd nce.31 Van Gogh works mentioned in the co res o e g P Hulsker's major works, distributed literally throughout the major Y g world are his document-based biographyof Vincent and TheoLot enoten: Het leven van Vincent Theo van Gogh, g g i 86• translated as Vincent and Theo van Gogh: a dual bio 9 ~ g - g ra h i o and his catalogue of all Van Go h's works, pJ~ 99 g Gogh' in i and subsequently reprinted in a new P 977 q Y P edition in 1996 with many supplements and corrections 99 Y pp The new complete Van Gogh). g. The Vincent van Goh Foundation and the Van g Goh Museum g The collected edition of Van - Go h's letters exem Gogh' V.W. van Gogh's efforts to promote his uncle's rep- - ' ' g P P utation and knowledge of his oeuvre. But he accomplished g p still moreroundbreakin work. His father, Theo van g g Gogh, great reat hoarder, kept only had ke t not onl Vincent's corre- g s ondence but also the letters he had received from his p arents, sisters, brother Cor, aunts, uncles, art dealers and p includingother artists.32 After his death, Jo van friends, , Goh-Boner was left with hundreds of paintings, draw Gogh-Bonger - s p g ins prints and letters. These officially became the os g ~P Y - P session of her son Vincent Willem when Theo's mother, sisters and brother renounced their claim to his estate in July i 8 1.33 As the legal guardian of her minor son, Jo was Y 9 g g empowered to administer the collection. The works of art P b Vincent's contemporaries (the so-called `non-Van Y A Goghs'),however, were the joint roert of Jo herself and ~ joint property Y Vincent Willem. On Jo's death Vincent Willem became owner of all the works, which he intended to keep to eth p - ~ er. Initially, interest in them was not very great, as he Y~ Y g was busypursuing his own career as a technical engineer. YP g ~ Nevertheless in 193o he agreed to lend most of thepaint- 93 g P ins and drawings to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. g g Stedelij was not until after the war that he became more actively involved. In 1962 the Vincent van Gogh Foundation was es 9 g - tablished in order topreserve the group as a whole. The P g P stateaid Vincent Willem 18,470,00o uilders for the col P- guilder - comprising the works of art and most of the im P g - ortant documents and archive material - ownership P of which was then transferred to the foundation. Following his retirement in 1965 Vincent Willem devoted himself 9 5, entirely to the Van Gogh legacy. He described his objective Y gobjectiv 1967: `M role is namely to bring together for the 'My Y g g Vincent van Gogh Foundation everything c VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 5 V.W. Van Gogh in 1957, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) families. The collection further contains a multitude of personal papers, such as scrapbooks,photographs, Jo P P P ~ P Bonger's journals, etc. V.W. van Gogh and the Vincent van Gogh g g Foundation respectively also added to the documents p Y collection through purchases, made via art dealers, at g P auctions or fromrivate individuals. Four letters from A Van Goh to his friend and uil Anton Kerssemakers and g Pp letters from Paul Gauguin to Georges Daniel de 35 g g Monfreid werearticularl fine acquisitions. Pierre P Y q Sécretan-Rollier former cleric of Petit-Wasmes, donated 35 Until Van Go h s psalm book from his Borinage period.35 Unt g P g P the 1 os the foundation would continue to acquire addi- 99 q tional material, such as several letters sent to the writer Albert Plasschaert by individuals who had known Van Y connected Gogh (purchased in 1985),36and documents c g p with the Van Gogh sisters Willemien and Elisabeth, , - re P sented in 1989 by F. Le Grand-Scholte, a granddaughter of 9 9 Y ~ g g Van Go h's eldest sister, Anna Cornelia van Houten-Van Gogh' h.37 V.W. van Gogh's efforts were crowned in 1973 when g 973 the Van Gogh Museum - then called the 'Rijksmuseum ' - in m r m.38 Here the Vincent van Gogh' was opened n A ste da g P Vincent van Gogh Foundation deposited its works of art and g P documents onermanent loan. In addition to displayingan P art collection that became aublic attraction enjoying Y g worldwide renown, the founding of the new museum also g led to the establishment of a library and documentation Y centre, a centre that may be regarded as the most coin re- Y g comp re- in its field. Moreover, Vincent: Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, a periodical issued by the I g A Y museum during the 1 os, was specifically intended to g 97 P Y open up research into the documents. Published from 1 0- p P 97 it also featured substantial contributions b 77 by Jan Hulsker. The articles contained areat deal of new infor- g mation, often derived from sources notreviousl studied P Y orublished. A During the museum's early years access to the docu- g YY ments was determined to a considerable degree by V.W. van g Y Gogh and later, by his son Johan; as respective chairmen of g Y Johan; P the foundation, they decided whether to accede to requests Y q to inspect or study various materials. Following V.W. van P Y g Gogh's death in 1 8 a large number of new documents g 97 g were transferred to the Vincent van Gogh Foundation but g remained under embargo, creating the impression that cer g g - res P tain matters were deliberately being kept from the outside Y g A world. Nevertheless many eminent scholars enjoyed good Y l Y g relations with the foundation and the museum; in many in- Y stances they were given the opportunity to use controlled Y g PP Y information in theirublications. Noteworthy results were A Y the facsimile edition of Vincent's letters from theears after they ear arrival in France and the collection of Paul Gauguin's g letters to Theo Vincent and Jo.39 ette s o , 35 Sécretan-Rollier had been given the book in 1925 by Vincent's sister Elisabeth. See Vincent. Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh 2 (1973), no. 4, pp. 21- 24. 36 See for these letters Han van Crimpen, 'Friends re- member Vincent in 1912,' Vincent van Gogh: International Symposium, Tokyo 1988, pp. 73-94. 37 Some documents also left the collection. On 24 May 1984 the Vincent van Gogh Foundation donated 27 let- ters addressed to Jo van Gogh-Bonger to the Internationaal Ins JOURNAL 2002 The 1990s: increasing access g In 1986 Ronald de Leeuw became director of the 9 Van Gogh Museum. He launched aro ramme to mod- e g ernise androfessionalise the institution, his ambition be- P in to develop it into a more broad-based museum of the g P 19th century and a leading centre for Van Gogh research. 9 Y g g Durin the years 1991-96 the transfer of documents from During Y the foundation's archives to the museum was finally - com leted and a number of important publications appeared, P P P PP edited both by museum staff and external scholars. Y Examples include the edition of the survivingpoetry al- P gP Y bums compiled by Van Gogh, which shed light on his P Y g~ g favourite reading material during his youth; the letters of g g Y condolence Theo received following Vincent's death; and g the correspondence between Theo and Jo.4° P The 99 1 0 edition of the letters must also be men- tioned in this connection.41 Commemorative years have e Y alwa s produced a stream ofpublications, which in turn always have stimulated further research. This was the case in 1953, when the 1 ooth anniversary of Van Gogh's birth was 953 Y ~ celebrated, and again on the Tooth anniversary of his g Y death. Since theublication of the artist's collected letters P in the 1 os more than o new missives had come to light. 95 3 g In 1990 Van Gogh's entire correspondence was for the 99 g P first timelaced in chronological order, renumbered and P g accorded the most recent g datin .42 All the letter sketches s etches were - a reproduced in this new publication, again four P P g volume work, which is currently the most complete edi- t P tion of Van Pg Go h's correspondence. However, it was in- tended as ao ular edition, with all the letters printed in PP ~ P modern Dutch - the ones in French in translation - so that an internationalublic hardly profited from these ad- P YP vances in research. De Leeuw also managed to further diminish the g foundation's reluctance to making documents from the g family archives available for study. In 1 the embargo Y Y 995 g mentioned above wasartiall lifted, the rest following in P Y g November 2000 although certain rules still govern the in- g g section of documents. This has opened the way for new P P Y research intorovenance and the history of the collection. P Y In all objectivity it may thus be concluded that the Y Y Van Gogh Museum has now become the primary centre for g P Y research into Van g Go h-related sources. The institution al- so houses a library of some 2 000 books, around o00 of Y 5> 5~ which are exclusively devoted to Van Gogh. These include Y g the foundation's volumes and V.W. van Gogh's own library. g Y Since 1996 the library and documentation department have 99 Y P been housed in a building next to the museum g (Museumplein 4).43 P 4~ A conspicuous trend in research during the 1 8os P g 9 andos was the growing scrutiny of archives for informa 9 g g Y - tion relating to the various places where Van Gogh had g P g lived and worked. This research was mainly conducted b Y by art historians, P Y es eciall those in search of material for ex- hibitions and associated catalogues. Increasing numbers of g g contemporaryphotographs and postcards were retrieved, P YP the emphasis lying on the exact locations where Van Gogh P Y g g had drawn orainted and the standpoints and viewing P g - an g les he would have taken. Such reconstructions have made itossible to identify certain locations more precisely or P Y P 3 correct existing notions regarding them. Scholars such as g g g Marc Edo Tralbaut and John Rewald had already undertak- Y en similar initiatives in earlierears. A pioneering work in Y P g the field, however VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 6. fig. 7 P.W. de Zwart (1826-1905) (photograph by D.S. van M.A. de Zwart (1853-1922) (photograph by D.S. van Dorsser Keus, Utrecht) Dorsser Keus, Utrecht) companied the exhibitionVa G Van Gogh à Paris.44 Another enormousublicit surrounding the Van Gogh anniversary Y Pg g g Y name that should be mentioned in this connection is that of in 199o, of maim Dutch researchers following the artist's 99 ~ Y g Ronald Pickvance, whose catalogues devoted to Van Gogh's trail in their own surroundings. Much new information has ~ g g Arles Saint-Rémy and Auvers periods have become part of emer emerged, often found in local authority and provincial Y P P g ~ Y P standard lit rature.45 Characteristic of the approach archives regarding Van Gogh's contacts, in particular the AP g g g ~ P taken by Welsh-Ovcharov and Pickvance in sorting and identification of a number of models and thelaces where Y g P classifying Van Gogh's oeuvre is not only their greater at- re he stayed. Although such findings were often published in Y g g Y g Y g g P tention to the drawings relationships between drawin s and paint- localeriodicals, they sometimes found their way to a P P Y Y ings but also their reconsideration of the available docu- widerrou of scholars and interested parties when incor- s P g P ments and other sources, specifically their transcription orated into independent publications, such as those re - P Y P P P P and dating. Roland Dorn took a similarly critical tack to the cent) produced by De Brouwer a d r and Dijk V n der Sluis.48 / a g Y YP Y documents in his book Décoration, in which he made nu- merous corrections to the dating of the letters in the The future: moving forward g g process of reconstructing part of Van Gogh's production in After close on a century of Van Gogh studies the lit- P gP g P Y g 46 Dr i k and Zegers confirmed the continuing u c g p ro - erature on the artist hasrown to truly immense ro or - g g Y P P ductivit of research in situ with their recent catalogue, tions. Nevertheless research continues apace, for the value Y g P Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio o the south, published of new, additional informationart) lies in the questions g g ~P P Y q in 2001.47 raised. Furthermore, the number of still-unansweredues- q These examinations of Van Gogh's French period tions is well-nigh endless, while documentary sources and g P g ~ Y were supplemented by a revival, possibly inspired by the archives are far from having been exhaustively examined. PP Y P Y P Y g Y 36 fig. 8 Letter from Vincent van Gogh to (probably) M.A. de Zwart, Wednesday, 14 March 1883 (photograph by D.S. van Dorsser Keus, Utrecht) What does the near future hold for document and archive research? Strictly document-oriented research is the Y guiding principle in the preparation for the new, annotated g gP P P P edition of Van Gogh's letters, a project instigated by Ronald de g ~ P J g Y n in 1 .49 The irony of advances in scholar Leeuw and begun y - g 994 ships that the initiatives inspired by the publications of 1 P P Y P 952- and 1 o have resulted in the exposure of errors and omis 54~ 99 - osure P sions in these very editions, and the pinpointing of new Y ~ P P g desiderata. Study of original - inal manuscripts for the future com Y g P nation of Van Gogh's letters has already demonstrated that P g Y numerous corrections can still be made to therevious edi- P tions so that the new text will be more authentic in PP a ear- ance. In many instances dating can be considerably tightened Y g Y g and even on occasion drastically amended. Notes accompany- Y - P Y in the letter texts are an innovation in themselves. They will g Y contain all relevant information on literature, biographyand art and cultural history, bridging the gulf between the Y~ thereby g g g contem contemporary reader/researcher and the writer/addressee of P Y 12oears ago. Naturally, information is partly based on Y g Y~ P Y the range of articles, studies and catalogues produced to date g ~ g P b other scholars, so that to some degree the notes will reflect Y ~ g the current state of research in the field of Van Gogh studies. g The edition will beublished in English, but will include the P g on - original Dutch or French letter texts alongside the transla g g tion. Research for the new edition has already repeatedly Y P Y revealed that it would be a mistake to assume that all docu- ments relating to Van Goh have now been ferreted out: at g g regular intervals new items still turn up, old ones are re g P~ - or iscovered.50 A very recent example is the donation of d p p Y - ho torahs of Van Gogh's letters to his landlord in The Hague, g P g g Pieter Willem de Zwart1826-1 0 . Although the original 95 g origina are in an unknownrivate collection, thanks to one P of De Zwart's descendants we now have a reliable text and dating for a letter previously known only from a transcript, g P Y Y P lus a number of portraitphotographs of De Zwart and his P P son Michiel Antonie18 -1 22 who managed his father's 53 9 ~ g affairs (figs. 6-8 .51 Of an entirely different order and rentala a g y extremelygratifying is the fact that it recently became o Yg Y g Y - s P sible for the first time in 7o years to make an extensive 44 Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, exhib. cat. Van Gogh à Paris, Paris (Musée d'Orsay) 1988. A somewhat compa- rable work for the Hague period is Michiel van der Mast et al , exhib. cat. Van Gogh en Den Haag, The Hague (Haags Historisch Museum) 1990. 45 Ronald Pickvance, exhib. cat. Van Gogh in Arles, New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1984; and idem, exhib cat Van Gogh in Saint-Rémy and Auvers, New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)1986-87. 46 Roland Dorn, Décoration• Vincent van Goghs Werkreihe fur das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Hildesheim, Zurich & New York 1990. 47 Douglas W. Druick and Peter Kort Zegers, exhib. cat. Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, Chicago (The Art Institute) & Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 2001-02. 48 Ton de Brouwer, Van Gogh in Nuenen, Venlo 1984 and Wout J. Dijk and Meent W. van der Sluis, De Drentse tijd van Vincent van Gogh: Een onderbelichte periode nader onderzocht, Groningen 2001; additonally, Geneviève Eeckaut, Van Gogh au Borinage, Marcinelle 1990. Also useful are Frank Kools VAN GOGH MUSEUM study of Van Gogh's original letters to Emile Bernard. The Y g new edition of Van Gogh's correspondence will thus contain g P a much more accurate version of these texts than hasrevi- P ousl been available. Sources of information `around' Van Y Gogh have also apparently yet to run dry: offered for sale at g PP Y Y Y a recent Paris auction were letters addressed by various in- Y dividuals to Theo in his capacity as manager for Boussod, P Y g Valadon & Cie in Paris, one of which contains a reference to his brother.52 The future: desiderata Now that the foundation's archives have been made fully accessible provenance-related research can also be Y ,P supplemented by interesting material for which the art his- PP Y g torical community has yearned for many years. Back in Y Y YY i 88 Walter Feilchenfeldt provided an initial impulse with 9 P P his book on the Berlin art dealer Paul Cassirer.53 Thanks to these new research opportunities, this issue of the Journal PP will be accompanied by the publication of the account book P Y P of Theo van Gogh and Jo van Go h-Bon er - a document g g g containing a wealth of information on sales of works from g the family art collection. The account book offers insights g into Theo and Jo's approach when selling the works, the PP g buyers and the prices paid.54 Another document awaiting y p p t a g study and publication is the so-called `Boner list,' an Y P g early inventory of Van Gogh's works in Theo and Jo's Paris Y Y g a apartment, compiled by Jo's brother Andries Boner. P P Y Bonger. Correspondence by other individuals also remains P Y - unex bred awaiting further investigation. P ~ g €~ Recent studies of thealleries where Van Gogh's g g work was bought and sold demonstrate how useful it is to g chart the sale of works and the network of t bu ers, collec- tors and dealers.55 Comprehensive examinations of the P archives of influential art dealers such as Durand-Ruel, Vollard and Wildenstein is aarticular) high priority for P Y g P Y Van Gogh scholars. Given the relatively short history of g Y Y - re search into this field, much archive-based and document- related work remains to be done. The notes in the new edition of Van g Go h's letters will contain extensiveuotations from the family corre- q Y s ondence kept in the museum. However, researchers P P would undoubtedly also find it useful to have greater ac t - re g cess to thisart of the collection; electronic media may Y prove the most suitable means, being cheaper and relative P g - er P fig. 9 Letter from Anna Cornelia van Gogh-Carbentus to Theo van Gogh, 29 December 1888, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) 1 simple to correct and supplement at a later date. The Y P PP most urgent task is to produce a reliable transcription of all g P P theassa es that refer in any way to Vincent and Theo, P g Y Y plus a commentary on these, although complete availabili- P Y ~ g P t of this material will certainly be desirable in the future. Y Y Hulsker'sublications in this area have demonstrated the P value of such work, while theoint at which all relevant in- P formation has been brought to light is far from having been g g g reached. As evidence for this we need only quote from a Yq letter that has hitherto P esca ed notice, a letter that is cer- tainl not without significance in connectio JOURNAL 2002 Gogh's intriguing history of illness. The passage comes g g g Y P g from a letter written by Vincent's mother in Leiden to Theo, Y on 29 1888 (fig. , several days after Vincent 9 g9 Y had cut offart of his ear in Arles. Referring to earlier P g times, she writes: `Oh Theo, if it's confirmed,ou remem- Y ber Prof. Ramaar in The Hague, don't you, when Father re - g ~ all wanted to go with him as a neuropath, and Vincent de - Y g P clared he was willing to ask for medicines and at the mo- ment they were to leave refused to go and Father went any- - g Y wayo tell him, [Prof. Ramaar said what I'm now hearing, Y ~ g something is lacking or wrong in the cerebe u 11 m.'56 The g g g event referred torobabl occurred in 1879 or 1880. P Y 79 `Professor Ramaar' was Johannes Nicolaas Ramaer (1817-1887),a leadin psychiatrist in The Hague and one leading g of the founders of mental health care in the Netherlands. He sought to establish a scientific approach to psychiatry in g PP P Y Y which disorders were interpreted as the result of physical P PY rocesses in the bod . The reference to `the cerebellum' P Y strongly indicates that Ramaer regarded Vincent's symptoms gY g as aurel physical condition and not primarily psycho- - p YP Y P Y P Y e motional in nature.57 In another publication planned for p the near future we shall consider more closely the im lica - Y P tions of Mother Van Gogh's account of Ramaer's diagnosis. g g Immediatel after Vincent van Gogh's death Paul g Gau Gauguin wrote to Theo to express his condolences. In this g P letter he includes a saying Vincent apparently quoted often, Y g PP Y q and which can be inter interpreted as symbolic of the im imp or - P Y of documents as historical evidence: `La- ierre éri P P la parole restera.'58 We cannot say when we will have y found the last word, but a century of research has demon- Y strated that it is still worth the effort to keep searching. P g 52 Sale Paris (H6tel Drouot), 2 July 2002, lot 65 1999; Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, exhib. cat. Theo van Gogh, 1857-1891: art dealer, collector and 53 Walter Feilchenfeldt (with Han Veenenbos), Vincent brother of Vincent, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) & van Gogh and Paul Cassirer, Berlin: the reception of Van Paris (Musée d'Orsay) 1999-2000; a series of articles on Gogh in Germany from 1901 to 1914, Zwolle 1988. the 19th-century art trade by various authors in Van Goh Museum Journal (2000), and Feilchenfeldt, op cit. g 54 Chris Stolwijk and Han Veenenbos, The account (note 53) book of Theo van Gogh and Jo van Gogh-Bonger, Leiden 2002. The account book can also play a role in debates 56 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh on authenticity. Foundation, b 2425 V/1962. 55 For example: J.F. Herbroek and E.L. Wouthuysen, 57 With thanks to Erik Fokke, Amsterdam. Kunst, kennis en commercie: De kunsthandelaar I. H. de Bois (1878-1946), Amsterdam & Antwerpen 1993; idem, 58 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Portret van een kunsthandel. De firma Van Wisselingh Foundation, Paul Gauguin to Theo van Gogh, Le Pouldu, en zien compagnons 1938-heden, Zwolle & Amsterdam 2 August 1890, b 1481 V/1962 See also 'A great artist is 39 dead,' cit. (note 7), p 133. 4, O 00 00 --1 Z.. 00 rD > ~ rn 3 ~ v, 0 cri, Ei A) _ 0 3 0 < '')D A) c ~ 0 0 aa c ~ ~ c 3 VAN GOGH 150 The Van Gogh literature from 1990 to the present: a selective review Ann Dumas The aim of this article is torovide a review of the Van A Gogh literature over the last dozen years. Given the vast g Y bod of writings produced since 1 o, however, it is b Y g P 99 by - ne cessit highly selective. I have only attempted to cover Y g Y Y P what one may call the `standard' literature, although Y - a g va riet of art-historical methodologies are represented. I Y g P have sought to trace in broad lines what I see as the major g majo in Van Gogh scholarship - in the past decade, but al- g P A so for the near future. g My approach to the books, cata- Y AP to ues and articles examined is not so much critical as de- scri tive, providing the reader with a general introduction p P g g to the authors and their ideas. Although works on Van g Go h have been published in many languages, I have also Gogh P Y chosen to concentrate almost exclusively on the literature Y in English. g It is a notorious irony of Van Gogh's career that the Y g commercial and critical - neglect he suffered in life was dis g elled almost immediately after his death. The first a P Y PP- re ciative article on his work, `Les isolés: Vincent van Go h' g~ by the young symbolist writer and critic Albert Aurier, had Y Y g Y in fact appeared a few months before the artist's death. PP From that- con oint onward the artist'spopularity, and the A comitant creation of a Van Gogh myth based on his unri- valled status as the archetypal artiste maudit, gathered YP - mo g mentum at an unrelenting pace.2 Aurier's text proclaimed gA A the - re s s independent value of the paintings themselves and p P g 'ected both a biographical a roach to Van Gogh's art and PP g a contextual one, which would have the works viewed as products of a given period and milieu. However, the in- P g A esca able drama of Van Gogh's brief and turbulent life, A g endin with his suicide in July 18 0, and the vast self-reve- ending Y 9 lator testament he left behind in the form of his letters, Y ensured that the biographical a roach predominated in AP P much of the early literature. Writing in 1 80, Griselda Y g 9 Pollock noted: `The largest section of VG [Van Gogh] ubli- g g P cations are those monographic studies simply entitled Van pY with a portrait or self-portrait on the cover.'3 The Gogh, t o A German critic Julius Meier-Graefe extended his critical a - P raisal of Van Gogh to writing a novel based on the artist's P g g life, Vincent: Der Roman eines Gottsuchers1 2 , one of a 93 number of German fictional accounts of the artist. The ulti- mateo ular biographyof Van Go h was, of course, the P p Gog writer Irvin Stone's Lust for life, published in Irving P 1 . With the making of Vincent Minelli's film based on 935 g Stone's book in 1 Van Gogh arrived in Hollywood. 953 g Y A number ofs choanal tical studies attempting to AY Y P g the roots of Van Gogh' `madness' arose from this pinpointg - ra biographical bias.4 As Pollock observed: `These bio g hies with the proliferating essays of s cholo istic and P ~ P g Y PY g cho-s mbolic interpretations, far outnumber the rela P - psycho-symbolic A ns er tivel scarce studies of aspects of an artistic ractice.'5 Y P P The more recent literature has considerably re- Y dressed this balance. Time hasrovided a greater distance P g from the subject. Over the last decades scholars have l brought more objective and systematic art-historical g objective Y 41 1 Albert Aurier, 'Les isolés: Vincent van Gogh,' Mercure de France 1 (January 1890), pp. 24-29; reprinted in idem, O VAN GOGH MUSEUM methodology to bear on the different periods of Van Gogh's gY p g career,articular subjects, or aspects of his technique and p subjects, P q st le. Contrary to Aurier's prescription, a number of more Y Y P P recent studies have broadened the debate beyond the Y works themselves, rescuing Van Gogh from the role of iso- g g lated, tormentedenius and exploring his art and his writ g P g - in in relation to late 19th-century social, cultural and g 9 Y philosophical issues. P P Overviews A number of recent museum catalogues and other g ublications (including the many articles that have appeared g Y ppeared in the Van Gogh Museum Journal) have given g - us g a more ex tensive and secure body of facts on Van Gogh's work than Y g existed before, with regard to dating, le technique and in g g~ style, q some cases, attribution. A methodical, empirical approach P Pp characterises the two - ma catalogues that accompanied the g p jor exhibition held in 1990 to mark the centenary of Van 99 Y Gogh's death, at the beginning of the period here under g ~ g g - re p view. This exhibition was mounted at the Van Goh Museum g and the Krbller-Muller Museum, the two institutions having the largest holdings of Van Gogh's work.6 Divided into g g o two parts (the paintings were displayed in Amsterdam and the P P g drawings in Otterlo) the shows brought together a s ectacu g - g g p lar selection, comprising i paintings and 2 8 drawings p g 33P g 4 g from all- - The career. eriods of Van Gogh's two-volume cata P g lo ue draws on new and thorough research, focusing atten g g ~ g - tion on the works themselves. In theaintin s catalogue, P g g Louis van Tilborgh gives a succinct overview in his intro- g g ductory essay, and the substantial and informative catalogue g entries by Van Tilborgh, Evert van Uitert and Sjraar van Y g J Heu ten provide a wealth of material on the making of the g p g works and their chronological ordering. g g Thearticular achievement of the exhibition's cura- Thep articula was, however, toive full weight to the drawings and g g g their relationship to the paintings. Until the i Bos the P P g 9 drawings had received scant attention. Johannes g a es van der Wolk's essay, Gogh the draughtsman at his best,' ex- Y~ plores the complex and shifting patterns of creation be p P g - cre p tween the and drawings. Van Gogh' letters often paintingsg g contain detailed discussions not only of individual draw- - ins but also of the groups and series to which they be g g p Y - longed. The exhibition reflected thesegroupings - of g anatomical studies, figures as types, figures at rest, figures g Yp ~ g ~ g in action, the topographyand life of the town. Looking at g theost-Paris period, Ronald Pickvance systematically p p ~ Y Y analyses the relationship between paintings and the draw Y p - s P g ins and establishes four categories: drawings that in g - s g g are dependent of paintings, shared motifs,paintings made p p g~ P g from drawings and a category special to Van Gogh, drawing g Y p g~ g made afteraintin s. E.B.F. Pe y, a poetic title from P g Y~ taking p Van Gogh's letters, `Chalk the colour of ploughed-up land g ~ p g p on a summer evening,' examines the artist's drawing mate g g - rials, a subject hitherto virtually ignored by scholars. subject Yg Y Attributing this lacuna to the fact that drawing materials g g are often difficult to identify with the naked eye, Pe anal y- Y ~ Y - Y seso drawings in the exhibition, concluding that Van 4 g ~ g Gogh first mastered conven JOURNAL 2002 Despite these obvious merits, however, Hulsker's P book is not without itsroblems. It is far from being the P g long hoed-for catalogue raisonné, as he mentions no g P g sources,rovides the reader with only the most summary Y Y information about technique (particularly with regard to q P Y g the drawings) and makes no mention of provenances. g P There are also numerous errors in the locations of the works. Perhaps most damaging, and confusing, is Pg~ his ambiguous use of question marks, whereby it remains g q Y unclear whether the author isuestionin his own assum q g - P tions about dating or the work's very authenticity. g Y Y As a first step in the compilation of a true catalogue A P g raisonné the Van Gogh Museum has recently embarked on g Y a major scholarly initiative with a series of new and - s len major Y P did) produced catalogues of the paintings and drawings in YP g P g g their collection. To date, the first of the fouraintin s cata- P g to ues and three of the four catalogues devoted to the g g drawin s have appeared.9 Although these exemplary g PP g P Y - com nations deal only with the collections of the Van Gogh Y h g Museum, their methodology and wealth of documentation gY provide a context and an invaluable tool that can be applied PPlied to Van Gogh's oeuvre in general. g g More than 200aintin s survive from Van Gogh's P g g Dutch- e eriod. Vincent Van Gogh: paintings. Vol. I: Dutch P g P g P riod, 1881-1885, written by Louis van Tilborgh and Marie S' Y g Marij , documents the paintings from this period in P 44 P g P th Van Gogh Museum's col) ction.10 The catalogue makes the g e g available new and valuable information on Van ear- s Go h'- g 1 period, which has traditionally been overshadowed b YP Y by his more dazzling later production. The catalogue is mod- - ue P g a el of its kind, with all relevant aspects of each work meticu- P lousl and intelligently documented. Extensive physical Y g Y PY and technical examination of the pictures, both with the naked eye and under the microscope, are discussed. This, Y P to ether with a study of the letters, reveals important facts g Y P about Van Gogh's working methods at the time. What g g emerges most clearly from this volume is how, from the g Y firstainted studies in Drenthe to the masterpieces of the P P Dutcheriod, Van Gogh evolved from being `an untutored P g g beginner to a genuine and original master.'11 g The Van Gogh Museum holds the most extensive g collection of the artist's works ona er in the world: 6o PP 4~ drawin s more than 200 letter sketches and most of Van g~ Gogh's surviving sketchbooks. The three catalogues cover g g g theeriods 188o-88.12 These books are as meticulous in P their- ue resentation as the paintings catalogue, with illustra P P g g tions in colour to do justice to the nuances of sepia or ink P and wash. The first volume covers theeriod in which Van P Gogh developed from a novice into a draughtsman. In his g P g introduction devoted mainly to the technical aspects of Y P Van Gogh's early artistic development, Van Heugten dis g Y - P g cusses the myriad and diverse sources from which Van Y - Gogh trained himself as a draughtsman. The second vol g g ume covers theeriod 1883-85,when Van Gogh lived in P g The Hague, Brabant and Nuenen. The 21 months Van Gogh g g sent in The Hague saw the rapid evolution of his drawing g P g style. The catalogue follows a different structure from vol- t g ume one,rou in the numerous studies of hands, heads g P g and figures of weavers Van Gogh VAN GOGH MUSEUM Museum, together with the Con Huygens Institute g J Yg for Text Editions and Intellectual History, Hague, has Y~ g embarked on a j major research project on the letters. J P Y Current) , the standard edition of the letters is the four- volume set in the original languages, com iled b V.W. Van p by Gogh and published in the early 1 , which translat- g p early 95os was ed into English in 1 8 and French in 1 6o, and recently 95 9 Y reprinted in English.14 An updated, entirely Dutch edition, P g p ~ Y including new letters and previously omitted passages, a g P Y P g i - p eared in 1 0.15 This was followed in 1 6 by a selection p 99 99 Y in English edited by Ronald de Leeuw.16 The `evidence' in g Y the letters is, of course, neither objective nor transparent, J P but Leo Jansen and Hans Luijten of the Van Gogh Museum Luijten g are now - as - re ve an engaged in exhaustive of all ects of the correspondence, which will shed new light on a P p g reat many complex matters and questions.17 great Y - ue A recent ex P q hibitionresented some of their findings to the public for P g p the first time.18 s e. Van Go h's literary and artistic heroes g Y Van Goh stee ed himself in literature and in art. g p His letters reveal the broad spectrum of his reading and his P g love of the artists who inspired him. Since 1 o a number of P 99 studies have appeared that have considerably deepened our Pp Y p knowled e of Van Gogh and his artistic and literary heroes. g g Y The first comprehensive study was that of Judy Y Y Sundublished in 1 2.19 Although Van Go h's reading 99 g g g material has been discussed frequently in the subsequent 1 Y q literature, Sund's book remains the most g intelli ent and ex- tensive investigation of the subject. Sund explains how Van g P Goh became caught up in the vogue for contemporary Gogh g P g P Y French literature that wasrevalent in artistic and intellec- p tual circles during his time in The Hague. His favourite g - ue au g thor was without a doubt Emile Zola. As Sund's title infers, Van Goh shared Zola's fundamental belief in individual g temperament as a creative force, and she explains the exa P ~ - P g gerated form and colour in his paintings in terms of a need g P g to express the `emotion of an ardent tem erament.'20 Van P P g Go h, Sund argues, was drawn to writers who addressed so- cial issuesart) because he rejected the organised religion P Y rejected g g of his upbringing,findin greater solace in the more - finding ener g g al humanism expounded by certain 19th-century novelists P Y 9 Y andhiloso hers. Literature also filled an emotional gap in p p gp Van Gogh's personal life: `Chronic difficulties in achieving p g and maintaining intimate relations of all sort seem to have g encouraged his reliance on books for advice, solace and g surro ate companionship,' Sund ex lains.21 She goes on to g p g su suggest that reading `enriched the imaginative life of this gg g g solitar man with a deep, reservoir of feeling and - Y p~ g as sociations that fed the heightened, poetic quality that distin g P q Y - uishes his paintings.'22 She is particularly effective in g p g P Y demonstrating how literature acted as a touchstone for the g artist, one to which he constantly referred to interpret and Y p sha e his life - whether in his relationship with the rosti- p p P tute Sien, or in his fantasy constructions of Provence. Y The exhibition Van Gogh in England: portrait of the g g p artist as aoun man, held at the Barbican Art Gallery in .Y g Y 1992, provided comprehensive insi JOURNAL 2002 It was also during his stay in London that Van Gogh g Y g enriched his knowledge of English literature. One book g g that touched him deeply and that would remain an ins ira PY - P tion was George Eliot's Felix Holt - the radical, the story of g Y an idealisticoun man with whom Van Gogh readily iden Y g g Y - tified. Van Gogh also read Thomas Carlyle, Daniel Defoe g Y and Charlote Brontë, but hisreferred English author was P g undoubted) Charles Dickens, whose human dramas were Y brought to life by the many excellent illustrations in his g Y Y novels by the English graphic artists Van Gogh admired. Y g g P g Baile makes the compelling suggestion that Van Gogh's Bailey P g gg g two surrogate 'portraits' of empty chairs (his and g P PY Gau uin's ainted in Arles in November 1888 were at g ,P leastart) inspired by Luke Fildes's engraving of P Y P Y g g Dickens's empty chair on the day of his death, The empty PY Y ~ py chair, Gad's Hill, ninth o June 18 0. f 7 An essay by Debora Silverman in the cata Y Y - ora same to ue examines the relevance of John Bunyan's Pi rim's g Y Pig rim' progress to Van Gogh's spiritual predicament of 1875-76. p~ g P P Van Gogh found in Bunyan's book, first published in 16 8, g Y ~ P 7 an affirmation of his own 'religious mentality of work and g Y evangelism.'24 Silverman goes on t popularg g o 0 demonstrate the legacy of this treatise in Van Gogh's art. In a complex g Y g P analo , she connects Bun an's `visual piety, or 'eyes riv analogy, - s Y P Y Y eted to a single focus,' with the pilgrim's steadfast purpose. g ~ P g P P This she equates with Van Gogh's use of the perspective q g P P frame, explaining: `When Van Gogh turned from religion to g g art, he converted the theology of optical singularity into a gY P g Y visualractice, facilitated by a craft tool bearing a striking Y g g affinity to the perspective glass relied on by Bunyan's il- Y P P g Y Y P rims - his perspective frame.'25 Silverman sees a relation- - tion p p a shipetween the intentional awkwardness of Van Gogh's P g The potato eaters (F 82 JH 764 and - Bun an's `clums ' writ Y Y in g, demonstrating their shared belief in the redemptive g g P ualities of humble subjects and the divine agency of awk qualities subjects g Y - ward language. The copy turns original: Vincent van Gogh and a new pyg approach to traditional artpractice, written by Cornelia Homburg and published in i 6, was the first extensive g P 99 study of Van Gogh's copies of other artists' work. Homburg g P g surveys the range of Van Gogh's copies, but what interests Y g g P her most is theainter's struggle to 'incorporate old P gg - an P fashionedrind le like the copy into his attempts to be P P PY P rod productive and acceptable as a modern artist.' She su u d- 26 Pg ests that Van Gogh adopted a particularly post-im - g g P P Y res P P sionist approach to his copies, creating free and personal PP P g P inter interpretations of the original works instead of exact re li- PP cas. Homburg analyses the different artists Van Gogh was g Y g drawn to and the reasons for their appeal to him. He was PP fascinated for example, by Rembrandt's ability to trans P ~ Y Y - form a straightforward real-life image into an expression of g g P eternal and elevated truth, which Van Gogh described as g the - `'e ne sais quoi' of true genius. True genius was a uali l q g g q t also often associated with Delacroix, who was frequently Y ~ q Y linked to Rembrandt by 19th-century critics. Van Gogh was Y9 Y VAN GOGH MUSEUM In 1998 Van Gogh/Millet, an exhibition devoted ex- the artist'srind al motifs, showing their frequency in 99 g P P ~ g q Y clusivel to Van Gogh and his hero, was held at the Musée eacheriod of Van Gogh's career, as well as a summary of Y g P g ~ Y d'Orsa in Paris.27 In her e catalogue essay, Marie-Pierre descriptions of these motifs in the letters, which he uses g Y~ P Salé sets the context for Van Gogh's fervent admiration of to support his analyses. Having marshalled this im g res - PP Y g P the olderainter. Although exceptional, she explains, it did sive body of facts Kódera builds a number of elaborate, P g P ~ P Y conform to a widespread enthusiasm for the artist in the sometimes convoluted, analogies around the artist's P g late 19th century. Salé reiterates Homburg's assertion that themes, with aarticular focus on the two aspects that 9 Y g P P theo ular image of Millet the peasant-painter was largely form the subtitle: Christianity and its substitution b P P g P P g Y by a re - Y the result of Sensier's hagiographic biography. This book li ion of nature and the expression of this new religion in g P g had arofound influence on Van Gogh. It was Sensier's Van Gogh's art. The most original and cogent section of P g gg Millet that Van Gogh h idolised and in whom he found confir- Kódera's book is the chapter entitled 'Japan as rimitivis - P P P mation of his own ideal of the simple, hard-working life. tic utopia: Van Go h's a oniste portraits.'3° Most studies P~ g p g ~ p stud P Louis van Tilborgh traces Van Gogh's responses to his of Van Go h's a onisme Kódera claims, have concentrat- g g P g 1 p > mentor throughout his career, from the peasant subjects he subject ed on his stylistic and iconographic borrowin s from g ~ P Yborrowing in Nuenen to his copies after the Seasons and Hours anew prints, but have failed to reveal the multi-la P - P P ~ Y series made in Saint-Rémy. Van Tilborgh believes Van ered significance of his infatuation with the country and Y g g y Gogh emulated Millet because he found in him an affirma- its culture. Ja an Ködera ar ues was linked in Van g P , g tion of his ideals — a new idea of religions based on nature, Gogh's mind, among other things, g an ideal communi- g ~ g gs~ a humanity appropriate for modern times and above all, a t of artists living and working harmoniously like reli Y> a - t g g Y model for his ambition to endow images of ordinarypeople ious brotherhood. However, Van Gogh actually ~ g YP P g Y knew with a sense of the sacred and eternal. very little about the historical realities of Japan, and could Y P thus use it as a blank screen on which to- ro'ect his uto i P ] P Van Goh in context an dream: `Detached from their original cultural context, g Much of the writing on Van Gogh since i o has Japanese motifs were relatively neutral motifs open to free g g 99 P Y P broadened the debate beyond biographyand art historical inter interpretations by Western artists, ... totally free of bibli- Y P Y ~ Y sources to embrace wider historical, social andhiloso h- cal allusions or traditional Christian symbolic meanings. P P Y g ical contexts in order to elucidate the meanings of his art. That is why Van Gogh could crystallize his artistic, commu- g Y g Y An important step forward in the study of Van Go h's s m - nal and religious ideals around the nucleus of Japan.'31 P P Y g Y g P bolism was made by Tsukasa Kódera in i 6 in Vincent One of the most trenchant voices toro ose a new Y 99 P P Van Gogh: Christianity versus nature.28 Certainly, approach to Van Gogh in recent years has been that of g y Y~ PP g Y Goh and symbolism had been linked from the start. Griselda Pollock. Writing in i 8o she rejected notions of rejecte g Y g 9 ~ Kódera takes up the notion of persistent idées fixes f be - and individualit and announced her Marxist stance P P g Y neath the naturalistic appearance of Van Go h's works Gogh' in aolemical style. Sweeping aside dominant 'expression- re - PP P Y P g P expressed by Albert Aurier in his i8 o article, stating his ist,' `s mbolic' or `sentimentalist' interpretations based on P Y 9 ~ g Y P aim `to show the significance of Van Go h'sprincipal narrative and biographical modes of interpretative criti- g g P themes and motifs in the thematic structure of his entire cism shero osed different ways of conducting art histori- P P Y g vr '29 oeu e. To this end he compiles a chronological list of cal work on Van Gogh. Rather than offering the paintings to P g g g P g 27 Exhib. cat. Millet/Van Gogh, Paris (Musée d'Orsay) 31 Ibid., p. 65. 1998-99. 32 Pollock, op. cit. (note 3), p. 81. 28 Tsukasa Kódera, Vincent Van Gogh: Christianity ver- sus nature, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1996. 33 Griselda Pollock, 'On not seeing Provence. Van Gogh g and the landscape of consolation, 1888-9,' in Richard p 29 !bid , p. 2. Thomson (ed.), Framing France: the representation of landscape in France, 1870-1914, Manchester & New 30 Previously published in Simiolus 14 (1984), nos. 3/4, York 1998, pp. 81-118. For other recent examinations of 46 pp. 189-208. this theme see Debora Silverman, 'Framing art and sa- g JOURNAL 2002 be consumed as articulations of aersonalit , they were to P Y Y be viewed as 'practices' within historically determined and P Y therefore class-constitutedositions.32 P These ideas have been refined and developed in P Pollock's more recent writings. Her essay `On not seeing Y g Provence'33 views the artist within a variety of themes t y that can be said to characterise the late 19th century, such 9 Y as thearadi matic condition of tourism tied to the P g search for unsullied nature in an industrialising world, g and the challenge of making a valid form of religious art g g g in a secular era.34 Pollock's text is devotedVan Gogh's to g s withdrawal from the city in search of what he called `a Y purer nature of the countryside,' an idealised terrain, un- tainted by modern civilisation. She locates his quest with- - ue q in thehenomenon of tourism and the 19th-century P 9 Y vogue for artists' colonies, but views Van Gogh's choices g ~ g as `off-beam.' In 1883 the impulse to escape led him to a 3 P P remote spot in Drenthe, not the occasional artists' colony Y at Zweeloo, only a few miles away; and in 1888 he chose Y Y Arles, a historic, agricultural, but also industrialising g town, instead of a more conventional Eden. Pollock demonstrates how little interest Van - re Gogh took in the g P sent day realities of Arles, falling back on the tourist Y g clichés that hadrown up around the place. Van Gogh g P P g was, she argues, a tourist with a difference: `He was a g conservative Dutchman abroad as an artist, ideologically g Y adrift in the challenging conditions of capitalist moderni g g - P t .'35 Addressing the frequently covered subject of Van Y g q Y subjec Gogh's utopian dream of the south, Pollock traces its g P familiar roots (Monticelli, Daudet, Japan, etc.) but brings P ~ g new layers of meaning to this familiar theme. One of the Y g most original as aspects of her discussion focuses on the wayP Y Van Gogh folded his northern heritage, particularly Dutch g P Y 17th-century art (mediated b writers like Thoré, Blanc 7 Y Y and Fromentin), into the fiction he crafted of Provence. For Pollock, Van Gogh's work is born of an effort to g combat the disappointments of modernity with a recu - PP Y er P ative bourgeois nostalgia, and this also informed his de- g g sire to create modern religious paintings. His concept of g P g P reli religious art based in landscape (a reaction to the more g P overt) Christian works of Gauguin and Bernard) had its Y g roots in the romantic - ani m s 'pathetic fallacy.' Van Gogh's P Y g festo surrogate religious landscape, Pollock writes, was g g P the Starry night of 1889 (F 612 JH 1 , which she de y ~ 9 73 - 1 scribes as a `tableau,' an invented composition destined to P si signify or, in academic terminology, express ola g Y gY~ - re cons P tion in the face of anxiety and heartbreak the loss of cer Y - - taint and the securely remembered - created by moder Y Y Y - nit ,'36 Y In 1 an original, wide-ran in and penetratingwide-ranging P g study by Carol M. Zemel a e red.37 Something of the uy y ppa go sco e of Zemel's work is immediately apparent from her ti P Y PP - tle: Van Gogh's progress: utopia, modernity, and late - th g p g p y 9 centuryrt. She explains the two concepts behind its y - ene P P g sis. The first, more straightforward one, refers to John g Bun an's famous moral tale The pilgrim's progress, one of Y ~ g p g Van - a Gogh's favourite books in his youth. The other, dark g Y er, more complex and cynical notion, sp VAN GOGH MUSEUM and committed to improvement, progress and than e.'38 P ~P g change.'3 of Zemel's most interesting revisionist arguments, to g g be found in the last two chapters, serve to illustrate her P aim. By puncturing the hagiographythat has traditionally g Y surrounded Van Gogh, Zemel opens the way for some fresh g~ ~ Y interpretations. She points out, for example, that the artist P P ~ P was well attuned to the appeal that rustic subjects such as PP subject Nuenen weavers andeasants could hold for an urban P clientele. Contrary to the received idea that Van Gogh was Y g an isolatedenius indifferent to worldly concerns, Zemel g ~ Y locates him within the vi orous ca italist art market of g , P late 19th-century Paris, and explores his strategies for g Y ~ - er P g P sonal recognition and success. She shows how his utopian g P vision led him to- e ursue idealist notions of career manage- g ment in the context of a burgeoning capitalist art market, g g P for example through the schemes he devised for group g g P - ex hibition in Montmartre or for an artists' commune in Arles. Particularly compelling is her reading of the 1 Y P g g 3 panoramic landscapes painted in Auvers in the weeks lead- - we P P in up to Van Gogh's death. Here, she deviates completely g P g ~ P Y from the traditional P inter relation of these works as the fi- nal - epic expressions of a soul in torment. For her the ic P P P tures should not be viewed as `forecasts of[a]personal P tragedy or as culminating statements of a stormy career but g Y g Y asuite the opposite, an optimistic project fully in step with q PP ~ P P l Y P avant-garde art and republican programs to imagine and g P P g g construct a utopian countryside.'39 Their horizontal f rm p yformat leads Zemel to link them to the P Y contem orar interest in decoration, as exemplified by the work of Puvis de P Y Chavannes, Monet, Denis and others, claiming that Van g Gogh `could put theprinciples of decoration to the service g P of utopian fantasy.'4° P Y In 1999 the Van Gogh Museum mounted Theo Van 999 g Go h, 1857-1891: art dealer, collector and brother o Gogh,of Vincent.41 This important exhibition and its accompanying P catalogue provided a wealth of information on an area hith- g P erto - neglected in Van Gogh studies. Vincent's long-suffer- suffer- g g g in brother Theo, who during his short life patiently filled g ~ g P Y the role not only of financial supporter but also of counsel- Y IP for and confidant, has now been rounded out. Since the let- ters from Vincent to Theo far outnumber Theo's surviving relies the latter has remained a shadowy and often silent replies, Y figure in relation to his brother. Chris Stolwijk's essay gives g J Yg a detailed account of Theo's brief and difficult life, which, he concludes, was `an ephemeral flower surrounded b P by th rn .'42 Richard Thomson's s cha d Thomson s discussion of the structure and functioning of the Paris art market in the 188os and the g was Theo negotiated theseprovides a valuable context for Y g P the art to which Van Gogh was exposed and the commer- cial on strategies he devised. Thomson concludes that al- g thou h Theo was hard-working, good at drumming u g g~ g g up trade and brought major impressionists to the gallery, g major P g Y~ did little to support the young avant-garde, apart from his PP Y g g ~ P brother Gauguin and to a limited extent, Toulouse g > - Lautrec. But as Thomsonoints out, the 188os was an awk- P ward junction between impressionism as an established l P modern art and the emergence of a new and f JOURNAL 2002 area as well as describing a particular clus- proved a particularly effective viewpoint from which to p p Y p ter of artists, who shared `an instinct towards simply consider their careers as a whole, each artistrovidin a pY P g drawn forms, a willingness to exaggerate chromatic and revealing context for the other. g gg g textural effects in theiraintin s a desire to put their Debora Silverman has contributed a g ri orously re- P g~ P work before the public and, os f possible, sell ií.'44 , searched andenetratin book entitled Van Gogh and p p p g g Gauguin: the search or sacred art, published for o0 Montmartre and the roads climbing up towards it to the p g p north of the fashionable Grandes Boulevards was the ter- Silverman states that her aim is `toresent a different view `top resen rain of the these artists, and its louche world of cabarets Van Gogh and Gauguin, linking both men to the destiny g ~ g Y and nightclubs provided them with subjects attuned to the subject and historical specificity of the i 9th-century world in g P p Y 9 Y spirit of in-de-siècle decadence. Elizabeth C. Childs ex- which they were embedded, rather than by claiming them Y ~ Y g lores Gau uin's and Van Gogh's escape from the urban in retrospectively as initiators of a loth-century modernism of p g g p p Y Y search of natural and artistic utopias, but concludes b by expressionism a d m and abstraction.'47 As her title suggests, gg , p P showing the ultimate incompatibility of the ideals of artis - Silverman approaches Van Gogh and Gauguin from the p Y pp g g g tic community and collaboration and `an art world that ers perspective of a particular challenge they both faced, Y p p p g Y was actually more responsive to the pervasive of mythic which she defines as: `how to discover a new and modern Y p P Y joi form of sacred art to fill the void left by the religious s s - livi l l lism.'45 John House invites us to join him as Y g Y to Paris in June 188 the ear of the tems that they were struggling to abandon but had never- 9, Y Y gg g Exposition Universelle. Our itinerary encompasses the theless left indelible imprints in their consciousness.'48 ss.'48 p Y p broad spectrum of venues where contemporary art could The crux of her argument is that the roots of the tensions p p Y g be viewed - from the exhibition's official Décennale to a and affinities that emerged in the artists' association are to g display of the petit boulevard artists at the Café Volpini, be found in their divergent religious legacies and educa - p Y p p g g g from upmarket galleries such as Durand-Ruel, Petit, and tional formations: Gauguin's at an Orléans seminary, p g g Boussod Valadon to such fringe premises as the shop of where he was taught to distrust reality, Van Gogh's in a g p p g Y~ g the colour merchant Père Tan u . His essay concentrates Protestant theological tradition that sanctified the everyday gY Y g Y Y on landscape and the ways in which Van Gogh and his col - stuff of the real world. In one of the most original sections p Y g lea leagues reacted against impressionism, enriching direct of the book Silverman supports these opposing hiloso hi- g p g pp pp g p p g observation with new layers of poetic and metaphorical calositions with reference to the actualfacture of the f Y p p p meanie . The lessons Van Gogh learned from his Parisian paintings.Gauguin, Gau uin she explains, seeks to dematerialise g g P - - the surface of theaintin to reduce its physical immedia - ex experience proved fundamental to the remaining twoand P g~ p Y p p g a-halfears of his life and career. c thereby encouraging imaginary or dream states. Van Y Y~ Y g g g Y Gogh, on the other hand, was deeply involved with craft. g pY Van Gogh and Gauguin Labelling him a 'weaver-painter,' Silverman creates a g g g p Much of the most recent scholarship on Van Gogh strikin analogy between Van Gogh's practice and that of gY g has addressed his relationship with Paul Gauguin, un - the weavers whose labour he had so admired when he was P g doubtedl one of the epic collaborations in the history of living among them in Nuenen. Y p Y g g art. Although the brief, climactic period of about ten weeks A biographical, and particularly a s pY chobio ra hi - g ~ p p Y g p when the artists lived and worked together in Arles in the cal approach to Van Gogh has, as we have seen, been dis- g Pp g autumn of 1888 is the focus of these studies, this has credited by several art historians, who consider that it Y 42 Ibid , p 57 45 Ibid., p.148. 43 Cornelia Homburg (ed.), exhib cat Vincent van 46 Debora Silverman, Van Gogh and Gauguin- the Gogh and the painters of the petit boulevard, St Louis search for sacred art, New York 2000 (Saint Louis Art Museum) & Frankfurt (Stádelsches Kunstinstitut and Stadtische Galerie) 2001 47 Ibid , p 9. 44 Ibid , p 68 48 Ibid., p 3 49 VAN GOGH MUSEUM subject ignores oversimplifies the subject and i s the relevant histori - Druick and Zegers provide us with a compelling ac P ~ g P P g - cal material. In Van Gogh and Gauguin: electric arguments count of the artists' early histories. While Van Gogh's youth g g ~ Y g Y and utopian dreams, Bradley Collins presents us with a was rooted in tradition, country values and religious p ~ Y P Y g ver different type of s chobio gra h , one in which his - Puritanism, Gauguin's was exotic, itinerant, worldly and Y YP P Y S P Y g Y torical context is used to create a far more convincing, Catholic. In recounting the artists' young lives, the authors g g Y g complex and nuanced construction of the artist/hero than establish the `inheritance' each would eventually bring to P Y g anythingto t s e be o e their collaboration and the was each would work to create Y g Y Gauguin and Van Gogh the subject of his work, Collins au- his own legend. Particularly fascinating is the examination g g g Y g creates a wider yet at the same time focused of the two artists' religious formation. Echoing Debora Y g g context for looking at Van Gogh. Inevitably, the heart of his Silverman's theories- althou h her book had not yet a g g Y g Y P stor is the intense, highly creative period of a little more eared when Druick and Zegers were writing), ex Y ~ g Y P P g g~ they - than two months in Arles. He leads up to this climactic lore the fundamental divide between Van Gogh's Dutch P P g episode with a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the Protestantism and the idiosyncratic, Catholic tutelage P g g Y Y g childhood andouth of both artists, interpreting the si nifi- Gau Gauguin received under Du anlou . Y P g g g P P cant emotional occurrences of their early lives from a s PY - In the section entitled `The meeting' the narrative Y g choanal tic largely Freudian perspective. Collins pursues reaches its climax. Despite the artists' widely divergent Y~ g Y P P P P Y g a number of visual comparisons to support his s cho ana - lives up until this point, we are told of the areas of common P PP P Y P P 1 tic approach. Particularly original inal is his radical investi a - ground on which the two men were able to build a friend- Y PP Y ~ g g tion of several of the canvases Van Gogh and Gauguin ship: their nostalgia for a mythic, pre-industrial past, their g g P g Y P P ainted while working together in Arles. Through these he belief in the consoling power of art and their passion for P g g g gP P comes to broader and more complex explanations for the the writer Pierre Loti, who had enriched Gauguin's ex eri- P P g P colla se of the artists' relationship, in from repressed ence of Brittany and who would shape Van Gogh's antici a - P P~ ranging P Y P g P homosexualit to Gauguin as `father, mother, first Vincent, tion of the Midi. Once the artists are established in Arles, Y g revered Master, abbot of the studio of the south,' the object Druick and Zegers give us a particularly vivid account of l g g P Y of Vincent's many transferred emotions. With this rich and the `studio of the south.' Their description of life in the Y P subtle reading of the collaboration as a whole, Collins Yellow House and of the roles the two artists assumed is an g achieves his aim of unlockingVincent and Gauguin from example of the brilliant historical reconstruction and s - g g P PY their timeless coupling as the Angel and Devil of post-im o - cholo ical insight that characterise this study as a whole. It P g g P g g Y ressionism' - which will, as he hoes 'encourage a wider hopes, brings home with alarming veracity the day-to-day tensions P ~ g g g Y Y Y and more accurate view of a relationship that was not al- these two egocentric and volatile personalities endured, P g P was turbulent and conflicted.'50 cohabitin in a claustrophobic, disorderly space. Y P YP In a recent exhibition devoted to the same theme, The authors also take us on a detailed, day-to-day Y Y Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, held at The itinerary of Van Gogh's and Gauguin's painting campaigns g g Y g g P g Art Institute of Chicago and the Van Gogh Museum in 200 1 - in and around Arles. They explore the differences in the 8 g Y P 02 51 Douglas W. Druick and Peter Kort Zegers presented two artists approach through a series of revealing com ar - g g P PP g g P us with a thoughtful selection of the works of the two isons of which one of the most notable is the two views of g artists tracing their evolutions before their first encounter the ancient cemetery Les Al scam s that they painted si- g Y Y P YP in 188 the complexpatterns of artistic interaction that multaneousl on or around 23 October. The conceptual, 7, P P Y 3 P tooklace in Arles, and the lingering impact in the art of topographical and st listic differences of the finished stylisti P ~ g g P both after the demise of their friendshi . The wealth of de- immediately mark out the fundamental divergence P Y g tailed information brought together in their extensive text between the two artists. Apart from the familiar and much g g P is brilliantly used to bring the artists' characters to life with written-about conflict that arose from Gauguin working g Y g a vividness and depth never before achieved. from memory and Van Gogh from nature, the authors ex- P Y g 50 JOURNAL 2002 lore much richer 'personal frameworks through which A p g the two artists interpreted the south.'52 P Much of Druick and Zeger's most revelatory dis- g Y cussion addresses the aftermath of the Yellow House ad- venture. Back in Paris, g Gau uin found that in his `interac- tion with Symbolist circles, Vincent acted as a kind of Y silentartner, just as Gauguin occupied Vincent's P just g P thou thoughts in Provence; both men referred to the recent past g ~ P in their art and continued to derive energy from the dia gY - to ue that played out directly in correspondence and indi- g p Y Y P rectl through Theo.'53 Vincent continued to resonate in y g s Gau uin's own project for a `studio of the tropics.' In the g P J P 1 years after Van Gogh's death, Gauguin found himself 3Y g ~ g still in competition with his old friend's growing sthu p g g - o p mous reputation. Despite his `efforts to write Vincent out P P of his history,' he found that `in death [he] became more of Y a force to be reckoned with than in life, as theeriod P 1890-1903witnessed the construction of an enduring, g, heroic image of genius around the Dutch artist, a narra- g g tive in which Gauguin, like it or not, was implicated.'54 g P The Van Gogh that Druick and Zegers construct is g g aroduct of picture making,s cholo ical in P P g~ - - e P Y g sight and a wide range of artistic and intellectual influ g g ences. In contrast to the fragmentary views of the artist g Y that have emerged from the various particularised studies g P written over the last decade, they have given us back Van Y g Go h whole. Gog tion of individuality that was sidelined in these more oliti- Y P call -oriented studies. The most recent account of Van Y Gogh, Vincent in Brixton, a play by Nicholas Wright g p Y Y - cur g renti performing on the London stage, once again - YP g g ~ resur g rects the artist-hero. In the end, it seems, Van Gogh the > g creativeenius and misunderstood artist is irrepressible. g P 51 Gogh's critical profile has varied considerably P Y over theears. In the period immediately following his Y P Y g death and for much of the loth century, was Van Gogh Y~ g the heroic artiste maudit, the madenius, the g great - re ex pressionist painter that predominated. Since 199o, more methodical art historical approaches have provided us PP p with detailed knowledge of Van Gogh's techniques and the g g a datin of his works. Ongoing research promises a far more dating g g p subtle understanding of the letters than has been available g before. Contextual studieslacin the painter in the con- e g P text of late 19th-century society and politics gave us Van 9 Y Y P g Go h the modern artist-tourist in search of an unspoiled Gogh P Eden or the (albeit idealistic) operator in the burgeoning P g g capitalist art market. More recent studies had revived the P biographic andpsychoanalytic a roach restorin the approach, restoring - no 49 Bradley Collins, Van Gogh and Gauguin: electric ar- guments and utopian dreams, Buffalo, NY & Oxford 2001. 50 Ibid , p. 231 51 Douglas W Druick and Peter Kort Zegers, exhib. cat. Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, Chicago (The Art Institute) & Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 2001-02 52 Ibid , p. 173 53 Ibid., p. 275. 54 Ibid., p. 333. VAN GOGH MUSEUM Vincent van Gogh, Parc Voyer d'Argenson at Asnières (F 314 JH 1258), 1887, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum s (F 314 JH 1258), 1887, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) VAN GOGH 150 Vincent van Gogh's Parc Voyer d'Argenson: four scholars, four views In the spring of 2001 the Editorial Board of the Van Gogh Museum Journal began thinking of ways our publication could contribute to the celebration of Vincent van Gogh's 150th birthday in 2003. Inspired by the ground- breaking 12 views of Manet's Bar (Princeton 1996) we decided to ask several leading scholars of 19th-century art to provide us with their views of Van Gogh's Parisian masterpiece, Parc Voyer d'Argenson at Asnières, now in the Van Gogh Museum We chose this picture because it is one many people might not immediately associate with Van Gogh, neither in terms of style nor subject matter, and we thereby hoped to encourage our contributors to think about his oeuvre anew. The results are presented in what follows, with Richard Thomson examining the work in terms of its decorative and emotional implications, Cornelia Homburg as a kind of avant-garde gambit; Richard Shiff viewing it through the writings of Clement Greenberg, and, finally, Linda Nochlin providing us with her own very personal interpretation Naturally, every art historian has his or her particular take on any given work of art. A series of 'essays' (in the literal sense of the word) such as this is thus perhaps just as revealing of the writers themselves as it is of the painting under discus- sion Decoration and melancholy Richard Thomson The spring of 188 must have been an exciting time for Van p g 7 g Gogh. Settled in Paris for a year, he now had real contacts g Y with artists who were working with experimental styles in g p y theiraintin s. His own work was beginning to feel the p g g g benefit of this, as he essayed new possibilities. Van Gogh Y p g wasarticularl concerned with touch in the early months P Y Y of theear, with different shapes and weights of mark. He Y p g alsoave a good deal of thought to how touch acted with g g g colour, both toive his paintings a surface vitality and to g p g Y roject an intense optical vibration. In addition, as the p p weather improved he began to find a subject. From the A g subject apartment he shared with his brother Theo in the rue Le is p Lepi could easily walk within the hour beyond the fortifi Y - ca Y tions that ringed the capital to the north-western suburbs. g p Theeri peripheral communities of Asnières, Bois-Colombes P p and Levallois-Perret, dormitory zones on the ever-shifting g frontier of the metropolis, were neither quite country nor p q Y city. That combination of proximity, ambiguity and flux had Y P Y g Y made the suburbs the crucible of recent experimental P aintin . At the eighth impressionist exhibition held in the p g g p spring of i886, suburban subject matter had been at the core of the striking submissions of Signac and Seurat, g g whose large, radical A Sunday on the Grande Jatte (188 ) g .l 4 (1884-86, The Art Institute of Chicago) was the manifesto g aintin of emergent neo-imp ressionism. It was within this p g g p nexus ofossibilities and with growing confidence, that ofpossibilities, g g Van Gogh painted Parc Voyer d'Argenson. g P y g Althou h Van Gogh only knew Seurat though his Although g Y g making his acquaintance just before leaving for paintings,g q l g Arles in February i 888 he did have the benefit of Si vac's Y ~ Signac' in early 1887. This was a double advantage. friendship Yg Si nac could tutor Van Gogh in the colour theory and divi- g g Y 53 VAN GOGH MUSEUM sion of tone central to P neo-im ressionism while as a resi- dent of Asnières he could familiarise the Dutchman with the suburban environment. Parc Voyer d' d'Argenson re re - P sents the candles of the chestnut saplings in blossom, and sorobabl dates from April. Although Signac may well P Y P g g Y have still been in contact with Van Gogh at this point - the g p former did not leave Paris for the Auvergne until 23 Ma 1 - g 3 Y theaintin is far from being an `accredited' neo-im res - P g g P sionist work. Ambitious in scale, at over a metre across, and confident in its ratherersonal diversity of touch, the P Y canvas is more than the result of Si vac's tutelage, another g g~ fig. 1 essay in divisionism or a scouting of the social habitat of Y ~ g Vincent van Gogh, sketch in letter 456/374, Amsterdam, Asnières. It harbours, and I believe substantially realises, Y Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) other ambitions. The overall tonality of the painting is quite grey. It Y P g q g Y is by no means as sharply focussed or coloured as the can- So what did Van Gogh have in mind? The answer, in t pY g vases Signac was producing in spring 1887. Van Gogh used m view, is a decorative painting. Internal and circumstan - g p g P g 7 g Y p g a whiteround to maximise luminosity, made little tial evidenceoints to such an interpretation. Thepaint- g Y~ P P P concerted effort to keep his colours separate, ne- oim - in 's size gives it a substantial presence, and yet both the p g g P ~ Y ressionist doctrine insisted. Indeed, in the sky touches of wa it is painted and its subject are relatively unobtrusive. I p ~ Y Y p Y blue and white, inlaces tinted with green, merge together have already described its subtle tonality, this instinct A g ~ g g Y Y~ toive the grey tonal effect neo-impressionism had been to make the canvas work as a surface ensemble is en- g g Y P develo developed to avoid. Van Gogh did use the play of com le - hanced by the touch which, although various, has a tapes- s - P g p Y p Y ~ g ~ P mentar colours, for example in the deep red of the candles try-like quality. The sky is worked in a diagonal stroke, Y P P Y q Y Y g and the Veronese or olivereens on the leaves of the chest- more reminiscent of An grand's current work than Signac's, g g g nut trees. These effects are clustered in the central band of while the foliage is quite textured, and the grass and paths g q ~ g P foliage that runs across the canvas and in the lower right more lightly dabbed. The lack of movement in the figures g g g Y g corner. Otherwise the colours he employed adhere to local also contributes to a decorative tranquillity. In addition, colour or opt for obviouslypleasing harmonies, such as the Parc Voyer d'Argenson, for all the frontality of the figures P YP g ~ g ~ Y g pink and mid-blue clothing of the couple on the right. The to which I will return) has an insistently banded quality, g p g Y q Y seated couple to the left is more interesting chromatically; g with areas of touch and colour spread horizontally across Y; P Y Van Gogh's use of russet red, grey and aubergine-violet in the canvas, accented by the verticals of trees and staffage. g g Y g Y g the woman's costume and blue and buttery yellow for the In September 188 , while at Neunen, Van Gogh had YY P 4~ ~ g male figure presages the harmonies he would employ the lanned decorations for the Eindhoven dining room of g P g p Y P g following autumn in experimental still-life paintings such Antoon Hermans.2 From what we know of thisuncompleted 0 o s g P P g as Red cabbages and onions (F JH 1338). Given that project, his solution was a format that spread figures across g 374 p J ~ P g neo-impressionism was a system of painting intended to a landscape organised and textured in horizontal bands P Y P g P g optimise luminosity, is curious that Parc Voyer fi . 1 . During his time in Paris decorative concerns reoc - P Y~ y g g P d'Ar enson evinces little interest in the direction of the cu pied several of Van Gogh's colleagues. In 1886- 1886-7 P g g ht. The left-hand couple cast a shadow, but elsewhere Toulouse-Lautrec hadainted four murals at an inn he vis- g P A the fall of light is essentially ignored. This, it seems, is in g Yg > ited at Villiers-sur-Morin (Seine-et-Marne) and twori- g the interests of the overall harmony. In the final analysis, sailleanels for Aristide Bruant's cabaret Le Mirliton, on Y Y p theaintin does not vibrate, as a neo-impressionist land re - the boulevard de Clichy.3 Louis An y ou s que was wo tin working on g o a P g p sca e does; rather it evokes a warm grey envelope. large canvas entitled Chez Bruant, which although never P g Y P g ~ g 54 JOURNAL 2002 completed probably had a decorative e iv intention.4 Van Gogh g p p Y himself was involved in decorating popular cafés and gP P restaurants in Montmartre withaintin s and Japanese p g p prints, early and in earl 1887 painted a number of motifs - still- 7p lifes and a nude - in a decorative oval format.5 But if decoration was theaintin 's purpose, how p g P p else did it function? Its horizontality and frontality is at Y Y odds with many of the other Paris landscapes Van Gogh Y P g wasroducin in 1887. Whether representations of the p g 7 p riverside at Asnières, the Y cit 's fortifications, or the boule- vards at the foot of Montmartre, he tended to organise g these on strong diagonals. The diagonal was a useful and g g g suggestive pictorial device. Sharp and linear, it created a gg P p fig. 2 strong compositional spine that held in place a surface g P p P Adolph Monticelli, The greyhounds, c. 1873-75, Toledo vividly animated by touch and colour. Representing a road, Y Y p g Museum of Art ua side or pavement edge, the diagonal served as Y a re - q P g g minder of the man-made character of citynd suburb, Y while its visual drive into the fictiveicture space acted as been refurbished 8oears earlier by the banker Peixotto, p p Y Y aictorial metaphor for the pace of the modern but had since fallen into ruin.8 Whether Vano h knew of G e o P p P g o e o s applies to Parc Voyer d Ar . theark's elegant 18th-century pedigree we do not know, p Pp y g p g Yp g It is constructed in a muchentler wa its verdant and flo- but the half-hidden door adds a note of mystery and the g Y~ Y Y ral forms full and soft. Instead of a stern diagonal, the three couples in different postures of courtship a sense of p P p fore round sways along the undulations of the romance that endow theaintin with a scent of nostalgia Y g P g g path. Just left of centre, one of these arabesques curves for the rococo. Indeed it has beenointed out that Van p q p back, counterpointed by the verticals of three receding Go h who had read the Goncourt brothers' L'art au dix- p Y g g saplings. B these means the eye is drawn back to what a - huitième siècle18 valued Watteau's fêtes galantes and Y p 75 ~ g ears to be a door, set in a wall covered by ivy or creeper. was of course aassionate admirer of their contemporary p YvY P P p Y One is reminded that the site Van Gogh had chosen for this reincarnation in the work of Adolphe Monticelli.9 But l- p e ua g and two smalleraintin s7 was where an elegantp e e a t château though one can draw parallels between Van Gogh'spaint- g g g p g p had once stood, in the mid-18th century the residence of in and similar scenes by Monticelli in which elegantly Y g Y g Y René de Voyer d'Argenson, brother of Madame de dressed figures disport themselves in front of foliated back- Y g g P Pompadour. As Louis Barron's illustrated volume on Les en- drops (fig. 2 Parc Voyer d Ar enson should not be seen as p p g , y g virons de Paris informed readers in 1886, the estate had a mere recasting of Monticelli, still less Watteau, in a style Y 1 Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, Vincent van Gogh. his 336 JH 1227); and Nude woman, reclining (F 330 JH Paris period, 1886-88, Utrecht & The Hague 1976, p. 31. 1214) 2 Evert van Uitert et al., exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh: 6 Richard Thomson, exhib. cat. Monet to Matisse: land- paintings, Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh) scape painting in France, 1874-1914, Edinburgh 1990, no. 4. (National Gallery of Scotland) 1994,. 32-37; John pp Leighton, Richard Thomson et al., exhib. cat. Seurat and 3 Gale B. Murray, Toulouse-Lautrec: the formative the bathers, London (National Gallery) 1997, pp. 139-44. years, 1878-1891, Oxford 1991, pp. 96, 98. 7 Lane in a public garden at Asnières (F 275 JH 1278) 4 Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, exhib. cat Vincent van and Lane in a public garden at Asnières (F 276 JH 1259). Gogh and the birth of cloisonism, Toronto (Art Gallery of Y Ontario) & Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh) 8 Louis Barron, Les environs de Paris, Paris 1886, p 40. 1981, p. 229. 9 Vincent van Gogh: paintings, cit. (note 2), no. 22. 55 5 Three novels (F 335 JH 1226); A basket with bulbs (F VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 3 fig. 4 Vincent van Gogh, Road along the Seine near Asnieres Vincent van Gogh, Factories at Asnieres from the quaff de (F 299 JH 1254), 1887, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum Clichy (F 317 JH 1287), 1887, Saint Louis Art Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) loosely derived from neo-impressionism. It is, rather, a Y A aintin of ver personal expression. painting very P Writin to Theo in 1888 Van Gogh referred to Parc Writing g Vo er d Ar enson as a `'ardin avec amoureux' / , ~ g ] 594 473 and in that sense it was arotor e for the canvases he P YP wouldaint in Arles that made much of the association of p gardens and lovers. But on its own terms, and specifically g ~ P Y in the context of mid-1887, painting might be read very P g g Y differently. When Van Gogh chose, not infrequently, to Y g q aint figures into his diagonally composed Paris scenes, the P g g Y p desi n serves to give them pace and purpose within the g g P P P picture (fig. By contrast, in Parc Voer d'Argenson the P á g 3) Y ~ y g fi figures stand back from us, almost as if they were on a g ~ Y stage. A similar effect was achieved in a slightly later paint- g g Y - p in made in the summer of 1887 and apparently represent- g, 7 PA Y - re p in factories at Clichy (fig. 4). This is not merely another g Y g4 Y suburban landscape, albeit with a less picturesque motif. A~ P q Again the painting is organised in horizontal bands. Once g P g g more there is a couple, this time strolling across the picture P g A s ace. Above all thepainter distances himself from them. P , P In both theseaintin s Van Gogh dispensed with his more P g Gogh P usual and dynamic diagonal composition for a more the- y g A atrical design. In these the painter and spectator are dis- g P A fig 5 Georges Seurat, Parade du cirque, 1887-88, New York, g The Metropolitan Museum of Art p 10 Boomsla Welsh-Ovcharov, exhib cat. Van Gogh à g 56 Paris, Paris (Musée d'Orsay) 1988, p 34 JOURNAL 2002 connected from the scene represented, which becomes less A neo-impressionist experiment P a scene observed than a tableau contrived. Thisrocess of Cornelia Homburg P distancing, non-emphatic as it may be, carries with it a g P Y note of melancholy and alienation. In 188 Vincent van Gogh painted a number of canvases Y 7 g P At the end of 1887 Van Gogh was confident enough that illustrate his investigation of neo-impressionism. 7 g g g P to hang work in the corridors of the Théátre Libre. Introduced by Georges Seurat at the Salon des g Y g Although an informal arrangement, it meant showing g Indé endants in 1886 named by the radical critic Félix ~ g P ~ Y alongside Seurat and Signac.1° Parc Voyer d'Argenson, Van Fénéon and effectively promoted by Seurat's friend and col- g g y ~ ~a YP Y Gogh's ambitious decorative hybrid of neo-impressionism, laborator Paul Signac, neo-impressionism quickly became g Y P g ~ P q Y was the canvas he chose to display. On leaving Paris for established as an influential avant-garde movement. g g Arles in February 1888, his last act as a Parisian painter An one who was interested in new art in Paris took notice, Y P was, finally, to visit Seurat in his studio. There he would artists eitherartici ated or took pains to distance Y P P P have seen, ready for show at the forthcoming Salon des themselves from it. Y g Indépendants, the neo-impressionist leader's haunting P A newcomer to the Parisian art scene who had ar- g Parade du cirque (fig. . Although a nocturne and an en- rived with a rather limited understanding of contemporary 9 g5 g g P Y tirel different subject, one wonders whether Seurat's subject developments, Vincent van Gogh soon recognised the ne - Y P g g which also evinces in the spectator a sense of cessit of aligning himself with the avant-garde if he want- Y g g g lum disjunction from the vitality of the city, would have ed to be considered a modern artist. He began by a ro ri - g Y Y g Y PP P rovoked in Van Gogh a sense of distant cousinage with his atin stylistic elements of impressionism, lightening his P g g g Y P ~ g g d'Argenson. For what makes Van Gogh's paint- - palette and adopting a more spontaneous brushstroke. .~ g g P P P g P in so fascinating a work is the way its delightful de cora - Im Impressionism was probably the best starting point for g g Y g P P Y gP tiveness is infused with melancholy. someone who wanted to learn about contemporary art. Y P Y Many impressionists were exhibiting regularly and their Y P g g Y work could be studied at numerous venues.11 They were Y well established as modern artists and hadenerall g Y earned the respect of their younger colleagues. An aspiring P Y g g P g painter could benefit from their achievements, but he could not enter their ranks without being considered a g mere follower. If one wanted to be seen as a member of the avant-garde, it was necessary to produce something more g Y P g original. Van Gogh quickly became aware of this dilemma, g q Y and neo-impressionism definitely resented a solution. P YP The style offered a new form of expression with regard to P g colour, brushstroke and content. Van Gogh joined many Y others inursuin this opportunity. P g Like many of his contemporaries, Van Gogh did not Y P ~ g care to immerse himself in the more theoretical aspects of P neo-im neo-impressionism. While early on he had been fascinated P Y by Delacroix's colour theory and had read Charles Blanc's Y Y Les artistes de mon temps(1876),as well as Silvestre's p 11 For the availability of impressionist paintings in Paris in this period see, for example, Chris Stolwijk and Richard Thomson, exhib. cat. Theo van Gogh, 1857-1891: art dealer, collector and brother of Vincent, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) & Paris (Musée d'Orsay)1999- 2000; John Rewald, The history of impressionism, New York 1946; and idem, Post-impressionism. from Van 57 Gogh to Gauguin, New York 1956. VAN GOGH MUSEUM Eu ène Delacroix: documents nouveaux 186 Van Gogh g 4~~ g does not seem to have known the writings of Charles g Henr which were so imp for Seurat. It seems that Y, P theractical implications of the style were sufficient for A P Y him and he applied them as they suited him best. PP Y Van Gogh gained access to neo-impressionistideas g g through his acquaintance with Paul Signac, whom he met g q g in early 188. The two artists went painting together in the Y 7 P g g suburbs of Paris, and Signac, always eager to promote the g ~ Y g P new credo, would have been an effective teacher. However, Van Gogh never followed Signac fully in terms of technique g g Y q and never imitated his carefully orchestrated application of PP small dots. He undoubtedly found the pointillist brush- y P stroke difficult: his more spontaneous quick manner of P ,q working would have made the painstaking application of g 1 g PP tin regular touches of paint extremely trying. As a conse Y~ g P Y- uence there are only a few canvases that show a truly Y Y - ex licit neo-impressionist approach. In the final analysis, P P PP sis Y however, the impact of the style's basic characteristics on P Y Van Gogh's thinking cannot be underestimated. When the g g artist began to develop his own ideas about modern art, ~ P colour contrast and the deliberate use of brushstroke to in- tensif a motif from nature became important elements in Y P hisaintin . Frequent references to Seurat during Van P g q g Go h s stay in Arles are testimony to his influence. 12 g Y Y Van Gogh's efforts at applyingthe neo-impressionist g P touch and intense colour contrast to his own work are- er A has best demonstrated by the highly finished Fritillaries in p Y g Y a copper vase (fig. 6), painted in the spring of 1887. Part of pp g~ P p g 7 Van Gogh's extensive Paris series of flower still lifes, this g with its dramatic orange blossoms against an in painting, - g g tenselylue background, well illustrates his exploration of Y g ~ e colour contrast andointillist brushstroké. The Interior of e a restaurantfi . is another attempt by the artist to create g7 e Y a neo-impressionist composition. In this canvas, the green e e g and red complementary colour contrast is the dominant el- e Y ement but the brushwork already shows the faster, elon- Y gated touch Van Gogh would soon begin to use in place of g g g A theointillé advocated by Seurat and Signac. The im p Y - a g imp a- expressed in the brushwork is underlined by the e Y artist's decision not to use a small stroke throughout, but g instead to execute certain elements - such as the legs of the g table and the chairs - in a more traditional manner. By con- y trast in hisaintin A suburb o Paris with a man carrying e g .f ~ g fig. 6 Vincent van Gogh, Fritillaries in a copper vase (F 213 JH 1247), 1887, Paris, Musée d'Orsay a spade (F 361 JH 126o the artist focused more on ointil ~ 3 ~ - P listaint application than on creating an intense colour A PP g contrast. Van Gogh's most ambitious canvas in the context of g his experimentation with neo-impressionism is his Parc P P Vo Troyer d'Ar enson also executed in the spring of 1887. This y g ~ P g 7 work shows that by now Van Gogh had fully assimilated Y g Y some of neo-impressionism's most important characteris- e P tics and was able to e incor orate them into his own work ef- fectivel . It is also one of the largest works painted in Paris Y g e and deser JOURNAL 2002 fig 7 fig. 8 Vincent van Gogh, Interior of a restaurant (F 342 Georges Seurat, A Sunday on the Grande latte (1884), JH 1256), 1887, Otterlo, Kruller-Muller Museum 1884-86, The Art Institute of Chicago ful arrangement of a landscape is much more typical of g p YP com compositions by Signac and Seurat. Seurat's compositional P Y ~ p a roach in ~A Sunday on the Grande Jatte (1884) (fig. 8) of- pp . -~ g fers an obvious - can s comparison, even though Van Go h' e g Gogh' is of a more modest scale.13 Van Gogh here created a g aintin that distinguishes itself clearly from the more painting ~ Y spontaneous, impressionistic park scenes that he had done p p p earlier 14 emphasising instead the organisation and inten- p g g tional composition characteristic of neo-impressionist can- vases. The fact that there are studies for this final p com osi- tion testifies to this aim.15 Even though Van Gogh used an g ~ elongated brushstroke that allowed for an easier and faster g a application of paint, the technique also gives the com si pp - o p q g P tion a rhythm and directional energy that seems as deliber Y gY - eems ate as thelacement of compositional elements. p P Van Gogh's choice of a park scene was in a way an ~ p Y obvious one: the urbanarks in and around Paris offered a P convenient motif, one used by many of his contemporaries. Y Y p It is also a reference to Seurat's depiction of people relax- p p p in along the banks of the Seine. At the same time, the sub- g g 59 ject attained extraordinary significance for Van Gogh dur 1 Y - g g in the course of his career, culminating in the paintings of g g p ~ Theoet's garden in Arles, which he made as decorations ~ g for the Yellow House. Theeo le in Parc Voyer'Ar enson p p . d'Argenso not depicted as individuals, but as couples, or as Van p p Go h called them: lovers / . They seem to symbol- Gogh 594 473 Y - Y ise Van Gogh's yearning for partner in his personal life, g Y g p p althou h they can also be read on a broader level as an ex- g Y pression of his desire for human relationships in general, such as the friendships he hoed to establish with other p p colleagues, the exchange of ideas and the sharing of artis g g g - tic ambitions. In Van - si o Gogh's identification of the com g p tion with an emotionally charged content lies a fundamen- t g 12 See, for example, letters 605/481, 623/500 and 687/539. 14 See, for example, F 223 JH 1111 or F 299 JH 1254. 15 F 275 1H 1278, F 276 JH 1259 13 The similarities have often been pointed out; see, for example, Evert van Uitert, Vincent van Gogh in creative competition: four essays from Simiolus, Zutphen 1983, p. 38. VAN GOGH MUSEUM tal difference to Seurat's large Grande Jatte. Seurat's ironic Derangement of clouds g observation of his characters is dramatically different from Richard Shiff Y Van Gogh's more sentimental approach to his couples. g lP P The Parc Voyer d'Argenson was an ambitious under- During the war years of the early i os a half-century af- y g g Y Y 94 ~ Y takin for Van Gogh. It exudes confidence with its modern ter Vincent van Gogh's death, critics continued to debate g g g use of colour, newt e of brushwork and subject matter, subjec the aesthetic merit of his art. Was it absolute, to be Pp a reci- of which Van Gogh explored during his sojourn in Paris. sojour ated under all conditions? Or dideo le suffering social g P g P P g also exemplifies his aspirations for a career as an avant- disorder identify with Van Gogh's jarring style because P P Y g ] g Y arde artist. He presented it in a small exhibition in the fo - the recognised a parallel disorder and pain? The g A Y Y g P P er of the Théátre Libre, together with works by Seurat and American Clement Greenberg related Van Gogh to two old- - g Y g Signac. While the general public would not have known er contemporaries, Paul Cézanne and Henri `Le Douanier' g g P P this small venue, it was recognised in art circles as a show - Rousseau each of whom he considered comparably alien - g P Y lace for the avant-garde, and offered an opportunity ated and even 'deranged.' According to Greenberg, the P g ~ PP Y for g g g the initiated to see the newest developments in painting. ublic appreciated the look of these artists' paintings de s A - P P g A Pp g For Van Gogh this installation was the first occasion on site - or rather because of - an expressive directness that g P P which he could demonstrate his assimilation of the latest verged on im t e es r' i iv n s.16 This was not necessarily s - g p Y an as ideas inaintin and it served to associate him publicly g sociation the artists had encouraged yet all three shared P Y g ,Y withrominent members of the avant-garde. He must have withrimitivistic practices a technique that revealed every A P g q Y considered this venue as a decided step upward from the feature of its organisation. Reporting on the Van Gogh exhi - P P g P g g restaurant exhibitions he himself had organised in 188 , bition at the Wildenstein Gallery in New York in i , g 7 Y 943 even though those displays had included many more tan - Greenberg had invoked `the emphatic physical presence of gY g P PY P vases. Van Go h's inclusion in the Théátre Libre show indi- therimitive work of art that exposes to full view ... its g A P cates that he hadained access to the neo-impressionists means of effectuation.' He added immediately: `With Van g P Y and was, at least to a certain extent, accepted by their lead- Go h there also enters the power of an original era - P Y P g p ers. While we do not know if he showed otheraintin s at ment frustrated by its rupture with [the] world of logic, P g Y P g the same time, Parc Voyer d'Argenson was undoubtedly a com competition, and compromise.'17 Van Gogh's look of rimi - y g Y P ~ A g P rominent exam le of his latest work. The size and finish tivism resulted from his excessive, frustrated emotion, his P P of the composition would have suggested artistic confi e - `derangement'; channelled into art, this became his ` 'g e - p gg g ~ dence while the deliberate use of new stylistic elements with his kill.18 s s Y would haveroclaimed the artist's avant-garde leanings. Greenberg countered the opinion that Van Gogh had p g g g P g Van Gogh must have considered this presentation a fitting P been a flawed, even amateurish technician (an `untrained g conclusion to his sojourn in Paris. With his departure forsojourn hand,' said Roger Fry), art had been saved by the P g Y~ Y Arles he began to develop his own artistic identity, one that force of- no e enius, over which he might exercise more con g P Y g g he hoped would not only allow him to join the ranks but joi trol than overs y his hyperactive brush.19 Instead Greenberg P Y P him stand out among his contemporaries. ar argued that the painter's frustrated temperament, not some g P g P P technical insufficient had ut his control at risk: `Van Y, P Gogh became too obsessed by the pattern glimpsed in na - g Y P g P ture. The frenzied insistence with which he tried to P re ro- duce thisattern in his separate brush strokes and give it P P g the same emphasis over every tiny bit of canvas resulted in P Y Y pieces of violent decoration, the surfaces of which had been ornamented instead of painted into a ctu e i r .'20 It was P P typical of Greenberg to hinge his analysis on a technical YP g g Y observation: 'separate brush strokes ... same emphasis.' P A 60 JOURNAL 2002 fig. 9 Vincent van Gogh, Landscape in the rain (F 811 JH 2096), 1890, Cardiff, National Gallery of Wales At issue was the markin caught between the constraints g, g of naturalism and the ornamental excesses of f tem era- ment. Perhaps the Landscape in the rain of 18 o (fig. P ~ 9 9) resents Van Gogh's emotionalised marking at its most P g g - ex treme. Yet his rendering is also quite literal: in our own g q naive andrimitive experience, we perceive falling drops P P P g P of rain as linear traces 'ust as the ainter re resented ,l P P them, distributed with `the same emphasis' throughout. P g Van Gogh's attempt at `rain' may have been inspired b g P Y P by Japanese prints and a sense of a Japanese ideal of nature; P P P but his actual rendering, instance of his `frenzied insis- g tence,' might also suggest alienation (as it did to many gg Y commentators). `Van Gogh's shortcomings as an artist,' g g Greenber wrote, `are a translation into another language g of those that belonged to him as a human being.' g g Technique was the symptom, not the disease - the `mis- w r oftemperament, not of craft.'21 takes [were] o Given this distinction between temperament and P craft, Van Gogh's Paris paintings, such as Parc Voyer g P g d'Argenson, acquire particular significance. For Greenberg, g q P g g these works `unsettled some of the usual notions' by ' _ 22 'The Van Go h s capacity for self control. e demonstrating g P Y artist functions best in the company of other artists,' the P Y critic would note. This was indeed the situation in Paris in 1887, Van Gogh developed new techniques through 7~ g P q g absorbin the work of Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, absorbing Georges Seurat, Paul Signac and others. In worldly Paris - a g ~ g Y place of 'logic, competition, and compromise' - Van Gogh P g~ P ~ P g `most firmly controlled his feelings for the sake of pictorial Y g P n .' 23 e ds Expressive 'feelings' versus descriptive 'pictorial P g P P ends': the tension between these two elements appears in PP theerformative organisation of Van Gogh's mark of paint, P g g P which may have forever threatened to accede to his in- Y flamed temperament. Greenberg implied, however, that P g P the threat was diminished by the `Paris' mark of Parc Voyer Y y d Ar enson, characterised by its relatively regular stroke. g Y Y g Re Regularity can amount to `violent decoration' but can also g Y constitute a logical, compromising construction. Is the g P g mark in Parc Voyer d'Argenson more constructive than ei- ther - descriptive or expressive? The amorous human fi P P g ures are surely cases of description: their features and ac- Y P coutrements are indicated by strokes that trace aspects of Y P the form, such as the curving brim of a hat or the rigid g g struts of aarasol. P But what of Van Gogh's flowering trees and his sky? g g Y In these situations, his stroke was less specific and more P re repetitive, seemingly tempering his quick inventiveness P gY P g q with P disci line. In the trees, reddish marks indicate blos- soms, but without much textured differentiation from the green foliage. The patterning of marks gives the sense of g g P g g 61 16 Clement Greenberg, 'Henri Rousseau and modern art' (27 July 1946), in Clement Greenberg: the collected essays and criticism, ed. John O'Brian, 4 vols., Chicago, 1986-93, vol. 2, pp. 93-95. In this (post-war) essay, Greenberg stressed the modern condition of 'elemental existence' and loss of faith. 17 Idem, 'Review of exhibitions of Van Gogh and the Remarque collection' (6 November 1943), in ibid., vol. 1, p. 161. 18 Idem, 'Review of exhibitions of Van Gogh and Alfred Maurer' (February 1950), in ibid., vol. 3, p. 15. 19 See Ro } fig, 10 Vincent van Gogh, Olive trees in a mountain landscape (F 712 JH 1740), 1889, New York, The Museum of Modern Art flowering without necessarily indicating where a particular rendering as less constrained, more emotional, less of a > g Y g P g flower actually existed or how many one might have been compromise with Parisian impressionism and neo-im res - Y Y g P P P able to count. Thiseneralised effect is typical of the im - sionism. Yet the Paris style presents its own interpretive g YP Y P P ressionism of the 188os. It indicates that Van Gogh was in - strangeness. P g ter retie assimilating and controlling techniques that Van Gogh's Parisian clouds acquire no secure h si - P g~ g g q g q PY others had only recently developed. calit whereas the mark that renders them is intensely Y Y Y 1 And the sky? There, vigorous but repetitive strokes h sical becoming denser and whiter (therefore brighter) Y ~ g P g g slant more or less in the same direction. Their internal dis- where it meets the trees. What might its insistent slant g tinctions are of colour, ranging from blue to greyish blue to mean if anything? Is it merely a direction of the brush g g g Y Y white. Are there any clouds? Certain areas are redomi - comfortable for the artist? The materiality of the paint Y P Y P nantl bluish; others are quite greyish, a conventional stroke and its slant cause me to think - naively, fantastical - Y ~ q g Y Y colouring for clouds set against a blue sky. Despite this 1 primitively - of rain. Yet Van Gogh's sky must be rela - g g Y P Y~ P Y g Y cloud-colour theatternin of strokes, the rhythmic move - tivel clear: a woman is carrying a parasol, not an umbrel - P g Y Y Y g P ment of Van Gogh's hand, generates no cloud-shape. It is as la; and sunlight seems to illuminate her companion's ex- g ~g P P if Van Gogh took the shape that pictorial convention might tended arm. This `rain,' then, is a raining down of strokes, g P ~ g have assigned to clouds and dispersed it like a vapour ofgestures. Van Gogh's gesture describes neither an object g 1 P g g g throu throughout his constructed sky,the missin form nor a condition; the sky is not precisely cloudy, not precise- - g Y~ g Y P Y Y P b a distribution of colour but not by the precision of line. If 1 sunny, the 'raining' is not rain. Nor does the gesture Y Y P Y Y~ g g hisutative clouds lose all shape and lack any obvious ` ic - construct a form. If we scan from one local area of sky to P Y P y P torial end'Greenber 's term),a different feature of their another, the view simply changes; the slanting strokes and g PY g ~ g experience emerges - their atmospheric flux. Having no the colour vary as if to provide the delight of variation. Van P g P g Y P g boundaries, the cloud-colour appears to shift within the Go h's mark is too directional to be pointillist and better PP g P ictorial sky, it simultaneously constitutes. resembles the more casual brushwork of impressionism. It P Y~ Y P Ironically, degree of formlessness unusual in pictures, is nevertheless too emphatic to exist within the impression- re - y~ g ~ P P P is common in the clouds of nature ever changing. A curi- istaradi m. After his scene has been viewed, Van Gogh's P g ~ g ousa thus opens between Parc Voyer d'Argenson and Van mark remains active, evoking the force of his hand - both gP P y g g Go h's many works that display delineated clouds, such as its skilled control and its extremes of 'deranged' feeling g g Y P Y Olive trees in a mountain landscape of 1889 (fig. io ,paint- - in Paris as much as in Arles, Saint-Remy, or Auvers. Y ~ 9 g P ed at Saint-Rémy. Greenberg regarded the linear type of Y g €~ YP 62 JOURNAL 2002 Love in a cold climate Linda Nochlin I think this is the saddestaintin of love that I have ever p g seen. There is a little fence in the right foreground that sets g g the tone - cutting off, enclosing, . Although g ~ g~ g g it is a big picture - I once saw it but now know it only in gp Y - re production - it doesn't look big, but rather small and p g melanchol in its adamant refusal of space, air, breathing p ~ g room. Rather than reiterating the sensuous, pleasurable g p mood of Watteau's Embarkation for Cythera or the dulcet y tone of hisfêtes galantes, Van Gogh lays before us a garden f g g Y g of repression, a park of frustration. p p Are these indeed meant as lovers at different stages g of their affair, on the model of Watteau? Are they in fact Y moving from separation (in the rear) to arm-in arm g p strollin (in the right centre) to `fulfilment' (centre left)? strolling g p Gogh s that was what Van Go h intended, but, as is so of- ten the case with him, his intentions and the actual out- come of theiece diverge markedly. Confronting his park P g Y g p at Asnières, I think less of Watteau or Monticelli, who did similar scenes - or even of the(formally)ore apposite Y pp Seurat and his Grande Jattefi . 8; also a scene of urban g recreation in the out-of-doors) - than I do of Cézanne and his sinister Picnic (c. 187o-71 private collection) with its ,p disturbing overtones of estrangement, alienation and g g ~ - er p versity. What a depressing painting this is, despite its peppy g P g ~ P P ppY semi-divisionist brushwork and rather g bri ht colour scale! The weaving paths, though they may give the painting a gp g Y Yg p g formal veneer of liveliness, lead nowhere: they are part of a Y p circular - cou each e s argument, as it were. Van Gogh entraps g p ple in its particular vacuum of stifled feeling. They are al- most faceless. The back couple stare at each other, from a P distance, separated by trees. The couple with linked arms P Y p march stiffly, as though under duress, given marching g g g - or ders oroin to a funeral. The left-hand couple awk g g - poses p p ward) , frozen in place as though told to `hold it' by a ho Y P g Y - p to ra her. g p Nowhere in thisaintin does the vital sap of Eros, p g p so brilliantly conjured up by artists from Titian to Renoir to Y conjured A Y Picasso, flow freely. There are no physical connections Y PY made here, certainly no psychic ones. Come to think of it, Y PY the idea of Van Gogh as a garden-of-love painter is a bit g g p ridiculous. If he is capable of generating an image of love P g g g inictorial form it is not Eros that is in question, but some P q form of caritas, of universal charity. Think of his studies of Y the heads ofeasant women for The potato eaters, or his p ~ nude drawing of Sien, or later, his apparently affectionate g pp Y aintin of Madame Roulin as La berceuse. These are, in a p g sense, loving images, but not images of love in action such g g g as he sought, and notably failed, to create in his Parc ['Toyer g ~ Y d'Argenson. One wonders what drew him to such a subject, g subject superbly inappropriate to his talents. Of course, artists A Y are continually drawn to utopian subjects, so there is no Y P subjects in speculating in Van Gogh's particular case. But it is point p g g p the e Y dis arit between result and intention that is so strik- in here, and so disturbing. g g 63 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Letter to Theo van Gogh, c. Tuesday, 24 April 1888 p [603/479], detail: 'En tant que quant a moi je me suis ab- stenu immédiatement de faire des tableaux,' Amsterdam, 64 Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) VAN GOGH STUDIES 'En tant que quant à moi': Vincent van Gogh and the French language Wouter van der Veen On 24 March 1888 Vincent van Gogh wrote to his brother 4 g Theo: `Je to renvoie ci-inclus la lettre de Tersteeg et celle g de Russell – it sera- corre eutêtre intéressant de garder la p g s ondance des artistes'[591/471]. A few ears previouslyyears p Y he had avidly read Sensier's biographyof Millet, and he Y knew Silvestre's work on Delacroix.1 These books share a common feature, being both built around extracts from the g twoainters' letters. This allows us to suppose that at the p pp moment when he advised his brother toreserve Russell's top reserv Van Gogh was well aware of the value an artist's g corres correspondence might have. His advice did not fall on deaf p g ears: Theoreserved dozens of letters from Signac, p g Gau Gauguin, Rodin, Degas, Toulouse-Lautrec and many oth g g Y - ers, as well as more than boo written by his brother. Y Van Gogh's correspondence has often been classed g p as a document humain, an opening on to the private life of p g p an individual whose fame isublic. And if the prefaces to p P the numerous editionsof the let r 2 unfailinglyoin t t o to sp point ou artistic character of these p e istles, none ventures to state that their nature is equally so. In general these anal y- Y - g Y ses tend tolace the documentary interest at the forefront, p Y and withood reason: Van Gogh's letters are crammed g g with descriptions of pictures, orders for paints and diverse P p p artistic pronouncements. Such pieces of information are infinitelyprecious to the art historian. Theform which YP f these data take hasassed into the background, however, p g and relatively little attention has been paid to the language Y p in which the letters are written. The rare commentators on Van Gogh's prose have confined themselves to one or two g p lines, most often to emphasise that this language is disor- p dered hurried, slapdash, jarring,imperfect ... Above all p l g~ p when Van Gogh wrote in French, as he did during the last g g two- ears of his life, when he produced more than oo let Y p 3 ters. Louis Roëlandt, who translated the Dutch letters into French, did not hesitate to claim that his style `fait parfois Y p itié.'3 Gauguin, for his art commented ironicall `He A g ~ part : Y even forgot how to write Dutch and, as we have seen from g theublication of his letters to his brother, he only ever p Y wrote in French and in admirable French at that, with end- less numbers of "tantue quant à."'4 q 9 However, other voicesoint to what has been called p `an indefinable attraction all its own '5 a disconcerting, fascinating style, to which only the painter Emile Bernard g Y Y p devotes more than onea e from which the following is p g ~ g an extract: `What does it matter then if his Y st le is not cor- rect, it is alive, and our understanding is capable of paying g A p Y g it delicate attention, as when we sometimes have a feeling for - our a superior beings who cannot speak word of lan e g p ua e. "Is it not the intensity of thought which we seek, g g Y g rather than the calmness of touch," he wrote to me. ... I have Pp a lied to his letters the words he wrote on the sub- 'ect of his painting, apparently apologisingin advance for 1 p g pp Y This article, translated from the French, was made possi- ble by recent developments in the project toublish the p complete correspondence of Vincent van Gogh, conduct- ed by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. I owe a pro- found debt of gratitude to the project editors, Hans Luiten and Leo Jansen, for their support and trust. p 65 1 Alfred Sensier, La vie et l'oeuvre de l-F Millet, Paris 1881; Théophile Silvestre, Eugène Delacroix. documents nouveaux, Paris 1864. 2 The pr VAN GOGH MUSEUM the sloppiness and slightly mad enthusiasm. It is the PP g Y thought that must be sensed in them, it is the true life that g must be found. The calmness of touch is not there, it is true; but what intensity! And what joy they will give us after Y JY Y g so many stylistic exercises writlen by people who have Y Y YP P nothin to say. ... Ardour has no need of syntax of s nothing Y - or Y en tences when it attains the moral intoxication of meditation and creation.'6 In 1984 Artemis Karagheusian published inven 94 - an g P for of transcription errors made in theprincipal editions Y P of the correspondence,7 collating e, co at ~ these with the facsimile P g edition of the manuscripts preserved in the Van Gogh P P g Museum.8 In the introduction tc this P m compilation she dl- cates several idiosyncratic elements that can be said to Y form the embryo of a general characterisation of Van Y g Go h's language as it a ears in his letters. Karagheusian's gPP g comments are in line with those of hisredecessors and P she describes Van Gogh's language as a vast jumble with gjumbl head nor tail. It is nothing of the sort. Analysis of g Y Van - Gogh's usage of the French language reveals great re g- gg g ularit and great care in expression. Y g P The idiosyncrasies presented below are linguistic Y P g eculiarities whose frequent occurrence justifies their P q justifies as `characteristic.' Their analysis is based on Y an exhaustive inventory of all such elements found in the Y manuscripts. The errors of language are the most easilyY discernable, which explains the large number of them P g amon the examples given. among P g The results areresented in three parts, devoted P P consecutively to syntax, semantics and spelling, and st le. style • study aims to shed light on a number of shadowy areas Y g Y in Van Gogh's writings, and may serve as a summary of his g g~ Y use of French.9 It will also, one hopes, make it easier p ease to read and understand his letters. One finaloal is to draw g attention to the artistic nature of a- as reat number of g P saes and elements in Van Gogh's correspondence. g g P Syntax Y If one was to read just one of Van Gogh's letters, J g chosen at random from his correspondence, it would surely ~ Y give the impression that the painter cared little for French ~ P P rammar: negligence and indolence alone seem to guide grammar:g his writing. The punctuation appears to confirm this im g P P - ears ~ ression: the use of commas, full stops and capital letters is P ~ P P very irregular; and question marks, colons and semi-colons Y g q are almost entirely absent. Moreover, and acute Y ~ - grave g ac cents and circumflexes diaereses, hyphens, apostrophes > YP ~ and cedillas are omitted in a large number of cases, or a g ~ - P ear where they should not. P Y One curioushenomenon however, contradicts Van P > Gogh's supposed carelessness: the over-use of the sub' g PP - unc l tive. The subjunctive is often neglected by allophones on l g Y P account of its difficulty. Today even the French themselves Y Y, are increasingly abandoning it in everyday language. So gY g Y Y why would a foreigner, who presumably cared little for the Y g ~ P Y grammatical rules of French so abuse it? g Equally intriguing are the many affected turns of q Y g g Y phrase Van Gogh uses. This complicates his expression P g P P with forms that his level of language did not allow him to us JOURNAL 2002 d'un bonnetarance je l'ai plaquée contre une porte peinte g l P q P P en vert et les briques orangées d'un mur.' q g All in all, Van Gogh understands conjugation, but he g lg a lies its rules imperfectly. Hence when employingthe PPHence, imperative mode, he often uses the marker of the second P erson singular, as in 612:19: `cherches un peu'; or more P g ~ 9 P often when the P reci ient is addressed as `tu' a you- voiement:2 :: `Combien je regrette que to te sois dérangé 7 55 je g q g our si peu de chose, pardonnez le moi.' Indeed, the im P P ~P ~ - er P ative PP disa ears in favour of a certain number of fixed in- ter'ections such as dites donc va donc va! veuillez, etc. Despite the difficulties he encounters, Van Gogh of- p ~ g ten attempts to use the subjunctive mode. This was a formi- P subjunctiv • undertaking for an allophone, and it is not surprising g P P to see Van Gogh fail at it: 8o:6 : `ce n'est pas nous qui g 5 3 P q l'a ons mal conseillé';762:7: ` - ''es ère que toutes ces chós Y ~7 7 l P q es se soient bienassées pour toi';o :21: 'il faut que nous P P ~7 5 q re a nous l'argent.' The use of the conditional, which is gg g also employed without restraint, is more successfully mas ~ Y - tered but suffers froma s in practice and knowledge. gP P g Hence the conditional is occasionally conjugated in the Y subjunctive: 617:119: `Ce ne serait que juste que ces Jq messieurs mea eraient mon voyage.' PY The difficulty of the subjunctive is compounded Y subjunctive P when it isut into the imperfect. This additional pitfall P P P failed to frighten Van Gogh, however, who often attempts to g g P em lo it correctly, h always in vain. In the follow employ Y~ - g Y in case an imperfect subjunctive is used for an imperfect g P subjunctive P indicative (before the construction becomes further mud- dled owing to the use of a past historic indicative in place of g P P the conditional): 642:4: `Si c'eut été plus grand cela eut fait 4~ 4~ P g enser au Paradou de Zola.' P This incorrect use of the subjunctive, notably in the J imperfect, is often encountered in relatively carefully writ e ~ Y Y - tenassa es. It is thus very probable that the mistakes are P g YP a result of h ercorrection and a desire to express himself yp P in sustained language. The perverse effect of this resolu- P tion to do well is inelegant, clumsy wording in the very ~ Y g Y places where he seeks a more refined form of expression. P P Adverbs Reading one of Van Gogh's letters demands great g g g vi vigilance with regard to adverbs. If this aspect is not taken g g P into account, the interpretation of a phrase may turn out to P P Y be considerably far from the author's intention. The influ- Y ence of Dutch Van Gogh's native language, is probably one gP Y of therind al causes of his adverbial peculiarities: the P P P osition of the adverbs, as well as the use of adjectives in position ~ l the manner of adverbs, are close to current usage in Dutch. g French allows a certain flexibility in the position of Y P the adverb. We may encounter pourtant it est dróle it est Y p pourtant dróle or even it est dróle pourtant without any great difference in meaning. This erratic side of adverb us g - g a e makes it a difficult thing to master. In Van Go h' writ g g - s g in aussi, assez, pourtant, alors, maintenant, certes, enfin, même all crucial for conveying the utterance fully and re- Y g Y P cisel often suffer from a mistaken placement, as in Y~ P 801:2 1: `cela apprend a voir et alors surtout et seulement 5 PP même- uand on voit cela lon tem s.' Devoid of unctua q g P P tion thisassa e fails to take account of the fact that même P g refers to whatrecedes it, and n VAN GOGH MUSEUM amoureux assetour ne pas être enthousiaste pour la p P P einture,' it is difficult to say whether not should in p Y - or we terru t the sentence after amoureux, something that could A ~ g have been avoided if Van Gogh had transposed amoureux g P and assez. From time to time as well adjectives wrongly adjectives gY take on the function of the adverb. This misuse is frequent q with probable, used for robablement, as in 604:61: 'c'est un malue ''ai attrappé la-bas probable en grande partie par q) PA P g P A le mauvais vin dont ''ai trop bu.' l A Seven other adverbs, however, far from disrupting the intended meaning, serve it admirably. from g Y Apart - rov P in the consistency of the writing, they help support the g Y writing, Y P PP painter's style: hardiment, absolument, terriblement, rude- ment, bi rement carrément and gravernent. Returning ~ ~ g again and again without ever becoming redundant, these g g g adverbs exaggerate the scope of the utterance and allow gg A the repeated reinforcement of the line of argument, inflat- e g in the style with an adroitly measured unconditionality. g Y Y Y Bis repetita latent. Sentence construction Van g Go h's sentences obey few rules of construc- Y tion. Hencere ositions do not always agree with the verb. P P Y g The examples of :66: 'J - 'rose espérer de faire plus ample- e 737 P P p ment connaissance' ando:1 2: `au contraire on tenait 74~ 3 y de lui sauvegarder l'existence' show that ignorance of a g g re positional construction is sometimes sufficient to brand P P the entire wording incorrect. In matters of construction, as g elsewhere, fearlessness was the law of the land, and far from carefullygoing around the obstacle, Van Gogh Yg g g char es it and overcomes it in his own way. He ruthlessly Y Y subordinates syntactical form to the idea to be expressed, Y P or rather: without neglecting it, does not allow it to domi- g g nate the message. g Thus theainter occasionally has to sin g Y - recourse a gular kind of construction, in order, it seems, to methodi- call put forward his argument. Such constructions are Yp g found several times in the correspondence. The example P A re reproduced below 6 2:2 takes account of Van Gogh's P 5 5 g unctuation and the way the words are set out on the page: punctuation Y Pg `Si uneintre se ruine le caractère P en travaillant dur a laeinture ui le P qu stérileour bien des choses P our la vie de famille etc etc. P Si conséquemment it eiut non seulement q pein de la couleur mais avec de l'abnégation g et du renoncement a soi et le coeur brisé Ton travail a toi non seulement ne t'est as a é non plus mais te coute exactement p PY P comme a uneintre cet P effacement de laersonnalité moitié A volontaire moitie fortuit.' The sentence is spread out over threeparagraphs, P which sustain the argument and give it rhythm. Although g ~ Y g rammaticall incorrect, this form nevertheless has the ad grammatically - vantage of isolating the arguments and consequently g g g q Y - ac centuatin them. g Another disturbance oframmatical construction is g an effect of the very nature of Van Gogh's writing. Crossed Y g g and scratched out, sometimes completed with words or P even wholeassa es what was once a correct sentence A g construction must often submit to revision. The resulting is not always graspable without stops, starts and palimpsestYg A P~ re-reading. Such additions are frequently easily id JOURNAL 2002 of the expression of ideas and impressions. It is clumsily p noir: `dark,' `obscure,' `brown ' `ni ht.' 722:19: `l'habille- Y g 7 9 used, but it is not entirely chaotic: Van Gogh moulds the ment noir noir noir du bleu de2 rosse tout cru'; 723:2: `I'ex - Y g p 73 syntax to his own needs, improvising rules where his lack position de tolles de moi dans son trou noir';28:8: `Tres p g 7 4 of knowledge of the existing ones endangers the complete interessantue tu ales rencontré Chatrian Est it blond ou g g g p q communication of what he is trying to say. noir';o: 'Que n'aurais je pas donné pour que tu Busses Y g Y 7343 Q 1 P p q vu Arles lorsqu'il fait beau maintenant tu l'as vu en noir'; q Y Semantics and spelling - raide: `sudden' or 'suddenly.' This adjective most often adjectiv P g Y The same tension that- an adverbial function. 6o3: 10 : 'c'est pour chan - g g Y 3 7 p g i.e. between the desire for correctness and his relative i - er raide• ue je suis préccupé'; g q je p p norance of conventions - is also found at word level. The V enir: designates the development and production phase g p p p meaning of the words used sometimes seems im enetra - of an image. Although common in engraving or hoto ra - g p g g g g p g ble, and inlaces their spelling is eccentric. Faced with h , this expression does not lend itself to painting, Y p p g P p g, for certainassa es one wonders whether the author wrote which Van Goh however, uses it. Zola employs it similar Gogh, s p Y - p g ~ his missives with such haste that he had no time to re-read 1 throughout L'oeuvre.7o7:77: `Ce endant les tableaux Y g p them, or for taking care of any kind. And in certain cases viennent mieux si on les soigne' ; g Y g this supposition is borne out by the text itself: 696:119: Ereinter: for Van Goh this verb signifies `to tire' or `to pA Y g~ g `Excusez marande hate j'ai meme pas le temps de relire exhaust' in the j maorit of cases. Its use is correct, even if g J P p Y la lettre.' But haste does not explain everything. A brief he sometimes employs it when a more moderate verb p glossary reveals that Van Gogh's sometimes-disconcerting Y ' would have been more suitable: 877:4: `'e trouve que Théo g g 774 'je 9 vocabulary is also governed by rules peculiar to itself. For Jo et leetit sont un peu sur les dents et éreintés.' It is also Y g Y p p p just as with the syntactical deviations, the semantic ones sometimeswron 1 applied to objects, and then means `to objects Y g Y Pp are recurrent and regular. spoil' or even `to destroy': : Y59 1:6 : `''ai complètement érein - g 5l p One clearly identifiable influence in this area is Van té cette étude en voulant la finir chez moi.'12 Y Gogh's origin: his Dutch sometimes interferes with his Abstrait and derivatives: `distracted.' When discussing art, g g French,roducin disturbing results for anyone not fore one Y - Van Gogh uses abstrait the sense of the independence of p g g g p warned. a represented. . Thus, com - p Spelling is the most sensitive area in this process of grin his work to that of Gauguin and Bernard, he writes ~ g P g idios idiosyncratic analysis, for this aspect of written expression 82 :28: `Ce que ''ai fait est un peu dur et grossier réalisme à Y Y p p 5 q l p g is highly susceptible to the twin evils of carelessness and cóté de leurs abstractions mais cela donneraourtant la g Y p p haste. These circumstantial influences create such dis ari- note agreste et sentira le terroir.' More often, however, he p g ties in the written form of the terms that it is difficult to dis- uses abstrait or abstraction to g desi nate a state of distrac- tin uish valid constants. However, here, too, certain re u - tion, absent-mindedness or mental absence. This meaning g g larities can in fact be discerned. is old-fashioned in French. a 60 :4: `Je l'avais - dans un mo- ment d'abstraction - bien caracterisée - adressée Rue de Particular meanings Laval au lieu de Rue Le ic.' g p Reading the entire body of letters makes it possible g Y p to separate out the meaning of a certain number of recur- 'Dutchisms' g rent terms whose use may lead to confusion. Some of these Strange words, incorrect meanings curious or s con - Y g g meanings are simply wrong; others are merely oldfash - - structions are occasionally the result of the influence of g p Y g~ Y Y ioned or rare. The list below is not exhaustive, butives a Van Gogh's native language, Dutch. The list below groups g g g P few characteristic examples of Van Go h's semantic idio- Gogh' together the main cases of contamination, the `Dutchisms.' p g ncrasies. The correspondence contains numerous cases of probable Y p ~ Dutchisms as in the case of là - contre. This adverbial lo- 12 Millet used étreinter in a similar fashion. In a letter writ- ten from Barbizon on 29 December 1862 we find 'Je vous conseille fortement une chose. crest d'empêcher d'éreinter 69 cetenclos', quoted in Sensier, op. cit (note 1), p 233 VAN GOGH MUSEUM cution exists in French, but it is rare. In Dutch, the literal translation of làOcontre 'daartegen,' is current, and it g > seems likely the latter influenced Van Gogh's frequent use Y g q of it. However, it is impossible to determine the role of p Dutch in this type of case precisely. For this reason, I list Yp P Y only the most blatant examples here. Y p - dubieux is systematically used For douteux, in accordance Y Y with the Dutch `dubieus.' This mistake is corrected in the last hundred letters; - - 641: 1 : discusser for discuter. Here Van Gogh was influ 4~ 3 g enced by the Dutch verb `discussiëren'; Y - In the section devoted to syntax above, the misplacement Y p of the adverb has been advanced as aossible source of p confusion in understanding the texts. While it is not ssi- g o p ble to attribute this aspect of Van Gogh's language entirel P gentirely to the influence of Dutch it should be noted that theosi- P tion of the adverb in French is often analogous to the one it g would have had in the author's native language. Contrary to Y French, in Dutch an adverb like assez would indeed be placed after the s nta m to which it is linked. Van Gogh h Y g g seems to use Dutch word order, for example, in 830:69: p ~ `c'est chaud assez et donc nousouvons attendre jusqu'au P l q rintem s.' The adverb is also used as it would be in p p y Dutch in 637:7o: `il arrive une lettre de la maison' is the 37 7 y literal translation of a correct Dutch sentence; - This same mechanism is found in certain expressions p like:22:6o: `la figure qui plus tard remontera sur l'eau.' 7 g q P This is a literal translation of `het figuur dat later boven g water zal komen,' which would be correctly translated as la Y i ure qui, plus tard, a araitra• figure 9 p ~p - In Van Gogh's writings, the verb rester is applied to ever g g pP - Y thin that implies a stay, modelled on the Dutch 'verbli' g - p Y l ven.' Thero er translation of rester in Dutch is 'blijven.' p p l Van Gogh confuses the two meanings. Consequently,rester g g replaces séjourner, habiter, demeurer, vivre, loger, etc: p 1 ~ ~ g 684:132: ` doit hésiter à rester avec Laval ou avec moi'• 26:16: `Jet Mauve va beaucoup mieux quant à la santé et 7 7 p q comme to saiseutetre reste à la Ha ye depuis aout P Y p rnie '•13 de r The apostrophe is often placed before the article or the p elidedronoun. We frequently find 'e 't écris, il en va etc. p q Y I > The forms 't and 's are known in Dutch, as, for example, in p 's morgens (in the morning) or 't boek (the book). g g In Van Gogh's writings Dutch comes to the aid of French g g when his French linguistic reserve is insufficient for - a iv g g en situation. However, this influence is confined to isolated cases and is not systematic in nature. Y S Spelling g French has a complex system for noting down the p Y g sounds of which it is composed. Van Go h's friend from p Gogh' theostman Roulin, had only an approximate grasp Y pp g P of it. He wrote to Vincent in reference to his daughter: 'Oleg a tousour elle seulement a mon arrivals elle n'a pas voulu P p me voir it n' a hu qu'a mon départ quelle ma bien re arder Y q p q regarde ma uneu tirais la barbe.'14 Van Gogh was veritable p a a og s a ta man of letters in comparison to Roulin, who here im rovis- p ~ p es Frenchhoneticall . The postman spells the same sound p Y p p e for example, in a number of different ways: é, ée, ées, ais, ait, aient, et, est, ez, er ... The possibilities JOURNAL 2002 1 spelling mistakes without consequence for the meaning g The final distinctive feature of Van Gogh's spelling q g g A g of the terms, with the exception of à afire and d'avantage. faire relates toro er names. Here, his orthographic behaviour ~ A A One inevitable consequence of Van Gogh's neglect deviates significantly from the relative correctness he dis - q g g g Y hyphens, space plays~ llaumin , P ~ y every word that includes them is liable to find itself al- R Perron 16 Brias, Mont majour, Marseilles, oullan, ~ , Y tered and altered in an irregular and unforeseeable way. instead of Boch Guillaumin, Mourier, Roulin, Peyron, g Y Thus it is sometimes difficult to establish the difference Bruyas, Montmajour and Marseille. The spelling of these y ~ 1 A g between ou and ou a and à la and là. However, in the names varies from one letter to the next. Mourier and great majority of cases, the context leaves no doubt what- Montma'our amon others have three or four different gl Y 1 g soever as to the letter-writer's intent. s ellin s whereas the most characteristic feature of the P g~ The spelling deviations feature other constants. For painter's written aberrations is their consistent or partially ' P g A Y example, Van Gogh has a tendency to add or take away a systematic nature. A~ g Y Y Y silent `s'. He does not hesitate to write, for example, in Like syntax, words, their meanings and spellings A Y g 80:2: 'il a fait semblants'; 60 : semblants'; 9 75: `Mauve a dans un seul have a tendency to deviate from academic French. Dutch is 5 9 Y moi fait et venduour 6000 francs d'aquarelles'; and even sometimes at the root of these alterations, but most often A q 06:1: 'Quelle betises!' its causes cannot be determined. In order to read the let- 7 3 Consonants are sometimes systematically doubled, tersro erl it is important to steep oneself in the ecu - Y Y A P Y~ A A P as in racconter or vaccances. Other consonants in words liarities noted above, so as not to interpret them according g correctly spelt elsewhere are not free from unexpected to the dictionary. To all appearances, it was not the dictio e - YA A Y AA doublin s as well: 611:20: `bars ue'• 631:31: `viollettes.' nar that formed their basis but rather a determined, long g g q ~ Theo opposite also occurs, but less frequently, as in 0:6 : and inevitably imperfect apprenticeship. PP ~74~ 7 Y A `nourir';0:8: 'anée.' 74~ Theainter's spelling is also marked by an archaic St le P A g Y usage of the adverb très. Van Gogh almost always places a of this study is not to produce a literary Y g g YA A Y hyphen - commentary on Van Gogh's correspondence, but to show m Y g Y g A ciated::11: ` J'ose compter retourner à la maison très - the- as 733 A AA trap uillement.' The original character of the prefix très saes bear witness to a desire to use fine language. qA g subsisted for a long time in French spelling: initiall it was Consequently,a discussion of the style in which the letters ginitially Y attached to the word, as in R. Estienne's Dictionarium are written is inevitable. latino allicum of 1 2 (tresbon, treslong, etc.); later it was etc In learning French Van Gogh mainly relied on liter- g 55 ~ g g g Y linked by a hyphen (très-bon), the printer Didot was ar sources and his style retains obvious traces of this. At Y YP ~ P Y Y the first to eliminate, followedthe Académie, in 18 .15 77 the same time, it is marked by numerous recurrent ex res - Y t A Van Gogh must have acquired the habit of including the hy- sions, correct or incorrect, which act as leitmotifs, bringing hen under the influence of an old source, and his usage is rhythm to his letters with varying degrees of success. A g Y Y g g ersistent. For someone who readily omitted accents and Another stylistic component is a certain clumsiness, born P Y Y A h hens the consistenc with which he writes très-[...] and of his incomplete mastery of French. This is revealed, YA Y A Y chose is truly remarkable. amongst other things, by breaks in register and astonishing g Y Y g g 13 This hypothesis of the Dutch origin of Van Gogh's d'ailleurs la langue francaise – des termes qui au cours 16 Peyron experiences an astonishing written evolution. use of rester may be called into question by the fact that des siècles ont pres réciproquement la place l'un de this name is always correctly spelt, up to the moment rester had the same meaning as habiter in regional, rural l'autre.' when the painter is preparing to leave Saint-Rémy. French in the 19th century. The following quotation, Peyron then changes into Perron, which means 'railway from Marcel Proust's La fugitive (Paris 1980, p 515 14 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh station platform' in Dutch. This phenomenon is echoed in [note]) illustrates this usage: 'C'est ainsi que Francoise Foundation, b 1071 V/1962 the transformation of the art critic Aurier's name into disaitue quelqu'un restart dans ma rue pour dire gin'y Laurier (laurel) following the publication of his compli- q demeurait, et qu'on pouvait demeurer deux minutes 15 See Trésor de Ia langue francaise, 16 vols., Nancy mentary article on Van Gogh's work. pour rester, les fautes des gens du peuple consistant 1994, vol. 16, pp. 587-88. seulement très souvent a interchanger – comme a fait VAN GOGH MUSEUM transcriptions of spoken language. His st le both suffers alorsue quand bien mê payer it faudrait er pour une en - P Pstyl q q PY P P is enriched by these factors: in some passages, the e - sion'• Y P g P culiarities combine successfully to give rise to laudable es- - de ceue. Van Gogh readily makes inappropriate use of Y g 9 g Y sas in French com osition. this expression, as it enables him to get out of man ram Y P p ~ g Y - matical impasses: 60 :62: `les ens d'ici s'en font trop ré - P 3 g P P Idiosyncratic expressions and awkwardness valoirour me faire payer tout assez cher, de ce que je leur y p P PY ~ q J inst le rends avec mes tableaux un peu plus de place'; 628:11 y P P 9 The following list reproduces the majority of the `Bon. uelleeut done être la raison de ce qu'il perd ses g P J Y P q P several idiosyncratic expressions encountered in the let- qualités.' Sometimes de ce que replaces ce que: 712:2: Y P q q P 9 7 ters. The term expression does not exactly cover the matter `Certes cela me faitrand plaisir de ce que to dis des deux ~ Y g P q at hand, however, as it is sometimes a question of a single nouveaux amis'; > q g word used in a curious way. All the same, in the cases given - Y g g q Y g below the words belong to a group of recurrent words, and him to accentuate the multiplicity of propositions, and g g P P Y P P consequently belong not to the category 'vocabulary' but which consists of introducingach one, including the first, q Y g g Y Y g ~ g rather have the status of 'idiosyncratic expressions.' conjunction comp li- Y P Y g the wording considerably: 575:14: `Cela ferait bien g Y5754~ Van Go h's favourite expression was, as the title of this laisir a la mère si ton maria e réussit et pour la santé et g P P g P essa suggests, `en tapt que quant a.' This expression is en re - our tes affaires it faudrait pourtant ne pas rester seul'; Y g~ ~ q q P P P P countered frequently. Althou h clear in its meaning, its re - 60 :88: `Mais au bout de cette annee j'aurais gagné et mon g g 5 J gg current appearances have a tendency to impart a touch of établissement uneu bien et ma santé je suis porté a le je PP Y P P P the ridiculous to the wordin , since it is often used to intro- croire.' g duce aarticular standpoint, as in 603:37: `En tapt que P Pq uant a moi 'e me suis abstenu immédiatement de faire des For a Dutchman, Van g q J tableaux'; cellent but it is not that of a native speaker. Moreover, the P lorsque - alors que. In letter 26: Van Gogh uses lorsque ainter suffered from emotional crises that occasionally Y 9 q 7 39~ g 9 foruis ue although up to that point he had employed this point disturb his expression. Letter 712, for example, begins with ~ 9~ g P P 7 P g conjunction correctly. From this passage on, lorsque and an angry outburst, Theo having mentioned the frame of a J Y P g 9 gY ~ g alorsue can mean puisque, but lorsque may also mean icture by two Dutchpainters Vincent has never heard of. 9 p 9~ g Y P Y P ue and vice-versa. This makes certain passages P s e ex - The followingpassage, an extract from this letter, shows g gP g tremel obscure: :20o: `je crois qu'alors q 'alors rien ne t'émo how much Van Gogh's use of language was influenced by Y 799 g tionneralus que Brias lui-même alors qu'on se rend his state of mind:12:1 8 `Et dans ces moments-là juste just P q q 7 4~ com te d'après ses achats de ce qu'il a cherché a être pour rès le travail dur et plus qu'il est dur 'e me sense la P P q P P P q J les artistes'; caboche vide aussi allez.' uand bien même que. The regular incongruous addition 9 9 g g ofue after quand bien même is a typical example of h hyper- A certain number of cases of clumsiness, some of q q YP P correction. The desire to use a rather affected expression is which are recurrent, are due to the contamination of one P not lessened by his lack of knowledge of the mechanism expression by another: Y g P Y thatoverns it, and Van Gogh ends up expressing himself g ~ ~ P P g in the 'Si language of the Bourgeois gentilhomme: 28: 1: `- g g 7 4~ jou tapt soit peu and et peu rès• P g nous quand bien même qu'on ne serait pas dans les - en tantue quant et moi results from the juxtaposition of P q q P 9 q J P ens desquels on parle.' The problem is compounded when en tantue and quant et moi• g q P P P q 9 this expression is mixed with alors que: 8:20: `et d'en en outreue combines en outre and outreque, P 9 77 3 9 q faire avec ceue ''ai appris en somme que de les délaisser - q J PP q f 72 JOURNAL 2002 However, the origins of such instances of awkward ror he had made before, one that has caused areat deal of g expression are not always detectable. The following Y exam - ink to flow:18 624:27: `Si to m'envoies la prochaine lettre g P les have been chosen from a series of around thirty Y - let Dimanche matin it estrobable que je refile ce jour-là a ih P q J l ters. a Stes Mariesour passer la semaine.' It is evident that P YP ; g in - P Y 7o7:199: `ecris moi le plus tot que cela te sera possible': tends to return to Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. P q P dès could have advantageously replaced le plus tot; g Y P ~ 26:: `La raison de cela est que q G. commence a surmon - Language registers and oral character 7 7 g ter son mal de foie': en would have been a correct alterna- of the language tive for de celas Van Gogh had several sources available to him in g 28:: `Nous journées passent a travailler': Nous assous learninand then improving his French. Based on his cor- 7 5 1 P P g 1 et travailler. respondence, the most easily identifiable of these is litera- Y :: ` lètementJ'es ère que Gauguin te rassurera com ture. Under its influence Van re him - 734 3 P q g P g g P aussi uneu pour les affaires de la peinture.' Is it possible self in a sustained register. The perverse effect of this P P P P g P to reassure someone 'completely a little'? No doubt, here source, however, is that inlaces the wording takes on an P Y P g the lack ofunctuation also plays a part: a comma placed affected, unnatural aspect. P P Y P P P after corn lètement would have resolved the problem of Another source of learning was the spoken language ~ P g P meanin . he heard all around him. Spoken French has several re is - g P g ters whose use is subject to certain rules of convention. The meaning of a passage can also be considerably P Van Gogh mastered the current register the most easily, g Y g g Y obscured by awkwardness in the construction of the sen- colouring t YP tence: re registers, however, rarely do him credit: g Y 01:26: `''ai écrit a Gauguin en reponse a sa lettre que s'il - 7 l g P q q m'etaitermis a moi aussi d'agrandir ma personalité dans lieu de s' démerder eutêtre s'emmerdera-t-il en venant P g P Y P unortrait j'avais en tant que cherchant a rendre dans mon a Paris avant.' Here, in a letter written to Gauguin in the P l q g portrait res - current register, in a sentence where the imperfect b su - g P g ~ P sioniste. J'avais con u ce portrait comme celui d'un bonze 'unctive is correctly employed, Van Goh suddenly makes ~ P l YGogh Y sim le adorateur du Bouddha éternel.' It is probable that en an incursion into a very familiar register, bordering on the P P Y g g tantue cherchant should in this case be replaced by cher- vulgar. His usage is far from felicitous, giving rise to an ob - q P Y g g ~ g ché. However, the second sentence may also be part of the scure andrammaticall incorrect sentence; Y P g Y onstru tion 17 and ''a is would then have been repeated c a J va u be e 06:6: `Mais est ce que c'est exessivement vrai que le Pated 7 7 q q incorrectly. The construction sought by Van Gogh would voyage à Arles soit si éreintant que vous Bites. Va done.' Y then have been: J'ai écrit et Gauguin en reponse et sa lettre The sudden change to tutoiement, coupled with the use of g p g P ue s'il m'etait permis et moi aussi d'agrandir ma - an interjection that assumes a certain familiarity, creates a ~ g p Y ité dans unortrait, j'avais - en tapt que cherchant et rendre collision of registers that in this case considerably rein - ~ ~ a g Y dans monortrait non seulement moi mais en général un forces Van Go h's intended effect;19 p g im ressioniste - con cu ce portrait comme celui d'un bonze - 77 :81: `Ainsi hier soir un coucher de soleil citron malade simple adorateur du Bouddha éternel• mysterieux d'extraordinaire beauté - des cyprès bleu de Y YP 'je 73 g theroductive aspect of the prefix re by placing it before P P P YP g sentir to indicate that he once again feels normal, Van Gogh g ~ g 17 See `Sentence construction,' pp. 68-69. makes the mistake of reproducing an existing word that P g g has an entirely different meaning. Here, he repeats an P er - Y g ~ 18 See Ronald Dorn, "'Refiler à Saintes-Maries"? Pickvance and Hulsker revisited,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1997-98), pp. 14-25, and Hulsker's response in Van Gogh Museum Journal (1999), p. 24-29. 73 19 See 'Conjugation,' pp 66-67 VAN GOGH MUSEUM prusse des arbres a feuilles mortes de tous les tons rom pus us P là contre c'étaitas piqué des vers.' Here, the contrast is P Pq strikin . After a description that illustrates the effort Van g P Go h put into his writing, familiar expression pas piqué Gogh P g~ P A ~9 des vers Cnot half bad)' is at the very least surprising; Y P g; o: : `Rembrandt est surtout magicien et Delacroix un - 7345 g homme de dieu, de tonnerre de Dieu et de foutre laaix A au nom de dieu.' Here we find a lively incursion into the Y o ular register. The meaning of this sentence can be P g g guessed but is difficult to define. The oral origins of the above usages of the popular g PP re register are obvious. But Van Gogh's letters contain many g Y other traces of oral derivation, which sometimes disrupt P the thread of what is being said: g - ma foi is oftenlaced where it would serve as a pause or P P create an effect of- ronounced affirmation in spoken lan e P ua e. The absence ofpunctuation here combines with the g g P effect sought by Van Gogh and confuses the wording: g Y g g 843:69: `Pourtant je me fais vieux tu sais et la vie me parait 1 P riser plus vite .., l'avenir plus mystérieux et foi P P - ma P Y en core uneu plus sombre.' We may safely assume that in P P Y Y this example ma foi has nothing to do with the painter's g - s P re li ious faith, even if the grammatical construction might g g g ermit this reading; ; g - Van Gogh often uses the adverbial pronoun en for em ha g - P P sis: 6o6:144: 'it était hors de lui lorsqu'il s'agissait d'en gag- - 4~ q g g g ner de Far gent.' This use is also attested to with de: g 617:122: `Bien des chóses me seraient égales mais non pas g P celle là de chose',707:63: `tu n'as pas toute la tienne de part XP P au soleil.' This - usage is again characteristic of spoken lan g g P guage; - As in speech, the Dutch painter never hesitates to double P P adjectives or adverbs in order to lend weight to his words: adjectives g 0:2 2: 'C'est une consolation bien bien maa re.' 74~ 4~ g - 611:1: 'Yen avais assez vu de sa barra que.' Van Gogh 9l q g must have heard the word l `baras ue' and he uses it more of- ten than he had certainly encountered it written. His visual Y memory, generally very efficient in reproducing the correct Yg Y Y P g spelling of a word, is thus of no help to him here. The in P g ~ P - correct doubling of `r' in barra que therefore a ears to be g 9 PP the result of improvised spelling based on an oral •20 P P g sed o a o a source - 613:141: `Va t'en voir maantenant des femmes dans le monde tu verrasue tu réussiras - vrai - des artistes et q cela. Tu verrasue cela tournera comme cela et tu n' q Y - er P drasasrand chose allez.' This passage sounds exactly grand P g Y like barroom chatter and it is difficult toras its meaning P g in its entirety; Y - The influence of the spoken word can be gauged by letter P g g Y 20 and those immediately following it. Gauguin has 7 Y g just g arrived at the Yellow House and the epistle contains a P muchreater number of examples of 'spoken French' than g P P foundreviousl . This phenomenon continues throughout P Y P g Gau uin's stay: 26: : `L'un ou l'autre veut-il acheter g Y 7 94~ pourtant bon alors ils n'ont qu'à s'adresser directement à P q moi'•1: `La peinture est le métier que tu sais et bire 737 9 P q big r n'avonseut-être pas tort de chercher a arder notre P P garde humain.' Belles lettres The 200 or so lite JOURNAL 2002 j touours pour le mieux dans Ce meilleur des mondes - oilP nous avons - toujours selon l'excellent père Pan loss, le 1 A g bonheur ineffable de nous trouver'; - 615:14: `et les perspectives lointaines larges et tranquilles p p g q a lignes horizontales se degradant jusqu'à la chaine des g g l q Ales - si célèbres ar les hauts faits d'escalades de P P Tartarin PCA et du club Alin.' Van Gogh is generally g g Y rather sparing with metaphors. The qualifier `tran uille' P g p q q applied to `lines' reveals his literary mood at the time the AA 'lignes' Y paragraph was written. In what follows it is no great sur- g rise to encounter `les hauts faits d'escalade de Tartarin P PCA,' a direct reference to Tartarin dans les Ales by Alphonse Daudet, a book that had had a particularly P Y - ro p found effect on him. Daudet also inspires him in 6 1: `Je P 54~ 9 ne retrouveas ici la gaieté meridionale dont Daudet axle A g parl au contraire une mignardise fade une nonchallance g sordide mais n'em êche que le pays est beau.' The A q pY `mi nardise fade' and the `nonchallance sordide' are very Y unusual associations for Van Gogh, who generally confines g~ g Y himself to simpler forms of words; p - 628:119: `Et le cher docteur Ox, je veux dire notre Suédois J Mouries moi je l'aimais assezarce ue it allait dans ce P q mechant monde candidement et avec benignité avec ses g lunettes etarce ue je lui supposais un coeur plus vier ge P q je Pp P g ue bien des coeurs et meme avec plus d'inclinaison à la que P droitureue n'en ont des plus malies. Et puisque je savais q p A a J qu'il ne faisait pas de la peinture depuis lon tem s cela q p P p g P m'était bien égal que son travail était le comble du niais.' g q Here, as with the appearance of the metaphor in the revi pP - p P ous example, the reference to Dr Ox by Jules Verne leads p Y Van Gogh down the literary path. `As lunettes,' bad g Y - vec P se s a 1 constructed detail in the wording, betrays the painter's Y g Y P stamp. Van Gogh sometimes composes his text on a literary p theme, with a literary language he then makes his own; Y - Another example of literary composition written under p Y P the direct influence of an author of whom he is fond is a assage relating the search for a motif that is close to his P g g heart: 63o:47: `Mais quand donc ferais-je le eiel étoilé ce q J tableauui toujours me préoccupe - helas helas c'est bien q J P A comme le dit l'excellent co pain Cyprien dans "en ménage" P YA g de JK Huysmans: les plus beaux tableaux sont ceux que Y P g l'on rêve en fumant desi es dans son lit mais qu'on ne fait Pp q as. S'agit pourtant de les attaquer quelqu'incompétent P étent g P q q q P qu'on se sente vis a vis des ineffables perfections de - len s g A P deurslorieuses de la nature.' The rhetorical question at g it the start of theassa e, plus the `ineffables perfections de A g p P s lendeurs glorieuses de la nature' that frame the refer- P g ence to Y Hu smans demonstrate the influence literature ex- erts on Van Go h's language. g The cases cited in this study have shown the numer- Y ous linguistic imperfections encountered in Van Gogh's g A g corres correspondence, whose quality seems only to grow under P ~ q Y Y g the direct influence of his favourite writers. The A im res- sion resulting from this examination is bound to be dama g - g in for the author of these admirable letters. The examples g A below may, VAN GOGH MUSEUM dus dans le fond une ruine sur la colline et dans le vallon du blé. C'était romanti que on ne peut davantage a la q P g Monticelli le soled versait des rayons tres jaunes sur les Y buissons et le terrain absolument uneluie d'or.' P - 604:196: `Cela te armtra dróle que le cabinet d'aissances P q se trouve chez le voisin.' Is the word `aisances' deliberately spelt with a double `s'in order to create an analogy with P gY essences - very fitting for the place he is describin - or is Y g P g this ahonetic transcription of a badly pronounced word P P YP ?sas for ezas ? The evocation continues thus: `ces ad- ministrations sont rares et sales.' The use of the very fi Y - u g rative word administrationrovides evidence in favour of P the first hypothesis. YP - The descriptions in which colours play a vital role are P P Y among the most beautiful and the richest in adjectives and g adjective es in the correspondence: 622:75-85: `Le ciel d'un bleu g P profond était tacheté de nuages d'un bleu plus profond P que g P P q le bleu fondamental, d'un cobalt intense, et d'autres d'un bleulus clair - comme la blancheur bleue de voles lactées P Dans le fond bleu les étoiles scintillaient claires verdies jaunes blanches rosées -lus claires plus diamentées da J plus nous - - que P vanta e comme des pierres précieuses chez g P P q même a Paris - c'est donc le cas de dire opales emeraudes P la is rubis saphirs La mer d'un outremer très profond la P P P la e d'un ton violacé et roux file it m'a semblé - avec des P g P buissons.' In thisassa e the lack ofpunctuation has the P g~ P effect of reinforcinghe description of what has been seen. g P The tumult of terms and colours very effectively renders Y Y what the author heralds in his introductory sentence: `Je Y me suis promené une nuit au bord de la mer sur lala e P g déserte C'était- c'etait c as ai mais pas non plus triste ' P g P P beau'; - 626:129: `Est ce que notre ami Mouries n'a pas un accent 9 q P - a magistral. Bropaplement 11 poit douchour encore to ond g PP P g jac afeec telloo.' Here the play of language is ex licit•21 J P YP - It is difficult to make a clear distinction between the dif- ferent artistic stimuli that trigger the transition to a more gg literar style in Van Go h's writing. Sometimes, in Y - accor Y g g dance with the spirit of the century, stimuli min e Y~ - are led:725:58: `Je ne sais si to comprendras ui l'on puisse g P q P dire de laoésie riep qu'en biera arrangeant les couleurs P q g comme oneut dire des choses consolantes en musique. P q de même les lignes bizarres cherchées et multipliées g s P ser pentant dans tout le tableau doivent non pas Bonner le P P 'ardin dans sa ressemblance vulgaire mais nous le dessiner l g comme vu dans un rêve a la fois dans le caractère etour- P taptlus étrange que dans la réalité.' P g q In conclusion... In his letters in French Van Gogh proves that he had g P areat facility for expression. Inevitably, despite his obvi g Y P Y~ - P ous application and a strong will to learn, he failed to mas- PP g ter all the- rammatical niceties required at the level of lan g q ua e sought to tackle. All the same, little hampered b g g g ~ P by this relative ignorance, he was capable of adapting his style g ~ P P g - Y and to some extent the - him expressed re register in which he ex g P self - to the circumstances and to his audience. Theater- P nal, affectionate tone he takes with hisoun friend Emile Y g Bernard contrasts gY strop 1 with the respectful one he re- served for certain letters to Gauguin, his elder. And if Van g JOURNAL 2002 gives Ives meaning to Van Gogh's French prose. From this er - Concordance of the letter numbers g g p P s ective, it is no longer astonishing to note that he neglects p g g g New Old New Old the least g si nificant elements of French - punctuation, ac- 574 461 684 535 cents formal written sins such as h hens and cedillas - ghyphens 575 462 696 553b while at the same time toiling fruitlessly to master the im- g Y 580 464 701 545 perfect subjunctive, which would bear witness to an elevat- 584 466 705 548 ed level of language and consequently signify that the man q Y g Y 591 471 706 549 using it belongs to a certain kind of elite. g g 603 479 707 550 Theowerful stylistic effects Van Gogh sought in p Y g g 604 480 712 555 some of hisrose almost always resulted in an abandon- A 605 481 722 559 ment of syntactical conventions in favour of a juxtapositionn Y J P 606 482 723 561 of terms freed for the most- art from the non-significant el P g 609 485 725 W9 ements of the language. This mechanism, which is seen 611 487 726 563 just as often in his frequent use of the telegraphic st le as J qY 612 488 727 558a in his many abrupt leas from one idea to another without Y A p 613 489 728 560 transition, is one of the essential components of his use of p 615 490 730 564 language. What appears at first sight to be abstruse and pp g 617 492 733 567 disordered is to areat extent the result of drastic selec- g 622 499 734 566 tion carried out systematically within the realm of the Y Y 624 494 737 569 French language,closed though it may be to personal ini - g Y A 626 496 738 570 tiatives. `En tantue quant a moi' is without doubt the q q 628 498 740 571 prase that best characterises Van Gogh's use of language: P g 630 B7 746 - it is not correct, but it iserfectl clear. And that is the P Y 631 501 762 584 essence of the man. 634 502 778 592 637 503 799 602/602a 638 507 801 604 639 508 825 615 641 505 830 617 642 506 843 W19 643 509 877 648 652 514 77 VAN GOGH STUDIES A Dutchman in the south of France: Van Gogh's 'romance' of Arles Vo 'téch Jirat-Wasiut rísl~i 1 y The lure of the Mediterranean was as strong for a his destination Arles, some0 kilometres up the Rhone g 4 P Dutchman as for any northerner seeking profit and ad ven - from the sea, rather than the coast itself. t g P ture in the warm climate and foreign culture of southern Van Gogh arrived in Arles on 20 February 1888, and g g Y Euro e. As Van Gogh remembered when visiting Sainte s - stayed until his departure for the asylum at Saint-Rémy on g Y P Y Y Maries-de-la-Mer at the end of Ma 1888, his Uncle Jan, 8 May 188 ending his stay in the south of France a year Y Y 9~ g Y Y with whom he stayed in Amsterdam during 18 - - the e yg a y - Y g 74 75 latter was by then a rear admiral - had himself sailed the cape the stress of the modern metropolis and by his search Y P P Y Mediterranean622/ . for a suitable location in which to create a vital contem o - 499 P been an important presence s there since the late 16th cen - ray art.4 Van Gogh thought of Arles as a starting point for a P P Y g g gP tur .1 By the 1 th century, developing Italian and rolon ed trip on the main line from Paris, it lies close to Y Y 9 Y~ P g P g P French Rivieras had become the favourite winter destina- Marseilles. There are indications in the letters that he also tions of the well-to-do for holidays and convalescence. considered the Marseilles region, especially Marti ues - a Y g P Y g Uncle Cent, for example, the successful art dealer who had favourite artists' haunt where Félix Ziemainted - as an- P P s sponsored Van Gogh's career at Goupil & Cie, wintered otherossible destination[603/479, 606/ 82 Once P g P P. O 4 ever year at Menton on the French Riviera Cote d'Azur) Gauguin arrived, Van Gogh hoped to explore other parts of g g P P P of his ill health.2 Artists followed. Félix Ziem's ca- Provence,articularl the mountains 6 1/W6 He never P Y 7 reer was launched in the 18 os by the patronage of the mentions the major centres of Avignon and Aix, where he 4 Y P g J g British and Russian aristocracy residing in Nice. Claude might have had Cézanne's company. In the event, however, Y g g Monet explored the potential of the coast in 188 , reporting he remained in Arles. He knew a fair bit about thelace P P 4 P g P hisro ress to his dealer Durand-Ruel, and returned in and its setting before arriving. He apparently chose this P g g g PP Y 1888fi . 1 . Van Gogh mentions both Ziem and Monet in smallrovincial town, surrounded by lush and easily ac g g P Y Y - his correspondence, as well as Paul Cézanne and Auguste cessible farmland, because it suited hislan to return to P ~ g P Renoir. Supported modestly by his brother Theo, Vincent painting the countryside and doing portraits of ordinary g PP Y Y Y gP Y had neitheratrons nor a dealer. Something of a convales- people.P As important to Van Gogh as guidebooks were the P g g cent,aradoxicall he travelled south as winter ended. writings of Alphonse Daudet, whose fictional Provence lay P P Y Y Summer holidays by the beach and sea bathing, developed all around Arles. Y Y g P on the Baltic and Channel coasts, were just spreading to Van Gogh imagined the French south, le Midi, as a P g g g the Mediterranean, as Van Gogh noted 622/ Neither a land of sun and colour that would restore his health and g 499 summer holidaymaker nor wintering patient, he chose as provide the model for a new art[587/469, 6/W1 . In fact, Y gP P57 I would like to thank Dominique Séréna-Allier, 1 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the 4 Vojtéch Jirat-Wasiutynski, 'Van Gogh in the south. an- Conservateur-en-chef of the Museon Arlaten, and Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II, 2 vols., New timodernism and exoticism in the Arlesian paintings,' in Isabelle Grimaud, formerly of the same institution, for York 1972, vol 1, pp 629-42. Lynda Jessup (ed.), Antimodernism and artistic experi- their generous assistance and kind hospitality, Thea ence: policing the boundaries of modernity, Toronto Burns for extensive help in researching sites and tran- 2 David Sweetman, Van Gogh: his life and art, New 2001, pp. 177-91. I will use the terms Midi, French for scribing documents York 1990, p. 20. the south of France and a parallel term to the Italian Mezzogiorno, interchangeably with 'the south,' as did 3 Biographical information for the Arles period is taken Van Gogh, who used Midi in French and Zuid in Dutch. from Ronald Pickvance, exhib. cat. Van Gogh in Arles, 79 New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1984. VAN GOGH MUSEUM restoring his health was a precondition for this. As he ad- g P vised his sister before leaving for Arles, `what is required in g ~ q art nowadays is something very much alive, very strong in Y g Y Y g colour, very much intensified, so try to intensify your own Y ~ Y YY health and strength and life a little' 6/W 1 . Such state - g 57 ments help us understand Van Gogh's way of painting Arles P g Y A g and its surroundings. Seen against the backdrop of expand- - g g P A in industrial employment, his colourful representations of g P the Arlesian countryside can be considered a `romance' of Y the country. Romance evokes the sense of fantasy and Y Y strong feeling that Van Gogh attached to the southern g g g countr side and its representation. It is also a particularly P P Y appropriate term for historic andgeographic reasons. In modern aesthetic usa e the term `romantic' refers back to g~ late-medieval romances, which are viewed as arecedent P for the liberation of feeling and imagination in romantic art g g and literature from classicalg reason and rules.5 In its on- i fig. 2 nal medieval meaning romance was a tale of adventure, g, Jean Belon, Jealous, she interrupts the farandole, 1889, chivalry or love. The Provence of the troubadours was the Arles, Museon Arlaten Y setting for many such romances, as Van Gogh well knew, g Y ~ g and this literary tradition coloured views of the region. to ra hers regularly depicted these sites, monuments and Y g g P g Y P However rather thanroduce medievalism images of costumes. In the 1880s, the field was crowded: many P g g Provence heainted a vision of the south as exotic. painters were working in Arles producing picturesque g ueA P P g q Substituting for a displacement in time one in space, Van views of its medieval ruins and using them as settings for g p P g g Go h's bright, intensely coloured paintings situate contem s p - enre paintings. Many of these paintings were exhibited lo s P - g g~ Y g g Y g orar Arles in a Mediterranean world that occupies a si o - call in the shop window of the Maison Bompard, on Place P Y A P Y P P tion vis-à-vis European modernity rather like that of the R" ii ue.8 P Y P q Orient o the o f h rientalists.6 Soon after arrivin Van Go h `had a visit from two g, g amateur artists, arocer who sells painting materials as g P g Choosing Arles well and a magistrate'[585/467]. The grocer, whom he had g gg Tourists were warned against the rigours of robabl met buying artist's supplies, was almost certainly Y ' ~, g Y g pP ~ Y Provence outside the mountain-shelteredaradise of the Jules Armand Ronin whoainted a summer evening's A P g Cote d'Azur that Monet hadainted (fig. 1 : guidebooks view at Montmajour in 1888 (location unknown) and an P g g l told them to expect a dusty and rocky landscape, intense Arlésienne the following year (Arles, Museon Arlaten ).9 A Y Y P gY summer heat, the violent s n mistral and mosquitoes.7 The Summer 1888 seems to have been aarticularl active time Y q P mistral, a cold andowerful north-westerly wind, and the for visiting artists. According to the weekly arts chronicle P Y g g Y intense summer sun were also constant sources of trouble of the Homme de Bronze, fourrofessional artists, includ- P for artists working outdoors, as were mosquitoes and flies in Vincent van Gogh, joined several amateurs working in ~ q g g ~l g g [642/506, 6 / o . For the tourist, the compensation lay in the streets of the town and outside the walls, in the 4359 ~ P Y visiting the outstanding antique and medieval monuments Al scam sand at Mo t a u n m 'o r.10 José Belon was comPlet- g g q Y P l of towns such as Arles where the women's beauty and folk in his Jealous, she interrupts the farandole (fig. 2) for the ~ Y g p g Paris Salon of 1889; it is set in the palaeo-Christian - ceme - costumes could also be admired. Local elites, nostalgic for 9~ A g the Proven al past, shared this admiration. Catering to re - ter of the Al scam s before the Chapelle Saint-Accurse, ~ P ~ g Y Y P~ P Tonal metropolitan and tourist markets, painters and ho - which he had been drawing on the spot. A Monsieur Stein ~ ~ P p g A g p 80 JOURNAL 2002 was `aintin the court and of an ancient and remarkable P g Y house in the rue des Arènes.' Alfred Casile, from Marseilles, was `installed at Montmajour to reproduce the l P ma magnificent ruins' (Avignon, Musée Calvet); and `M. g g Vincent an impressionist painter, works at night, we are P P ~ g told by gaslight on one of our squares.' Unlike Belon, Stein Yg g q and Casile, Van Gogh produced a resolutely modern image g P Y g of the town in his Café terrace at night (F 467 JH i 80 5 , a g 4~7 night-time view of Place du Forum. g Like the P im ressionists with whom he was identi- fig. 3 Adolphe Monticelli, The return from the hunt, 1866, fied in the local weekly, Gogh was interested in con- - g Washington, Corcoran Museum of Art ter temporary life and not the aura of the past. He did not ur - P Y P P sue relations with the French artists working locally. With g Y Casile who had been friendly with the impressionists in Y P Paris in the early i 88os he would have had more in com- Daudet. Arles was theerfect centre from which to paint Y P P mop but the two appear not to have met. Van Gogh re- that world. It was on the Paris-Lyon-Marseilles railway line PP g P Y Y ferred to associate with the foreign artists working in the and close to Marseilles, where Monticelli had lived,- g g P countryside around Arles, all of whom were painting the in the surrounding countryside. Van Gogh admired the ~ P g g g Y g Y contemporary rural world. Although the Arles of history Y older artist's work immensely and felt that he was in some g Y Y sense continuing p g 3 as the and tradition did not interest Van Gogh, its picturesque g P q possibilities did not escape him. He regularly drew and consummate southern colourist working from the motif, P P g Y g painted at the ruined abbey of Montmajour early in his stay Y but also noted his nostalgic imagery of courtiers andfetes J Y Y g g Y and in late October, took Paul Gauguin to paint the ancient char êtres. Once in Arles Van Gogh intended to visit ~ g P ~ g burialround of the Al scam s. But, with these and a few Marseilles to examine the art scene, buy art supplies in- g Y P Y PP other exceptions, Van Gogh largely shunned the town of cludin Ziem's non-fading blue) and look for paintings b P g g Y g g P g by ~ Arles turning his back on it to depict the surrounding P Monticelli80/ 6 . He even fantasised that when he and g 5 4~ 4~ fields and rural labour instead. One can only conclude that Gauguin went, he would stroll along the Cannebière, the ~ Y g g city'sprincipal commercial boulevard, `with a grand south - he chose Arles as a convenient location from which toaint g P Y ~ colourful, rural utopia.11 Midi as he envisaged as a co p ia.11 ern air,' dressed like Monticelli, `with an enormous yellow g > Y This vision had been formed even before he arrived hat a black velvet jacket, white trousers, yellow gloves l >Y g in Arles through contemporary literature and images from and a bamboo cane'6 /W8 . The Dutch artist's boldest g P Y g 74 the history of art. It was strongly influenced by thepaint- plan Jan included settin u a 'permanent exhibition' of con- Y gY Y P ins of Adolphe Monticelli and the writings of Alphonse temporary impressionist painting there, to complement g P P Y P 5 Raymond Williams, Keywords- a vocabulary of culture Tambourine decorated with an Arlésienne of 1887 is now 12 Monticelli died in 1886. The Van Gogh brothers were and society, rev. ed London & New York 1983, pp. 274- in the Museon Arlaten; he also painted Algerian subjects. involved in buying and promoting his work, in competi- 76 tion with the dealers Alexander Reid from Glasgow and 9 Homme de Bronze 9 (19 August 1888), p. 2; Armand's E J. van Wisselingh from Amsterdam, just before Vincent 6 Michael Herzfeld (Anthropology through the looking- Arlésienne is reproduced in Dominique Séréna-Allier and left for Arles; the debates continued in the letters. Theo p lass: critical ethnography in the margins of Europe, Pascale Picard-Cajan (eds.), exhib. cat. Arlésienne: le arranged the publication Monticelli: impressions dun g g p Cambridge 1989,p. 64-70) uses the term mythe?, Arles (Museon Arlaten) 1999, p. 102, pl. 40. artiste, Paris 1890, with text by the critic Paul Guigou p y 'Mediterraneanism,' which he first coined in 1982, for Van Gogh had two sources of artists' materials in Arles, and lithographic plates by the artist Auguste Lauzet. On g this representation in anthropology Armand's grocery and the Calment stationer's shop. Monticelli's reputation and Vincent van Gogh's admira- tion for him see Aaron Sheon, Monticelli: his contempo- 7 See John Murray, Handbook for the traveller in 10 Homme de Bronze 9 (30 September 1888), p. 2. raries, his influence, Pittsburgh 1978 and idem, 'Theo France, London 1881, pp 109-12 van Gogh, publisher the Monticelli album,' Van Gogh 11 See Carol M. Zemel, Van Gogh's progress: utopia, Museum Journal (2000), pp. 53-61. 8 Maison Bompard, a family business, was a decorator's modernity and late 19th-century art, Berkeley & Los sho ; C. Bompard was an amateur artist whose Angeles 1997, pp. 1-14. P VAN GOGH MUSEUM others in Paris, The Hague and London 81/ 6589/470, g 5 4~5~ 1/ 1 for which his own studio the Yellow House as it 59 4~7 came to be known, would serve as the storehouse [604/480]. However, Monticelli's Marseilles was, like Paris, too large and urban for Van Gogh to want to settle there; g g Arles was of a more modest size (about 3 2 000 inhabi- tants),reminding him of Breda and Mons[579/4631. It g must have seemed an appropriate startin point for his starting P 'journey in the Midi.' Van Gogh's image of the south 'longJ Y g g was strongly influenced by things he had read. He avidly Y g Y consumed contemporary French literature and greatly Y g Y - en o ed Daudet's series about Tartarin, the intrepid lion JY ~ P hunter from Tarascon, with its amusing caricatures of g southern character and life.13 Arles is only 1 kilometres s Y5 to the south and after settling there, Van Gogh did make a g g tri in early June to see the town where Tartarin's adven- P Y tures had takenlace[626/496]. Daudet's windmill, in P which he claimed to have written his immenselypopular YP P Lettres de mon moulin, was also close by, at Fontvieille; Y Van Gogh visited the village many times and depicted the g g Y P mills on the hills nearby (F 1 6 JH 1496), but he makes Y 4~9 no mention in his letters of either the book or Daudet in this context. The south of France was also becoming a focus of g interest for contemporary avant- arde painters; a number P Y g P of impressionists were working there in the 188os. Paul P g Cézanne, a native, painted the landscape around Aix and ~P P L'Esta ue; Claude Monet and Auguste Renoir worked q g alon the Mediterranean coast.14 To a considerable extent, along Van - land southern the of e Gogh based his expectations g P sca e on their paintings, though once in Arles he quickly P g g q Y realised thateolo , vegetation and, to some extent, cli- g gY g mate differed. Nevertheless, he saw theervasive bright P g sunli ht and clear air of the south as giving rise to a g g g shared vision of natural vitality in these impressionist Y P For Van Gogh, Cézanne's work, which he re paintings.g > - retted not knowing better, represented the harsher - g g res as P ect of the south, an aspect that came to the fore as the dry ~ P Y summer weather settled in andolden tones redominat- g P ed612/ 88 627/497]. Thinkin ; of Renoir's pictures, he 4~ ~~ P ex expected to find gardens and flowers everywhere around P g Y him612/ 88 ; although he did not immediately find them, 4~ ~ g Y he was constantly reminded of Renoir's 'p, clean line' Y P by the crisp vision afforded by the `clear air'[6o5/4811. Y P Y Thinking no doubt of Monet's paintings, noted that g s P g~ - na ture in Arles was 'very different from what it must be at Y Bordighera, Hyères, Genoa, Antibes, where there is less mistral, and where the mountainsive a totally different g Y character. Here, P exce t for a more intense colour, it re- minds one of Holland everything is flat'[634/502]. Y g Situated just north of the delta of the Rhone about ten me- tres above sea level, Arles was surrounded by drained and Y irrigated land with rocky outcrops such as Montmajour Y - our P l an nouncin the Alpilles to the north and east. g P Van Gogh's artistic project differed fundamentally P J Y from that of Cézanne, Renoir and Monet, and he therefore sought a different countryside to paint. Focusing on the g Y P g lush farms andardens and on rural labour, he began to g JOURNAL 2002 The romance of the country Van Gogh set to work enthusiasticallypainting the g YP g flowering orchards on the outskirts of Arles in March and g April, the Y~ following seasons, he concentrated on flowering gardens and field gg studies. Theroductive fields and gardens seen in his P ~ drawin s and paintings were made possible by the canals g P g P Y draining the marshes surrounding Arles to the north, the g g Canal du Vigueirat (early 16th century) and the Canal du g Y Y Vuidan es(1642). Because some branch canals were filled g in the 18th century, marshes reappeared and were only PP Y finally eliminated early in the 1 th century.16 These exten- a ed ea Y Y 9 Y sive farmlands, stretching up to Tarascon, form part of the g P P Trebon. Van Gogh seems to have confused this area with g the better-known semi-desert of the Crau; unaware that it actually begins to the south and east of Arles, he labelled Y g fig. 4 the fields he drew from the rocky outcrop of Montmajour Vincent van Gogh, The harvest (F 412 JH 1440), 1888, Y P Montmajou Crau: vueprise de Montmajour (F 1 20 JH 1501). The Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh ~ 4 Foundation) Trebon is a district of fertile alluvial soil from the Rhone farmed by cultivateurs from Arles in small plots near the Y P roads anduite different from the stony plain of the Crau, q YP which however, also supported agriculture, thanks to the tween the canal bank at the edge of town on which the PP g g 16th-centur Canal de Craponne. Farmland in the Crau, artist stood, and the distant Alpilles, with the ruined abbey ~ Y P Y constantl expanded in the 1 th century with further Y P 9 Y of Montmajour visible on the left. It is a peaceful vision ofl P canalisation and watering, produced excellent hay and an industrious rural world hardly touched by modernity, g~ P Y Y Y Y feed, as can be seen in Paul Guigou's Le cheval blanc of with an Arlésienne in the foreground garden and other fi - g g g g 18 1 (private collection .17 This was not an area that Van ures working and walking in the distance. Van Gogh com - 7 P g g g Gogh explored; with the exception of trips to Saintes- ared the breadth and depth of the motif to the Dutch views g P ~ P P P P Maries-de-la-Mer and Tarascon, he only painted territories of Salomon Koninck from the 17th century and Georges YP 7 Y g accessible on foot,articularl the Trebon. Michel's and Jules Dupré's French landscapes from the P Y P P Like the - 1 19th[626/496],while the colour reminded him of the old - g g 9 g bours around the Porte de la Cavalerie and with whom he en tones of theaintin s of Cézanne and Delacroix P g identified in his labour6 8/ o , the artist headed out 3 5 7 [627/497]. Alwa s informing Van Gogh's vision of Arles, too, Y g g from Arles to work in the fields to the north and east. The was the feeling that he was in Japan. By overlain the de c- P - Y overlaying harvestfi . is perhaps the best known of Van Gogh's orative colour of Japanese prints and the spatial schemata g4 P P g P P P aintin s of these farms. Carefullyprepared in two large g e g of Dutch 17th-century landscape paintings, created with YP P 7 Y P P g drawin s, it depicts the fields outside Arles, inscribed be- the aid of aers ective frame in The harvest, Van Gogh g P P ~ g 13 For Van Gogh's love and use of French naturalist lit- 15 Adolphe Joanne, Itinéraire de la France: Provence, 16 Paul Allard, Arles et ses terroirs, 1820-1910, Paris erature see Judy Sund, True to temperament: Van Gogh Alpes Maritimes, Corse, Paris 1881, p. 42, and Murray, 1992, p. 36; see also Frédéric Bernard, De Lyon à la and French naturalist literature, Cambridge 1992, esp. op. cit. (note 7), p. 111. Van Gogh would encounter the Méditerranée, Paris 1858, pp. 151-52. p pp. 73 and 132-33 (for Daudet). In 'Vincent van Gogh more austere regime of wheat and olives, considered to and the vernacular: his southern accent,' Arts Magazine be traditional to the Mediterranean region, later, in the 17 Allard, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 35-36 and 33. Guigou's 52 (June 1978), pp 131-35, Ron Johnson stressed the dry and rocky environment of the Alpilles around Saint- depiction of the Daniel farm at the Domaine de l'Etang role of Daudet. Rémy, for which see the author's 'Van Gogh's paintings des Aulnes, where Monticelli also painted, is reproduced of olive trees and cypresses at St. Rémy,' The Art Bulletin in Claude-Jeanne Bonici, Paul Guigou, 1834-1871, Aix & 14 Paul Signac started to paint at Saint-Tropez in 1887 75 (December 1993), pp. 647-70. The different environ- Toulon 1989, no. 323; for further information see and settled there in 1892; it is unlikely, though, that Van ments correspond to an important psychological break. Arlésienne, cit. (note 9), p. 288, no. 69 (Pascal Picard- Gogh ever saw any of those works. Cajan). VAN GOGH MUSEUM makes theicture resonate with both an exotic 'Japanese P p dream'61 1/ 8 and a pre-modern echo of `the Holland of 4~7 p ~ Ruysdael, Hobbema and Ostade'[634/5021.18 Y ~ The artist's most cherished aim in thiseriod was to P do a series of contemporary portraits[657/516, 658/517], p YP continuin the studies ofpeasants that he had executed in continuing p Holland66 /B i . In early August he painted two likeness- 9 5 Y - ss g P es of a farm worker called Patience Escalier. Van Gogh had g be begun making portraits in June, with a soldier and a young gp ~ Y g womanosin for him; it was with special tenacity that, in P g ~ P Y August, he pursued a peasant model. His interest may have g ~ P p Y turned to the subject because of a visit to the painters subject p Mackni ht and Boch in Fontvieille. `The village where g g the 're stain is real Millet, small-time peasants and noth Y staying ~ - eas p in else absolutel rural and intimate' 6 2/ 1 . `Peasant,' g , Y 5 54 however, was a charged term, certainly as applied at this g ~ Y PP late date and to theoor farm labourers living near the p g Porte de la Cavalerie among whom Van Gogh found his g g 1 .19 Escalier was a typical member of the rural mode s yp - role p tariat: he had been a bouvier or cowboy in the Camargue, Y g the Rhone delta to the south of Arles and had since worked as aardener in the town itself. En the first version of the g portrait (fig. `the orange colours flashing like lightning, P g 5), g g , g g vivid as red-hot iron' and `the luminous tones of oldold in g the shadows' are meant to suggest `the furnace of the gg hei ht of harvest time' in the south[663/520]. The oran es gorange reds in the face are intensified by the complementary Y p Y contrasts of the- green re easant's blue smock and the back p g round. In the second version (F JH 1563),an intense g 444 orange background visualises the powerful sunlight and g g p heat. Van Gogh related the 'poor peasantry' of Provence to g p p Y the images of Jean-Fran ois Millet he knew so well g ~ [661/519],and to the `wild beast'[669/B15] described b by Emile Zola. Stressing this primitivising vision, he asked his g p g brother to compare the first version of the painting with p p g Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec's Poudre de rizfi . 6),Theo's g portrait of a woman preparing to apply her make-up over a P p p g ppY P rice-powder base[663/520]. Van Go h used this contrast PGog the rustic vigour of Arles and the refinement of the capital to underline his preference for the former and p P to indicate his return to theroject of painting the county p ) A g - Y side that had motivated him in the Netherlands. The con- trast also makeslain the dependence of the rural image P p g fig. 5 Vincent van Gogh, Portrait of Patience Escalier (F 443 JH 1548), 1888, Pasadena, Norton Simon Art Foundation on urban t painted : it is ainted for a modern urban audi- ence and against encroaching modernity. g ~ Van Gogh depicted the contemporary countryside g p P Y Y and not some nostalgic vision of a rural past. His paintings g p p g show the land around Arles as it had been transformed by new ownership and markets. Agricultural land was in P - g creasin 1 owned by distant proprietors and exploited for gY Y p p p 20 Escalier had retired from greater yields and cash crops.2° Escal e ad e g s Y p life as a cowboy on a big estate in the Camargue to tend the Y g g marketardens of Arlesia JOURNAL 2002 fig. 6 Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Poudre de riz, 1887, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation) tions. When he didaint the Al scam s in the autumn, he P Y P was acting as Gauguin's uide just after the latter's arrival g g g ,J on 23 October. Van Gogh depicted the treed alley of i g P Y - sar co ha i leading to the Chapel of Saint Honorat as a local P g g P romenade with a glimpse of the smokestack of the ad' P - a g P J cent locomotive works visible through the poplars (F 68 g P P ( 5 JH 1622). His colleague, on the other hand, painted - g > cos P tumed Arlésiennes by the nearby canal with a view of the Y Y church (Paris, Musée d'Orsay). Y Van Gogh's paintings of Arles are, however, highly g P g ~ ~ g Y selective in subject and his expressive, coloured vision is J P char charged with `romance.' Emphasising the rural quality of g P g q Y Arlesian labour, he did only a few paintings of shipping on Y P g PP g the Rhone and none of the industrial activity at the gas- - s g works or the extensive - e s . repair shops of the railway. His P P Y lection, then, did not reflect contemporary reality. P Y Y A Agricultural employment had dro dropped from supporting al gPP PP g- most half the workingpopulation of Arles at the beginning gP P g g of the century to less than 20 percent by the 188os 21 while Y P Y sailors' work on the river had virtually disappeared with Y PP the arrival of the railway. After 18 8 the railway work Y 4~~ Y - shops and later, new industries provided replacement P and, ~ P P jobs. J A number ofaintin s and drawings nevertheless P g g stand out in Van Gogh's Arlesian production because they P Y feature industry and railway yards as a prominent back- Y YY P dro to the fields and rural labour at harvest time. P Traditional agricultural life and activities are the focus of g the images, yet their contrast with recent industrial devel- g Y opment is crucial to Van Gogh's romanticised vision of the g town and countryside. Harvesters (fig. shows the wheat Y g7 harvest in June with Arles in the background. Deliberately Y using a steepperspective in a vertical format, Van Gogh g PP P ~ g roduces a primitivising painting like an image from a P P gP g g 1 th-century almanac.22 Three-quarters g ua ters of the composition Y q P is taken up by the landscape, with one-quarter left for the P Y P ~ q town and sky. The two parts are differentiated by brush y P Y - work and a complementary colour contrast: sunlit yellow P Y Y fields and shadowed violet buildings below a pale blue sky. g P Y The wheatfields are brighter and more extensive yet the g Y distant smoky town is easily their match. Our eyes are Y Y Y drawn to its dark narrow band, which forms the in- escapable horizon of our vision. Van Gogh placed two P g P labourin figures deep in space, drawing into the labouring g P P ~ g - us com position. The reaper and his female companion stacking P P g 85 18 Tsukasa Kódera, 'Japan asrimitivistic utopia: Van p p Gogh's laponiste portraits,' Simiolus 14 (1984), no. 3/4, pp. 189-208 and Griselda Pollock, 'On not seeing Provence: Van Gogh and the landscape of consolation, 1888-9,' in Richard Thomson (ed.), Framingrance: the g representation of landscape in France, 1870-1914, Manchester & New York 1998, p pP esp. . 86-97 For the perspective frame see Pickvance (note 2). 54-55. Pp These issues have also been taken up by Debora Silverman, most recently in 'Framing art and sacred real- ism: Van Gogh's ways of seeing Arles,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (2001), pp 45-62. 19 Allard, op VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 7 Vincent van Gogh, Harvesters (F 545 1477), 1888, Paris, Musée Rodin (photograph by Jean de Calan) the sheaves ofrain appear just below the railway line, still g PP just Y safely contained in the fields, but with their manual work Y given a special poignancy because of the industrial setting. P P g Y . g This is clearly hand labour, despite the availability of me Y P Y - chanical reapers in the Midi by the i88os; it is not entirely Y Y old-fashioned, however, as the man now uses a scythe Y rather than a sickle.23 In Summer evening (fig. 8), the town of Arles rises g g insistentl over the acid-yellow wheatfields silhouetted Y Y a against the setting sun. There are no labourers in the g g fields at this late hour, but the stacks of the workshops P continue to belch smoke. Against this dramatic backdrop, P, a couple walks out from town in the early evening, the P Y g wind blowing through the ripe wheat. Here the huge orb g g P g of the sun, setting improbably in the southwest, and its g P Y yellow glare are meant to overwhelm the townscape and Y g P absorb the fertile fields and strolling lovers in the cycle g Y fig. 8 Vincent van Gogh, Summer evening (F 465 JH 1473), 1888, Winterthur, Kunstmuseum Winterthur (Gift of Dr Emil Hahnloser) of nature. Like Harvesters, the image brings out the g g `romance' of the countryside by dramatising the contrast Y Y g between the mechanical and the g or anic, between the in- dustrial belt and agricultural country. There is also a sub- g Y sidiar tension between the town's ancient monuments Y and the industrial smokestacks. Van Gogh was well aware g of theossibilities for historicist romance around Arles. P Writing in July about the second series of drawings he g Y g roduced at Montmajour, the picturesque monastery l P q Y ruin just outside town, he noted that the landscape at sunset J P was `as romantic asou can get, like Monticelli,' and ob- Y g served that `one would not have been at all surprised to P see knights and ladies returning from hawking appear g g g PP suddenl or to hear the voice of an old Proven al trouba Y - ~ dour'6 / 08 . Van Gogh never painted such a scene, but 39 5 g P he visualised a similar `romance' by depicting lovers Y P g walking at sunset in the wheatfields against the backdrop g P of smokestacks, or harvesters working in the heat of the g day at the edge of town. What we are given is not the al- Y re g g ism of everyday rural labour, but rather a poetic and ic Y Y ex- - ex P P tures ue contrast of tradition and modernity; in the q Y~ 86 JOURNAL 2002 pressive charge of that contrast lies Van Gogh's `romance' belongs to the north, and who is, and will always remain, a P g g g Y of the countryside. master ofre . But the contemporary palette is distinctly Y Y P YP Y Statistically, these paintings are an insignificant mi- colourful - sky blue, orange, pink, vermilion, bright yellow, Y P g g Y g P g Y norit compared to the overwhelming number of purely P bri ht green, bright wine-red, violet' /W . In truth, the g P Y g g ~ g ~ 593 3 agricultural images; but they are immensely revealing g intensely sunlit Midi was not so much colourful as washed Y Y g Y about the deeper meaning of all Van Gogh's depiction of out or even white by nature, as Paul Signac noted in his com - P g g P Y ~ g rural Arles. In them, he acknowledged modernity, but con - ments on the Dutch artist'saintin s in 18 .24 g Y P g 94 strained its signs (railways, industry) in an exaggerated, Van Gogh chose to represent the bright light of the g Y Y gg g P g g distorteders ective full of tensions created by bold colour south by intensifying local colours and using a system of in - P P Y Y Y g g Y and flat, decorative surfaces. He intensified the impact of duced complementaries to create vibrant harmonies. In his P P nature and the humanresence within it, fighting to re - o opinion, `b intensifying all the colours, one arrives once P g g P P Y g serve alace for them in a modernising world. Paintings again at calm and harmony' /W . At the end of his P g g g Y 593 3 such Harvesters and Summer evening remind us that in all Parisian stay, he developed a new art of colour in a small g Y P of Van Gogh's agricultural images, the modernity of indus - group P you of paintings strongly influenced by Japanese prints g g g ~ Y g gY Y P P trial labour androduction is the invisible other that moti- and modern colour theory. He first applied this new palette f Y PP P vates the intense experience of the exotically coloured consistent) in Arles in order to create vital images of the P Y Y ~ g landscape and the `romance' of the Arlesian countryside. exotic south such as The harvestfi . or the Portrait of P Y g4 Patience Escalier. fi which he regarded counter- - An exoticism of colour arts to the drained, over-refined life of modern Paris. P When Van Gogh thought about the south, he charac- Southern colour was a cultural construct that Van Gogh g g g terised it in terms of colour. From Paris he wrote to the brow ht with him from the north; an exoticism, this north- g English painter H.M. Livens, whom he had met in Antwerp: ern visionroduced an image of the Midi as sunlit and g P P P g `in spring - say February or even sooner, I may be going to colourful. With the triumph of the avant-garde between P g Y Y Y g g P g the south of France the land of blue tones anda colours' 18 o and 1 10, it would dominate the representation of the gY 9 9 P [572/4,594P re ion; even Signac began to use such a colourful palette in g g g P o as soon aspossible for a time to the south, where there is the later 18 05.25 g P 9 even more colour and even more sun'6/W1 . As Van Gogh The romanticoet and critic Charles Baudelaire 57 g P familiarised himself with the countryside around Arles, he posited an aestheticgeographyof north and south that split lit P Y fre frequently compared it to the flat, irrigated fields of Holland; France and Europe in two. In his account, the rational q Y P g P but he always insisted on the very different colouration. This south, where the sun shone and nature needed no PP su le- Y Y difference corresponded to the changed modern palette of mentation,roduced a timeless (classical) art, a sculptural P g P P P the impressionists, as he explained in a later letter to his sis- vision based on clear line and tonal modelling. In contrast, P P g ter: `You will understand that nature in the south cannot be the imaginative, mist-filled north gave rise to a modern painted with the palette of Anton Mauve, for example, who romantic art, aainter) coloured vision.26 Some o years A P P P Y 4 Y 23 Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: the modern- idem, 'La Méditerranée devient colorée,' in Francoise ization of rural France, 1870-1914, Stanford 1976, pp. Cachin (with Monique Nonne), exhib. cat. La 122-30, notes the changes in equipment, the slowness Méditerranée de Courbet à Matisse, Paris (Musée with which they were adopted in the countryside and the d'Orsay) 2001, pp. 109-36. variable dates of adoption for different localities 26 Charles Baudelaire, 'Salon of 1846,' as quoted and 24 Paul Signac, diary entry of 29 September 1894; see analysed in Christopher L. Miller, Blank darkness- John Rewald, AExtrait du journal inédit de Paul Signac Africanist discourse in French, Chicago & London 1985, 1894-95,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts 36 (1949), p. 106. pp. 74-82. Théophile Thoré (alias Willem Burger) made much the same distinction between the northern and 25 On the development of the modernist coloured vision southern schools, see Salons de T. Thoré, 1861 à 1868, 2 of the south see Georges Roque, 'Y a-t-il une palette vols., Paris 1870, vol 2, pp 370-71; similar distinctions méditerranéenne?,' Critique: revue generale de publica- also operate in Charles Blanc, Histoires des peintres de 87 tions francaises et étrangères 44 (1988), pp. 943-54, and toutes les écoles, Paris 1861. VAN GOGH MUSEUM later, Van Gogh identified impressionism and his own work g P with the colourist tradition in a letter to the Australian painter John Russell, arguing that its future now lay in the P ~ g g Y Midi. Contemporary artists were in a position to continue P Y P colouristaintin he wrote, equipped as the were with P g>they `universal knowledge' and an understanding of `the colours g g of therism and their properties.' He cited Monticelli's P P A paintings from the south of France and Delacroix's from P g North Africa asrecedents. Van Gogh concluded that in or- P g der toive the viewer 'something passionate and eternal - g gas the rich colour and the rich sun of thelorious south,' local g colour should be ignored and `the south now be re represent- g P ed by a contraste simultané of colours and their derivations Y and harmonies, and not by forms and lines in themselves, Y as the ancients did a . While it main- 477 formerly' 600/ tained the binary opposition, Van Gogh's identification of Y PP ~ g the south with colour was a reversal of Baudelaire'sosi- P tion. There wereowerful cultural reasons for this shift in P the system. Y fig. 9 When he wrote of the art of the south, the romantic Vincent van Gogh, Three cottages, Saintes-Maries-de-la- poet was thinking of Italy, sculpture, the Mer (F 419 JH 1465), 1888, present location unknown p g Y~ P RenaissanceY images Raphael) and the art of the acad- P Y P em . As numerous ima es and texts show, this form of clas- sicism was often also located in the south of France, and ment of a new art of colour: Japan as the origin, the Midi as p this was the visionreferred by the bourgeois elites of the theresent site, and North Africa as the future[644/510, P Y g P ~ 646/511]. For contemporary Europeans, all three ans were P ex - period Y PPorted P Y However, in the age of French colonialism - colonial troops otic cultural spaces outside modernity. We know that Van g P A Y assed through Arles and Van Gogh even painted them - Go h repeatedly `saw' Japan in the landscapes around g g P Y A P P and with the opening of the Suez Canal, the south of France Arles. When in late May he travelled across the Camargue A g Y g was increasingly situated as art of a newly orientalised to Saintes-Maries-de-la Mer, a small fishing village and gY p Y g g Mediterranean world, which was stereotyped as colourful, o popularpilgrimage site about o kilometres south on the YP P P 4 exotic and unrulylose to the Near East and North Africa. Mediterranean coast, the knowledge that North Africa was Y, g Daudet's works, theroduct of a southern writer catering the sea's other shore heightened his perception of the Midi P g p P to a Parisian audience, are a major example of this devel-- as an exotic, sun-drenched world of colour. Linking the P g o ment. In Tartarin's overheated imagination and colour French Mediterranean coast with Africa was a common- P g 2s ful language, the author created a self-conscious caricature lace of contemporarygeographyand tourist guides.28 It g P P Y of the exotic southern stereotype. Orientalisation of the was Charles Blanc who in 1876 made the crucial connec- YP south was an effect of the discourse of modernity and its tion for art history by linkinggeographywith colour theory Y Y g Y historicist division of cultures into `universal' (that is, mod- in theerson of Eugène Delacroix. p g '27 ern and historical. This new construction of the Midi Van Gogh had read the well-known essay on g Y rovided Van Gogh with a read made subject for his subjec Delacroix in Les artistes de mon temps as early as April or g Y p Y P P . Ma 188[497/4011. Here Blanc laid the foundations for A g Van Gogh linked the south of France to both North Van Gogh's exoticist vision of the south, linking North g g g Africa and Japan, seeing all three as sites for the develop- - Africa, Delacroix and Michel-Eugène Chevreul's laws of P ~ g P g 88 JOURNAL 2002 complementary colour contrast and setting out the `laws of in their brilliant colour, structured by complementaries P Y g Y P colour' in aassa e that Van Gogh even transcribed. Blanc based on contemporary colour theory and motivated by the P g g P Y Y Y ex explained their application using as examples Delacroix's intense sunlight of the region. Van Gogh's coloured vision P PP g P g g 6l omen of Algiers (Paris, Musée du Louvre) and Jewish wed- transforms the Arlesian views into images of a southern g din (Paris, Musée du Louvre),both then in the Musée du `romance.' Strikingly different from the rural north he had g gY Luxembourg, Van Gogh could easily have seen depicted in Holland in the mid-188os, these paintings situ s - g~ g Y p P ~ them. The lesson echoes in his correspondence from ate the landscape and people of the Midi in an exotic P P P P Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer: `Now that I have seen the sea Mediterranean world linked to Africa. here, I feel completely convinced of the importance of stay- P Y P Y in in the south and of feeling that one must exaggerate the g g gg colour even more - with Africa not far from one'62 / oo . 35 Under the intensely blue Mediterranean sky, com lemen - Y Y P tar contrasts dominated and the soil appeared orange to Y PP g an artist who was thinking of the proximity of Delacroix's g P Y North Africa62 /B6 as he painted Three cottages, Saintes es - 5 P g Maries-de-la-Merfi . 9). Van Gogh did not return to the g9 g Mediterranean coast, but this coloured vision informs all his Arlesianaintin s with the romance of the exotic. P g Van Gogh travelled south from Paris with ex e cta - g P tions and a certain vision of the Midi. He chose Arles as a starting point for his voyage in a sense because it was not gP Marseilles but rather a small town with easy access to the Y rural world. Van Gogh may have known that the land was g Y fertile and in the hot southern sun yielded abundant ,Y crops. He planned to paint the countryside and the e as - e P P Y P ants returning to the subject matter of his Dutch works. g initially at Montmajour and in the town of Arles, Y J Van Gogh literally crossed paths with several other artists g Y P who wereaintin at these sites. However, he preferred P g P the companyof the northern artists workin in the sur- working roundingvillages to these French artists and local ama- g g teurs, who specialised in picturesque views of ruins and P P Arlesian folklore- enre painted in the style of Salon natu g P Y ralism. While Van Gogh largely ignored the town's monu- g g Y g ments and industryis views of the rural world on the Y, edge of Arles are suffused with the tensions of encroaching g modernity. The `romance' of the countryside found in his Y Y ima es is directly dependent on this presence and its res - ~ Y P P P 27 Herzfeld, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 82-87 and, more gen- sures as the fewaintin s that explicitly portray the indus- erally, Johannes Fabian, Time and the other: how anthro- P g P YP Y pology makes its object, New York 1983. trial belt of the town as a backdrop to rural activity make P Y clear. To counteract this intrusion, Van Gogh's paintings of g P g 28 Elisée Reclus, Les vines d'hiver de la Méditerranée et orchards fields and agricultural labourers are charged g g les Alpes Maritimes, Paris 1864, p. iii (with thanks to with an intense andof nant vitality,expressed above all p g Y~ P Anne Dymond for this reference) and Murray, op cit. (note 6), .152-53, referring to the Camargue and Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. According to Amedée Pichot, an engineer with experience in Egypt was brought to work on the draining of parts of the Camargue; cited in 89 Joanne, op. cit. (note 15), p. 52. VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 1 Max Liebermann, Bleaching (Zweeloo),1882-83, 90 Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum VAN GOGH STUDIES '...which dazzle many an eye': Van Gogh and Max Liebermann Michael F. Zimmermann Van Gogh, Liebermann and multi-figureg- g field, either as aainter or as an illustrator. He studied the A naturalism tradition of naturalism and the works of its main exponents p Art historians researching Van Gogh have so far de- in France, the Netherlands and England - and now of Max g g g voted little more than footnotes to his relationship to the Liebermann as well. Liebermann had developed a articu - P P p Germanainter Max Liebermann. It would seem that larl unsentimental version of this type of painting. His art P Y YP P g Liebermann was no more than a fringe figure in Van never made any direct appeal to humane feelings but g g Y PA g Go h's life, and then perhaps only because his brother rather intensified realistic scenes via the alienating auton- g ~ P P Y g Theo had written to him in the autumn of 1883 about the om of an aesthetic that came more and more under the in- 3 Y work of the artist in suchlowin terms. fluence of impressionism. g g P Nonetheless, Liebermann was one of the artists Van It wasrecisel on this account that Liebermann's P Y Gogh was aware of, and as we know, it was often by com - paintings were in complete contradiction to that particular g g Y P P P arison with his contemporaries and predecessors that he oetic quality Van Gogh sought in this art form during q g the P P P Y g g sou ht to define his own position. In the autumn of 188 , period leading up to his famous Potato eaters (F 82 JH 764), 6 74~ g P 3 P g A during a personal and artistic crisis, Van Gogh first came which he worked on in April and May 1885. Indeed, this g P g A Y 5 into contact with the works of this Germanainter. At the contradiction is just as telling as the way Van Gogh obsti- P g Y g time, both Van Gogh and Liebermann were finding their natel remained distant from Liebermann while neverthe- g g Y motifs in the Netherlands, some of them in the very same less concerning himself with his works. Not for nothing did Y g g place, namely in Zweeloo. Following his failed attempt to Van Gogh fail to find quite the right avenue to p Y ~ P g q g start a family, Gogh had left The Hague and retreated Liebermann's art. His interest in almost no other g Y~ g g to an impoverished farming region in the east of the e coun - cant contemporary artist is so full of conflict, so inhibited P g g P Y tr . His interest in Liebermann is revealing, not least be - by a reluctance strangely mixed with interest. Y g Y g Y cause it can be viewed in the context of a certain historical Although Van Gogh shared Liebermann's rejection rejectio g g projectof the naturalist movement: the unsentimental, • thehilanthro is sentimentality overlyingalmost all so - P J P A Y multi-figure study of the lower-class milieu - the very same cially engaged naturalism until well into the 187os, he did g lines along which Van Gogh had been seeking to achieve not adopt a detached approach to his subjects, but rather g g g A PA artistic success since his time in The Hague. Like • almost ecstatic empathy, exaggerating, for exam le, the example g Liebermann, he now devoted himself to socialenrepaint- • suffering in the faces of the Potato eaters, making g g P in g, an art form that had been central to naturalism for them seem coarse, almost bestial, and then inviting us to g g more than a decade. As g feel with these dehumanised beings and their elementary Y ness of its themes, its supporters sought to put it on a par will to live - and to recognise in their evening meal hu me a - PP g A P g g with historypainting - indeed, in some sense, this new art man ritual malgré tout. His procedure for ridding the scene YP g g A g was even meant to replace it. Such pictures reached their of the conventions of sentimental naturalism was based on P P audience through much discussed exhibitions and, more arovisional identification with prejudice, which in a fur- g A P 1 importantly,in the form of reproductions and magazine il - ther step was transformed into identification with those P g p lustrations. Van Gogh, too, dreamed of succeeding in this onto whose bodies social, anthropological, even 91 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Darwinistic clichés andreconce tions had been in- P P scribed. Such an approach was, of course, entirely incom PP Y - atible with what was acceptable in naturalist art at the P time, but Van Gogh continued to dream of achieving reco g g - g nition within the context of the socialenre right up until g g P his departure for Paris in the mid-188os. He was well aware P of the fact that his overly empathetic attitude to the im Y - ov P P erished and disadvantaged was something special. What he ~ gP was not aware of, however, was the fact that he wasuttin P g himself beyond the pale of what in the early 188os y P Y - was con ventionall acceptable as art. Y P Like Van Gogh, Liebermann sought to reform multi- - g fi figure naturalist painting through procedures of empathy g P g ~~ P P Y beyond the pictorial distance he simultaneously built u Y P Y up; not, however, by empathising with the ugly,feral nature of Y P g his subjects but rather by stressing the aesthetic detached subjects Y g - ae ness of the artist's eye. The apparent indifference with Y PP which Liebermann depicts, say, cobbler's apprentice or a P ~ Y~ PP weaver's family (fig. does in fact establish a human close- t g5 ness to theersons shown, but one which, through the im P ~ ~ - g ressionist aesthetic and the rendering of materialised light g ht g with layers of richly pigmented colour, is free from all y Y - con Pg ventionall practised poses of sympathy. In alto ether Y- con P Paltogethe ways both Liebermann and Van Gogh changed not Y Y - on g g 1 the aesthetic of the social genre painting but also the way g P g Y the viewer was meant to relate to the maltreatedeasants. P Liebermann's aesthetic aloofness stood in marked contrast to Van Gogh's convulsively heightened empathy. While both g Y g mobilisedenuine sympathyfor their fellow human beings g g beyond the scope of conventional humanitarian feelings, g the one did so b understating the sentimental empathy fa by g P Y- miliar to the viewer from theaintin s of Millet, Breton, g > Israëls and Herkomer, the other by overstating it. Y ~ Perhaps surprisingly, Liebermann had a similarlyY conflicting admiration for Van Gogh. Indeed the relation- g g shi between the two artists, who never knew each other P was one of mutual regard on the one hand, and personally, g of mutual distancing and disregard on the other. It is a rela- g g tionshi that shows how different the paths of two artists P P can be, despite their proximity of time and place and the P P Y P fact that bothursued their aims within the same artistic P and- ro rammatic discourse. Liebermann and Van Gogh P g g a revealing story of a nonetheless enigmatically fleeting Y g Y g confrontation. Van Gogh's first encounter with Liebermann g Vincent van Gogh first makes mention of thepaint- g P ins of Max Liebermann in a letter to his brother Theo of g September 188. In it he describes the deserted heath P 3 around the town of Hoogeveen, where he has been staying ~ Y g after having left The Hague. The letter clearly identifies the g g Y artistic context in which Van Gogh places his interest in the g P work of this Germanainter. Liebermann's name first P crops u , apparently incidentally, within a whole chain of P P PP Y Y associations of the kind that often accompanied Van Gogh's P g ex experience of nature a kind of never-ending barrage of P ~ g g meta hors. He begins by evoking the poetry of the land P g Y g JOURNAL 2002 finitely better than Henkes's - you express it very well: "slate Y Y P Y colour dissolving intore ish- ellow and greyish-brown." I g Y Y g Y understand iterfectl . That way of painting is delightful if p Y Y p g g one has mastered it. And the reason I want toaint a great p g deal is just because I should like to have a certain firmness J and system in my technique - though I have heard many Y q g Y sa ou must not have a system such he and peoplesay - m you Y - as sev eral others have. Fromour description I see that Lieber- Y p mann must have something of Herkomer's manner. g Especially in systematically carrying through and analysing p Y Y Y rY g g Y g thoseatches of light and shadow caused by sunbeams g Y - ams com in through the leaves, which dazzle many an eye. The other g g Y Y da I saw the large engraving after Herkomer's "The last Y g g g muster." I suppose you have seen it too - what a manly Y Y thing!'[390/3251.1 g• Since in the very next sentence Van Gogh goes on Y g g to express his curiosity about Jules Breton's `Fille d'un p Y min ur '2 we cannot help but ask what the connection can e o e t o w a he p possibly be between Herkomer, Jules Breton and Lieber- Y mann? The answer, apparently, is that all three sought to g de depict, in unsentimental multi-figure paintings, a certain p g p g~ social ambience, their subject matter being drawn mostly g Y from the lower strata of societ whether re-industrial Y, p farmhands or factory workers, whether poorhouses, ~ - s p or Nana es or old age retreats. P g g 'Pen drawings oft es from the people': g types P P Van Gogh's road to naturalism g It is certainly worthwhile taking a closer look at the Y g scene Van Gogh so eloquently sets when first mentioning q Y g Liebermann - with all his impressions reworked through p g other artists' eyes. Let us first turn to Gerke Henkes, whom Y he considered to be inferior to suchainters as Lieber- P mann. In 1875, Henkes, who, like Van Gogh, occasionally g ~ Y frequented the local Hague artists' club Pulchri Studio, had q g exhibited aaintin - The knitting school (fig. 2) - both at P g g g fig 2 Gerke Henkes, The knitting school, 1875, The Hague, Museum Mesdag the Paris Salon and in Brussels. It was subsequently shown q Y in Amsterdam18 8 and then again in Paris - this time at 7 g the Exposition Universelle (The Hague, Museum Mesdag). p g g Thisicture of our girls knitting under the supervision A young g p of a strict instructress was highly praised by contemporary g Yp Y p Y critics.3 The humorous exaggeration of the figures, gg - ures g ever,laces Henke's painting more in the category of a P p g g Y late-Biedermeierenre painting than in that of naturalism g p g per se. Van Gogh praises Liebermann above all for his plein g p ~ airdazzle aintin , for his light effects, which, as he says, 'dazzle g g Y man an eye.' Other naturalists, too - such as Herkomer - Y Y were experimenting with new colouration techniques with p g - ues q in the impressionist gamut. Van Gogh appreciated p g g pp Herkomer primarily as a painter of scenes of a socially con- cerned nature - oldeo le in public care, for example p P p ~ - p which subsequently appeared as wood engravings litho q Y pp - s g g or in such publications as the Illustrated London News graphsp 93 1 See also Gerhard Eimer, Manfred Fritsch and Dieter Hermsdorf, Van Gogh Indices: Analytischer Schlassel far die Schriften des Kanstlers, Frankfurt am Main 1972, p. 78. This book was a valuable source of information for my research i VAN GOGH MUSEUM and The Graphic. In the art world surrounding the large, endeavouring `to make something ... realistic and yet ~ g g, g g Y increasingly international exhibitions of the period, it was done with feeling'[198/169]. A short time later, on i gY P g~ 3 just February 1882, he even mentions his intention of making ~ p g p Y g significant role, but also their reproduction in the press.4 In 'pen drawings of es from the eo le' for ma azines g ~ p P P g YP p p g his letter, Van Gogh mentions Herkomer's famous major majo [203/174]. g 3 74• The last muster: Sunday in the Royal Hospital, Chelsea y y p Gallery) which was ex - Autumn 1883: Van Gogh on Liebermann's trail 75 Y Y g with enormous success at the Royal Academy in in Drenthe Y Y London in 1875 and again at the Exposition Universelle in It wasuite logical for Theo to have recommended 75 g P q g Paris in 1878. The painting had been preceded by illus- Liebermann to his brother as an idealainter on whom to 7 p g p Y an P tration featuring a not quite identical motif in The Graphic model himself, for Liebermann was achieving precisely Y g q ~ of February 18 1. Yet another version was published as a those artistic objectives to which Van Gogh himself aspired objectives Y 7 p g p wood engraving in the same magazine in May 18 .5 Both at the time. Realistic studies of theroletarian milieu, so- g g g Y 75 p therants and the painting depict Chelsea pensioners at cialenre paintings often executed with an emphatically p p g p p g p g p Y ra prayer in the hospital chapel, lost in thought and complete- - painterly gesture: the plucking of geese, the bleaching of p Y p P~ g P P Yg p g g~ g 1 resigned to their fate; one of them takes hold of the arm cloth,lent of white time and again, in all its materiality, Y Y g ~ g ~ Y, of the man sitting next to him in order to make sure he is or the traditional white, red and black dresses of theirls g g still alive - but he is not; it is, in fact, the last muster. in the Amsterdam orphanage - these were Liebermann's During his time in The Hague, between the turn of subjects. His interest in social themes had first been awak- g g l theear 1881-82 and September 188 Van Gogh had done ened in 1871, after seeing Mihály Munkácsy's Making lint: Y p 3~ g 7~ g Y Y ~ areat many studies of the modern, industrial and poor an episode from the Hungarian War o Independence r88- g Y ~ p ~ g f p 4 uarters of the city's suburbs, mainly watercoloured en - 18 1, Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria which de - Y ~ Y P 49 7 p ~ gYar and-ink drawings. Moreover, in one group (partially ~ exe - icts women making bandaging for wounded soldiers. g P p Y p g g g cuted in charcoal, partially with a thick carpenter's pencil) Further inspiration then came from Paris - Millet, Courbet p Y P P p he also tried his hand at multi-figure compositions for and Théodule Ribot, as well as Troyon, Daubigny and Corot g p Y ~ g Y ress illustrations or oil paintings. That he modelled these and not least from the g Ha ue School. With his often senti- p a works mainly on English magazine illustrations of the mental, often humorously detached character studies of Y g g Y 18 os has long been known from his letters, but only the village life, the Hungarian history and genre painter 7 g ~ Y g ~ g Y g p more recent literature has seriously taken this into ac- Munkács certainly had different artistic intentions than Y Y Y count.6 In a letter of7 8 January 1 2 Liebermann7 - here the ne'er-do-wellsn a d theub brawls, 7 Y g p es over these illustrations, also mentioning Herkomer's there the seriousness and dignity of labour, an emphasis on g g Y ~ P wood engraving of the Chelsea Hospital, which he refers to the solitariness of the workers P des ite the communal na- g g p as `The invalids': `Iof an amazing bargain of splendid ture of their task. Since the autumn of 1872 Liebermann g g g P 7 woodcuts from the Gra hic in partprinted not from the had been taking his themes from ordinary working life in p , p p g Y g clichés but from the blocks themselves. Just what I've been the Netherlands, as in his Goosepluckers 18 2 Berlin, 7> > looking for all this time. Drawings by Herkomer, Frank National alerie . By 18 6 through his copying of thepaint- g g Y g Y 7~ g PY g A Holl, Walker and others. I... picked the best from an enor- ins of Frans Hals, Liebermann had given his French-in - p g ~ g mousile of the Graphic and London News. They include sired style both a historical foundation and a heightened p p Y P Y g some superb thins for instance Houseless and homeless ppainterly quality. ualit . He oriented himself on the Dutch tradi- p g~ by Fildes (poor people waiting outside a night shelter) and tion of Rembrandt and Hals, a tradition in which art critics Y p p p g g two large Herkomers and many small ones, and the Irish and historians such as Théophile Thoré and Wilhelm von g Y P emigrants by Frank Holl and the "Old gate" by Walker, and Bode recognised overtones of Dutch republicanism.8 It wasg p a g Y g Y above all airls' school by Frank Holl, and then another also in the Netherlands that Liebermann sought and found g Y g large Herkomer, The invalids.' He himself, says Vincent, is the motifs for his art. The choice of the country and its tra- g ~ ~ Y y 94 JOURNAL 2002 dition lent historical justification both to his socio-political P themes and his - style of painting, which his Berlin contem Y P g oraries scorned as `dirt .'9 In the autumn of 18 6 P Y 7 Liebermannainted a number of scenes of Amsterdam - P for example, of the old synagogue in Jodenbreestraat - and, P later, of the Buergerweeshuis, among them The orphanage g ~ g at Amsterdam (1882, Frankfurt am Main, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut). In 188o he devoted himself - like Herkomer before him - to an asylum for old men, a work he exhibited Y at the Paris Salon aear later - (private collection .10 The re Y P ublican flavour of this painting did not unnoticed, ei P P g - go g ther in France or German .11 Y It was a bitterly disappointed Vincent van Gogh who Y PP g left The Hague on 11 September 1883. Lack of funds now g P 3 forced him to eke out a scanty living in the heath lands of Y g the easternrovinces. All the same, he never wavered in P his intention to make his way in the world as an artist. It Y was not long after his arrival in Drenthe that Theo advised g him to follow Liebermann's example. During his short stay g Y here, which lasted only until December, the artist stru Y 5 - g led to find a way of achieving his goal.12 g Y g g In a letter to Theo written at the end of September P or the beginning of October from the town of Nieuw g g Amsterdam, `from the remotest corner of Drenthe,' Vincent returns once again to Liebermann, though not without first g ~ g describin , yet again, the poetry of the landscape: ` . describing, g P Y . P ima imagine the banks of the canal as miles and miles of, say, g Y Michels or Th. Rousseaus, Van Go ens or Ph. de Konincks. Goy en The figures that once in a while appear on these flat g PP lands are full of character, ... lots of Ostade types among g them,h sio nomies that put one in mind of pigs or cows.' P Y g P Pg Here again Van Gogh simply bubbles over with associations g g PY - with `a n Daubi ... ,' for example, `which conveys the ef- gY s P Y fectrecisel .' Liebermann, too has a lace here: `I amP Y P quite near Zweeloo, where, among others, Liebermann has q g been; and besides, there is an area here where you still find been; Y lar e, very old turf huts, which have not even a partition g Y P between the stable and the living room. I intend first of all g to visit that spot one of these days' / o . P Y 395 33 A long letter written in October 1883 testifies to the g 3 fact that Liebermann had by now become a firmly estab Y Y - lished topic in the correspondence between the two broth- P P ers, although Vincent conveys the impression he had still g Y P never seen any of his paintings. `You wrote to me about Y P g Liebermann: hisalette consists of slate-grey tones, rinci- P g Y P all running from brown toyellowish-grey. I have never P Y g seen anything of his, but now that I have seen the land Y g - sca e here, I can understand perfectly how logically he was P P Y g Y led to it.... There are Jules Dupré effects, to be sure, but P in this autumn season it is exactly that - as you describe Y Y Liebermann'salette. And if I do find what I'm looking for P ~ ... , I shall certainly often do it in the same way, in that Y Y same chromaticamut'[397/332]. g A letter of November 1883, however, shows that the 3 artist was indeed directly familiar with at least one of Y Liebermann's works, albeitrobabl only in reproduction: P Y Y P `I must just tell you about a trip to Zweeloo, the village just Y P g where Liebermann stayed for a long time and did studies Y g for hisaintin at the last Salon, the one with the washer- P g women. Imagine a trip across the heath at o'clock in the g P 3 4 Oskar Bá VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 3 fig. 4 Max Liebermann, Bleaching (Zweeloo), 1882-83, repro- Vincent van Gogh, Woman spreading out laundry on a duced in F.-G. Dumas (ed.),1883. Catalogue illustré du field (F 1087 JH 200), 1883, private collection Salon contenant environ 300 réproductions d'après les dessins originaux des artistes, Paris 1883, p. 160 morning in a small open cart .... When it was just starting p just made their studies here. At all events theiraintin s bear P g g toet light [...] everything became exactly like the most the mark of this region and nothing has changed in the Y g Y g ~ ~ g g beautiful Corots. A stillness, a mystery,a eace as only he peace meantime. The houses have been standing here for the Y g hasainted it.' No mention of Jozef Israëls who had like- ast 2 0 or oo years. They and cook in the same room, P 5 3 Y Y P and this is also where thes i which every farmer slau h - wise been to Zweeloo and was in fact the one who had rec- Pg~ Y g ommended thisictures ue idyll from bygone times to his ters everyyear, are smoked. You can't get fresh meat here. q Y Yg YY ~ g P friend Liebermann. `Since there were noainters, I decid- Sometimes they fetch it for me from a place a good five g A Y P ed ... to walk back and do some drawings on the way. So I hours away. The cowherd, the milkmaid, the farmhand andy > g Y bean to make a sketch of the little apple orchard where the farmer and his wife all sit around the kitchen table and PP Liebermann did his large painting'[407/34o]. eat from the same bowl, ... like one big family. There is no Y g p g g Van Gogh is here clearly referring to Liebermann's overt here. M landlord who is a member of the local g Y g P Y Y painting Bleaching (Zweeloo) g (fig. 1 .13 Liebermann, who council, tells me that two men are on thearish. And so the g P g had stayed in the village of Zweeloo from the beginning of here are honesta and right-minded.'14 g Y g g g August until the end of October 1882, wrote to his brother Liebermann'saintin shows two washerwomen g p g Felix: `I could almost believe that Ruysdael and Hobbema spreading out wet linen sheets on the lawn of an orchard Y P g 13 F.-G. Dumas (ed.),1883 Catalogue illustré du Salon hen seat 250 bis 300 Jahren. Wohnung and Kuche sand [.. 1, Paris 1883, La blanchissene de Sweeloo eins, in denen die Schweine, die ieder Bauer in Jedem Jahr (Hollande),' no. 1527,p. 160 (ill.). Not recorded in schlachtet,eruchert werden. Frisches Fleisch bekommt p g Gustav Schiefler, Max Liebermann: Sein graphisches man hier nicht. Fur mach wird es manchmal funf Stunden Werk/Thera hic work, 1876-1923, 4th ed., San weit hergeholt. Am Kuchentisch sitzen Kuhhirt, g Francisco 1991. Mdchen, Knecht, Herrschaft alles beisammen and essen aus derselben Schussel. Alles durt sich wie erne grofte 14 Hans Ostwald, Das Liebermann-Buch, Berlin 1930, p. Familie. Armut gibt es hier nicht. Wie mein Wirt, der im 110: 'Ich mochte fast glauben, dass Ruysdael and Rat ast, mir erzdhlte, werden zwei Manner auf Armen- Hobbema hier Studien gemacht haben. Jedenfalls ast der Kosten erhalten. Infolgedessen ast die Menschheit bieder Charakter ihrer Bilder der hiesigen Gegend entnommen and rechtdenkend.' 96 and inzwischen hat sich nachts gendert. Die Hauser ste- JOURNAL 2002 for them to bleach in the sun. The fruit trees, silvery green Yg in the matt early morning light of the summer's day, guide Y g g Yg the viewer'saze past the dull red front of a thatched farm- g p house into the distance, where several women are hanging g g blue sheets over a wooden fence and talking as they work. g Y Aen-and-ink drawing done by the artist for the catalogue p g Y g of the 188 Paris Salon shows a slightly different version of 3 g Y the scenefi . 3). In the foreground a woman is shown g3 g kneelin next to a wooden tub, straightening out one of the kneeling g g sheets, while behind her another women approaches with pp a heavy pail. Liebermann subsequently decided to create Yp q Y more distance in theaintin , leaving the foreground em p- g g - g p t and hence also conveying a sense of vacancy, alienation Y Y g Y and solitariness, and making the figures seem less osed.15 d , g g posed.1 he writes, Van Gogh did in fact capture exactly P Y the same scene in a watercolour (fig. 4). In his catalogue raisonné of the complete works on paper, published in p p p p 1 28, J.-B. de la Faille dates the work to Van Gogh's Hague 9 g g eriod, while the new edition of 1 2 suggests September 99 gg tember p 1882.16 We are convinced, however, that this is the `sketch' Vincent mentions in his letter to Theo, and that it was made in Zweeloo in November 1883, and not before. The 3 setting and activities fit Van Gogh's description. The earlier g g p datin , made on vague stylistic grounds, seems untenable now that the watercolour can be linked to the artist's own statements. Now, oneear after Liebermann, Van Gogh Y g chooses the same orchard, but depicts it completely differ p p Y - entl . Liebermann's empty space, given rhythm by the Y PY p g Y Y white linen sheets receding into the distance, has now iv g - g en way to a pattern of sheets running parallel to the picture Y p gp p lane, their brightness contrasting with the dull landscape. plane, g g e p The sweeping, uncommonly elegant movements of the Y g strong, sturdy washerwomen in Liebermann's painting haveielded, in Van Gogh's watercolour, to the stiff, Y g stoo ed posture of the peasant woman, familiar to us from p p P Millet's Gleaners186 , Paris, Louvre) and depicted in 7 - a P re lief-like side view reminiscent of Courbet's Stonebreakers (1850-5i, formerly Dresden, Gemdldegalerie, destroyed Y g Y 1945). Although Van Gogh was probably familiar at least 945 g g p Y with the reproduction of Liebermann's painting from the p P g 1883 Salon catalogue, he makes no attempt to imitate the 3 g P estural breadth so characteristic of the German artist's g painting. Weavers Perhaps Van Gogh did not familiarise himself with p g Liebermann's work until after he hadrown tired ofpaint- g p ing such multi-figure scenes as The public soup kitchen (F 1020 JHand Torn-up street with diggers (fig. 7). All 333 p gg g 7 the same, we must still ask ourselves why this encounter Y was so fleeting, Liebermann then disappeared from g~ why Pp Van Gogh's world. In Zweeloo, both artists had sought to g g re resent the life of the peasant: Liebermann depicting the p P p g healthy solidarity of these simple people warding off t Y P P P g - over p t through their own uncomplicated, socially minded form Y g p Y of mutual assistance; Van Gogh depicting only the stark re g p g Y - alit of 'types ...physiognomies that ut one in mind of Y YP S pu s or crows.' Liebermann finds a model of humanity, Van pigs y Go h a model of inhumanity: at once `them' out there and Gogh Y th VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 5 fig. 6 Max Liebermann, The weaver, 1882-83, Frankfurt am Vincent van Gogh, Weaver: interior with three small Main, Stddelsches Kunstinstitut windows (F 30 JH 479), 1884, Otterlo, Króller-Muller Museum shuttersictures uel subdue the light. It is a scene that P q Y g conve s the togetherness of solitary individuals, each Y g Y working skilfully at his or her job, seemingly oblivious of g Y l ~ gY the others. It is the depiction of the family as a working Y g community and as such, also a mirror of a much longed- Y and, ~ - g for society, would, through the strength of its own Y> g g self-sufficient and mutual sympathy, be able to achieve a Y modest degree ofprosperity. g In none of hisaintin s of weavers (fig. 6) - all P g g - ro P duced in Nuenen after 1884 does Van Gogh depict a fami 4 - - 1 . For a long time these works were interpreted all too su Y g - P erficiall either alongpsychological or humanitarian P Y~ g lines, as though the artist was concerned merely with re- g Y discoveringis own loneliness in his subjects, or with de- P g ictin them as cursed dehumanised victims of the ma- g chine. The fact that Van Gogh depicts an oak loom dating to g P g 1730 testifies to a certain nostalgia for pre-industrial cot- - re g P tae weaving, at the time was being replaced by fac g g~ g P Y - n ~ 8 Van Gogh quite literally paints the for roductio a YP g q YP weavers within the frame of the loom - and within the framework of a morally based, historically all-embracing ~ Y g work ethos. Debora Silverman was certainly right in reco Y - g g nisin a link with the puritanical myth of work as part of a g P Y P reli 19 Out of this ethical myth, however, it rima e. Ou , religious P g g Y Van - Gogh makes an aesthetic one: a desperate but thwart g P ed religious mission is now transformed into a new way of g Y making art. It is no coincidence that this aestheticism of g g monotonous `eternal' labour in the service of God occurred at the same time as its secularisation. Once capitalism had P turned the remuneration of labour into a coolly calculable Y production factor, and labour itself became a negotiable ~ otiable g commodity like any other, the work ethos became a private Y Y ~ P matter. While this reification of labour effectively nullified Y the theological work ethos, it in effect acquired a new kind g ~ q of validity in art. The motif of the patient hard-working car- - - P enter Joseph of Nazareth now became an aesthetic 'pathos P P P formula' that could be applied not only outside the reli PP Y - ious context but outside the original social context as g well.2° The weaver now became a signifier and a cliché, g recisel because his way of working and hence he him precisely Y g - - self as a social type - were no more than 'phased-out mod- YP P rl els in the reality of the outside world.21 .21 Y Van Gogh's solitary weavers are a metaphor of the g Y P artist's work in the context of industrialisation. The meagre g idyll conveyed by Liebermann's weaver family stands for a Y Y Y Y timeless ethos that clearly anticipates republican uto i Y - P P P anism. While Van Gogh's painting follows a line of develop- g P g - P ment that takes him from the urban life of The Hague via g the weavers of Nuenen to the region's peasants, g P Liebermannoes in the opposite direction, proceeding PP ~ P g 98 JOURNAL 2002 fromeasant handicraft to industry. His treatment of the tion stood in sharp contrast to the humanitarian fantasies P Y p theme of work underwent further development with The in which Van Gogh so eagerly indulged. The themes of s s g o - P g g Y flax makers188 , Berlin, Nationalgalerie) and Weaving g cialenre painting were a carbon copy of Van Gogh's own g g P g PY g mill in Laren18 private collection). Whilst Liebermann ex experience of life. Added to this were the novels he avidly Y 97 P consistent) aestheticises the industrial and social roduc - read. As early as the 18 os he had already made a habit of Y A Y 7 Y tion- rocess, Van Gogh's paintings of e as ant life culmi interpreting his own life of poverty against the background A g P g P P g A Yg g nate in his Potato eaters, arimitivistic, archaising carica - of such authors as Thomas Carly, George Eliot and P g Y~ g ture of human beings partaking of their evening meal. Charles Dickens. Whereas at first he found confirmation of gP g g Although Van Gogh is here dealing with the same social his evangelical zeal in George Eliot, he later placed the em - g g g g g P themes and the same social types as Liebermann, and a - hasis on the social aspect of her work and identified him- - YP ~ P P lies precisely the same aesthetic pathos formula, he over - self with Felix Holt, `the radical.' He first took an interest in P P Y P ste s the mark, as it were, confronting us with the ugliest Dickens while working in Paris and London as an art deal- P g g ossible de ictions of our fellow men and women. In other er and turned to him again during his time as a lay reach - P P g g Y 11 words, he simultaneously stages both the ethical necessity g er in the g Borina e; he later became interested in the illus- Y of such a confrontation and its impossibility. trations of Dickens's books, above all in those by Fred Y It was certainly not the aesthetic-social that Van Barnard for the Household Edition. The influences of Eliot Y Gogh had in mind when he wrote that he had painted his and Dickens converge in The Hague, and it is probably g ~ g P P Y Potato eaters in `the colour of a very dusty potato, unpeeled against this background that Van Gogh's interest in early il Y YP P g g g Y- of course'02/ o , and that `the last thing [he] would lustrated magazines should to be seen.22 It was during his 5 4~5 g g ~ want would be foreo le to admire or approve of it without time here, too, that Van Gogh worked his way through the P P PP g Y g knowin why'[501/404]. oeuvre of Emile Zola and other French authors, such as g Y Even when he first mentions Liebermann, Van Gogh Honoré de Balzac Edmond and Jules de Goncourt and g contradicts himself: he would like to adopt something of Alexandre Dumas, all of whom he revered as P re resenta- P g Liebermann's systematic treatment of colour and yet, he tives of the naturalist tradition.23 In his art, Van Gogh now g o Y Y sa s, one really ought not to have a system at all. He ad - became less concerned with conveying the type of senti- Y Y g Y Y g YPe mires Liebermann, but even this admiration is full of con- mental mood he had once admired in theenre paintings g P g flict. He values his aesthetic strategy and yet it frightens of Jozef Israëls, one of the leading artists of the Hague gY Y g g g him. Theuestion is: why? School, than with depicting multi-figure scenes of the kind q Y P g g encountered in the English illustrateds. Again and again, g g g Van Gogh and the media of naturalism the worksroduced during Van Gogh's Dutch period mani- g P g g A If we consider Van Gogh's 'ud ment rather than his fest tendencies towards naturalist figural compositions, as g ] g g P artistic achievement, there is no doubt that he had a lesser in his Women miners FJH 2 the charcoal drawing 53 ~ g command of the world of naturalistractice than The public soup kitchen or the study of the Potato grubbers P Y g Liebermann. The latter's art-historical and classical educa- Flo JH 372).1034 37 18 Carol M Zemel, 'The "spook" in the machine Van Aufstze zur Religionssoziologie, Stuttgart 1988, Bing and Fritz Rougemenot, 2 vols., Leipzig & Berlin Gogh's pictures of weavers in Brabant,' The Art Bulletin pp. 17-205 1932, vol 1, pp. 1-59, 307-28. 67 (March 1985), pp. 123-37; slightly abridged in Evert van Uitert (ed.), exhib. cat. Van Gogh in Brabant: 20 On the secularisation of motifs in religious art see 21 Concerning the pre-conditions on which signs can be Schilderijen en tekeningen uit Etten en Nuenen, 's Renate Liebenwein-Kramer, Sákularisierung and interpreted at all, and hence can become signifiers, see Hertogenbosch (Noordbrabants Museum) 1987-88,. Sakralisierung. Studien zum Bedeutungswandel Charles S. Peirce, Selected writings. values in a universe pp 47-58 christlicher Bildformen in der Kunst des 19. of chance, ed. Philip P. Wiener, New York 1958,. 112- pp Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt am Main 1977 On the 'pathos 22. 19 Debora Silverman, 'Pilgrim's progress and Vincent formula' see Aby Warburg, 'Sandro Botticellis "Geburt van Gogh's métier,' in Martin Bailey (ed.), exhib. cat der Venus" and "Fruhling": Eine Untersuchung Ober die 22 Pickvance, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 20-41. Van Gogh in England: portrait of the artist as a young Vorstellungen von der Antike in der italienischen man, London (Barbican Art Gallery) 1992,111. See al- Fruhrenaissance [1893],' in idem Die Erneuerung der 23 Judy Sund, True to temperament: Van Gogh and P so Max Weber, 'Die protestantische Ethik and der Geist heidnischen Antike: Kulturwissenschaftliche Beitrage zur French naturalist literature, Cambridge MA, New York & des Kapitalismus [1904-05]' in idem, Gesammelte Geschichte der europaischen Renaissance, ed. Gertrud Oakleigh 1992, pp 46-80. VAN GOGH MUSEUM Whereas Liebermann observed the world of the easants, the poverty and workers from the safe P P Y distance of the bourgeois gentleman, the pastor's son Van g g ~ P Go h, although realising he would be unable to bridge the Gogh, g g g a , nonetheless desperately sought contact with the other gap, P Y g side. One of the main themes of the more recent debate on Van Gogh's Hague period has been the artist's concern with g g P the rapid social changes that were taking place in the city g gP Y at the time and his unexpected turn towards the archaic P re-industrial world of the peasant from September 188 P P P 1883 onwards. Some scholars have - re s interpreted Van Go h' P Gogh' into the country as an escape from the present; others Y l P have emphasised his puritanical sympathywith working P g irrespective of their social standing but above all people,P g with the lowliest, and his desire to be one of them. Some have stressed the distance between the bourgeois Van g Go h and the proletarian world he depicts, others have Gogh P P demonstrated how very much he considered his own work Y to be as humble as theirs. By way of Van Gogh's large drawing of road workers Y Y g ~ g in front of a Hague bakery (fig. Griselda Pollock has g Y g7~ shown how unskilled the artist still was at incorporating P g peasant workers into a scene depicting industrialised ur P P g - ban development. The artist's remarks 2 1/2 - concern P 7 35 in his watercolour and gouache sketch The poor and money g ~ y F0 JH 222) show, according to Pollock, that Van Gogh 97 g g saw the city's destitute desperately spending their last Y P Y P g - en P nies on the lottery as 'they' and `them' - in other words, Y Y from the viewpoint of the bourgeoisie. For her, this sketch P g re resents a `stark encounter between the bourgeois artist P g and the urban poor.'24 a eu p Debora Silverman, on the other hand, refers to the continuity of Van Gogh's social commitment from the time Y g of his first attempts at working as a lay preacher to the very g YP Y end of his life. Starting out from John Bunyan's devotional g Y work Theit rim's progress, published in 16 8, which she ~ g p g P 7 describes as a `landmark in the development of English P g Protestant dissent' and which had inspired one of Van P Go h's sermons as early as 18 Silverman interprets his g Y 74~~ P work, and not least its technical aspect, as apilgrimage of P the simple working man. She compares the frame of the P g P loom the artist uses for framing the solitary, g Y~ - tic weavers in his long series of oil sketches with the g artist's drawing frame, a device used by the topographical g ~ Y fig. 7 Vincent van Gogh, Torn-up street with diggers (F 930a JH 131), 1882, Berlin, Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen PreuBischer Kulturbesitz painters of the 18th century and with which Van Gogh was P Y g familiar from Durer's woodcut.25 Whilst Liebermann was be able to sympathise with the weaver's family in Zweeloo Y (fig. - those `honest and right-minded' representatives of g5 g P 'humanit ' from time immemorial - only from a distance, Y Y the stretcher of Van Gogh's canvas for the Potato eaters had g alread become the loom and his work the fabric. On o Y 3 Aril 188 he wrote to Theo: `I've held the threads of this P 5 fabric in my hands all winter long and searched for the de Y g - se finitiveattern - and although it is now a fabric of rough P g g and course appeara JOURNAL 2002 of them: `No, one mustaint peasants as if one were one of expressed itself through the language of painting, sought, P P P gP g~ g them, as if one felt and thought as they do'[501/404]. in the final analysis, to reach something that is beyond the g Y Y g Y We thus cannot but assume that Van Gogh identified sco e of any language. And et Van Gogh's view of every g Yyet g Y himself with theeasants precisely because they were so landscape, every figure, was conditioned by his education P P Y Y P Y g ~ Y different, sorimitivel innocent. In his numerous relimi- and cultural background. Like a male Madame Bovary, P Y P g Y~ narytudies and preparatory portraits for the painting, was at the mercy of the culture of his time: its exhibitions, Y P P YP P g~ Y artist deliberately developed an unrealistic style.26 The p y e ca-r its illustrations, its trite novels. However, it wasrecisel P Y icature-like exaggeration of originallyindividual h sio - against this background of pathos and sentimentality, g emo - gg P Y g P Y, nomies, the enlarged depiction of stiff, gnarled toil-rough- - tionalit and suggestion, that Van Gogh was determined to g P ~ g g Y gg g ened hands, every movement of which becomes a bold, fi ht: hidden behind all his ambitions, reasonings and s g re - Y g ~ larger-than-life gesture, the perspectival inconsistencies flections was not failure or inadequacy but rather the g g P P q Y and the sombre colouration are still consideredrotes ue naivetyf a man who takes the world seriously, man who g q Y Y~ by some commentators today.27 The outlandishness and does not feel compassion as an artist or as a man of letters Y Y P coarseness of the- ersons depicted belies the comparative- buturel and simply as a human being. Until 188 Van P P P P Y P Y g 5~ 1 conservative standards by which the artist himself Gogh's works often seem to be art brut expressions of al re re - Y Y g P his own work. At all times he remained faithful to a ism. He isart and parcel of the system, and yet he con - judged e P Y ~ Y naturalist credo.28 stantl , even desperately, tries to be outside it, to incor o - Y~ P It is in this contradiction thatet another `stark en- rate his Otherness (which he senses but cannot really e ac- Y counter' manifests itself, not just of the pastor's son with ce t into his work, and to transcend the clichés and mod- 1 P the world of the workers andeasants but also of a misfit els that confronted him everywhere, even in his own art. P Y with the world of naturalism, with itsaintin s and novels, P g the myths and clichés to which he was helplessly exposed Liebermann and Van Gogh Y P Y P g and against he nevertheless sought to assert himself Liebermann's interest in Van Goh was likewise full g g g as an artist. Van Gogh tried to adapt, to become an illustra- oferha s unexpected contradictions. It is not known when g P P P P for and naturalistainter, but the gap could not be bridged. the artist first heard of Van Gogh. However, as the president P gP g g P gap hopeless , this a was the ho eless distance between him- of the Berlin Sezession, he was certainly ultimately res on- on- Y Y Y resp self and his fellow artists, the lack ofrofessionalism which for the fact that Van Gogh's paintings were shown P g P g he felt and simultaneously suppressed; later, it was un - there almost continually from 1 02 onwards. Corinth re- Y PP > Y 9 compromising insistence on being different, on a humane called int t o that the society's secretary, Leistikow, Y A g g Y> > empathy that cannot simply be dismissed as sentimental and the art dealer Paul Cassirer – there is no mention of P Y PY humanitarianism, on a sympathywhich was always and Liebermann – had exhibited `all kinds of Frenchmen' at the Y forever in conflict with the aesthetic detachment required Sezession shows, including ` ... a Dutchman, about whom q g of naturalist art – a sympathywhich, no matter how much it nobody had ever heard a single word: Van Gogh. ... Van g g 24 Griselda Pollock, 'Stark encounters: modern life and cred realism• Van Gogh's ways of seeing Arles,' Van urban work in Van Gogh's drawings from The Hague, Gogh Museum Journal (2001), pp. 45-62. 1881-82,' Art History 6 (September 1983), p. 349. See also Griselda Pollock, exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh in 26 Hulsker, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 127-75. zien Hollandse laren: Kijk op stad en land door Van Gogh en zien tiedgenoten, 1870-1890, Amsterdam 27 See, for example, Louis van Tilborgh, 'The potato (Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh) 1980-81 and Michiel eaters: Van Gogh's first attempt at a masterwork,' in van der Mast and John Sillevis, exhib. cat. Van Gogh e la idem (ed.), exhib. cat. The potato eaters by Vincent van scuola dell'Aia, Florence (Palazzo Medici Riccardi) 1990- Gogh/De aardappeleters van Vincent van Gogh, 91, pp. 39, 46. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh) 1993,. p 16 25 Silverman, op. cit. (note 19), p. 111. See also, more recently, idem, Van Gogh and Gauguin: the search for 28 See Evert van Uitert, 'Van Gogh's concept of his 101 sacred art, New York 2000 and idem 'Framing art and sa- oeuvre,' Simiolus 12 (1981-82), no. 4, pp 223-44. fig. 8 Gogh's paintings astonished the whole of Berlin at first, and g P g Vincent van Gogh, Wheatfield with cornflowers (F 808 in such a way that they reaped nothing but ironic laughter Y Y p g g JH 2118), 1890, private collection and a shrugging of shoulders. But the Sezession continued gg g to show new works by this Dutchman, and today Van Gogh Y ~ Y g counts among the best and the most expensive.'29 x .'29 Five g A The Germanainter was not, however, entirely con - works by Van Gogh had, in fact, already been displayed at e Y Y g Y the third Sezession exhibition in May 1901, and we may Y vinced by his purchase, acknowledging the Dutch painter's P Y p ~ g g safely assume that Liebermann shared the group's interest work only with some reservation. Much later, in i 1, 93 y g P Y in the Dutch artist. As Walter Feilchenfeldt has shown, when Ludwig Justi sought to acquire Van Gogh's g g q g Cassirer succeeded in convincing a great many Berlin col - Daubi n 's garden (fig. for the Nationalgalerie, ~ g Y gyp g9 g lectors whoatronised the Sezession, some of whom were Liebermann - by then the éminence rise of the Berlin art gris P Y either Liebermann's relatives or close friends, to buy Van spoke out vehemently against the acquisition, and Yg q Y P Gogh's works. At that time, almost all the collections of in the magazine Kunst and Kiinstler poured scorn on Justi, g p g the director of the Nationalgalerie - and not merely on ac - more recent French art in Berlin belonged to members of g Y g the Jewish upper middle class. They purchased impression- re - count of the 250,000 Reichsmark the museum was prepared A P PP Y P P istictures ranging from Manet to Liebermann, as well toa . Little did Liebermann know that his protest antici- p P g g PY work of otherainters exhibiting at the Sezession. A Van P ~ Gogh would have fitted into their collections - and much g 29 Lovis Corinth, Das Leben Walter Leistikows. Ein more readily than works of the German Expressionists or Y P Stuck Berliner Kulturgeschichte, Berlin 1910, p. 55: '[...] those of the more recent French avant-garde, in other g einen Hollander, von dem noch nie irgendeiner ein words paintings manifesting those tendencies that the g g Sterbenswortchen gehort hatte: Van Gogh. [...] Die Van gallery owner Herwarth Walden would later promote. romote 3° g Y P Go h'schen Balder verblufften ganz Berlin zuerst in solch- g In January 1 o Liebermann himself finally bought er Weise, dass uberall ironisches Gelachter and Y 97 Y g Achselzucken war Aber die Sezession brachte alljahrlich a work by Van Gogh - one of his final ones - for his own Y g immer wieder neue Werke von diesem Hollander, and rlvate collection fi . 8).31 31 The 'wheat wave' (Paul Celan p g heute wird Van Gogh zu den besten and teuersten undulating beyond the narrow unploughed hed ridge beneath a g Y P g g ezhlt.' Also quoted in Walter Feilchenfeldt (with Han g q dee blue sky is one of the most painterly studies ever to P Y P Y Veenenbos), Vincent van Goh and Paul Cassirer, Berlin: g have come from Van Gogh's hand. g the reception of Van Gogh in Germany from 1901 to 1914, Zwolle 1988,. 45, 47-48, 51. Cassirer had al- pP read exhibited 19 works by Van Gogh in the winter of Y 1901. For general information on the Sezession see Peter Paret, Die Berliner Secession: Moderne Kunst and ihre 102 ated the `fervent objections' of the Munich branch of the p objections Bildender Kunstler, which would likewise havereferred to see the money spent the works of im p Y - sp on r i .32 The painting was overished German a t sts purchased p g urchased all the same. When the Nazis began to purge Germany's g p g Y museums of their so-called 'degenerate art,' the painting p g was confiscatedo October i . In i o it was a ro ri 3 937 94 pp - p ated by Hermann Goring who transferred the sum of Y g, 150,000 Reichsmark to the Nationalgalerie for the painting, g p g its insurance value having been assessed in that same year g Y at 24, 000.33 The painting later came into the hands of a 4~~ p g private collector in New York before finally being acquired Y g uired q m by the Hiroshima Museum of Art.34 Y Van Gogh's reputation had been firmly established g p Y in Germany since the beginning of the century, thanks not Y g g Y least to the writings of Julius Meier-Graefe, Emil Heilbut, g Fritz von Ostini, Curt Glaser, Karl Scheffler and Wilhelm others.35 Nonetheless, in i Hausenstein, among931 Liebermann had little esteem not only for the curator fig. 9 Vincent van Gogh, Daubigny's garden (F 776 JH 2104), 1890, Hiroshima Museum of Art Ludwig Juste but alsoput strict limits on his admiration of g , p the artist: `Van Gogh was a genius whose demonic passion g g p far outstripped his ability, preventing him from pro pp Y~ p g - I ducin any work that was perfect in itself. It is precisely Y p p Y perfection, the perfect and hence exemplary work, which p ~ p P Y makes all the difference, both for theublic and for the P artist himself. Van Gogh's passionate striving cannot be es g p g - teemed too highly; but it is not what is striven for, but what is achieved, not what is intended, but what is accomplished > p that affords the art-seeking and art-loving viewer lasting g g enjoyment nt [...1.'36 Without a doubt, Liebermann and Van Gogh h re- mained strangers. Both of them knew about, and even took g an initial interest in each other's work, andet they went to Y Y reatpains to avoid each other thereafter. g P Feinde im Kaiserlichen Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin & Vienna 1983, pp. 119-36. 30 Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 29); see also Verena Tafel, 'Paul Cassirer als Vermittler deutscher impression- istischer Malerei in Berlin: Zum Stand der Forschung,' Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins fur Kunstwissenschaft 42 (1988), no. 3, pp 31-46. 31 Zurich, archives of Walter Feilchenfeldt, 'Geschftsbiucher Paul Cassirer, Buch I,' p. 78. See also Barbara Paul, 'Drei Sammlungen franzdsischer impres- sionistischer Kunst im kaiserlichen Berlin – Bernstein, Liebermann, Arnhold,' in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins fur Kunstwissenschaften 42 (1988), no. 3, pp. 17, 28; Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 29), p. 122, Claude Keisch, 'Liebermann, Kunstler and Kunstfreund. Die Sammlung,' in Max Liebermann – Jahrhundertwende, cit. (note 8), pp. 221-38, here p. 231. 32 Paul Ortwin Rave, Kunstdiktatur im Dritten Reich [1949], ed Uwe M. Schneede, Berlin 1987, p. 19. 33 Annegret Janda and Jorn Grabowski, Kunst in Deutschland, 1905-1937: Die verlorene Sammlung der Nationalgalerie im damaligen Kronprinzen-Palais. Dokumentation. Aus Anlass der Ausstellung Berlin, Alte Nationalgalerie, 1992, Berlin 1992, p. 107, no 113 34 Catalogue of the Hiroshima Museum of Art, Hiroshima (Hiroshima Museum of Art) 1978, no 23. 35 Carol M. Zemel, The formation of a legend Van Gogh criticism, 1890-1920, Ann Arbor 1980, pp. 105-31. 36 Max Liebermann, 'Juste and seine Sachverstndigen- Kommission,' in Kunst and Kunstler 33 (1931-32), pp. 65-71, quoted in Max Liebermann, Die Phantasie in der Malerei: Schriften and Reden, ed. Gunter Busch, Frankfurt am Main 1978,. 288. 'Van Gogh war een p Genie, dessen demon VAN GOGH MUSEUM Rotterdam - Cl ashaven fig. 1 Glashaven, where the Oldenzeel gallery was situated, 104 Rotterdam, Gemeentearchief 104 Rotterdam, Gemeentearchief VAN GOGH STUDIES In search of Van Gogh's Nuenen studio: the Oldenzeel exhibitions of 1903 Martha Op de Coul In 1903 three exhibitions of work by Vincent van Gogh 93 Y g from his Dutchears were organised by the Oldenzeel Y g Y alley in Rotterdam. In January, May and November of gallery Y Y that ear the public were able to view a collection ofpaint- Y P P ins and drawings that had never before been on public g g P display. These exhibitions caused quite a stir when it q emerged that even the Van Gogh family had not been g g Y aware of the existence of thisrou of works. Where had g P the collection come from? Why had no one in the family Y circle known anything about it? The exhibitions prompted Y g P P the Van Gogh family to launch an inquiry to establish the g Y q Y rightful owner of the pieces. The investigation concluded g P g that the works must have come from the studio that Van Gogh had left behind in Nuenen. g More than 20ears later Benno Stokvis published Y P his Nasporingen omtrent Vincent van Gogh in Brabant ,1 in s aspo mgen om g , which he endeavoured to clarify the history of Van Gogh's Y Y g Nuenen studio. His sources included interviews wither- P sons who had been directly involved. Two questions, how- - q ever, remainet unanswered: first, which works had been Y displayed at the Oldenzeel exhibitions; and, second, could these works actually be traced back to the Nuenen studio? Y J.-B. de la Faille1886-1 was the first Van Gogh 959 g specialist to consider these exhibitions in detail. P Illustrations in the journal Moderne Kunstwerken from 1 1903 allowed him to identify several works that had been 93 Y in the January show in his oeuvre catalogues of 1 28 and Y g 9 1939.2 New information gathered from further study was 939 g Y subsequently incorporated into his posthumously ub q Y P P Y - P lished catalogue, The works o Vincent van Gogh: hispaint- g ~ g p ins and drawings(1970). Still, to date no systematic g g- re Y search has been conducted regarding the works displayed g g at the exhibitions. Using the sources currently available, the present ar g Y - re P ticle will endeavour to reconstruct the Oldenzeel exhibitions and to establish the connection, if any, with Van Gogh's Y g Nuenen studio. Although this reconstruction is plainly in g P Y- complete in some respects, the interim results of the stud P P ~ study seem sufficiently important to warrant publication. Y P P art dealers i n Rotterdam3 Oldenzeel:a t dea e s ottem3 a In 1855 Christiaan Sander Johan Vlaanderen 55 Oldenzeel18 -18 6 4 entered into partnership with the 33 9 P P Rotterdam bookseller Hendrik van Gogh(1814-1877), one g of Vincent's uncles and owner of a shop on Steiger. Three P g years later Hendrik transferred full ownership of the busi Y P - ness to Oldenzeel. In 1874 the latter decided to switch from 74~ the book to the art trade. His business was based on Zuidblaak, first at number 16, later at number 84. In late 4 1888 Oldenzeel moved to handsomeremises at P 74 Leuvehaven.5 Here, in the spring and autumn of 18 2 he P g 9~ held two shows of Van g Go h's work, chosen from the col- lection administered by Jo van Goh-Boner 1862-1 2 Y Gogh-Bonger 95 on behalf of her minor son Vincent Willem (1890-1978). These exhibitions made Oldenzeel the first dealer in Rotterdam to introduce art lovers to works from Van Gogh's g Dutch and Frencheriods. P The firm remained at this address for more than ten years, until 18 , when Margareta Wilhelmina Oldenzeel Y 99 - g Schot37 18 -19 12 , who had assumed control of the busi- I received assistance from many individuals during the preparation of this article. I would particularly like to mention Annet Tellegen-Hoogendoorn, who for many VAN GOGH MUSEUM ness on the death of her husband in December 1896, was 9 forced to move out. She found newremises on the P Glashaven, which were refitted by the Rotterdam architect Y J.C.M i' ers (fig. 1 .6 In late February 1899 the gallery e y gg g J g o opened with an exhibition of paintings, drawings and P P g g ra graphic work by contemporary,mainl Dutch artists. The g P Y mainly press was enthusiastic about the new space. The P P Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad wrote on 27 February: 'Today Y Y Mrs Oldenzeel opened a new art gallery at the establish P g Y - ment redesigned for her at no. 20 Glashaven [...]. In her g new establishment Mrs Oldenzeel - s e s o dis of two, not ex dispose large galleries with good, even light. The rear Y g g g g alley is lit from above.' According to the reviewer in the gallery g Arnhemsche Courant ofMarch the work was displayed to 4 ~ good effect against sober green wallpaper. Albert g g g Plasschaert18 -1 1 who also visited the exhibition, 74~ 94 noticed the floor of thealleries which was of pine paint- g ~ - P P h light green.7 Although Mrs Oldenzeel regular- edab - bluish, g g g g 1 introduced visitors to the work of young artists (Charles Y Y g Gruppe, Willy Sluyter, Ferdinand Hart Nibbrig), she also PP ~ Y Y ~ g routinel displayed ictures by painters of the Hague Ypictures Yl g School. In o 1 the gallery had a conspicuously full 93 g Y P Y - ro P gramme, comprising no less than nine separate shows, ~ P g - P cludin the three of Van Gogh's works. g g In 1904 Oldenzeel held another Van Gogh show, 94~ g from 10 November to 15 December. Once again, previously g ~P Y unknownieces from the artist's Dutch period were on P P display,alon side unsold work from the 1 o shows. g 9 3 Among the pictures not for sale were some ten paintings g P P g from Van Gogh's French period, loaned by private collec g P Y - P tors. De la Faille was the first to identify the works at this Y exhibition. The results of his research wereublished in P his 197o catalogue of Van Gogh's oeuvre. For this reason 97 g g theresent article does not include a discussion of the P 1904 show.8 94~ Between 1892 and 1 06 the gallery held eight exhi 9 9 g Y - g bitions entirely dedicated to the work of Van Gogh. In May g Y 1907 Mrs Oldenzeel sold the business and moved to 97 Apeldoorn. Her successor, J.B. Harmeyer, did not organise P ~ Y g an further Van Gogh shows. Y g No archives of the Oldenzeel firma ear to have appea In order to reconstruct the 1903 exhibitions, 93 therefore, I was compelled to rely on reviews published in P Y P national and regional newspapers and j - journals of the eri gl P od which regularly supplied relevant information. The g Y PP works themselves could alsorovide evidence of an P `Oldenzeel' connection, asieces handled by the firm often P Y have the following characteristics: the canvas or paper has g PP been attached toanel or card (Oldenzeel took this mea- P sure in order to conserve works that had suffered the ef- rm t ra e .9 a thin red strip of a is af- fects of long-term s o p paper p p g g f the works;10 and there is an Oldenzeel fixed to the edges o works, 1° on the back (fig. .11 label o e 2 g The studio in Nuenen The history of Van Gogh's `abandoned studio' is no Y g loner entirely unknown. In 1904/05Jo Cohen Gosschalk longer Y - Bon er12 instructed lawyers to conduct an investigation in g wY - g to the affair. 1926 saw the publication of the Stokvis book, 9 P containin recollections by the relevant individuals. containing Y However, information con JOURNAL 2002 fig. 2 Oldenzeel label (8.5 x 6.2 cm) on the back of F 14 JH 1193 tention was to spend several months in Antwerp and then A P to return to Nuenen, things turned out differently: in g Y Februar 1886 the artist moved to Paris instead of return- February in to Brabant. g Before leaving for Antwerp Van Gogh had lived and g A g worked in the house of sexton Johannes Leonardus Schafrat18 -1 2 and his wife Adriana Schafrat-van 4~7 9 4~ As Adriana Schafrat informed Stokvis, Eerel(1853-1930).14 Van Goh had intended to stay away for just a few weeks, Gogh Y Y jus explained why he left everything behind, including Y Y g ~ g his stock of work and household effects. 15 In March 1886 Vincent's mother, Anna Cornelia Carbentus181 -1 o and his sister Willemina (Wil) 9 97~ Jacoba1862-1 1 moved to Breda. The work from Van 94 Gogh's studio was packed into crates and deposited with a g P P Breda carpenter called Schrauwen. This must have been P Adrianus Schrauwen18 -1 20 , who lived at 87 34~ 9 n traat.16 When Anna Cornelia and Wil then Glnneke s moved to Leiden in November 1889, crates were left be 9 - r tten.17 In late June 1888 Van Gogh had hind and soon fo o g g actually written to his sister from Arles asking her if she y ~ g could salvage something of his `rommel' `junk' which, g g 'accordingo Theo, was still somewhere in an attic in g Breda'6 /W . It is not known if Wil responded to this re 33 4 - P uest for Van Gogh does not mention the matter again in quest, g g his subsequent letters. q When afterears in obscurity, began to Y Y~ g exhibit the unknown collection of work in 1903,Jo took im- mediate action. She asserted that theieces belonged to A g her son Vincent, as he was the sole heir of her deceased first husband, Theo van Gogh. She questioned Vincent's g q mother about the matter, but the old lady could no longer Y g r cisel .18 The first person who remember the events e y p P could shed any light on the matter was Cornelia `Kee' Y g Adriana Vos-Stricker18 6-1 18 one of Vincent and 4 9 Theo's cousins. In early June 1 o she wrote to Jo that her Y 93 mother, Willemina Catharina Gerardina Stricker- Carbentus94 1816-1 o , Van Gogh's mother's sister, re- membered the crates having been deposited with a car pen- - en A P to r19 Although Schrauwen was then eventually traced, Jo g Y regarded the information he provided as suspect. It was at g P p thisoint that she instructed J.M. Jolles, a lawyer with P ~ Y ractices in Amsterdam and Bussum, to investigate the P ~ g matter further. Jolles in turn requested the assistance of a q Breda-based colleague, F.E. Pels Rycken.2° 20 g ~ Y Corres Correspondence between the lawyers reveals that P wY Schrauwen had madeuestionable statements regarding q g g the number and nature of the items that had been P de osit- 11 In several instances I also encountered small, se g rrat- ed-eel ed labels marked with a number. These proved to be catalogue numbers for the November exhibition. g 12 Jo van Gogh-Bonger had remarried in 1901. Her sec- ond husband was Johan Cohen Gosschalk (1873-1912). 13 See Ton de Brouwer, Van Gogh en Nuenen, Venlo 1984, p. 96. 14 Ton de Brouwer informed me of these dates of birth and death 15 Stokvis, op. at (note 1), pp. 28-29. 16 pg Bio ra hical data on Schrauwen, whom Stokvis in- correct) called Schrauer, was gleaned from the registers Y of births, marriages and deaths, and the directories of the g Breda and Zevenbergen local authorities. Use of these g sources will not be cited any further in what follows 17 J. van Gogh-Bonger, 'Inleiding (December 1913)' in De brieven van Vincent van Gogh, ed. Han van Crimpen and G Moni ue Berends-Albert, 4 vols., The Hague 1990, vol. 1,. 23. According to Stokvis, however, op cit. p (note VAN GOGH MUSEUM ed with him. He spoke of a `mess of ironwork,paper, etc., A A > C. MOUWEN & ZOON, includingpossibly several drawings,' which he had sold in gA Y 1902 to a man he called Goeverneur (= Couvreur .21 9 However, itroved impossible to obtain a clear picture of A P P BREDA. BREDA. these transactions, as Schrauwen's memory often failed Y him. Pels Rycken and Schrauwen eventually agreed that Y Y g Lange Brugstraat 22. the latter woulda the Van Gogh family what he had re - PY g Y Hofleveranciers van Nederland en België. g ceived for the sale of the works. Schrauwen claimed this entailed only eight aintin s sold for a total of 128 Y g P g~ In Gala-, Militaire- en HeereDkleediosIukken1 guilders, as he had allowed Johannis Cornelis Couvreur to UITRUSTINGEN remove the items in the attic for nothing. However, when g the moment arrived toa u Schrauwen's son, Adrianus voor Oost-. en West-Indië. AY A> > 22 Wilhelmus18 1-1 declared that at least for the time 7 943 being he was in no position to honour his commitment.23 In g P fig. 3 earl June 1 o Jolles informed Johan Cohen Gosschalk Y 95 Advertisement for C. Mouwen & Zoon in the directory of that Schrauwen Jr would receive regular reminders to pay PY 1900 (p. 214), Breda, Stadsarchief the agreed sum. Reading between the lines, however, it is g g > evident that he was far from confident that the latter would Petrus Bremmer18 1-i 6 was probably responsible for 7 95 P Y P meet his obligations.24 makin the contact, as can be inferred from a note b g When the lawyer made inquiries of the following q Bremmer's wife: `In 1903 a resident of Breda came to B. to g 93 owner, J.C. Couvreur, he was informed that - according to ask his advice as to how he could sell off a large collection g g Couvreur's own records - the furniture dealer hadur- ofaintin s by Van Gogh, which he had bought for a trifle P A g Y g~ g chased more than0 works, including watercolours, for one when, many years ago, these had been peddled around that 4~ ~ g YY g A guilder apiece, on 14 August 1 02. Years later, however, P 25 g cit , and which he had then put in his attic. B. advised him ~ 4~ 9 > Y A Couvreur told Stokvis a very different story: he claimed that, to exhibit them for sale at the Oldenzeelalley in Y Y g Y to ether with his brother, Johannes Marinus, he had ac - Rotterdam. That exhibitionave B. a further opportunity to g > g PP Y wired 6o stretched paintings, 1 50 loose canvases, 8o pen point out Van Gogh's art to his pupils.'28 It thus came g us ca e about q A g~ ,> P PP drawin s and loo to 200 crayon drawings.26 These works that Oldenzeel was the first art dealer to display these re- g Y g P Y P then came into theossession of a certain Kees Mouwen viousl unknown works. A Y gala - In 1904 Mouwen put a portion of the unsold work u up g Y 94 P P form shop at 22 Lange Brugstraat in Breda (fig. 3). for auction at Frederik Muller in Amsterdam. The sale, P g g g3 Mouwen wished to dispose of his collection of Van which tooklace on May, proved a great disappointment A P 3 Y A g PP Go hs. Since there were no sales opportunities in Breda, he for him: of the1 works included only i i were s sold; the to - g PP o Y turned to Oldenzeel in Rotterdam. The art critic Hendrikus tal netrofit was a mere o guilders.29 The lawyer Jolles 4~5g e Jo es Y 21 Although Schrauwen had never been the lawful 24 Ibid., J.M. Jolles to Johan Cohen Gosschalk, 6 June owner of the works, he had acted as such when he began 1905, b 1559 V/1962. to sell them. 'Goeverneur' must be a distortion of Couvreur. The brothers Johannis Cornelis (1876-1961) 25 Ibid., J.M. Jolles to F.E. Pels Rycken, 1 September and Johannes Marinus (1882-1961) Couvreur were deal- 1904, b 1560 V/1962. ers in old furniture in Breda; see Stokvis, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 4-8. 26 Stokvis, op. cit. (note 1), p. 7. 22 As well as a carpenter, Schrauwen Jr was also a pur- 27 According to the death certificate, Cornelis veyor of spirits, with premises at 24 St Janstraat, Breda. Hendrikus Wilhelmus Mouwen was found dead in He had taken over the company from his father in 1905. Ophoven on 10 January 1914 (Kinrooi, Belgium, Gemeentearchief). However, an obituary notice drawn 23 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh up by his daughter gives the date of death as 28 108 Foundation, F.E Pels Rycken to J.M. Jolles, 14 April November 1913 (The Hague, Centraal Bureau voor 1905, b 1560 V/1962 Genealogie [CBG]). JOURNAL 2002 commented on the sale: `He had to withdraw everything, apart from 1 1 pieces. Net proceeds o guilders. p P p 4~5 g Ever thin belonged to Kees Mouwen, Willem gets per- Everything g centa es!'30 g This text reveals that Mouwen was not acting on his g own; in fact, he was working hand in glove with the career own; g g r Willem van Bakel 1866-? 31 who had settled in soldier e a , Breda in 1902 after serving in the Dutch East Indies from 9 g 1896-1901. Van Bakel had been given a post at the g p Koninklijke Militaire AcademieRo al Military Academy) Y Y for the training of cadets; on 2 March 1 o he received an g ~ 94 honourable discharge at his own request. A month later he g q left again for the Dutch East Indies, after which point he g ~ p disa eared from sight. He may have returned to the disappeared g Y leave in 1919.32 Netherlands on ea e In allrobabilit Van Bakel and Mouwen knew p Y, each other through their families. From the age of two, g g Willem van Bakel had resided in the house of his uncle Petrus Wilhelmus Egers(1822-1896),a Utrecht broker, and g his aunt Engelina van der Putten(1822-1879),a sister of g his mother, Johanna van der Putten18 -1 0 . Following 9 9 g Engelina's death in 18 Egers remarried a year later. His g 79~ g Y new wife was Louise de Penasse18 0-1 11 an aunt of 4~ 9 Kees Mouwen's wife, Johanna Ots18 -1 0 . 77 9 5 It is difficult to determinerecisel in what way Y Y Van Bakel and Mouwen collaborated. Jolles's letter of 6 June 1905, quoted above mentions ` ercenta es' of the 9 5~q , p g auctionroceeds going to Van Bakel, which appears to p g g Pp su suggest a role as an intermediary. However, other sources gg Y ex explicitly describe Van Bakel as owner, at least of some p Y works.33 Van Bakel himself acted as such in a letter to a certain H.D. Pierson of Scheveningen, dated 13 January 3 Y 1904,in which he talked of `m Van Gogh collection.'34 If 'my g we assume that Van Bakel was indeed an owner – in my opinion the most likely supposition - the question re p Y pP - ue q mains of whether there was a single collection owned b g by two individuals or two collections with differentrove- P nances. The latterossibilit is also suggested in a letter P Y gg written by Louisa Daeter-Egers(1884-1971),dau hter of Y g daughte Bakel's uncle Petrus Wilhelmus Egers and his second g wife Louise de Penasse. In 1953, o years after the 953 5 Y event she set down the following story concerning the g Y g Van Bakel works.35 She claimed that provenance of the Va her father had owned a crate containing at least 8o Van g Gogh works; in the days following his death (Oirschot, 1 g works; Y g May 1896),she alleged his foster son took ossession of Y g , p the crate, which he then had taken to Breda. Here Daeter's story ends. In 1 o Jolles had heard a similar tale Y 95 from Louise Egers-De Penasse, although he man g ~ - never g a aged to clarify the true facts of the case. Remarkably, he g Y Y. makes no mention of an unlawful appropriation of works b36 Bake1.36 Assuming there is a foundation of truth to Y g the storyome of the works exhibited for sale at the Y, Oldenzeelalley may not have come from Schrauwen g Y Y and Couvreur, and thus not have originated in Van Gogh's g abandoned studio. Daeter's story implies that some 8o works by Van Y p Y Gogh had come into Eger's hands before 1 May 18 6, the g g Y 9 date of his death. The existence of such a substantial col- lection of unknown Dutch works, alongside the contents of g the Nuenen studio and theieces owned by the Van Gogh P Y g famil is extremely problematic. Doubts are reinforced b Y~ Yp by the total lack of evidence as to how theseictures came in- p to theossession of the Utrecht broker i VAN GOGH MUSEUM The Oldenzeel exhibition of January-February 1903 Y Y On Saturday, January 1 o(fig. an exhibition of y~3 y 934~ hitherto unknown work by Vincent van Gogh was opened Y g P in the rearalley of Oldenzeel's premises (Nieuwe g y P Rotterdamsche Courant, January). Many of the pieces ~3 y y P the property f Willem van Bakel.38 were apparently t ~ p •pc y• According to the reviewer D.B. (= Julius de Boer), writing g in the Kroniek of i January, around works dis 7 - o y 4~ were on On 20 January the Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad reportedplay.y orted P that the exhibition comprised 45 pieces. Although lack of P 4~~~ P g an exhibition list or - deter to impossible o catalogue makes it im g P mine therecise number of works in the show, there must P have been aroundo in total. 5 From io a.m. to.m. every day for more than a 4~P Y Y month, visitors could viewaintin s and drawings from P g g Van Gogh's Dutch period, ranging from still lifes and interi- g P ~ g g ors with weavers toortrait heads and landscapes. In the P P Kroniek ofFebruar the critic Albert Plasschaert noted 7 February that there were many 'surprises,' meaning that no one Y P g should think they already knew Van Gogh's work. y y g Plasschaert saw a correspondence between Van Gogh and P g Millet for both artists werereatl interested in depicting g y P g the working man or woman, and the toiling labourer. But g ~ g there were also differences: Millet's work emanated a 'clas- sic calm' while Van g Go h's manifested `drama' and 'turbu- lence.' R. Jacobsen's review in the journal Onze Kunst dis- cussed various works at length. Jacobsen also considered g Van qg Go h's technique, which, he wrote, varied `from ad- mirable skill to childlike ineptitude.' He illustrated his P o opinions by comparing `Stilleve n van kool en klompen' P y P g P Still life with cabbage and clogs, F 1 JH 81 and g g `Visscherskarikaturen'Caricatures of fishermen, FJH 188 5 and F 6 JH 189). At the end of his review, however, 9 Jacobsen tempered his criticism somewhat, declaring that P ~ g although a work might seem clumsy, was a deliberate g g Y~ choice on Van Gogh's part, with the artist endeavouring to g P ~ g render the characteristic P as ect of an action, which some- timesroduced a caricature-style effect. 39 P y Around 20 Januaryhen the exhibition had been Y, open for more than two weeks, the collection was re-hung, ~ g, resulting in an adjustment to the numbering in in g adjustment g - some 25January),40 stances (Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 5 kunstzalen OLDEIIZEEL Glashaven 20, Rotterdam. TI:NTOONSTLLLI\ G So1:i!dFjUll Ull Teklliagll V!CENT V'N GOG Gedurende Januari dagelijks te be- zieLtizen van 10-4 uur. (598) fig. 4 Announcement of the Van Gogh exhibition at the Oldenzeel gallery, Het Vaderland, 11/12 January 1903, The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek In several discussions of the exhibition reviewers mentioned therices Oldenzeel was asking for the works. P g 'Thera es are sour for gentlemen art buffs! Now they P g Y haveraduall started to realise that purchasing a work b g Y P g by Vincent van Gogh would not be such a poor investment, the g P owners are asking prices prices!' (Nieuwe Rotterdamsche gP ~P Courant, 1 1 January). Although no sums were actually iv- Y g Yg en an indication of therices can be found in a recentpub- cat P P li ion on the Gerlach Ribbius Peletier collection.41 In 1903 and 1 o Ribbius Peletier bought seven paintings at 93 94~ g P g the Oldenzeelalley from Van Gogh's Hague and Nuenen g Y g g eriods. Theprices the collector noted in his account book P JOURNAL 2002 Reconstruction of the exhibition held from moting the show.47 Wolf even claimed that the exhibition g 3 January to 5 February 1903 See pp 113-14. might be the event of the year, declaring that the time had g Y g come for Van Gogh's art to sell, and also for interest to be g The exhibition held in May 1903 shown from abroad. The critic'sredictions proved correct, Y P P In May 1 o Oldenzeel organised another, smaller, asictures were sold from the very outset. He described the Y 9 3 g P Y resentation of Van Gogh works in the front gallery of her new owner of a still life with `blueorcelain pot' (probably F P g g Y P P P Y remises. single Alongside the nine paintings and a sin2 JH 535) as a 'happy' man. In his final review, Wolf was P g P g g 5 PPY drawin she also exhibited works by other artists, such as able to report that the exhibition was continuing successful- Y P g Paul Gabriel, Willem Roelofs, Theo van Hoytema and 1 ; many art lovers having seized the opportunity to view Y Y Y g PP Y Willem Tholen. Van Gogh's work in Rotterdam. The Nieuwe Rotterdamsche g R.J. Jacobsen devoted several columns in Onze Courant reviewer also offered his opinion of the show in P Kunst to the exhibition, whose works were drawn, for the three articles (8, 15 and 22 November), declaring that the 5 g second time thatear, from Oldenzeel's `secret visitor could now see the rest of the t `m sterious' Breda col- Y storeroom.'45 Jacobsen wasarticularl struck by the land - lection, for which the twoalleries were actually too small. P Y Y g Y sca es, which he described as 'specimens of sensitive 1 ri - It would be interesting to know how Oldenzeel P P Y g cal landscape art.' The reviewer in the Nieuwe arranged the works in the two rooms. Were they hung Y ac P g - Rotterdamsche Courant of1 May was also full of praise for cordingo theme, period or size? Unfortunately, we do not 3 Y P g P Y the works on display. know. The only person to touch upon this subject was the YP P Although no list of the works presented has been for the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (22 November), g P reserved these reviews have made it possible to identify ~ who mentions threeaintin s of considerable size: P Y P g most of the works. `Watermill' no.8 F 125 JH 525), 55~ P 5, F1 JH 513) and 'Shepherd ` (no. F 42 JH 1 P 5 7~ g Reconstruction of the exhibition held in together. He felt the 'Shepherd' was painted very woodenly P P Y Y May 1903 See p. 114 in comparison with the other two works. P Theaintin s were displayed in black frames P g The exhibition held in November- December 1903 (Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, 16 November). Oneaintin P g In late 19o3 Oldenzeel held the third, and largest, still fitted with its exhibition frame is Avenue of poplars in 93 g exhibition of work from Van Gogh's Dutch period. From 1 Nuenen FJH 959), which was purchased in 1 o for the g P 4~5 959 P 9 3 November visitors could view around a looieces; the permanent collection of the Museum Bo mans in P P drawings were displayed in the front gallery, while the rear It is remarkable, but in fact this simple frame gg Y P was reserved for theaintin s. Having been prolonged, the shows the work to its best advantage, allowing viewers to P g g P g g g exhibition finally closed on 1 December.46 focus all their attention on theaintin itself. Y 3 P g The exhibition received a great deal of attention in Wolf's enthusiasm for Van Gogh's work was shared the nationalress. Articles in the Wereldkroniek by N.H. by Albert Plasschaert, although the latter was also irritated P Y Y g major ro - that interest in the artist only now seemed to be developing 7 4~ P Y P Y P g in Utrecht: the collection of Gerlach Ribbius Peletier Bonger, before 1 April 1903, b 1557 V/1962 Bremmer held during the second half of May (see Nieuwe (1856-1930),' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1997-98), also mentions that two paintings at the exhibition came Rotterdamsche Courant, 31 May 1903). pp. 26-41 from 'Versteeg' (i.e. Tersteeg). According to De la Faille, Tersteeg owned F 910a (since 1882) and F 397 (French 45 See Onze Kunst (1903), II, p 60 42 Oldenzeel had originally set the price at 5,000 period), but this begs the question of whether Bremmer's guilders, but Ribbius Peletier thought this was out of line assertion was correct. For the exhibition's closing date 46 Announced in Algemeen Handelsblad, 28 November. with those asked for the other works, see Van Tilborgh see Van Tilborgh and Vellekoop, op. cit. (note 41), p 30, and Vellekoop, op cit (note 41), p. 31 note 22. 47 The same series of articles was published in the Zondagsblad v/h. Dagblad v. Zuid-Holland en 's 43 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh 44 The exhibition's opening and closing dates could not Gravenhage on 8, 15 and 22 November. Foundation, H.P Bremmer to Jo Cohen Gosschalk- be ascertained. However, it is likely that the show was VAN GOGH MUSEUM w J ~ .. / ~~-4-~~... u14—.1)t, • 49 r-) -Lt.../ : K4~.t...-..i.y,.+r~~s-.x--•a-1..-..r // -frl.-~,~»'r~i!f - ~~ / / ~'f• .~PY441 .~ .~.....~_.,cr.~....r-2~ ~ ~ "4,1 ~ ~t-L~.r---,~t,.K, •~--~~--~-~.~t...<,~L~.-. /1- _. a .-..~~~ ~~--x•" /~3--+~1 ~. et': zis (I - r ~~-2 a :~~ r ~ ~ ~C ~a,G t rf .. so : ~~/r . ~r2 53~~ 6:40 °r 1/~/, f .,7-~1j '•~ t ; -zL.d»--,..-~_=/~.+-'9~ -,+Z;~ .,,t{f-/ .-d. ww+t(.tp~^ ~~i{,{~RtiPlttr/ -!/~P{,~i.~. :ll y/'l .7[ lt,-wwT x. ~F7Z.w~ F /KC ~I/v- _L-• /~ f;.1~. Kroniek November). He felt this was merely an `affected' figs. 5a, b and c ~7 Y List of works exhibited at the Oldenzeel gallery in enthusiasm, stirred up by `a teacher' who was leading the P Y g November 1903, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum herds as people did not truly appreciate Van Gogh's h' art.48 P P Y ~P g Plasschaert employed terms such as `rand' and 'extraordi- 'grand real' to characterise the collection, claiming that few Y ~ g artists could evoke such feelings throw h their art.49 also bears annotations by Plasschaert, who made notes to g g Y Alongside discussions in newspapers and eriodi a - several catalogue numbers and a sketch near one entry g PP P g cals an extremely important document, published here for durin a visit to the exhibition. These aides memoire have Y P ~A the first time, provided a source for reconstructing the ex - proved extremely valuable, making it possible in more than ~P g P Y ~ g P hibition: Oldenzeel's own record of the works on display, one instance to identify works with a reasonable degree of g Y whichives their title and supplies them with a number. certaint . g PP Y The Van Gogh Museum acquired this 'catalogue' from the g q g and of Albert Plasschaert (figs. a, b a d c.50 The list Reconstruction of the exhibition held from 1 ~ 5 records 64paintings and 6 drawings and watercolours. It November to 13 December 1903 See pp. 114-18. 4~36 g 48 The reference is to the influential H.P. Bremmer, whoave courses in art history. See Hildelies Balk, 'De g freule, derofessor, de koopman en zijn vrouw: het pub- p P leek van H P Bremmer,' Jong Holland 9 (1993), no. 2, pp. 4-24 49 See Onze Kunst (1903), II, pp.173-75 50 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh 112 Foundation, b 3035 V/1983. JOURNAL 2002 Reconstruction of No. 6 Op de Coul 62 (with reproduction) Sources AH 5 January, Kr Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources NRC 25 January Comments In AH as no. 17 January, p. 20 and 7 the exhibition held OpdeCoul? Comments In NRC as no 12 34; in OK as no. 18 February, p. 46, RN 20 No. 31 from 3 January to 5 Y Sources NRC 25 January No. 12[b] January; NRC 25 January; Faille 1928/1970 - / 1087 February 1903* Y Comments Painting enti- Faille 1928/1970 - / 943 No. 18, 17 MK, no. 4, item 32 (with Op de Coul 1087 tled Head: 'weight of dark Op de Coul 943 Faille 1928/1970 - / 4 reproduction) Sources RN 20 January No. 1 colours' Sources AH 5 January, Kr Op de Coul 2 Comments In AH as no. 35 Comments - Faille 1928/1970 / - 7 February, p 46; OK, I, Sources NRC 11 January; Op de Coul - No. 7 pp. 115-16 RN 20 January; OK, I, p. No. 25 No. 32 Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Comments In AH as no 12 116; MK, no. 4, item 30 Faille 1928/1970 - Faille 1928/1970 - Comments - Op de Coul - (with reproduction) Op de Coul - Op de Coul - Sources - No. 13 Comments In OK as no 17 Sources - Sources - No. 2, 37 Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 19 Comments - Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 48a Op de Coul 96 No. 19 Op de Coul 48a No. 8 Sources OK, I, p. 115 Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 26 No. 33 Sources51 AH 5 January; Faille 1928/1970 - / 58 Comments Identification Op de Coul 7 Faille 1928/1970 184 / Faille 1928/1970 - / - NRC 11 January; OK, I, Op de Coul 58 according to Van Tilborgh Sources NRC 25 January 184 Op de Coul ? p. 115 Sources OK, I, p. 116 and Vellekoop, op. cit. Comments Painting enti- Op de Coul 184 Sources AH 5 January Comments In AH as no. 37 Comments - (note 10), p 52, note 11. tled Head 'eyes protrud- Sources NRC 11 January, Comments Painting enti- Incorrect identification in ing from the face like RN 20 January; OK, I, p tled Head of a woman No. 3, 38 No. 9 De la Faille 1970 nails' 115; MK, no 4, item 28 'delicious green of the cap' Faille 1928/1970 39 / 39 Faille 1928/1970 197 / (with reproduction) Op de Coul 39 197 No. 14 No. 20 Comments - No. 34, 17, 18 Sources AH 5 January; Op de Coul 197 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - Faille 1928/1970 - / - NRC 11 January; Kr 17 Sources NRC 11 January Op de Coul - Op de Coul - No. 27 Op de Coul 4 January, p. 20 and 7 and 25 January; Va 16 Sources - Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - Sources AH 5 January February, p. 46; RN 20 January; RN 20 January, Comments - Comments - Op de Coul - Comments See nos. 17 January, OK, I, p. 115; Kr 7 February, p 46; MK, Sources - and 18 MK, no. 4, item 26 (with no. 4, item 29 (with repro- No. 15 No. 21 Comments - reproduction) duction) Faille 1928/1970 - Faille 1928/1970 - No. 35, 24 Comments In AH as no. 38 Comments - Op de Coul - Op de Coul - No. 28, 11 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources - Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul 37 No. 4 No. 10 Comments - Comments - Op de Coul 1 Sources AH 5 January Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - Sources AH 5 January Comments See no 24 Op de Coul 144 Op de Coul - No. 16 No. 22 Comments See no. 11 Sources NRC 25 January Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - Faille 1928/1970 - No. 36 Comments See Van Comments - Op de Coul - Op de Coul - No. 29 Faille 1928/1970 - Tilborgh and Vellekoop, Sources - Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul - op. cit. (note 41), p. 36 No. 11, 28 Comments - Comments - Op de Coul ? Sources - Faille 1928/1970 1 / 1 Sources AH 5 January Comments - No. 5 Op de Coul 1 No. 17, 18, 34 No. 23 Comments Painting: 'head Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources AH 5 January; Faille 1928/1970 4 / 2 Faille 1928/1970 - of a woman' No. 37, 2 Op de Coul ? NRC 11 January; OK, I, p. Op de Coul 4 Op de Coul - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources NRC 25 January 115; MK, no. 4, item 27 Sources AH 5 January; Sources - No. 30 Op de Coul 48a Comments Painting enti- (with reproduction) NRC 11 January and 25 Comments - Faille 1928/1970 98 / 98 Sources AH 5 January tled Head: 'weight of dark Comments In AH as no. 28 January; Kr 17 January, p. Op de Coul 98 Comments See no. 2 colours' 19 and 7 February, p. 46; No. 24, 35 Sources OK, I, p. 115; No. 12[a] RN 20 January; OK, I, p. Faille 1928/1970 37 / 37 MK, no. 4, item 25 (with No. 38, 3 Faille 1928/1970 - / 62 116; MK, no. 4, item 31 Op de Coul 37 reproduction) Faille 1928/1970 - / - Journals and newspapers consulted: Algemeen De Gids; Haagsche Courant; De Kroniek (Kr); Rotterdamsche Courant; De Telegraaf, Handelsblad (AH); Boon's geïllustreerd magazijn; De Maasbode; Moderne Kunstwerken (MK); Tijdschrift voor Kunst & Letteren; Het Vaderland (Va); De Controleur; Dagblad van Zuid-Holland en De Nederlandsche Spectator; De nieuwe Gids; Nieuwe Weekblad de Amsterdammer; Wereldkroniek (Wk) 's Gravenhage (DZ-H); Dietsche Warande; Rotterdamsche Courant (NRC); Nieuws van den Dag; Eigen Haard; Elsevier's geïllustreerd Maandschrift; Onze Kunst (OK); Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad (RN); 51 All sources date from 1903. VAN GOGH MUSEUM Op de Coul 39 No. - Op de Coul 200 Reconstruction of As yet unidentified Reconstruction of Sources AH 5 January Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources Kr 17 January, the exhibition held works the exhibition held Comments See no. 3 Op de Coul 64 p. 20 in May 190352 from 1 November to Sources NRC 11 January Comments Painting: 'flow- Sources NRC 31 May No. 39 Comments Painting: 'ink ers and leaves in a jug' Faille 1970 - Comments A couple of 13 December 1903 Faille 1928/1970 - bottle, a darning shell, and Op de Coul 8a painted sketches: Op de Coul - more of the like' No. - Sources53 NRC 31 May 'Salpétrière head of a Paintings Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Comments Painting: 'a woman' Comments - No. - Op de Coul 852 woodland view' No. 1 Faille 1928/1970 - / Sources MK, no. 12, item Sources OK, II, p. 60 Title Peasant woman No. 40 Op de Coul 93 94 (with reproduction) Faille 1970 40 Comments Paintings: 'a • (interior at eventide) Faille 1928/1970 - / 1002 Sources Kr 17 January, Comments De la Faille Op de Coul 40 couple of masterly done Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul 1002 p. 20 1928 and 1970 mention Sources NRC 31 May; OK, peasant women, heads Op de Coul ? Sources RN 20 January; Comments Painting: no month of exhibition. II, p. 60 grandiose in Plasschaert blue-green OK, I, p. 115; MK, no. 8, 'Evening, a farmyard at The month (January) is Comments - [their] ugliness' interior item 59 (with reproduc- sunset' found in the table of con- Sources54 - tion) tents in MK 1903, not Faille 1970 55 Comments - Comments - No. - in no. 12 Op de Coul 55 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources OK, II, p. 60 No. 2 No. 41 Op de Coul 110 (?) No. - Comments - Title Peasant woman from Faille 1928/1970 - / 5 Sources NRC 11 and 25 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Nuenen Op de Coul 5 January Op de Coul 1299 (?) Faille 1970 - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources AH 5 January; OK, Comments Painting. 'Bird's Sources NRC 11 January Op de Coul 72 or 73 Op de Coul ? I, p. 115 nests against a dark back- Comments Drawing: 'two Sources NRC 31 May; OK, Plasschaert - Comments - ground' (NRC 11 January) people digging' II, p. 60 Sources NRC 22 November Comments Painting: 'a Comments 'The vivacity in 2' No. 42 No. - As yet unidentified woman, in her house, sitting Faille 1928/1970 - / 6 Faille 1928/1970146 / works as if congealed against the No. 3 Op de Coul 6 146 light from outside' (NRC); Title Peasant woman (half- Sources AH 5 January; OK, Op de Coul ? Sources Kr 17 January, an 'admirable interior in length) I, p. 115 Sources - p. 20 terms of technique' (OK) Faille 1928/1970 - / - Comments - Comments In De Ia Faille Comments Painting: Op de Coul pb 127 or 1928 an incorrect refer- 'Brabant woman' Faille 1970 - 144a No. 43 ence to MK, no. 4, item 30 Op de Coul pb 187 Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources RN 20 January Sources NRC 31 May Sources - Op de Coul ? No. - Comments Drawing/wa- Comments Painting. 'an Comments Based on Sources RN 20 January Faille 1928/1970 - / 188 tercolour (probably): agricultural labourer's provenance F 127 (JH 651) Comments Painting enti- Op de Coul? 'Views of the Schenkweg' house in green' and F 144a (JH 704) are tled Weaver: 'unfortunate Sources - and 'Houses near the most likely candidates. little man bent crooked by Comments The attribution the Schenkweg' Faille 1970 - See also no. 11 work' in De la Faille 1970, based Op de Coul pb 196 on OK, I, p. 115, is incorrectSources Kr 7 February Sources NRC 31 May No. 4 No. 44 Comments Painting: 'Shoes' Comments Painting: 'an Title Willow tree Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. - avenue with [a] gale in the Faille 1928/1970195/10 Op de Coul ? Faille 1928/1970 - / 190 Sources OK, I, pp. 114-16 trees' and 195 Sources NRC 11 January Op de Coul 190 Comments Painting: Op de Coul 195 Comments Painting enti- Sources OK, I, p. 115 'Westland peasant cottage' Faille 1970 204 Plasschaert French, sky tled Head of a woman: Comments - Painting: 'Brabant women' Op de Coul 204 sultry, heavy in painting 'those staring eyes, the en- Painting: 'Weavers at their Sources NRC 31 May; OK, Sources NRC 22 November tire tragic-coarse composi- No. - loom' II, p. 60 Comments Own observa- tion of that head' Faille 1928/1970 - / - Painting: 'Peasant woman' Comments - tion: on the back is an 52 This exhibition is not mentioned in De la Faille 1928. Nor are any work numbers known. 114 53 All sources date from 1903. JOURNAL 2002 Oldenzeel label and a ref- bottle, small brown pot, No. 14 Comments Together with erence to the November canvas on canvas Title Small head of a nos. 39 and 58 this is one exhibition De la Faille Sources Kr 14 November, woman of the works that definitely 1970 incorrectly lists this p. 363; RN 16 November; Faille 1928/1970 - / 133 belonged to W. van work as F 10 and does not NRC 22 November; OK, and 153a B e155 mention a catalogue num- II, p. 174 Op de Coul 133 ber for F 195 Comments - Plasschaert light green- No. 18 blue ground Title Landscape with peas- No. 5 No. 10 Sources NRC 22 November ant dwelling Title Peasant digging Title Rocky landscape Comments Based on the Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - NRC description F 133 (JH Op de Coul 187 Op de Coul 166 Op de Coul pb 2a 584) is the most likely Plasschaert - Plasschaert - Plasschaert ? candidate. F 153a (JH 586) Sources AH 7 November; Sources - Sources - is probably no. 24 RN 16 November; NRC Comments Identification Comments Perhaps mis- 22 November; Kr 19 based on subject and leading description in the No. 15 December, p. 404 provenance Oldenzeel list Title Women on the land Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / 97 Sources - No. 6 No. 11 Op de Coul 97 Comments 'Landscape fig. 6 Title Peasant dwelling (in- Title Peasant woman (half- Plasschaert potatoes with peasant dwelling in Labels on the back of F 97 JH 876, Otterlo, terior) length) Sources Wk 14 November, twilight of gold and Krbller-Muller Museum Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - p 514 and 21 November, brown. Evening-darkened Op de Coul 78 (?) Op de Coul pb 127 or p. 533 (ill.); DZ-H 15 cloud above roof ridge and No. 22 November; OK, II, p.174 Plasschaert - 144a November and 22 chimney' (Kr) Title Head of a woman Comments - Sources - Plasschaert - November (ill.); NRC 22 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Comments - Sources - November No. 19 Op de Coul 134 No. 24 Comments See comments Comments Own observa- Title Small head of a Plasschaert red cap, green Title Peasant woman No. 7 on no. 3 tion in the photo archives woman ground Faille 1928/1970 - / - Title Still life of the Krbller-Muller Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources - Op de Coul pb 153a Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 12 Museum; on the back is an Op de Coul ? Comments Identification Plasschaert en profil [in Op de Coul 54 Title Weaver Oldenzeel label and a small Plasschaert - based on colour reproduc- profile] to the left Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / 29 or label marked Sources - tion in Paolo Lecaldano, Sources - Sources Wk 14 November, 162 no. 15 (fig. 6) Comments - L'opera pittorica completa Comments On back note p. 514 (ill.); DZ-H 15 Op de Coul 29 di Van Gogh, 2 vols., 2d relating to Oldenzeel November (ill.) Plasschaert canvas, white No.16 No. 20 ed., Milan 1977, December exhibition, Comments no. 34 is also walls, red carpet Title Peasant woman from Title Peasant at work vol. 1, plate IX Rotterdam possible Sources Kr 7 November, p. Nuenen Faille 1928/1970 - / - (according to auction cat. 356; OK, II, p 174 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul ? No. 23 Stuttgart [Kunstkabinett], No. 8 Comments Based on the Op de Coul ? Plasschaert - Title Still life (jars and mel- 3 May 1962, lot 128) Title Young peasant colour description F 29 (JH Plasschaert - Sources - ons) Faille 1928/1970 - / - 471) is the only possible Sources NRC 22 November Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 59 No. 25 Op de Coul? candidate Comments 'There is some- Op de Coul 59 Title Girl in the woods Plasschaert - thing fanatical in the eyes No. 21 Plasschaert ornamental Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources - No.13 of the woman in no. 16' Title Head of a woman, pears Op de Coul 8a Comments - Title Head of a woman white cap Sources Kr 7 November, p. Plasschaert document: (white neckerchief) No. 17 Faille 1928/1970 - / 356; Wk 14 November, p. study No. 9 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Title Peasant dwelling Op de Coul ? 514 and 21 November, p. Sources - Title Still life Op de Coul ? Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert light-green 533 (ill.); DZ-H 15 Comments Identification Faille 1928/1970 - / 63 Plasschaert - Op de Coul ? dress, what a woman November and 22 based on description by Op de Coul 63 Sources - Plasschaert - Sources - November (ill.); RN 16 Plasschaert Plasschaert clogs, small Comments - Sources - Comments - November; NRC 22 54 All sources date from 1903. Mrs J. Huët-Pierson to A.Tellegen-Hoogendoorn, 5 March 1965 (The Hague, RKD). The present location of 55 See note 34. The painting 'Peasant dwelling' repre- the painting, which does not figure in De la Faille 1928 or 115 sents a tumbledown sheepfold, as shown by a letter from 1970, is unknown VAN GOGH MUSEUM No. 26 No. 31 Plasschaert - Plasschaert - No. 45 No. 49 Title Landscape (light ef- Title Peasant woman, Sources - Sources - Title The shepherd Title Head of a woman fect) peeling potatoes Comments - Comments Identification Faille 1928/1970 - / 42 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - based on subject Op de Coul 42 Op de Coul ? Op de Coul 190 (7) Op de Coul 73 or 145 No. 36 Plasschaert the desolate Plasschaert - Plasschaert - Plasschaert - Title Woman at toil No. 41 earth Sources - Sources - Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Title Farm in Brabant Sources Wk 14 November, Comments - Comments - Comments Identification Op de Coul 147 Faille 1928/1970 - / - p. 514 (ill.); DZ-H 15 based on subject and Plasschaert - Op de Coul ? November (ill.); No. 50 No. 27 provenance. See also no. Sources - Plasschaert - NRC 22 November Title Woman by the fire Title Still life (tobacco 51 Comments Own observa- Sources - Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / - pouches and bottle) tion in Van Gogh Museum; Comments - Op de Coul 158 Faille 1928/1970 - / 55 No. 32 Oldenzeel label on the No. 46 Plasschaert - Op de Coul 55 Title Peasant woman dig- back marked no. 36 No. 42 Title Weaver (small) Sources - Plasschaert - ging Title Still life Faille 1928/1970 - / - Comments Own observa- Sources Wk 14 November, Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 37 Faille 1928/1970 - / 52 Op de Coul 35 tion in Musée d'Orsay, p. 514; DZ-H 15 Op de Coul ? Title Woodland view Op de Coul 52 Plasschaert - Paris: Oldenzeel label on November; RN 16 Plasschaert planteuse de Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert Jar, little vase Sources Wk 7 November, back marked no. 50 November betteraves (woman planti- Op de Coul 192 (?) with cochlear, coffee mill, p. 498 (iIIJ and 14 Comments - ng beets) Plasschaert - pipe November, p. 514; DZ-H 8 No. 51 Sources - Sources - Sources Kr 7 November, November (ill.) and 15 Title Peasant woman, No. 28 Comments - Comments - p. 356; Wk 14 November, November peeling potatoes Title Head of a woman p. 514; DZ-H 15 November, Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 33 No. 38 NRC 22 November; OK, II, Op de Coul 73 or 145 Op de Coul ? Title Landscape, gale in Title Bird's nests p. 174 No. 47 Plasschaert - Plasschaert en face [front the trees Faille 1928/1970 - / 110 Comments The white pot Title Landscape with trees Sources - view], bluish-green dress, Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul 110 is an apothecary jar. Faille 1928/1970 - / 31 Comments See comments wearing cap Op de Coul 196 Plasschaert 3 nests, lowest Cochlear is cochlearia Op de Coul 31 on no. 31 Sources - Plasschaert - with blue eggs emerging officinalis or scurvy grass, Plasschaert - Comments - Sources - from the darkness used to treat scurvy Sources Wk 7 November, No. 52 Comments F 121 (JH 956) Sources Kr 14 November, p. 498 (ill.); DZ-H 8 Title Peasants on the land No. 29 is mentioned as a candi- p. 363; RN 16 November; No. 43 November (ill.); Faille 1928/1970 - / 41 or Title Brabant landscape date in Van Tilborgh arid NRC 22 November; Title Watermill RN 16 November 9 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Vellekoop, op. cit. (note OK, II, p. 174 Faille 1928/1970 - / 46 Comments - Op de Coul 41 Op de Coul ? 41), p. 37. In my opinion Comments - Op de Coul 46 Plasschaert the peasants Plasschaert - this is incorrect (see No. 61) Plasschaert just the wheel No. 48 as heavy earth phantoms Sources - No. 39 Sources Kr 7 November, Title Watermill (large) for an immense grandeur. Comments - No. 34 Title Peasant woman from p. 356; NRC 22 November Faille 1928/1970 - / 125 Sky Title Still life Nuenen Comments - Op de Coul 125 blue & cloud No. 30 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / SP Plasschaert watermill, long Sources AH 7 November; Title Winter Op de Coul 54 1667 No. 44 house, water in front, right Kr 14 November, p. 363; Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert - Op de Coul SP 1667 Title Landscape (small wa- greyish sky, woman NRC 22 November; Op de Coul SP 1666 Sources Wk 14 November, Plasschaert - termill) left two men in boats OK, II, p. 174 Plasschaert 3 men on ice, p. 514 (ill.); DZ-H 15 Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources Kr 7 November, Comments De la Faille left mill; sky yellow and November (ill.) Comments See comments Op de Coul 48 p. 356; Wk 7 November, 1970 refers to F 41 (JH then grey recalls that little Comments Another possi- on no. 17 Plasschaert wheel be- p. 498 (ill.); DZ-H 8 513) or F 9 (JH 385) in church with those people bility is no. 7 tween two houses November (ill.); RN 16 connection with this num- on the road No. 40 Sources - November; NRC 22 ber; reviews, however, dis- Sources Wk 21 November, No. 35 Title Peasant woman with Comments F 48 (JH 527) November; OK, II, cuss F 41 (JH 513) p. 533 (ill.); DZ-H 22 Title Peasant dwelling broom and F 48a (JH 488) are pp. 174-5 November (ill.) Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - possible but the former is Comments - No. 53 Comments - Op de Coul ? Op de Coul 152 small in size Title Landscape 116 JOURNAL 2002 Faille 1928/1970 - / - note was the deciding fac- Sources NRC 22 November Sources - Op de Coul 120 (7) tor: F 37 (JH 501), not F 35 Comments The clarity and Comments - Plasschaert - (JH whiteness in that beautiful Sources AH 7 November 478), was the work exhib- Brabant day-labourer's No. 68 Comments 'That country ited house' Title Three men road with the tragically Faille 1928/1970 - / 948 high trees against the No. 58 No. 63 Op de Coul 948 sky in motion' Title Young peasant Title Peasant woman Plasschaert - woman Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources NRC 8 November No. 54 Faille 1928/1970 - / SP Op de Coul ? Comments - Title Head of a woman, 1668 Plasschaert - widow Op de Coul SP 1668 Sources RN 16 November; No. 69 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert - NRC 22 November Title Woman praying Op de Coul 155 Sources NRC 22 November Comments 'The happily Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert - Comments Own observa- working peasant woman at Op de Coul 1179 Sources - tion Oldenzeel label on the piece of linen that she Plasschaert - Comments Shawl indicates back marked no. 58. stretches tightly over her Sources - van de van Gogh•Tentaanetetiing to Rotterdam „Lezende bia." • ZwartArbtteeóer, Sp„utipj..me.w1 H P* mourning See comments on no. 17 knees' (RN); 'The colour in Comments F 1053 (JH 63' (NRC) 357) and F 1179 (JH 324) No. 55 No. 59 are possible candidates. fig. 7 Title Ditch with bridge, at Title Weaver (half-length) No. 64 Provenance makes the lat- Cover of the Dagblad van Zuid-Holland en 's evening Faille 1928/1970 - / - Title Head of a woman ter more likely Gravenhage, 15/16 November 1903, The Hague, RKD Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul 26 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Op de Coul 189 Plasschaert - Op de Coul ? No. 70 Plasschaert - Sources - Plasschaert - Title Residents of 'Woman with white cap in Plasschaert - Sources - Comments Identification Sources - Scheveningen on a bench 72. One thinks with some- Sources NRC 8 November Comments Identification based on addition to title Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 951 thing like this of many a Comments Drawing. based on subject of 'half-length' Op de Coul 951 tame Dutch church scene!' 'Peasant woman seated' Drawings and water- Plasschaert reminiscent of No. 56 No. 60 colours 't Bezuidenhout No. 73 No. 76 Title Weaver Title Brabant cottage Sources Kr 7 November, p. Title Landscape, fields Title Landscape, meadow Faille 1928/1970 - / 30 Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 65 356 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / 916 Op de Coul 30 Op de Coul ? Title Woman by the fire Comments - Op de Coul pb 904 Op de Coul 916 Plasschaert the frame of a Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / 1211 Plasschaert - Plasschaert - handloom, gold/mat (?) Sources - Op de Coul 1211 No. 71 Sources NRC 8 November Sources NRC 8 November ground, how the little Comments - Plasschaert - Title View from Vincent's Comments 'Watercolour Comments - lamp hangs Sources NRC 8 November home no 73, Fields under rainy Sources Kr 14 November, No. 61 Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 943 sky' No. 77 p 363; NRC 15 November, Title Landscape Op de Coul 943 Title Horse OK, II, p. 174 Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 66 Plasschaert long roof No. 74 Faille 1928/1970 - / 1032 Comments - Op de Coul 121 Title Market Sources Wk 21 November, Title Landscape, sawn off Op de Coul 1032 Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / 1091 p. 533; DZ-H 22 trees Plasschaert - No. 57 Sources RN 16 November Op de Coul 1091 November Faille 1928/1970 - / 1095 Sources NRC 8 November Title Weaver Comments 'Landscape Plasschaert - Comments - Op de Coul 1095 Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / 35 with sunken road towards Sources NRC 8 November Plasschaert - Op de Coul 37 the gold-streaked sky' Comments - No. 72 Sources NRC 8 November No. 78 Plasschaert with house Title In the church Comments - Title Landscape and tree through window- No. 62 No. 67 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / 1104 panes Title Peasant dwelling Title Landscape Op de Coul 967 No. 75 Op de Coul 1104 Sources Kr 14 November, Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert - Title Peasant woman Plasschaert - p 363; NRC 15 November Op de Coul pb 91 Op de Coul ? Sources NRC 8 November Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources NRC 8 November Comments Plasschaert's Plasschaert - Plasschaert - Comments Watercolour: Op de Coul ? Comments - 117 VAN GOGH MUSEUM No. 79 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - No. 93 Comments Identification Sources RN 16 November Title Bible reader (fig. 7) Op de Coul 902a Op de Coul pb 1099 Title Little courtyard based on subject Comments Paintings: por- Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert - Plasschaert - (sketch) traits Op de Coul SD 1683 Sources - Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / No. 98 Plasschaert - Comments Identification Comments Identification Op de Coul pb 944 Title Cottage with wheel- Sources Kr 19 December Sources DZ-H 15 based on subject after Sjraar van Heugten, Plasschaert - barrow Comments Painting: November (ill.); Wk 21 Vincent van Gogh: Sources NRC 8 November Faille 1928/1970 - / - weaver at loom November, p. 533 No. 85 drawings. Vol. I: the early Comments Drawing: Op de Coul 1106 (?) Comments - Title Portrait of Vincent's years, 1880-1883, 'Through the white patch- Plasschaert - Sources Wk 14 and 21 uncle or father Amsterdam & Bussum es and dripping gold, Sources - November; DZ-H 15 and No. 80 Faille 1928/1970 - / 876 1996, p. 240 through the Comments - 22 November Title Landscape with trees Op de Coul 876 figure contours, The little Comments Drawings: Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert portrait of No. 89 Courtyard (93) recalls No. 99 heads of women; Japanese Op de Coul 1088 or family member en profil [in Title Country road Rochussen' Title Autumn pen drawing; painting: Landscape, without Faille profile] Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - loom 0 Sources NRC 8 November; Op de Coul ? No. 94 Op de Coul 1234 (?) Plasschaert - Wk 21 November, p. 533; Plasschaert - Title At the doctor Plasschaert - Sources NRC 8 November DZ-H 22 November Sources - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources NRC 22 November Comments Watercolour Comments Identified as Comments - Op de Coul pb 909 Comments Watercolour: according to NRC portrait of Vincent's Plasschaert - 'The Avenue no. 99 recalls grandfather (1789-1874). No. 90 Sources NRC 8 November piece that Boymans has' No. 81 See Sjraar van Heugten, Title Weaver with child Comments Watercolour: Title Marshy landscape Van Gogh Bulletin (1994), Faille 1928/1970 - / 1119 'This gold veil also lies over No. 100 Faille 1928/1970 - / 846 no. 2, pp. 12-13 Op de Coul 1119 At the Doctor (94)' Title Donkey cart Op de Coul 846 Plasschaert - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Plasschaert the violence of No. 86 Sources Wk 14 November, No. 95 Op de Coul 1079 recto the sky made motionless Title Portrait of an old p. 514 and 21 November, Title Girl in the woods Plasschaert - Sources Kr 7 November, p. woman p. 533; DZ-H 15 Faille 1928/1970 - / 949 Sources - 356; NRC 8 November; RN Faille 1928/1970 - / - November and 22 Op de Coul 949 Comments - 16 November Op de Coul ? November Plasschaert - Comments - Plasschaert like the one Comments nos. 90 and 92 Sources NRC 8 November As yet unidentified owned by Bremmer are watercolours. Comments - works No. 82 Sources - Candidates are F 1119 Title Woman spinning Comments - (JH 449) and SD 1688 No. 96 Sources OK, II, pp. 173-75 Faille 1928/1970 - / - (JH 482) Title Church with sheep Comments Paintings: por- Op de Coul ? No. 87 Faille 1928/1970 - / - traits Plasschaert - Title Peasant boy and No. 91 Op de Coul 877 Sources - hands Title Peat moor with bog Plasschaert - Sources NRC 8 November Comments - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - Sources - Comments Drawing or wa- Op de Coul 1330 verso or Op de Coul 1101 (?) Comments Own observa- tercolour: loom (probably No. 83 drawing without Faille no. Plasschaert - tion: on the back label no. 90 or no. 92) Title Winter beach Plasschaert - Sources - marked no. 96 Faille 1928/1970 - / 982 Sources - Comments - Sources Kr 14 November Op de Coul 982 Comments The drawing No. 97 Comments Paintings: por- Plasschaert Mauve-like (without Faille no.) is re- No. 92 Title Marsh with wheel- traits of women; face of an Sources Kr 14 November, produced in Title Weaver, standing barrow old woman (perhaps p. 363 Sotheby's (London), 27 Faille 1928/1970 - / - Faille 1928/1970 - / - no. 86) Comments - June 1984, lot 303 Op de Coul SD 1688 Op de Coul 1100 Plasschaert - Plasschaert - Sources NRC 15 November No. 84 No. 88 Sources - Sources - Comments Painting: still Title Orchard Title Landscape at eventide Comments See no. 90 life 56 The work (not in De Ia Faille 1928 or 1970) is repro- duced in Johannes van de Wolk et al., exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh: drawings, Otterlo (Rijksmuseum Kr6ller- 118 Muller)1990, p. 124, no. 72. JOURNAL 2002 Concordance Auction Auction Auction Jan/ Nov/ Mouwen Nov/ Jan/ Nov/ Mouwen Nov/ Jan/ Nov/ Mouwen Nov/ Feb May Dec May Dec Feb May Dec May Dec Feb May Dec May Dec F 1903 1903 1903 1904* 1904* F 1903 1903 1903 1904* 1904* F 1903 1903 1903 1904* 1904* Paintings Drawings/Watercolours 1 • 96 • 842 • (?) 2 • 97 • 846 2a 98 • 852 4 • • 104 • 876 • 5 . 110 • • • • 877 • 6 • 114 • 886 • 8a • 119 • 902a 14 • 120 • (?) • (or 123) 904 • (pb) 15 • 121 • • 909 • (pb) 15a • 122 • 913 • (?) • 16 • 123 • (or 120) 916 18 • 125 • 926 • 20 • 127 • 943 21 • 128 • 944 • (pb) 24 • 133 • • 948 • 26 • 134 • • 949 • 27 • 136a • 951 29 • 142 • 967 • 30 • • 144 • • 982 31 • 144a • • • 990 • 33 • 145 • 1001 • 35 • • 147 • • 1002 37 . • • 152 • 1031 39 . • 153a • 1032 • 40 • 155 • 1038 41 • 158 • 1079 recto • 42 • • 166 • 1087 43 • 177 • 1088 • (?) • 46 • • 177a • 1091 • 48 • • 184 • 1095 • 48a • • 186 • 1099 • (pb) 52 • 187 . • 1100 54 • • 189 • (pb) 1101 • (?) • (?) 55 • • 190 • • 1103 58 • 192 • 1104 59 • 194 • • 1106 • (?) 60 • 195 • 1119 62 . 196 • • 1179 • 63 • • 197 • 1211 • 64 . • 198 • 1234 • (?) 67 • 199 • 1296 72 • (or 73) 200 • • 1299 • (?) 73 • (or 72) • • • 204 . • 1330 verso • (?) 78 • (?) • 210 • SD 1683 90 • SP 1666 • SD 1688 • 91 • (pb) SP 1667 • Drawing without F no. • 93 . • SP 1668 • Watercolour without F no. • * pb = probably 119 7 = perhaps VAN GOGH MUSEUM , fig. 1 Vincent van Gogh, Still life: vase with fourteen sunflowers (F 457 JH 1666), 1889, Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial (F 457 JH 1666), 1889, Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial 120 Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art (on permanent loan from the Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company Ltd) VAN GOGH STUDIES Collecting paintings by Van Gogh in Britain before the Second World War Madeleine Korn In his 1954 account of the reception of modern foreign art weren art of large collections of modern foreign art. It fur- 954 P g A g g in Britain, Douglas Cooper concluded that `few' collectors ther compares the collecting of Van Gogh's work by British g A P g g Y `had shown a taste for modern Frenchaintin ' before the buyers to that of the other post-impressionists, namely P P g P Y Second World War, and that only a handful of works by Van Cézanne, Gauguin and Seurat. Special consideration is iv- Y Y g P g this period.1 More en to the market in Scotland where a considerableor ro - Gogh P A g A thano years later, in a survey of earl collectors of Van tion of the total number of Van Gogh paintings in Britain ~ Y Y g P g 3Y Gogh's work, Walter Feilchenfeldt wrote that by 1 1 were bought. It also evaluates the popularity among British ~ Y 94 g PP Y g g `There were- erha s three pictures in England but no col collectors ofparticular periods and subject matter. In so subjec A P A g P P lecto s r .'2 While a few more isolated examples have been p it considers various factors affecting the collecting of g ~ identified in more recent accounts - such as Anna Van Gogh's art in Britain: the critical response in Britain to g P Gruetzner Robin's Modern art in- ' Britain 1910-143 schol his art; the impact of Roger Fry's writings and his exhibi- P g Y g ars haveenerall underestimated the collecting of paint- - tlon of post -impressionism resslonlsm - g , - g Y g P P P in s by Van Gogh in Britain during the period 1888-1 1888-1939. fluence of the otherost-im ressionist exhibitions held g Y g g A P A This article- rovides a fuller account of the patterns of col around the country. P A Y lector Van Goghs in Britain in these years.4 It will show g g Y that a far- Generalatterns of collecting, g- g A g p fore the Second World War than hasreviousl been ac - The table in AA A Y knowled ed. lector, the date ofurchase of each painting and the work's g P A g r nt whereabouts.6 It shows that some 56 Van Goghs present g hs 5 The article draws attention to the number of works acquired as early as the 188os and os. It highlights were acquired by British collectors in the period q Y 9 q Y P changes in the pattern of collecting from the acquisition of 1888-1 .7 This figure represents 6.6 percent of Van ~ P g q 939 g A A Van Gogh's work by artist-friends and dealer-friends in the ' in in s.8 However, h s total recorded output of a t ,ivengive g Y g A P g earliest decades to that by wealthy entrepreneurs in the out of this total around 120aintin s remained in the Y Y P P g 1 20S and 3os. In the case of the latter, these paintings ossession of his famil , never having been sold on the 9 3 P Y 1 Douglas Cooper, The Courtauld collection, London or given as a gift. The term 'collector' refers to any per- 1954, p. 60. son owning at least one painting by Van Gogh. It in- cludes only works in private collections. 2 Walter Feilchenfeldt (with Han Veenenbos), Vincent van Goh and Paul Cassirer, Berlin: the reception of Van 5 Exhib. cat. Manet and the post-impressionists, London g Gogh in Germany from 1901 to 1914, Zwolle 1988, p. (Grafton Galleries) 1910-11. 41. 6 Where the present whereabouts of a painting is not 3 Anna Gruetzner Robins, Modern art in Britain 1910- known its last owner or sale details are given. 14, London 1997. 7 This number may well be higher but certain informa- 4 For theur oses of this study the term 'British' refers tion still remains inaccessible, being kept by a number of p p to collectors who acquired works either in this country or private galleries in Britain and abroad. abroad but who ultimately brought them to Britain. No distinction has been made as to the means of acquisition 8 These areapproximate figures and have been rounded pp 121 i.e. whether the works were purchased, part-exchanged up open market, the proportion of Van Gogh's paintings in fig. 2 P P P g P g Vincent van Gogh, Self portrait with bandaged ear (F 527 ads Y 77P percent.9 JH 1657), 1889, London, Courtauld Institute Galleries Appendix I further shows that some of Van Gogh's greatest PP g g works, including both Still life: vase with fourteen g Sunflowersfi . 1) and Self portrait with bandaged ear g (fig. 2), were once in Britain. Most of the works acquired were landscapes (39), with or - g q P 39 P The data also clearly shows that patterns of collect- traits (6) and still life (ii) subjects never being as osubjects u - Y P g P P in changed over the period under consideration. Several lar.10 g g P works were in Britain as early as the late 188os. However, Y over 8oercent were acquired in the 1 205 and os. Some Early acquisitions P q 9 3 Y q o collectors have been identified as owning only This section discussesaintin s by Van Gogh in 3 g Y one P g Y g work, four as having two. Appendix I shows that although Britain before 190o. The first paintings owned by a British g PP g 9 P g Y thisattern dominated, several collections were formed collector were acquired as early as 188. Both Still life P q Y 7 containing three or more examples and one collection had FJH 1 1 and an as-yet unidentified portrait of g I 379 34~ Y P as many as six. Paintings from the Arles years were ac - Alexander Reid were owned by the Scottish dealer Y g Y Y uired in greater numbers than those of Van Gogh's earlier Alexander Reid(1854-1928)a ou de around 1887.11 Th Scottish q g g eriods. However, a greater proportion of the total number ainter A.S. Hartrick(1864-195o),who studied at Cormon's P ~ g P P P of worksroduced in Paris 1 o percent) were purchased b by studio in Paris with Van Go g, noted the ac uisitions in his P P P g~ q British collectors than thoseainted in Arles (8 percent). memoirs.12 They were acquired from the artist himself, al- P P Y q 122 JOURNAL 2002 though it is not known whether Reid was given thepaint- the two brothers in their apartment on Rue Lépic. g g P P P ins or if they were purchased for a small sum. Hartrick Followin Vincent's suggestion that they commit suicide in g Y p gg Y wrote: `Reidof into serious trouble with his father for ac- a joint act, however, Reid moved out having stayed just six g Y jus uirin or investin in some of Van Go h's work, but I can- He remained in Paris for some time after the in- q g investing not believe heave much money for them or I should have cident, finally returning with the paintings to Britain g Y Y g P g ad bo t o t e a e. around the end of 1888. This makes them the first works by P Although it has generally been thought that Reid Van Gogh to come to these shores. As fate would have it, g g Y g g first met Vincent around 1886-8 when the former was both were sold by his father to a dealer from France, some- 7, Y sent by his father to Boussod, Valadon & Cie in Paris, it is time before 1905,f r the paltry sum f 1 .18 th e Y , P Y possible that their first meeting took place some ten years still life can be easily identified from Vincent's letters, the P g P Y Y earlier, whilst Van Gogh was working for Goupil's in portrait of Reid cannot and may well have since been de en - g g P P Y London.14 Three references to a `Mr Reid' appear in stro eá.19 AA Y Vincent's letters during 18 6 and a number of editions of The artist Lucien Pissarro186 -1 acquired g 7 3 94~4~ q the correspondence believe these are in fact references to Still life: basket of apples (F 378 JH 1 o in 1887. He ex- P pp 37 34~ the Scottish dealer Alexander Reid.15 As early as May of changed the work with Vincent for one of his own whilst Y Y g thatear Van Gogh noted: `This afternoon Mr Reid sent me the two artists were living in P ris 20 In November o Y g g 9 a catalo ue of the exhibition in London' 80/66. In a sec- Pissarro, who was French by birth, came to live in London, g Y and letter, sent in June, Van Gogh writes: `One night I where in 1892 he married an English woman, Esther Levi g g 9 g sta stayed at Mr Reid's ... ' 82/6 . That this person was P work - Bensusan.21 Pissarro stayed in Britain for the rest f his life, a o es o e, Y 9 in in a London gallery at the time is made clear in the joining a number of British art circles, including the Fitzroy g g g Y g Y third reference. In October he mentions that whilst walking Group and the Camden Town Group. The painting P re P g- to London he had met `man acquaintances' in the area 'many q mained in hisossession until around 1 08 when, like A 9 around the Strand, `where most of theicture galleries are Reid's works, it, too, was sold to a dealer abroad. P g ... , among them `Mr Reid and Mr Richardson, who are al - While the threerevious works are believed to have g P read old friends'[92/761.16 yReid,y a therefore, may have al- beeniven or part-exchanged by the artist, three paintings g P g Y P g read been well acquainted with Vincent by the time he were actually purchased by British collectors in the 18 os. Y q Y YP Y 9 was sent by his father to work in Paris in 1886. Two crabs (F 6o6 JH 1662) was in the collection of William Y Here he took up a post at Boussod, Valadon with Cherry Robinson (died 1 1 by 1 06. The painting was P P Y 9 3 Y 9 P g Theo van Gogh. Shortly after his arrival he moved in with purchased in the Netherlands from Jo van Gogh-Bonger, g Y A g ger 9 Some of these works in the family collection were of- sonal recollections of Vincent Van Gogh and Paul references may be either to a person older than Van fered for sale but were never sold. Gauguin,' The Imprint 1 (May 1913), pp. 305-18. This Gogh or to a Mr Read. earlier version does not include any reference to Reid or 10 J.-B. de la Faille's catalogue raisonné on Van Gogh's the Unwins. See further Martin Bailey, 'Memories of Van 16 The latter was the travelling representative for paintings was published in 1928. No other catalogue Gogh and Gauguin: Hartrick's reminiscences,' Van Gogh Goupil's in London. Van Gogh also notes that he met him raisonné documenting detailed provenances was pub- Museum Journal (2001), pp. 97-117 in Paris the previous year. lished until his revised edition of 1970. The periods and works within them are those as used by De la Faille in 13 Hartrick, A painter's pilgrimage, cit. (note 12), p. 51. 17 This event is already well documented, but some ac- 1970. counts suggest that the two had had some kind of argu- 14 Previous studies all state that Reid first met Van Gogh ment. See further Fowle, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 91-99. 11 For a detailed account of Reid's life as a dealer see in Paris. See further Cooper, o . cit. (note 1), pp. 62-64 P P pp Frances Fowle, Alexander Reid in context: collecting and and Frances Fowle, 'Vincent's Scottish twin. the Glasgow 18 Ibid., p. 94. dealing in Scotland in the late 19th and early 20th cen- art dealer Alexander Reid,' Van Gogh Museum Journal turies (diss., University of Edinburgh, 1994). (2000), p. 91. Van Gogh worked in London from May 19 Three portraits of Reid have now been identified. 1873 Information provided by Frances Fowle. 12 A.S. Hartrick, A painter's pilgrimage through 50 years, Cambridge 1939. The original piece on the post- 15 Leo Jansen of the Van Gogh Museum, who is cur- 20 See letters 585/467 and 594/473. impressionists included in the book was published in rently undertaking research for a new, fully annotated 1913: A.S. Hartrick, 'Post-impressionism, with some per- edition due to be published in the next five years, be- 21 See further Anne Thorold, A catalogue of the oil lieves the letters are unclear on this point and that the paintings of Lucien Pissarro, London 1983, pp. 5-6. Theo's widow, in May 1893 for 200 guilders.22 Robinson y 93 g ma well have first seen the work in 18 when it in Y 2 9~ - was cluded in an exhibition ofaintin s in The Hague.23 4~5A g g Althou h De la Faille recorded This collector as living in Although g Bournemouth, recently discovered documentation shows Y that he was Consul for North Holland and resided at the Britishonsulate in Amsterdam.24 He was appointed in C ed PP 1882 and resigned in i 06 the ear the work was sold at g 9 , y auction in Amsterdam.25 Mr Thomas Fisher Unwin18 8-1 acquired a 4~ 935 q flower still life sometime in the early 18 os from Père Y 9 Tan guy in Paris.2ó Although this must have been before gY g 18 when Tan guy died 27 there is some g y s so e evidence to su- g fig. 3 Vincent van Gogh, Interior of a restaurant in Arles (F 549 JH 1572), 1888, Providence, Murray S. Danforth Jr gest the purchase may have been made as early as 18 . g P Y Y 1 9 Hartrick remembers it being `the year after [Van Gogh's] g Y g death.'28 He also writes that at the Unwins wereersuaded to A buy it by the artist Joseph Pennell(1857-1926).29 Th Y Y PThe painting has never been identified and is only g Y known through a number of references in texts.3° It has as been de- scribed as a `small still life of "spikey flowers"' in a `'u .'31 P Y J g Hartrick writes that it was signed `Vincent' and bought b g g by Unwin for '25 francs,' around Li at the time, a price some- 124 22 A 10% commission was paid to a certain Miss Schleier; see Chris Stolwijk and Han Veenenbos, The ac- count book of Theo van Gogh and Jo van Gogh-Bonger, Leiden 2002, entries 11/11 and 11/12. 23 Exhib. cat. Works by Vincent van Gogh, Buitenhof (Haagsche Kunstkring) 1892. 24 Information provided by Elaine Camroux-McLean of the Public and Historical Enquiries Team at the Foreign q g Office. 25 As it is now known the work was sold when Robinson left his position at the embassy, it is possible theicture p never in fact came to Britain. It was auctioned at Frederik Muller (Amsterdam), 13 November 1906, lot 33. The sale included another drawing by Van Gogh and works by the artists of the Hague School. However, as works from oth- er collections were also included in the sale it is unclear whether any of these also belonged to Robinson. 26 Unwin was married to the sister of Sickert's wife. 27 See further Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 2), p. 12. p p 28 Hartrick, A painter's pilgrimage, cit. (note 12),. 46. p 29 Ibid. 30 New research suggests that it may be Still life: vase with vascaria (F 324a JH 336). This painting is now known to have been acquired by Alex Reid of g Glas ow in the early 1920s, around the date the Unwins sold the painting (Tate Gallery Archives, Ref 2002/11). JOURNAL 2002 what higher, he notes, than Van Gogh's other paintings at These acquisitions of Van Gogh's work pre-date ~ ~ g p q g p g Tan u s because ' it was framed.32 According to Clive Bell, g British collectors' interest in the work of otherost-impres- p gY it could be seen 'hanging outside Fisher Unwin's flat at the sionists. It was not until 1892 that the first painting b g by g g 9 p Albany where it was the object of frequent derogatory corn- object Gauguin was acquired, while pictures by Cézanne and q g Y g q ~ p Y Y e s Seurat were acquired only in i 11 and 1 1 respectively. q Y 9 99 in it `in a mixed show at the New Galleries somewhere While both Cézanne's and Gauguin's work was later to g g about i 0 .'34 It was in fact not shown in London until rove more popular in Britain, until 1 11 more paintings b g by P p p ~ 9 P 95 Van Gogh were in British hands than those by his contem - 1909 when it was lent b Unwin to the Ninth exhibition of g Y 9 9, Y the international society o sculptors, painters and gravers oraries. f g P ISSPG at the New Gae 11 r .35 The work is believed to have Although their number may seem insignificant, b by g Y g Y placing these acquisitions in the context of Van Gogh col - been sold about thirty years' later for £1,200.36 'about p g q g YY Esther188 -1 and Alfred 186 -1 Sutro lectin in other countries at the time, it is possible to 3 933 g ~ P 5 934 bought Interior o a restaurant in Arles (fig. in 18 6. At demonstrate their importance. These British collectors g f g3 9 P the time Esther Sutro, herself an artist, was living with her were among the earliest collectors of his work, fewpaint- p > g g husband in Paris. Here they were introduced to Van Gogh's 1n shaven been sold during his 11fet e im .39 However, while , Y g g having g work by Edouard Vuillard. Alfred Sutro recalled the ur - new research has shown that a number of collectors were Y p chase: `Vuillard wasleased that we liked his work, and wasp lease also buying in France, the Netherlands and Denmark Y g around the same time as those in Britain ,40 collectors in to us one day that it was just possible we might like Y J p g Van Gogh too. He took us to see a picture of Van Gogh's, other countries hadet to venture into the market. The first g p g Y that had foruite some considerable time been on show at Van Gogh purchase made by a German collector was not q g P Y Vollard's the dealer; it was apicture of chairs and tables in until around 190o. This is interesting given that Germany gg Y > p was a county where by 1 some of the greatest collec - a café in Arles, chairs and tables with a figure or two at the t Y 1 94 g g dons of his work would be 1 formed.41 No American collector back. My wife - a painter herself - loved it at sight, and we Y P g bough acquired uired a Van Gogh until 12.42 Whilst by 18 6 at least y g q g 9 sum.'37 Vollard sixaintin s by Van Gogh were owned by British collec - asking. It is now worth a very considerable s p g Y g Y g Y held two one-man shows of Van Gogh's work in 18 6, the tors in 1904 Germany could still only boast seven paintings g g 9 94 Y Y P 11 tions.43 As late as i 1 only four paintings private co ec g 3 y g s p first in the summer and the second in November. It was from the first of these that it is believed the Sutros bought were owned by collectors r in America.44 Although Britain g Y their a1 t n in .38 The Van Goghs acquired by the Unwins g q y was not to hold thisosition for long it must nevertheless P g, p g and the Sutros were among the first of the artist's works to be recognised that for a brief period it was one of the lead- g g p be sold by dealers in Paris. in countries. Y g 38 See Cynthia Saltzman, Portrait of Dr Cachet: the sto- tors in the early 1890s were Pierre Mortier and Comte de 31 See Gruetzner Robins, op cit. (note 3), p. 121 and ry of a Van Gogh masterpiece. Modernism, money, poli- la Rochefoucauld in France. See further Cooper, op. cit Frances Spalding, Vanessa Bell, London 1983, p. 92. (note 1), p. 69, note 1. tics, collectors, dealers, taste, greed, and loss, New York 32 Hartrick, A painter's pilgrimage, cit (note 12), p. 47. 1998, p. 76. Saltzman, however, states that the Sutros paid 180 francs. 41 This first work is believed to have been acquired by Harry Graf Kessler. 33 Frances Spalding, Roger Fry: art and life, London 1980, p 133. See also Gruetzner Robins, op. cit. (note 3), p. 65. 39 Oneaintin , F 495 JH 1626, is recorded as having p g p been acquired by Anna Boch in February 1890. It has 42 Saltzman, op. cit. (note 38), p. 111. q Y 34 Cooper, op. cit. (note 1), p. 62, note 3. been suggested that as another work by Van Gogh is also gg known to have been in her collection this was likely to 43 Ibid. have been bought at the same time. See Feilchenfeldt, 35 Flowers, no. 169 De la Faille incorrectly records that o . cit. (note 2), p. 8. If Reid did in fact pay for his paint- 44 Saltzman notes that by the time of the Armory Show F 549 JH 1572, the work owned by the Sutros, was lent p p ins, however, this would make them the first of Van in New York (1913) there were four paintings in America; to the exhibition. g Gogh's paintings to have been purchased. see ibid. Feilchenfeldt hadreviously stated that there p were only two works by 1914, see Feilchenfeldt, op. cit 36 Hartrick, A painter's pilgrimage, cit. (note 12), p. 47. 40 I am most grateful to Chris Stolwijk in drawing my at- (note 2), p. 41 tention to this. Coo er maintained that the only collec- 37 Alfred Sutro, Celebrities and simple souls, London p 1933, p. 27. VAN GOGH MUSEUM Early patterns of collecting g were of modest means, often `earl amateurs, friends, and By examining the personal details of these early col- former students' of the artist 48 and their lack of funds t g P Y lectors a number ofpatterns can be identified.45 Collectors would have seriously curtailed their purchasing power.49 P sY P gP before 1900 are all known to have had some form of contact Post-im ressionist collectors who undertook `the adventur- 9 e with Van Gogh and his work. In the 188os this was direct, ous championing of a small, misunderstood avant-garde' P g ~ ~ as in the cases of Reid and Lucien Pissarro. By the 18 os it saw the acquisition of this art not as an investment or a Y 9 q was indirect, through the artist's close friends and support- s symbol of their socio-economic position, but as a means of g PP Y e ers both in Britain and abroad. The Sutros and Fisher showin their individuality and originalitythrow h - g Y Unwin were introduced to Van Gogh's art through fellow f 1 follow the general ofday.5°rm g g g Y Y artists in Paris. I would suggest that until 1910 a collector's ownershi of this specifically modern art symbolised their gg P P Y Y decision tourchase a work by Van Gogh was ultimately Y belon in to the new avant-garde that defined itself g Y g was g thus success- - throw h this culture. The works were thus a signifier of the g g ful in Britain in these early years, as indeed was Gauguin, cultural milieu to which they belonged. Affiliation with this YY g Y g because he had contact with collectors that the otherost- cultural elite not only gave collectors access to the ideas of P Yg impressionists did not. This evidence lends further weight therow but also made them more receptive to them.51 P g g P e to the theory put forward by Malcolm Gee that the nature of Durin this period Van Gogh's paintings s P were main- - YP Y g e g a collector's `artistic contacts' were `crucial in determining' 1 acquired in Paris. Opportunities to see them did not exist g Y q PP his collecting practice, and that `access to new artistic in Britain until 191052 and as a result, only those collectors ge 9 Y ideas' was one of the most important factors in his decision who had contact with the artist's work through the avant - P g to buy avant-garde art.46 arde milieu in Paris or another centre ofproduction were Y g g P Before 1910, collectors of Van Gogh's work in able to buy it. This also indicates that this particular group P 9 ~ g g e Britain were also thoserofessionall involved in the arts. of collectors were drawn to the French e P Y It was thisrow who `were ... best placed to see and a - sire to be identified with the specifically bohemian mod - g P P e e Y reciate new developments in the visual arts.'47 Both ernism of Paris of the late 19th and early loth centuries. P P 9 Y Lucien Pissarro and Esther Sutro were artists, living and Their trips abroad were symbolic not of their wealth but of g P Y aintin in the same environment in France as the artists their individuality and interest in gaining cultural knowl- e g Y g g whose work they admired and whose style they wished to edge through travel, directly at its source. In most in - Y Y Y g g Y emulate. Whilst not himself an artist, as a dealer Reid was stances the collectors had lived for a time in close associa- in arofession that also gave him access to new artistic tion with these avant-garde Parisian circles. e g g trends. That British collectors of theeriod all owned only Y Cornelius Frank Stoop one or two examples of Van Gogh's art was not unique. A further Van Gogh work was acquired by a British P ~ q g q Y Thisattern was common to collectors in Britain and in collector before Fry's show of 1 10. Frank Stoop 9 P P other countries with the work of all fourost-im ressionist (1863-1933) purchased Farms near (F JH 211 4) P P 3 933 P 793 artists. Althou h there were a few wealthier `aesthete' col- onJanuar of that year for 8,000 Reichsmark from Paul g 5 January Y lectors ofost-impressionist ressionistpainting,before 1 10 most Cass1 e r r in Berlin.53 Previouslyletters refer to e e e e P 9 45 These patterns are also common to British collectors Matisses of the 1920s in the 1920s,' in Jack Cowart and of paintings by the otherost-impressionists. Dominique Fourcade (eds.), exhib. cat. Henri Matisse: P the early years in Nice 1916-1930, Washington, DC 46 Malcolm Gee, Dealers, critics, and collectors of mod- (National Gallery of Art) 1986, p. 238. ern painting: aspects of the Parisian art market between 1910 and 1930 (diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, 49 Ibid. University of London, 1977), p. 209. 50 Ibid., p. 235. 47 Ibid., p. 203. 51 Post-impressionism was not in the main acquired in 48 Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold applies this argument to Britain by a particular cultural group. This differed from 126 early collectors of Matisse's work; see idem, 'Collecting early collectors of impressionism in Britain, who could all JOURNAL 2002 the dealings between Stoop, van Go h-Bon er (by now g P~ g g Y Mrs J. Cohen Gosschalk-Boner and the dealer J.H. de g Bois, acting on her behalf. Stoop was in Amsterdam in 1911 g P and interested in acquiring more of Van Gogh's work, con- q g g tacted De Bois, who wrote to Jo, stating: `In particular I am > g P writin to tell you of the Stoop family. At the moment they Y P Y Y are stain at the Hotel des Indes and would love to see Y g your collection. Mr Stoop will pay you a visit. He previously P P YY P Y acquired a Van Gogh painting from Cassirer and wishes to q g P g his collection.'54 As a result of the visit, two oils enlarge s , g and a number of watercolours were sent to Stoop in P London. I believe theaintin s were Dog roses or branches P g g of wild briar FJH 2011 referred to as `Wild roses,' 597 and Still life: apples (F 254 JH 1342),which is called p~ 54 in rr s ondence.55 In the end, however, 'Apples'm the co e P Stoop decided to purchase only three of the watercolours. P P Y His exact reasons for returning the oils are not known, but g it may well have been that he simply did not care for still Y PY lifes, a foreign art.56 subject that did not feature in p portrait collection of mod- ern i n rt.56 As we have seen, apart from the ortrait g of Reid, theaintin s by Van Gogh in Britain before Fry's P g Y g Y show in 1910 were all either landscapes or still lifes.57 9 P Manet and theost-im ressionists 1910 P p Whilst British collectors of Van Go h's art were Gogh' the first in Europe in the 188os and os, within 20 among P 9 years the situation had changed dramatically: Britain had Y g Y been left behind, both in the exhibiting and collecting of g g his and otherost-im ressionist art. By 1910 Van Go h's P P Y9 Gogh' hadained a degree of respectability in several g g P Y European countries and was considered more desirable P than theictures of the impressionists. By now Van Gogh P P Y g had beeniven large one-man shows in private galleries in g g Paris and a number of other European cities, including The P g Hague, Copenhagen and Berlin, and a major retrospective g~~ major P in Amsterdam in 1905. In Britain, on the other hand, his had et to be even exhibited. In 1 o alone the paintingsyet 95 German dealer Paul Cassirer had sold 20 Van Goghpaint- g P Ins primarily to German n collectors.58 g ~A Y Collectors in German were not alone and by 1910 Y Y9 large collections of Van Gogh's art had been formed in g g Paris Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark. In fact, by this time neither his work nor that of the other ostim Y - - P ressionists was considered avant-garde in the eyes of the P g Y bu in public in these countries, having already been re buying ~ g Y - laced by the art of the Cubists and Fauves. In Britain, P Y whereost-im ressionism remained virtually unseen until P P Y 1910, paintings by Van Gogh were still perceived as beingP g Y g P g as radical as those by Matisse and Picasso. Y In 1910 Roger Fry organised Manet and the post-im g Y - g p pressionists, held at the Grafton Galleries in London. This introduced the work of theost-impressionists ressionists to the P P 1 .59 Whilst recognised by both British public on a large sca e g y P g dealers and collectors in other countries, this was the first time the four major artists had been shown together as a major g rou . It was in London that the term 'post-impressionist' g P was coined when Fry used it to describe these painters as Y P the successors to P im ressionism. As Anna Gruetzner- Robins writes, the 1910 exhibition for the first time `created aosthumous group identity for them, and cemented their P g P Y reputations i nism.'6° The si - VAN GOGH MUSEUM in 1908, again at the ISSPG and just a few months before B rnh im- n 73 fromwhene e Jeu e rom whom Coleman would 9 ~ g ~ • 's show, an exhibition organised in Brighton by Robert eventually buy it, acquired it from Jo.74 Immediately fol Y g g Y Y Y ~ q Y - Dell had included three Gauguins. Seurat's work was not lowinghe show, Sir Michael Ernest Sadler (1861-1943) - g g 943 seen until 1910, when two paintings were included in Fry's an negotiations in Paris to buy works by Gauguin and 9 P g Y g g Y Y g show and it would not be until i22 that his work was seen Cézanne that had been exhibited in London at the show.75 9 again. It is interesting to note Cooper's total failure to ers ac - g g p There were more works by Van Gogh in Fry's 1 10 knowled e the collecting activities of Stoop, Robinow and Y g Y 9 g g p exhibition than by any of the other post-impressionists. Coleman in theears 1910-14. Writin in 1 he claimed Y Y p p YWriting 954 This is somewhat surprising as in 1 08 Fry had stated that that 'Certainly with the exception of Lucien Pissarro, no P g 9 Y Y P Cézanne'sosition as leader of the group was 'already g as other English collector seems to have owned any of [Van p Y- g Y s e ur d.'62 From this moment he and his Bloomsbury s y affili - Go h's pictures until after 1914.'76 At the time of writing, pg, ates continued to assert that Cézanne was `thereat and Stoop's Van Gogh had been hanging in the Tate Gallery for g P g g g Y originale s o ea some 20ears, having been bequeathed in 1 g Y Y g q the introduction to the 1910 catalogue Desmond MacCarthy g Y gave the reader to understand that both Van Gogh and Fry's impact on British collectors, 1910-20 g g Y p , Gau Gauguin had merely followed `the path he [Cézanne] indi zanne - Through both his shows and his writings, Fry g un g Y p Y - cated '64 and that Van Gogh had found `in the methods of doubtedl educated a large segment of public opinion. g Y g g p P Cézanne ... a means of conveying the wildest and Within a relatively short span of time his efforts resulted in Y g Y P strangest visions conceived by any artist of our time.'65 a British audience that was well informed and conversant g Y Y Fry's show provoked a violent and abusive response with the work of theost-im ressionists. However, this Y P p p p from the Britishublic and the press, but some of the p } , would not be translated into sales for almost a further criticisms were reserved for h' work.66 decade. Although sales of post-impressionist art did increase g g P P The reviews can best be summarised by the words that a - between 1910 and 1 20, a total of only 20 paintings 9 s P were ac - Y P Y g eared in The Morning Post which declared that his - uired. Of these, only two were by Van Gogh. No significant Y nificant g P g Y g ins were `the visualised ravings of an adult maniac.'67 His chap e in the patterns of collectingpost-impressionist art in g g g p gp p portraits Britain tooklace until the early 1 205. Appendix II shows g p P Y 9 Pp reater degree of abuse than his still lifes or landscapes.68 that although Fry promoted Cézanne as the leader of the p g YP This is reflected in the works bought by British collectors rou , the onlypost-impressionist who made any headway p g Y Yp p Y Y over the nexto years. By 1 2 There was only one portrait during this time was Gauguin. Sales of Gauguin's works s g con - 3Y Y93 Y P g g out of a total of some 20aintin Ts in British collections, the tinued to exceed those of Cézanne until the early 1 os. P ~ Y 93 ro ortion of portraits to landscapes remaining P p p g low throughout the period 1 20- g p 9 39• Only two post-impressionist paintings are known to Y p p 1? g 62 Roger Fry, 'Letters to the editor,' The Burlington have been bought from the show by British collectors, one Magazine 12 (March 1908), p. 375. g Y of which was by Van Go h.69 This was Factories atAsnières Gogh.6 Y 63 Idem, 'Cézanne-I,' The Burlington Magazine 16 from the Quai de Clichy (F 3 1 JH 1287) which was ac- Y ~, 7 7 (January 1910), p. 207. lr Gustav R in w.70 On 1 January l 11 he wrote ed by Gus a ob o 0 6 Ja a e to o q Y Y9 to Jo, asking her about the painting and stating: `Je viens g p g g 64 Desmond MacCarthy, 'The post-impressionists,' in '71 ' i of sales, it m s P Manet and the post-impressionists, cit. (note 5), p. 10. likel the show and the ensuingpublicity influenced ur - Y gp Y p chases of work by Van Gogh and the other post-impression-Y g p P re - 65 Ibid., p. 11. ists made soon after. Herbert Coleman (c. 1882-1949),who 66 See J.B. Bullen, Post-impressionists in England, owned Van Gogh's The Auvers stairs with five figures (fig. 4) g g London 1988. by June 1913,72could have purchased it as early as 1 10 YP Y 9 67 Robert Ross, 'The post-impressionists at the Grafton: the twilight of the idols,' The Morning Post (7 November 1910), p. 3; quoted in Gruetzner Robins, op. cit. (note 3),. 37. p 128 68 Gruetzner Robins, op. cit. (note 3), p. 37. JOURNAL 2002 One reason for the relatively small number ofpost- Y P impressionist works purchased between 1910 and 1 20 is P P9 that, despite Fry's literary efforts 77 there were still few o - p Y Y ~ P ortunities for collectors in Britain to see and come to p terms withost-im ressionism. Up until the 1 20s 9 the ma - P A P jorit of exhibitions showed only a few post-impressionist J Y Y P P pictures. Although exhibitions of modern foreign art were P g g held in Britain in theseears, on the whole they showed Y Y other, more recent forms of contemporary foreign art.78 p Y g The worksac A aired abroad. Until the dealer system in Britain could ro - q Y p vide an adequate supply, British collectors preferred to buyp Y in countries where they were offered a greater choice of Y g aintin s from which to make their selection. p g Between 1910 and 1 20 Van Gogh's art received 9 g even less exposure in Britain than the work of either P Cézanne or Gauguin. The only two exhibitions to contain fig 4 g Y any significant number of post-impressionist paintings in Vincent van Gogh, The Auvers stairs with five figures Y g P p P g (F 795 JH 2111), 1890, Saint Louis Art Museum thiseriod both totally excluded Van Gogh. The exhibition, p Y g by ,~ g ~ g Sadler and his son at the Stafford Gallery, London, in Y November 1911 displayed ei ht and 14 paintings b work.80 Oneaintin by Van Gogh, the Unwin's still life, g Y g 4~ P g by g > Cézanne and Gauguin respectively. Whilst the show must was in the re-hang of the exhibition.81 Exhibitions in g g haveone a long way in helping to galvanise Fry's initial Britain can thus be said to have done nothing to enhance g g Y P g g Y g introduction of modernism to Britain, it may also account Van Gogh's market position in Britain, except possibly in a Y g P PP Y inart for the preference for these two artists' work over negative way through their non-engagement with his art. P P g Y g that of Van Gogh's in the following decade.79 Following the On the other hand, Fry's endeavours to promote g g g Y P show, sales of Gauguin's aintin s for the first time ex- paintings ost-im post-impressionism in Britain may also have been thwarted p P Y ceeded those of Van Gogh's. Fry's Second post-impressionist to some extent by a number of factors beyond his control. g Y ~ p Y Y exhibition in 1912 included only examples of Cézanne's The First World War halted all forms of cultural exchange 9 Y P g 69 The other was Gauguin's Tahitiennes au repos, 1891 72 It was at this date that he lent it to an exhibition at Fry reader, ed. Christopher Reed, London 1996. (London, National Gallery), which was acquired by Fry the Leeds Arts Club; see exhib cat A loan exhibition of himself. post-impressionist paintings and drawings, Leeds (Leeds 78 The contribution of these shows to the reception of modern Arts Club) 1913, no 5. Landscape. foreign art in Britain is well documented in Gruetzner Robins, 70 Robinow lived at 11 Downe Terrace, Richmond Hill, op. cit. (note 3), which explores the way in which they served to Surrey However, how long the painting stayed in Britain 73 Stolwijk and Veenenbos, op at (note 22), entries validate and corroborate Fry's concepts of modern art is uncertain By 1914 the painting is recorded as having 17/15, 18/3, 92/19 and 93/9. been lent by a Paul M. Robinow, Hamburg, to the exhibi- 79 For a detailed discussion of the exhibition see ibid , pp. tion Vincent van Gogh, held at Paul Cassirer's in Berlin, 74 The work is noted by De la Faille as having been exhib- 52-55. (no 24). See Gruetzner Robins, op cit (note 3), p. 35 ited at Vincent van Gogh, Berlin (Paul Cassirer) 1914, no. Robinow also owned a Van Gogh still life (F 74 JH 648) 133, but the painting shown is more likely to have been the 80 Exhib cat. Second post-impressionist exhibition, that was lent to the show; it was entitled Malven (1886) smaller work, The Auvers stairs with two figures (F 796 JH London (Grafton Galleries) 1912 Five paintings by Cézanne and listed under no. 23. This is now believed to be a copy. 2110) See Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 2), p. 121. were included in the show A number of works on paper were also shown. For a detailed account see Gruetzner 71 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh 75 See further Korn, op. cit. (note 51), pp 141-46. Robins, ibid , pp 64-107 Foundation, Gustav Robinow to J. Cohen Gosschalk- Bonger,16 January 1911, b 5872 V/1996. See Gruetzner 76 Cooper, op. cit. (note 1), p. 62. 81 Exhib. cat. Re-arrangement of second post-impressionist Robins, op. cit. (note 3), p. 198, note 64. exhibition, London (Grafton Galleries) 1913, no. 43. In this 77 For a collection of Fry's essays see further A Roger show 33 paintings by Cézanne were shown. VAN GOGH MUSEUM between Britain and France, the Netherlands and Germany, communications and supplies between Y~ affecting PP dealers in these countries. Collectors' visits abroad would also have been curtailed if not completely stopped. No post- P Y PA - o P impressionist works were bought by British collectors from P g Y 1914-18.82 Another factor that may have slowed sales but Y that cannot easily be assessed was the rising price of post- Y g - P P impressionist art. By the time collectors in Britain were P Y made aware ofost-impressionism, ressionism prices had already be P P ~P Y - comerohibitive and buyers may well have been nervous A Y Y of making such an outlay. Whilst only two post-impression- g Y Y - res P p istaintin s were purchased at the Grafton Galleries in P g p h d been sold.83 1910, £4,600 worth of cheaper w orks had ~4~, p Perha s of even more significance was that it was during g g this decade that Fry was already being proclaimed the Y y g m P leader of a cultural elite whose chief focus was known to be recent developments in the avant-garde circles of Paris. p g Des Despite advocatingpost-impressionism in Britain, P gP P Bloomsbur members who owed their allegiance to Fry fo Bloomsbury g Y- cused their collecting activities on the work of contem g - o A rar avant-garde artists. Y g Several changes in patterns of collecting were, how g P g - were ever already beginning to emerge in the 1 105. Although Y g g g 9 g virtuall all collectors of post-impressionism in Britain in Y P A thiseriod are known to have bought their paintings P g P g abroad, and to have had some sort of link with the artists whose work they purchased, others, such as Stoop and YP p Coleman, had considerable amounts of moneyt their dis- Y osal rather than being of modest means. They were also p g Y no longer professionally involved in the arts, as were earli- g P Y er collectors: both Stoop and Coleman were businessmen. P At the same time, however, there is nothing to suggest that > g gg either collector was interested in this art as a form of in- vestment or as aossible money-making asset, and, al- p Y g though comfortably off, as with earlier collectors, neither g Y engaged in the kind of large scale buying of post-im s g Y g - re P P sionism by now associated with their counterparts abroad. Y A Sae Sales in the 1920s and 30s Between 1920 and 1 British collectors bought a to g 939 - g tal of6 paintings by Van Gogh. This was a dramatic increase 4~ p g Y g com compared to the previous three decades. The number of P P works sold in the 1920S alone amounted to 26. This was an 9 eight-fold increase over the number bought in the previous g g P decade(3) also far exceeded the increase in sales of ic 3 - P tures by Cézanne and Gauguin (see Appendix II). Sales dur- Y g AP in the 1 os which amounted to 1 showed no further g 93 ~ 9~ signs of increase and in fact dropped. One reason for the g PA overall slowing of sales of Van Gogh paintings - and indeed of g g P g all modern foreign art between 1 2 and 1 - was the Wall g 9 9 933 Street Crash and the ensuing years of the Depression. gY p Followin the economic recovery around 1935-36, sales g Y again increased. A further reason for the drop during the g p g 1 os may be attributed to an even greater rise in the price of 93 Y g P ost-im post-impressionist work. Although by the early 1 20s prices P P g Y Y 9 p had already long overtaken those asked for t JOURNAL 2002 the - num greater re 1920S and os it was exhibited in much 9 3 g bers than that of any other post-impressionist. Y P P Van Gogh was the first of the post-impressionists to receive a one-man show in Britain, held at the Leicester Galleries in - one e 2 1 . There were a total of three large g man exhibitions of his work organised there, the second in g 1 26 and the third in 1 o. By contrast, the first one-man 9 93 Y show of Gauguin's work took place only in 1 2 and that of g P Y 9 4~ 'zanne's in 1925.89 In addition to these solo exhibitions, Cézanne's Alex Reid & Lefèvre, the Independent Gallery and a host of P Y other newly established galleries held mixed exhibitions of Y g ost-im post-impressionist art during the 1 2os and . P P g os 9 3 Oliver Brown, owner of the Leicester Galleries, de- scribed the first of his Van Gogh shows in his memoirs. He g noted: 'Looking back, it is surprising to realise how few of g ~ P g theaintin s were sold to our English visitors and how P g g m modest some of the prices seem now.'90 He claimed that o p onl two sales had been made to British collectors, but his Y memory must have been slipping a little by this time. He Y PP g Y wrote: `The Earl of Sandwich bought an early landscape of g Y P the Dutch Period and a woman collector who lived in London bought a little painting called "On Montmartre" on g P g the advice of Augustus John.'91 In fact, the Earl of e g , Sandwich is known to have owned only one painting b Y P g by Van Gogh, namely, outskirts of Paris (F 264 JH 11 , g ~ Y~ 4~ 79 which is from his Pariseriod. In addition, the Earl ac- P uired the picture from the 1 26 show and not the one in q P 9 3 early 9 1 2 . The earl Dutch work mentioned was in fact a draw- in Willows (F 1247 JH 953), and waspurchased at the g~ 4~7 953 P m time as the painting, 1 26.92 Mrs Eve Fleming e p g, g g (died 1964), who was indeed closely associated with John, Y acquired Peasant woman with a white cap: left three uar- q ~ q ter view (F 14o JH and not the landscape of Brown's 4 745) P recollections.93 She moved to J.W.M. Turner's home at 118 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, in 1923. It was in Turner's Y large studio at the rear of the house, which was `decorated g withold wallpaper,' that her collection of paintings was gP g hung, the portraits of her painted by John.94 g~ including P P Y Brown apparently confused Fleming with Mrs C.S. PP Y g Carstairs, a collector who owned mainly works by the im- Y Y ressionists.95 It was Mrs Carstairs who purchased the P P smallaintin Montmarte near the Upper Mill (F 2 2 P g A~ 7 JH 118 from the 1 2 show. 3 93 Brown also failed to note that a few days before the Y o opening of the exhibition, Sadler had bought three draw P g - g ins and an oil painting. A previously unpublished letter to g P g P Y P the Leicester Galleries shows that Sadler e ex ressed con- cern in case any of the works he had selected had also been Y chosen by the collector Samuel Courtauld 18 6-1 or Y 7 947 the National Gallery in London. He informed Brown that if Y this were the case he did not wish to buy them. The gallery g Y confirmed that theurchases would `not compete with Mr P P Courtauld and the National Gallery' and Sadler thus bought Y g theictures, among them Olive trees: bright blue sky P g g fi . .96 In November 1 2 Sadler purchased a second Van g5 93 P Go h painting, life: one-eared vase with oleanders and Gogh P g f F JH 1566) from Alex Reid Lefèvre.97 books J 66 o e e d& 593 5 However, it was returned to thealley in 1 2 and 'within the week' bought by another British collector, Mrs g Y Elizabeth Russe Workman 18 -c. 1 .98 a u 74~ 937 82 In the last few months of the war, however, Gwendoline VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig. 5 fig. 6 Vincent van Gogh, Olive trees: bright blue sky (F 714 The Beatty drawing room, Baroda House, Kensington 1H 1858), 1889, Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland Palace Gardens, London, c. 1936, Dublin, Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library Patterns of collecting in the 1920s and 30s g The collecting of Van Gogh's work in Britain in the g €~ i 2os and os again shared certain characteristics. During 3 g g the 1920S collectors of post-impressionism in America and 9 P A p group Europe came from a new socio-economic rou - consist- in mainly of industrial millionaires and bankers - that g Y the 1 could afford to form vast art collect o .99 By n s Y 92os art had gained respectability in these post-impressionistg P Y countries and was more likely to be bought either because Y g collectors saw it as an investment or because these 'cul- ri h'100 believed that the works endowed social status tured c through their economic rather than their aesthetic value. g In a way, this art still identified its owners as mem- Y> bers of a cultural elite, albeit one for which the works now had a new meaning. Although collectors in Britain now also g g came from this same socio-economicrou they did not g P~ Y share itsatterns of collecting. While in America and other A g Euro can countries large collections of Van Gogh's work European g g were formed in the 1920S and os this was never true in 9 3 Britain, with the majority of collectors still owning only one l Y g Y or two examples. This may be explained by the fact that al- A Y P Y though these collectors were also millionaire industrial en- tre reneurs their wealth was never comparable to that of P ~ P their counterparts abroad. It is probable, though, that for P P ~ ~ them as for foreign collectors, the acquisition of these g ~ q l meaning.101 works was equally imbued with social q Y Notwithstandingeveral collectors in Britain did in g, fact form collections containing more than just a few exam- g jus of Van Go h's work. The collection of Edith p g (1888-1952) and Alfred(1875-1968)Chester Beatt for 95Beatty - ex m le 102 which included six paintings by Van Gogh, not a p ~ P g Y g on1 equalled in size those formed in a number of other Y q rm of alit .103 Beatty but surpassed them in terms o u y P quality.103 made his money in the mining industry. Within ten years of Y g Y Y raduatin as an engineer from Columbia University g g Y School of Mines he hadone from `mucker' to million- g aire.104 He moved to London around 1912 and by the 1 os 9 Y 93 had become one of the wealthiest men in Britain. Alfred's main interest was in oriental manuscripts and art, although P ~ g he also - brought together an impressive collection of 1 th g g P 9 centurypaintings of the Barbizon, Hague and realist YP g ~ g schools. In 1928, however, he gave his wife a cheque for 9 g q £ 1 o0 000 in order for her to form her own art collection. From this date she began buying modern foreign art, which g Y g g was hung on the walls of their palatial home, Baroda g P House in Kensington Palace Gardens, London (fig. 6). 132 JOURNAL 2002 Whether these works wereurchased on Edith's (fig. P 7) own initiative or because her husband had told her to do so is the subject of much debate.105 l Although Edith's early collecting focused on the g Y g work of the impressionists, by the mid-193os it had P Y 93 switched toost-im ressionism. While Courtauld's collec- P P tion contained areater total number of post-impressionist g P P the Beatt s had six works by Van Gogh, paintings,Y Y - as g com pared to Courtauld's two. Of these perhaps the best known P ~P P are Portrait of Patience Escalierfi . 8) and Still life: vase g with fourteen sunflowersfi . 1). Whilst the Sunflowers has g become one of the most famous and controversial of Van g Go h's works, the fact that it was once in a British collec- tin is seldom if ever enti ned.1°6 o se e , m o Scottish collectors — an independent market P Almost a third of all works by Van Gogh in British Y g collections were acquired by Scottish colle tors.107 After e S c q Y 1911 paintings by Cézanne and Gauguin were more o P g Y - g pop- ular in England than those by Van Gogh. In Scotland, g Y g however, hisictures were acquired in greater numbers P q g than those of any other post-im ressionist.108 The Y P P Scottish interest in Van g Go h's art did not, with the ex- ce tion of Reid predate that of the English collectors. P ,P g Exce t for the two paintings Reid owned in the 188os, no P P g further works by Van Gogh entered a Scottish collection Y g until the early 1 20S. Y 9 This interest cannot be attributed to the exhibition of Van Gogh's work in Scotland earlier than in England. g g Other than a handful ofaintin s by Van Gogh and the oth P ~ Y - g erost-im ressionists shown in Edinburgh and Glasgow P P g g just after Fry's second post-impressionist show of 1 12, just Y P P 9 Van - im - Gogh's art in the main, like that of the other ost g P ressionists, was not shown in Scotland until the early Y fig. 7 Philip Alexius De Laszlo, Portrait of Mrs Edith Beatty, 1916, Dublin, Chester Beatty Library 1920S. In the years following his return from Paris, Reid 9 Y g sought to advance the cause of the pre-impressionists and g P P impressionists. The first post-impressionist works he P P P showed in Glasgow were in January 1923, but these were ~ Y by Cézanne and au uin.109 He did not include Van Gogh's G e d G Y g g 99 Hahnloser-Ingold, op. cit. (note 48), p. 238. 100 This was the term used by Fry to describe collectors of modern foreign art in the 1930s. See Roger Fry, Henri Matisse, London 1935; quoted in A Roger Fry reader, cit. (note 77), p. 410. 101 See further Andrew p Ste henson, "'An anatomy of taste": Samuel Courtauld and debates about art patronage and modernism in Britain in the inter-war years,' in John House (ed.), Impressionism for England: Samuel Courtauld as patron and collector, New Haven & London 1994, p 38 103 The tramp (F 221a JH -) is not confirmed in De la Faille as having been in Beatty's possession, but a black and white photograph of the work appears in an album of the collection (Dublin, Chester Beatty Library Archives). It was with Arthur Tooth & Sons in 1970, the dealer who handled the disposal of a number of works from the Beatty collection. It is, however, no longer at- tributed to Van Gogh. 104 For a detailed account of Beatty's mining career see Brian P. Kennedy, Alfred Chester Beatty and Ireland 1950- 1968: a study in cultural politics, Dublin 1988, pp. 21-40 106 An opinion poll taken in Italy voted the Sunflowers the second 'best-known painting in the world,' beaten only by Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa (Paris, Louvre). See further Donald Sassoon, Mona Lisa: the history of the world's most famous painting, London 2001, p. 8. 107 For a detailed discussion of fig. 8 Vincent van Gogh, Portrait of Patience Escalier (F 444 JH 1563), 1888, London, Stavros S. Niarchos i show until June 1924.11° An analysis in a Scottish s ow unt u paintingsY of the Scottish exhibitions also shows thataintin s by Van P g Y Gogh were not shown in greater numbers than those of an g g any r t-im ressionists.111 Indeed significantly fewer other os P P g Y aintin s by Van Gogh were exhibited in Scotland than P g Y g 3 those by Cézanne 2 i and Gauguin 1 . Y g 9 Several factors, however, may nonetheless help > Y P - ex lain the Scottish preference. Firstly, it may be linked to P P Y~ Y their earlier acceptance of Dutch 19th-century landscapes, P 9 Y inarticular those by the Hague School, and the long- P Y - g g standingonnections between Scotland and northern g E ro .112 Here, Van Gogh was seen above all as a painter u pe g p in the Dutch tradition. His art, as Y C nthia Saltzman has ar- wed appealed to northern European collectors because of g ~ PP P its 'deep affinities to a collective visual heritage distinct P g from the classical tradition of Ital and France,' and it may Y in Scotland because of this.113 well have found acceptance 1 Sco and eca se t Secondly,many of these collectors, through their close re- Y Y lationshi as both patrons and friends of the Scottish P P Colourists, were introduced and t urged to accept this new g P phenomenon in art. Their boldly coloured works mirrored P Y those of theost-impressionists ressionists and their heirs. Having P P g thus familiarised themselves with the work of their P com a- triots these Scottish collectors were more easily able to ac-- Y ce t those of the post-impressionists. Thirdly, from the ear P P P Y 1 205 onwards, two Scottish dealers in particular s Y 19 ~ - e P P cialised in the work of Van Gogh. A number of works in g Scottish collections were acquired through the partnership q g P P of Matthew L. Justice and James Tattersall. Although g known to be art collectors 114 their activities as dealers have until now remained g unacknowled ed. These are doc- umented in areviousl unpublished letter sent to Cooper P Y P P by Reid's son, A.J. McNeill Reid: `Matthew Justice was quite Y ~ 9 an important influence on the east coast. He was the head P of a big furniture firm in Dundee, and a great friend of John g ~ g Tattersall, who for a time worked with my father in Y Glasgow. ... Justice got the idea that he might just as well g g g l buy the pictures in Paris and try to do some business him- Y P self. He and Tattersall went off to Bernheim Jeune, got ~g uite a few pictures on sale, bought a few more, and did a quite P ~ g good deal of business with Bo d.'115 The Scottish collector g o d Boy d.'11 134 110 Important pictures by 19th century French masters, London/Glasgow (Alex Reid & Lefèvre) 1924. From 1923 Reid g or anised a number of shows in London, held in collaboration first with Agnew's and then Lefèvre. Several Scottish collectors visited these exhibitions and purchased works displayed there. In 1926 Reid went into partnership with Lefèvre. 111 Korn, op cit. (note 51), p. 339. 112 See Frances Fowle, 'The Hague School and the Scots: a taste for Dutch pictures,' Apollo 134 (August 1991), pp. 108-11. Saltzman, op. cit. (note 38), p. 63. 114 Justice collected primarily Vuillard's work. 115 Los Angeles, The Getty Research Institute, Research Library, Cooper papers, A.J. McNeill Reid to Douglas Cooper, 9 April 1953, box 14, folder 5. 116 William Boyd lived at Claremont, Broughty Ferry, Dundee. He also owned works by Monet, Sisley, Bonnard and Vuillard. 117 To date only works by Van Gogh have been iden JOURNAL 2002 William Boyd (died 1938), owner of Keillers of Dundee, Y manufacturers of chocolate and jam, acquired threepaint- J q A in s by Van Gogh from Justice 116 including A corner of the g Y g ~ f g orchard FJH i 8 and Landscape at Fontvieille, with 553 3 7 ~ lou ploughman and mills in the background (F o6 JH i 117 ~ g g 7 794 Most of Van Gogh's work in Scottish collections, though, g g came from Reid. However, they were generally not bought Y g Y g from his shows in Glasgow, his Scottish clients now refer- g P ringo shop in London. It was the Scottish collectors who g P made a killing at the Exhibition of the post-impressionist masters, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, organised g g ~ g in.October 1923 in London in collaboration with Lefèvre.118 93 All threeaintin s by Van Gogh exhibited by Reid in P g Y g Y London in October 1923 were acquired by Elizabeth 93 q Y W rkm n.119 Although n o aan article was written on the colle- c tion in 1926,12° little is known f thiscollector, v n h full g es o o see th of her and her husband had, until recentlyemained Y, unidentified. Elizabeth was Scottish by birth and was born Y in Glasgow. Like many Scottish collectors, her husband g Y Robert made his money in shi in .121 He was a shipbroker Y AA g P and came from a family of shipbuilders. They lived most of Y P Y the time in London, but Alex Reid records that Workman also had an address in Scotland, 117 West George Street, 7 g until 1921.122 In addition to the work Sadler had returned 9 (see above), she alsourchased The bridge at Trinquetaille P g q F26 JH i 68 and The hospital in Arles (F 6 6 JH 1686 .123 4 4 p 4~ Indeed we know almost nothing about any of the Scottish g Y collectors or the artworks they owned. The collection of Y Roan Middleton in particular has never been fully P Y - aP praised. Recent research has shown that it contained two if not threeaintin s by Van Gogh, including Corner in Parc P g Y g g Vo er d Ar enson at (F 2 6 JH 1259), previously g 7 59 ~ A Y - un acknowledged as having been in his collection.124 g g ~ Conclusion This article has shown that whilst Britain cannot be said to have been the leading centre for the collecting of g g Van Gogh's art, it can nevertheless be considered on the g same footing as a number of other countries. In particular, g A it has drawn attention to a number of early purchases and Yp demonstrated that British collectors did not lag behind in g collecting Van Gogh's art - in fact, in a number of instances g g exam examples were acquired in advance of those in other coun- P q tries. Furthermore, it has demonstrated that, in contrast to many other European countries, large collections of his Y p ~ g were not formed from the early s. The paintingsY - i9 oo ma jorit of British collectors owned only two works, Y Y - one or re ardless of their wealth. It is this pattern of collecting p g that invariably led to the significant number of pictures in Y s g A Britain neverreviousl having been acknowledged. P Y g g Unfortunatel of these few now remain. The majority are Y~ J Y today to be found in some of the most famous public and Y P rivate collections in the world. A 118 See op. cit. (note 97) and Alex Reid & Lefèvre, cit. (note 98) 119 Elizabeth Russe Allan married Robert Alfred Workman in 1901 in Row in Scotland. I thank Frances Fowle for generously sharing this information with me. 120 James Bolivar Manson, 'The Workman collection,' Apollo 3 (March 1926) pp 139-44, 156. 121 Information taken from birth and marriage certifi- cates at the Scottish Record Office. Mrs Workman was still alive in 1937, when she is recorded as having bought a painting by Derain from Alex Reid & Lefèvre 122 The place i VAN GOGH MUSEUM Appendix 1 -Paintings by Van Gogh in Britain before the Second World War Acquired Buyer Title Date Whereabouts F/J H c 1888 Alexander Reid Still life: basket of apples 1887 St Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum F379JH1341 cl888 Alexander Reid Portrait of Alexander Reid c1887 Unidentified c1890-91 Lucien Pissarro Still life basket of apples 1887 Otterlo, Museum Kruller Muller F378JH 1340 1893 William Cherry Robinson Two crabs 1888/89 France, Private collection F 606 J H 1662 Early 1890s Mr Thomas Fisher Unwin Flowers Unidentified 1896 Mrs Esther Sutro Interior of a restaurant in Arles 1888 Christie's, New York, 30 April 1996, lot 31 F 549 JH 1572 1910 Frank Stoop Farms near Auvers 1890 London, Tate Gallery F 793 JH 2114 1911 Gustav Robinow Factories at Asnières, seen from the Quai de Clichy 1887 St Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum F317JH1287 By 1913 Herbert Coleman The Auvers stairs with five figures 1890 St Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum F7951H2111 Early 1920s William Boyd Landscape at Fontvieille, with ploughman and mills in the 1889 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts F 706 JH 1794 background Early 1920s Matthew Justice Still life: one-eared vase with dianthus 1886 Present whereabouts unknown F 236 J H 1130 1920 Davies Sisters Landscape at Auvers in the rain 1890 Cardiff, National Museum of Wales F 811 1H 2096 1921 William McInnes Moulin de la Galette 1886 Glasgow, Glasgow Art Gallery & Museum F274JH1115 1923 Sir Michael Sadler Still life cane-eared vase with oleanders and books 1888 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art F 593 JH 1566 1923 Mrs R.A. Workman The hospital in Arles 1889 Collection Oskar Reinhart 'Am Riimerholz,' F 646 J H 1686 Winterthur 1923 Sir Michael Sadler Olive trees bright blue sky 1889 Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland F714JH1858 1923 Mrs C S Carstairs Montmartre near the upper mill 1886 Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago F 272 JH 1183 1923 Mrs Eve Fleming Peasant woman with a white cap left three-quarter view 1885 Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland F 140 JH 745 1923 Sir James Murray Still life: vase with daisies ando p PP ies 1888 Present whereabouts unknown F 325 JH - 1924 Mrs R.A. Workman The bridge at Trinquetaille 1888 New York, André Meyer F 4261 H 1468 Until 1925 Private collection/Justice? A corner of the orchard 1888 Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland F 553 JH 1387 By 1925 William Boyd A corner of the orchard 1888 Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland F 553 JH 1387 1925 Mrs R.A. Workman Still life: one-eared vase with oleanders and books 1888 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art F 593 JH 1566 1926 Earl of Sandwich The outskirts of Paris 1886 Christie's, New York, 10 Nov 1987, lot 16 F 264 JH 1179 c1926 Capt Stanley W Sykes The old willows 1889 Stavros S. Niarchos Collection F 520 JH 1690 Before 1927 William Boyd The grove 1890 Sotheby's, New York, 8 Nov 1995, lot 12 F 817 JH 1319 1927 Samuel Courtauld The plain of La Crau with orchard of peach trees 1889 London, Courtauld Institute Galleries F 514 JH 1681 After 1927 Matthew Smith The cottage 1885 Sotheby's, London, 28 June 1961, lot 28 F 92 JH 810 After 1927 Mrs Mary Keene The cottage 1885 Sotheby's, London, 28 June 1961, lot 28 F 92 JH 810 By 1928 C E Dix Landscape at Fontvieille, with ploughman and mills in 1889 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts F 706 J H 1794 the background By 1928 James Tattersall Moored ferries 1887 Sotheby's, London, 3 Dec 1991, lot 18 F 300 J H 1275 By 1928 C Beechman Restaurant Rispal at Asnières 1887 Sotheby's, New York, 7 Nov 1979, lot 541 F355JH 1266 1928 Samuel Courtauld Self portrait with bandaged ear 1889 London, Courtauld Institute Galleries F 527 JH 1657 c1928 Leopold Sutro Corner in Voyer-d'Argenson Park at Asnierès 1888 New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery F 276 JH 1259 1929 A.J. MacNeill Reid Portrait of Alexander Reid 1887 Glasgow, Glasgow Art Gallery & Museum F 343 JH 1250 1930 David W.T. Cargill Still life: one-eared vase with zinnias 1888 Private collection F 592 JH 1568 By 1932 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty Sheaves of wheat 1890 Dallas, Dallas Museum of Art F 771 JH 2125 After 1932 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty The tramp 1886 London, Arthur Tooth F221aJHno 1934 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty Portrait of Patience Escalier, shepherd in the Provence 1888 Stavros S Niarchos Collection F 444 JH 1563 1935 Royan Middleton Moored ferries 1887 Sotheby's, London, 3 Dec 1991, lot 18 F 300 J H 1275 By 1935 Mrs Van Gruisen Interior of a restaurant in Arles 1888 Christie's, New York, 30 April 1996, lot 31 F 549 JH 1572 By 1936 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty Still life vase with fourteen sunflowers 1889 Tokyo, Semi Togo Memorial Yasuda F 457 J H 1666 Kasai Museum of Art By 1936 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty Trunk of an old yew tree 1888 Christie's, New York, 14 Nov 1989, lot 13 F 573 JH 1618 136 JOURNAL 2002 Acquired Buyer Title Date Whereabouts F/J H c1936 Mrs Edith Chester Beatty The rocks 1888 Houston, Museum of Fine Arts F 466 J H 1489 1936 Mr & Mrs Anderson Trees in the garden of Saint Paul's hospital 1889 Lausanne, Private collection F 731 JH 1801 1936-37 Mr F H Herrmann Field of green wheat 1890 Mr and Mrs Paul Mellon, Upperville, Virginia F 807 JH 794 By 1937 Private collection, London Le Mont Gaussier with the Mas de Saint Paul 1890 London, Private collection F 725 JH 1744 1937 Sir Alexander Maitland A corner of the orchard 1888 Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland F 553 JH 1387 c1938 Herbert Wilcox Boat moored to the bank 1887 Switzerland, Private collection F 353 JH 1271 After 1938 William A. Cargill Windmill on Montmartre 1886 Destroyed F 271 JH 1186 By 1939 Sir Victor Schuster Olive trees pale blue sky 1889 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art F 708 JH 1855 By 1939 Capt Victor A Cazalet Wheatfields with Auvers in the background 1890 Switzerland, Private collection F 801 JH 2123 1939 Capt Victor A Cazalet Head of a man three quarters to the left 1887 Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria F 209 JH 1201 c1939 Capt Edward Molyneux The farm gate 1889 Washington, National Gallery of Art F 565 JH 1443 1930s Mrs J Watson Hughes The alley of Les Alyscamps 1888 Private collection F 568 JH 1622 Late 1930s S T Kilpatrick Still life one-eared vase with zinnias 1888 Private collection F 592 JH 1568 Appendix 2 -Analysis of the number of post-impressionist paintings in Britain before the Second World War Cézanne Gauguin Van Gogh Seurat Total 1880s 0 0 2 0 2 1890s 0 4 4 0 8 1900s 0 0 0 0 0 1910s 5 12 3 1 21 1920s 22 27 26 25 100 1930s 34 16 21 20 91 61 59 56 46 222 % 28% 26% 25% 21% 100% 137 VAN GOGH MUSEUM fig 1 138 Otto Wacker (far right) on trial in Berli VAN GOGH STUDIES The Wacker forgeries: a catalogue Stefan Koldehoff Many of the so-called `Wacker forgeries' - which until now disposal either printed or handwritten details of the colours g P P Y of the original (De la Faille no. 628). The colours of the have not been reliably catalogued - were evidently painted Y g YP b Otto Wacker's (fig. 1) brother, the painter Leonhard ~ Wacker study have nothing to do with Van Gogh's original Y g g Y g P colours. '2 Wacker althou h he himself never confessed to his in- g volvement. Among the items found by the police when they Y On the other hand, various g for eries hitherto attrib- P Y searched his studio was a study (fig. 2) after Van Gogh's uted to Wacker seem not to have been commissioned by Y g g fre reaper.1 This him, although he maypossibly have been involved in their Y p g YP q YP ~ stud here published for the very first time, was examined sale. The still life Vase with asters Fo was already list- 59 Y Y~ P Y - ed in an inventory of the Von der Heydt collection ini 18.3 on behalf of the Berlinolice by Ludwig Thormaehlen, cu Y Y 9 P Y g National alerie in Berlin, who wrote in his re- There is no evidence that Otto Wacker was interested in rator at the g port: `As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt whatsoev- Van Gogh at that time. Whilst Wacker's name had indeed g er that thisiece like the "study" for the "self-portrait," is been mentioned in connection with a forgery after Franz g Y P ~ Y P von Stuck as early as i 1 94~~ his interest in the art trade dur - are arator study, a colour trial, for the correspond- - Y P P Y Y~ ~ P in those early years seems to have been confined to ro - in Van Gogh forgery (De la Faille no. 2 . The "study" is g Y Y P g g g Y 5 3 Y ainted on a canvas that has already been used before, motin the sale of works by his father, an amateur painter. P Y g Y ~ P As to theoint in time when Wacker actually began his ca - probably for a hurriedly executed preliminary sketch of a p Y g P Y Y P Y still life that was subsequently washed off. Still visible on reer as arofessional art dealer, there are several differing ~ g q Y the left-hand side is a circle in which the word "orange" accounts. Without indicating his source, Walter g g has been written, and also the colour which was used to fill Feilchenfeldt writes: `Otto Wacker had tried variousrofes- P in the background. The canvas has been tacked several sions before becoming an art dealer in 1925. He succeeded g g times as can be seen from the holes along its top and bot- in establishing a sound reputation with dealers and experts P g P g P tom. The coloursresumed by Wacker to have been used in the Van Gogh field, and De la Faille and Meier-Graefe Y g P i inte rit .'4 Grete Ring, stressed their faith in his y g, for an original Van Gogh wheatfield have been applied, PP Y g g one of Paul Cassirer's closest businessartners, puts the without muchreliminar drawing work, with powerful P P P Y g brushstrokes in approximately six colour units. Just as with time much earlier: `One da ayouthful dancer, Olindo Y, Y PP Y the "study" for, or after, the self-portrait, it was a re roduc - Lowael[sic],alias Otto Wacker, the son of a Dusseldorf Y P ~ P tion and not an original that Leonhard Wacker had in front ainter made his appearance in the Berlin art trade. At P ~ PP first - it was around 9 i 22 - he offered relativel small deal- relatively of him as heainted the canvas. He may have had at his p Y wieder abgewaschen wurde. Man sieht links noch einen Bemalun der Leinwand vor Augen gestanden. Es fist 1 Cf F 6171H 1753, F 618 JH 1773, and F 619 JH g g Kreis mit der Eintragung der Bezeichnung "Orange", m6 lich, da(I er eine gedruckte oder schriftliche 1792. g ferner die Farbe, mit der der Hintergrund ausgefullt war. Farbenangabe des Originals (De la Faille Nr 628) dabei g g Die Leinwand war mehrmals aufgeheftet, was durch die zur Hand hatte. Mit den Original-Farben van Goghs 2 Berlin, Zentralarchiv der Stiftung Preu(lischer g Lacher, durch g Reissn el bewerkt, oben and unten er- haben die Farben der Wackerschen Studie nachts zu tun ' Kulturbesitz, report dated 9 July 1929: 'Fur mach besteht p Y sichtlich wird. Ohne viel Vorzeichnung sind in etwa 6 kein Zweifel, dag lieses Stuck wie die "Studie" zum Farb-Einheiten die von Wacker fur een Original des van 3 Carl Georg Heise (ed.), Die Sammlung des Freiherrn Farbprob g "Selbstbildnis" eine Vorarbeit, d.h. eine Farb robe fur Go hschen Getreidefeldes vermuteten Farben in kráfti- August von der Heydt, Wuppertal, Leipzig 1918, no. 97. entsprechende van Gogh-FIschung (De la Faille Nr. g g p gen Pinselzugen hingesetzt. Genau wie bei der "Studie" 523) war. Die "Studie" fist auf eine Leinwand gemalt, die zum bezw. nach dem Selbstbildnis hat eine Reproduktion 4 Walter Feilchenfeldt, 'Van Gogh fakes. the Wacker *,n eenmal benutzt wurde and zwar in ganz fluchtigem and kein Ora inal Leonhard Wacker wahrend der affair, with an illustrated catalogue of the forgeries,' Auftra vv. • ' .-.a Stilleben im Entwurf enthielt, das dann g g Simiolus 19 (1989), no. 4, p. 293 VAN GOGH MUSEUM ers comparatively modest pieces, works of the Dutch and Dusseldorf schools, and sometimes major works, an J Israëls, an Achenbach, Schuch, Uhde, Trubner.... at the turn of theear 1925/26, W. suddenly appeared with a Y YAP number ofaintin s by Vincent van Gogh, which he sold, A g Y g one after the other, to Berlin art dealers.... at the end of 1926, W. moved into an imposing bel éta e in one of the 9 étag elegant pre-war houses in Viktoriastrafie.'5 g A Theear 1 22 does in fact seem a little too early, Y 9 Y~ Otto Wacker, alias Olinto Lovael, was still performingas a dancer in his native city of Dusseldorf in the winter of Y 1923/24.6D riproceedings u n the appeal Wacker himself is g AP quoted as saying: I ave u dancing around 1924,as m q` gave up g my business with the Van Gogh pictures was expanding Wacker A A g - exces sivel .'7 r terminated his Kratkowski's e e ated 1s interest in Kratkowskl s hackney carriage business in 1925.8 However, there is n y ge s no evidence that he was already dealing in art in 1 18 this be- Y g 9 in the year in which Vase with asters, attributed to Wacker g Y himself, is first documented. Likewise dubious is the Wackerrovenance for the A painting The small garden (F 2 which in 1 2 A g g 4~4~ ~ 9 5 was owned by the Elberfeld collector Julius Schmits.9 As Y Schmits and Von der Heydt (together with their wives) used Y g to travel together regularly from Elberfeld to Paris in order g g Y to buy works of art, and both F c o and F had been of- Y ~ 5,a 442 4~ een fered for sale at the Galerie Eugène Blot 10 it is not im rob g ~ - A able that these twoaintin s were purchased there at the A g A same time, shortly before the First World War, and there- Y fore never came into contact with Otto Wacker.11 Another still life, Vase with flowers (F325), is known 35 to have existed in England12 since the beginning of the g g g 1920S before being auctioned at Christie's in London in 9 g 1927.13 Here again, Wacker's interest in Van Gogh does not g oes o date back far enough. g Theaintin Peasant with fork (F 68 which is def- A g 5~ initel of Wacker r v n n 14 manifests strong e a ce, a ests stro stylistic Y A g Y similarities to theaintin Peasant walking along the fields A g ~ g (fig.3a),the first owner of which was said to have been the g ainter Remy Matifas(1846-1896)of Bati nolles near A Yg Pri.15 far has s So a nobody as been able to give a convincing g g answer to theuestion as to why only one of the two paint- q Y Y - A in s (F 685) had been offered for sale by Wacker, while the g 5 Y other was never once supposed to have passed through his AA A g hands. Walter Feilchenfeldt has- re ointed out that works p A sumed to have beenainted by Leonhard Wacker and of- A Y 140 fig. 2 Leonard Wacker, (Study for) Wheatfield with reaper, Berlin, Stiftung Preu(iischer Kulturbesitz fered for sale by his brother Otto are generally direct Y g Y copies after original works the two brothers had seen, ei- A ther at their owners' homes or in exhibitions, orurchased A as reproductions.16 Aparticularly a t exam le is the au- A A exampl Olive trees (F 1 o JH 1856),which at that A g 7 time belonged to the collection of the Van Gogh translator g g Mar arethe Mauthner. Shortly after taking this painting in g Y g A g commission from the Galerie Matthiesen, Otto Wacker was himself able to offer as many as three copies of the same Y A motif in hisalley . Almost every Wacker forgery can be g Y Y g Y similarly traced back to an original that was either directlyY accessible to Otto Wacker and his brother or available to them in the form of a A fig 3b Vincent van Gogh, Morning: Peasant couple going to work (after Millet) (F 684 JH 1880), Otto Krebs Collection (at present St Petersburg, Hermitage) that a direct copy was made after one of the five com ara - AY P ble Sunflower or after one of the reproductions of ~ P fig. 3a Peasant walking along the fields (F 699a) theseaintin s as the dark upper half of the vase and the A g ~ Ap shadow cast by the vase do not appear on any of them. Y AP Y The Peasant walking along the fields (fig. 3a) and g g f g3 mentionedaintin s Vase with asters and Peasant walking g the Peasant withfork are paraphrases of Van Gogh's Millet g f P A g along the fields there were no such originals in existence. inter interpretation Morning: Peasant couple going to work (after g f P ~ p g g The Wuppertal painting Vase with asters (F o is a free Millet) (fig. b . Finally, ~' small garden cites the upper pp A g 59 ~ g3 Y~ g PP adaptation of the motifs of the Sunflower series, the sun- .flP left corner of Garden with flowers F8 JH 1538), leavin 57leaving flowers having been replaced by white and pink asters out the church as well as the larger house in the original; it g P Y P g a against a yellow background. It seems unlikely, however, is thus aastiche. In this case also no direct original exists. g Y g P 6 Joachim Golf Kunstfálscher Berlin 1962, p. 173. of the time and place of purchase have been preserved. Paintings and drawings by Van Gogh, Degas, Pissarro and Other Modern Artists, New York (Parke-Bernet 7 Berliner Bórsenkurier (6 April 1932). 'Etwa im Jahre 12 The painting was exhibited in 1923 in Manchester at Galleries), 24 October 1951, lot 92 (Peasant walking 1924 habe ich das Tanzen aufgegeben, da sich mein Thos. Agnew & Sons, Masterpieces of French art of the along the fields). g th , Kunsthandel mit den van Gogh-Bildern zu sehr ausdehnte.' 19 century in aid of the Lord Mayor's appeal for the hospitals, no. 20 16 Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 289-316. 8 Frank Arnau, Kunst der Fischer. Flscher der Kunst Düsseldorf 1959, p. 260. 13 London (Christie's), 29 April 1927, lot 44 17 This isarticularly clear from the rendering of the p wooden clogs, the right arms and hands of the figures g 9 When the estate of Julius Schmits's widow was auc- 14 That this work was among the paintings sold by and the back round. As only the man's right hand is visi- g tioned by Auktionshaus Lempertz, Cologne, in May Otto Wacker is documented by a contemporary photo- ble in the original painting, the forger did not have a de- Y p p g 1955, this painting was no longer in the collection. ra h of the courtroom during the Wacker trial in which fiction of a left hand at his disposal. He therefore had to gp p the painting is clearly visible as one of the pieces of evi- conceal it under the peasant woman's apron. 10 Cf. details of provenance given in De la Faille. dence 11 According the Von der Heydt-Museum, no records 15 Provenance according to auction catalogue VAN GOGH MUSEUM Catalogue g The following catalogue is based on several sources, g g some of which have never before been evaluated in con- nection with the Wacker forgeries. In addition to the details g ofrovenance given in the i 28 i 8 and i o editions of A g 9 ~ 93 97 De la Faille's g catalo ue raisonné (a work which must, how- ever, be treated with some caution) and the studies by Feilchenfeldt i 1 ri 8 these sources consist - Walter88/8 s 9 9 p maril of the records kept at the Zentralarchiv der Stiftung p g r i h r Kulturbesitz in B rlin.19 In January i 2 , P eul3 sc eBerlin.19 9 9 Ludwig Justi exhibited the Krbller-Muller collection at the g Nationalgalerie, Berlin. He also exhibited, by way of com g ~ ~ y y - arison several Wacker forgeries, keeping further sele p ~ g ~ p g - a c tin in his office for viewing by arrangement.2° The o s o g y - corre g s ondence with the then-owners of these works has been p reserved though it has not been possible to match the preserved, g P works and their owners in every case. Letters were evi y - cas dentl written to Carl Sternheim of Uttwil, near Zurich, and Y > Thomas Brown, Viktoriastraf eBerlin as owners of 35> > non-authentic works, but it has not beenossible to identi- p f their ictures.21 Marie von Mendelssohn, on the other Y pictures.2 owned an authentic work - Wheat field with cypresses yp Fi JH i 6 - which she loaned to the Nationalgalerie 7 7 75 g forroses of com arison.22 The Berlin dealer Paul pup p Glaser made a statement during the trial of the Hamburg g collector Elsa Wolf-Essberger against her former picture g g p dealer Hugo Perls, confirming that he and Perls had `in the g g course of severalears' acquired `about 8 van Goghs from y q g Wacker.' They had not been taken in commission but y bought straight out. Indeed, Perls owned i i of the Wacker g g fakes. It was only possible to identify one of them (F 616) as yp Y the joint property of Glaser and Perls. l p p y Other names of owners have been sourced from contemporary newspaper and ma magazine reports on the p yg p Wacker affair and the ensuing trial. Reference in these re- g ports to the fact that Wacker sold two works to the Paris and New York-based Wildenstein Gallery could be verified Y only in the case of one of the paintings (F 527a). No do cu- - 2 p g 57 a cu mentar evidence could be found concerning the first own y g - ers of theaintin s F 539a, F 62 a and F 6 1 named b p g 539 ~ 5 9 by Wacker himself during his trial. Like Wacker's frequently g q y cited `Private collection, Switzerland,' they, too, are in all Y robabilit fictitious. For this reason in what follows those p y provenances for which there is no definitive evidence are stricken through, while those probably invented by Wacker g p Y y himself areiven a question mark. g q For the works inublic collections, the respective P p n 23 A museums have furnished details on their rovena ces. As p regards the only two paintings to have been put up for g y P g P p - auc tion the auctioneers concernedave me access to their g archives.24 I am also indebted to Ralph Jentsch, Capri, for p ~ P havin pointed out that the painting F 6 1 was given by the having p g 9 g Y owner of the Galerie Matthiesen, Franz Zatzenstein, to one of his employees when he was forced to close the galleryg y due to Nazi rise toower. That employee, Gertrud p Wolowski, must have believed theaintin to be authentic, p g as after the Second World War she sometimes referred to it as her `nest egg.' In i her heirs noticed a label from the gg 977 Cassireralley on the back of the f JOURNAL 2002 A paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker 1929 Hamburg, Kunstverein (February - March?), Vincent van Works probably painted by Leonhard Gogh - Sammlung Kroller im Haag, no 85 1930 Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum (6 September - 2 November), Wacker Vincent van Gogh en zien tijdgenoten, no 223 1949 Gouda, Het Catharina Gasthuis (April - May), Vincent van Gogh F 387 / H - / FF 5 /JH - Plate with bread rolls Oil on canvas, 46 x 57 cm Copy after F 386 JH 1365 (Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo) The forger misinterpreted the potatoes in the authentic painting as bread rolls Provenance F418a/H-/FF55/JH- F 385 / H 812 / FF 1 /JH - Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Boats at Les-Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer Self-portrait Galerie Heinrich Thannhauser, Munich (1928) Oil on canvas, 46 x 57 cm Oil on canvas, 41 x 32.5 cm Galerie Matthiesen, Berlin (1929) Copy after F 1430 1H 1505 (Nationalgalerie, Berlin) Copy after F 522 JH 1356 (Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam) Whereabouts unknown Several pre-war catalogues list this painting as regular part of the Provenance collection of the Kroller-Muller Museum and show an illustration Exhibitions Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin of it As there is no evidence that it was ever acquired for the col- 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - ?), dubious Van Gogh ? Private collection, Switzerland (1928) lection, it seems more probable that Salomon van Deventer, a paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Whereabouts unknown close advisor to Helene Kroller, temporarily gave it on loan Exhibitions Provenance 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin van Gogh, no 42 ('Berlin owner') Galerie Matthiesen , Berlin (1929) Willem Scherjon, Utrecht (1932) Max Silberberg, Breslau Salomon van Deventer, Wassenaar-De Steeg (1970) Heirs of Salomon van Deventer, Wassenaar-De Steeg Private collection (2002) Exhibitions 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - ?), dubious Van Gogh F 418 / H 814 / FF 7 /JH - paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Boats at Les-Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer Oil on canvas, 44 x 57.5 cm Copy after F 1431 JH 1542 (Private collection) F421 /H-/FF9/JH- Provenance Street at Les-Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Oil on canvas, 49 x 60 cm Galerie d'Audretsch, The Hague (1928-1929) Copy after F 1435 1H 1506 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo (since 1929) (inv no 934-29) New York) Exhibitions Provenance 1927 Paris, Galerie Bernheim-Jeune, Vincent van Gogh. l'époque Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Française (20 June - 2 July) Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (offered for 28,000 Reichsmark in 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - ?), dubious Van Gogh February 1926) 143 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Dr Fritz Roeder, Berlin Provenance Galerie Siegmund Gildemeister, Hamburg-Altona Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin (1928/1929/1932) Joseph Stransky Gallery (1928, acquired for 80,000 guilders) Whereabouts unknown Chester Dale, New York (1929) National Gallery of Art, Washington (Chester Dale Collection) (since 1965) (Inv no 1814) Exhibitions 1929 Utrecht, Vereeniging voor der Kunst (May - June), Vincent van Gogh F539/H-/FF16IJH- The zouave Oil on canvas, 65 x 54 cm Copy after F 424 JH 1488 (Private collection) Provenance F521 /H-/FF12/JH- Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Self-portrait Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1927) Oil on canvas, 61 x 51 cm Otto Krebs, Holzdorf (1928/1929) Copy after F 522 JH 1356 (Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam) Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1932) (taken back from Krebs) Whereabouts unknown Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin F 527a / H - / FF 52 /JH - Exhibitions Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin Self-portrait with bandaged ear and pipe 1927 Berlin, Galerie Hugo Perls (January - February), Franzósische Sir Robert Abdy, Y~ Oil on canvas, 43 x 33 cm Malerei des XIX Jahrhunderts, no 27 Whereabouts unknown Copy after F 527 JH 1657 (Courtauld Institute Galleries, London) 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent and F 529 JH 1658 (Niarchos Collection, London) van Gogh, no 57 ('Holzdorf/Weimar, private collection') Exhibitions 1927 Galerie Matthiesen (February - March), Das Stilleben in der Provenance Deutschen and Franzósischen Malerei von 1850 bis zur Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Gegenwart, no 118 7 Private collection, Switzerland Wildenstein Gallery, New York Annie Swan Coburn Collection Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Annie Swan Coburn, 1934 (Inv no 1934 00355 0000) Exhibitions 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent van Gogh, no 53 ('Berlin owner') 1932 The Art Institute of Chicago (4 June - 10 September), Exhibition of the Mrs L L Coburn Collection modern paintings and watercolors F539a/H-/FF17IJH- 1949 Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery (1 January - 31 December), The zouave [No title] Oil on canvas, 62 x 52 cm 1967 New York, Graham Gallery (1 January - 31 December), Art Copy after F 424 JH 1488 (Private collection) F 523 / H 813 / FF 14 / J H - authentic and fake Self-portrait with easel 1973 The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (11 July - 29 September), Provenance Oil on canvas, 59 x 49 cm Fakes and forgeries, no 154 ('Anonymous loan') Collection zmclla, Mannheim Copy after F 626 JH 1770 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1975 Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh (26 September - 2 Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin DC) and F 522 JH 1356 (Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam) November), Forgeries and their detection 7 Private collection, Switzerland Whereabouts unknown 144 JOURNAL 2002 Exhibitions Galerie Matthiesen , Berlin (1926/29) (acquired in 1926 for 36,000 71928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February - March), Reichsmark) Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 13 ('Mannerportrát') Willem Scherlon, Utrecht (1932) Salomon van Deventer, Wassenaar-De Steeg (1939) Daniel G van Beuningen, Vierhouten Mrs A E van Beuningen-Charlouis, Vierhouten E J van Wisselingh & Co , Naarden Jan de Jong, Amsterdam Nico de Jong, Amsterdam/Valkeveen (acquired in 1992) Monica and Michael de Jong, Winnipeg/Toronto F625a/H630/FF42/JH- Exhibitions Wheatfield with rising moon 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh Oil on canvas, 61 x 77.5 cm paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Copy after F 7351E11761 (Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo) 1934 Amsterdam, Kunsthandel Huinck & Scherjon (7 April - 5 May), Schilderalen door Nederlandsche en Fransche meesters, no 6 Provenance Bernard Wacker, Raris F 577 / H - / FF 19 / JH - Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin The garden H P Bremmer, The Hague (1930/32) Oil on canvas, 43 x 33 5 cm Whereabouts unknown Copy after F 1456 1H 1537 (Private collection) Exhibitions Provenance 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin van Gogh, no 62 (exhibited as'Muhlen bei Mondaufgang,' 'Berlin Galerie M Goldschmidt, Berlin (February - March 1928) owner') Whereabouts unknown Exhibitions 1928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February - March), Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 16 ('Garten mit Haus,' ill ) F 616 / H - / FF 24 /JH - Cypresses Oil on canvas, 70 x 56 cm Copy after F 1525 JH 1747 (The Brooklyn Museum, New York) Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin ('sold about 1925 for 18,000 Reichsmark') Galerie Hugo Perls/Paul Glaser, Berlin (joint venture) (1925/of- fered for 32,500 Reichsmark in February 1926) F639/H817/FF26/1H- Elsa Wolf-Essberger, Hamburg (1928/29) Road with two poplars Mrs Hartung Oil on canvas, 55 x 45 cm Whereabouts unknown Copy after F 638 JH 1797 (The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland) F 614 / H 816 / FF 21 / JH - Exhibitions De la Faille's financial interest in this painting has been examined Cy resses 1925 Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin by Tsukasa Ködera in idem, 'The road in the Alpilles new docu- p Oil on canvas, 90 x 69.5 cm 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 2), dubious Van Gogh ments concerning the acquisition of the Wacker-Van Gogh,' in Copy after F 15251H 1747 (The Brooklyn Museum, New York) paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Shogeilutsu no Kyosei (Symbiosis of Art], Hiroshima 1995, pp 129-44 Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Provenance Galerie Heinrich Thannhauser, Berlin (immediately returned to Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Wacker, according to the Thannhauser Archive) Galerie Heinrich Thannhauser, Berlin 145 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Galerie Huinck & Scherjon, Amsterdam (acquired from Wacker on Gertrud Wolowski, Berlin 12 December 1928) Werner Kunarski, Germany (since 1977) J -B de la Faille, Bloemendaal (acquired from the above on 25 September 1935 for 14,550 guilders) Exhibitions Magosaburo Ohara, Kurashiki/Japan (purchased through J -B de 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent la Faille) van Gogh, no 73 ('Berlin, privately owned') Ohara Museum of Art, Kurashiki/Japan (since 1940) Exhibitions 1927 Berlin, Galerie Heinrich Thannhauser (9 January - mid- February), Erste Sonderausstellung in Berlin (not in catalogue) 1927 Paris, Galerie Bernheim-Jeune, Vincent van Gogh l'époque frangaise (20 June - 2 July) F685/H-/FF28/JH- 1932 Amsterdam, E J van Wisselingh & Co (27 April - 28 May), Peasant with fork (after Millet) Hollandsche en Fransche schilderkunst der XIXe en XXe eeuw, no Oil on canvas, 57 x 47 5 cm 22 Partial copy after F 684 1H 1880 (Otto Krebs Collection, at pre- sent St Petersburg, Hermitage) Provenance F 705 / H - / FF 32 / JH - Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Sower Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1928) Oil on canvas, 48 x 62 cm Galerie Goldschmidt, Berlin (1928/29) Copy after F 1442 JH 1508 (The Solomon R Guggenheim Whereabouts unknown Museum/Thannhauser Collection, New York) or F 422 1H 1470 (Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo) Exhibitions 1928 Berlin, Galerie M. Goldschmidt & Co. (February - Provenance March), Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no. 15 Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin ('Retour des champs') 2 Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co , Berlin (1928) 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - ?), dubious Van Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1929) Gogh paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Whereabouts unknown F 681a / H - / FF 57 / JH - Vase with roses Exhibitions Oil on canvas, 88.5 x 68.5 cm 21928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February-March), Copy after F 682 JH '1979 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 14 ('Samann') The Annenberg Collection, New York) 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 2), dubious Van Gogh paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin 7 Private collection, Switzerland (1928) Whereabouts unknown F691/H-/FF30/JH- Sower Oil on canvas, 74.5 x 59 cm Copy after F 689 JH '1836 (Kroller-Muller-Museum, Otterlo) Provenance F 710a / H - / FF 35 / JH - Karl Ernst sthaus, Nagcn Olive trees 2 Private collection, Switzerland Oil on canvas, 72 x 91 cm Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Copy after F 710 JH 1856 (The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Galerie Matthiesen , Berlin (1928) Minneapolis) 146 JOURNAL 2002 When the New York owners consigned the painting for sale at Exhibitions Sotheby's in 1964, the auctioneers enquired about its status with 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh the editorial board of the new De la Faille edition They received a paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker negative reply and the work was not accepted for the sale Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Galerie M Goldschmidt, Berlin (1928) Mrs F , Zurich (1928) Mr & Mrs Shepard Ashman Morgan, New York (1929/64) Consigned for sale at Sotheby's, New York, 8 April 1964 (not cata- F 715a / H - / FF 37 /JH - logued, withdrawn prior to auction) Olive trees Whereabouts unknown Oil on canvas, 72 x 91 cm Copy after F 710 JH 1856 (The Minneapolis Institute of Art, Exhibitions Minneapolis) F 736 / H 815 / FF 41 /JH - 1928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February - March), Wheatfield with rising moon Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 20 ('Olivenhain') Provenance Oil on canvas, 56 x 87 cm 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Copy after F 735 JH 1761 (Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo) paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker ? Private collection, Switzerland (1928) Whereabouts unknown Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin 7 Private collection, Switzerland (1928/1939) Whereabouts unknown F 713 / H - / FF 34 /JH - Olive trees Oil on canvas, 55 x 65 cm Copy after F 710 JH 1856 (The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, F 729 / H - / FF 38 /JH - Minneapolis) Landscape Oil on canvas, 63 x 53 cm Provenance Partial copy after F 717 JH 1756 (The Metropolitan Museum of F 741 / H - / FF 44 / JH - Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Art, New York) Cypresses Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin According to an inscription at the back of a photograph in the Oil on canvas, 74 x 58 cm Galerie Commeter, Hamburg Zentralarchiv Preuiiischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin, this work belongedPartial copy after F 1540 1H 1732 (Kunsthalle, Bremen) Galerie Sigmund Gildemeister, Hamburg-Altona to the Detroit Institute of Arts in 1929 In several documents the (1928/1929/1932) painting is referred to as the 'Detroit picture ' The museum itself, Provenance Whereabouts unknown however, has no evidence of ownership Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1927/1928) Exhibitions Provenance Dr Alexander Lewin, Guben (1928/1929) 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh Galerie Kuenze, Berlin Whereabouts unknown paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Galerie Matthiesen, Berlin (1928) Exhibitions 7 Detroit Institute of Arts (1929) 1927 Berlin, Galerie Hugo Perls (January - February), Franzosische Malerei des XIX Jahrhunderts, no 30 1928 Berlin, Galerie Paul Cassirer (15 January -1 March), Vincent van Gogh, no 79 ('tuben, privately owned') 147 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Galerie Lutz, Berlin Galerie Hodebert, Paris (1928) The Phillips Collection, Washington (7) F 823 / H - / FF 49 / JH - Wheatfield F 741a / H - / FF 60 /JH - Oil on canvas, 57 x 76 cm Cypresses Copy after F 807 1H 1980 (Mellon Collection, Upperville/VA) Oil on canvas, 74 x 58 cm Copy after F 1542 JH 1742 (The Art Institute of Chicago) Provenance Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Provenance Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1927) Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Galerie M Goldschmidt, Berlin (1928) Galerie M Goldschmidt, Berlin (February - March 1928) F813IH-IFF47/JH- Otto Krebs, Holzdorf (1928) 7 Private collection, Switzerland (1928) The plain at Auvers Galerie M Goldschmidt, Berlin (1932) (returned by Krebs) Whereabouts unknown Oil on canvas, 70 x 53 cm Whereabouts unknown Copy after F 781 JH 2101 (Carnegie Institute Museum of Art, Exhibitions Pittsburgh) Exhibitions 1928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February - March), 1927 Berlin, Galerie Hugo Perls (January - February), Franzosische Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 21 ('Zwei Zypressen (Si Provenance Malerei des XIX Jahrhunderts, no 29 Remy),' ill ) Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin 1928 Berlin, Galerie M Goldschmidt & Co (February - March), Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1928) Impressionisten-Sonderausstellung, no 19 ('Le champ de blé') Siegbert Stern, Neubabelsberg-Nicolassee 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh Whereabouts unknown paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker Exhibitions 1927 Berlin, Galerie Hugo Perls (January - February), Franzosische Malerei des XIX Jahrhunderts, no 28 1929 Berlin, Nationalgalerie (January - 7), dubious Van Gogh paintings from the Galerie Otto Wacker F812/H-/FF46/JH- F 824 / H - / FF 51 /JH - The plain at Auvers Wheatfield with a tree Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 cm Oil on canvas, 41 x 79 cm Copy after F 781 JH 2101 (Carnegie Institute Museum of Art, Partial copy after F 807 JH 1980 (Mellon Collection, Pittsburgh) Upperville/VA) Both the editors of the 1970 edition of De la Faille's catalogue raisonné and Jan Hulsker in his 1996 edition accepted the work as Provenance authentic The Phillips Collection in Washington, which both the Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin editors of De la Faille 1970 and Hulsker name as the whereabouts Galerie Hugo Perls, Berlin (1927/28) of the painting, confirmed in 1998 that 'there are no records of Galerie E J van Wisselingh & Co , Amsterdan (April 1928) this work ever being in our collection ' Whereabouts unknown 148 JOURNAL 2002 Exhibitions Sale Christie's, London, 29 April 1927, lot 44 (sold for'dxxx gns,' 1927 Berlin, Galerie Hugo Perls (January - February), Franzosische according to a handwritten remark in the copy of the auction cata- Malerei des XIX Jahrhunderts, no 31 logue in the Christie's archive) 1928 Amsterdam, E J van Wisselingh & Co (16 April - 5 May), 7 Durlacher (handwritten remark in the copy of the auction cata- Cent ans de peinture fran4aise, no 35 logue in the Chnstie's archive) Whereabouts unknown Exhibitions 1923 Manchester, Thos Agnew & Sons, Masterpieces of French art of the 19th century in aid of the Lord Mayor's appeal for the hospitals, no 20 1926 Tate Gallery (June - October), List of loans at the opening exhibition of the Modern Foreign Gallery, p 7 F590/H-/FF88/1H- Vase with asters Oil on canvas, 50.5 x 42.5 cm FF 64 Wheatfield with reaper Provenance Oil on canvas Galerie Eugène Blot, Paris Found by the police in Leonhard Wacker's studio August Baron von der Heydt, Elberfeld Eduard Baron von der Heydt, Zandvoort Provenance Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (on loan from Eduard von der Galerie Otto Wacker, Berlin Heydt) Nationalgalerie Berlin (in storage) Von der Heydt-Museum, Wuppertal, Gift of Eduard von der Heydt, 1952 (Inv no 675) B F 442 / H - / FF 117 / JH - Works probably not painted by Leonhard The small garden Wacker Oil on canvas, 46 x 38 cm The 1925 Elberfeld exhibition cited by De la Faille might have been Kunst and Kunstgewerbe des 17 -19 Jahrhunderts, which took place in the Stadtisches Museum Elberfeld in 1925 But as no cata- logue was published and no documents referring to that exhibition have survived, there is no definitive evidence Provenance Galerie Eugène Blot, Paris (1912) Mrs Julius Schmits, Elberfeld (1925) Daniel L Wildenstein, Paris/New York National Gallery of Art, Washington, Gift of Daniel L Wildenstein, 1969 (Inv no 1969 14 1) Exhibitions F 325 / H - / FF 86 / JH - 1925 Elberfeld (7) Vase with flowers 1980-93 Extended loan for use by Justice Thurgood Marshall, The Oil on canvas, 41 x 33.5 cm Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC Provenance Galerie Eisenloeffel, Amsterdam Rainer Art Gallery, London The French Gallery, London James Murray, London 149 VAN GOGH MUSEUM w~~.A~~~~ F +h~4a oya+~t~!, Nt ,: Edouard Manet 150 The jetty of Boulogne-sur-Mer 1868 DOCUMENTATION Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings and drawings August 2001 — July 2002 This catalogue contains the paintings and drawings Paintings raised - the standard method for drying sails with- acquired by the Van Gogh Museum from August out catching too much wind. 2001 to July 2002. Each work has an inventory num- Manet, Edouard The jetty of Boulogne-sur-Mer appears to have ber made up as follows: the first letter stands for the French 1832-1883 been painted over an earlier picture, partially re- technique (s = painting, d = drawing); this is fol- vealed with the aid of raking light, infrared reflec- lowed by a reference number and then by a capital tography and radiography. It was probably a letter (B = loan, N = State of the Netherlands, S = The jetty of Boulogne-sur-Mer 1868 seascape with a lighthouse and ships, painted with Van Gogh Museum [after 1 July 1994], V = Vincent Oil on canvas, 59.5 x 73.3 cm the canvas rotatedo degrees to the right.6 This 9 g g van Gogh Foundation) and the year of acquisition. Signed at lower right (on the buoy): Manet first work was originally larger; at some point, how- s 507 5/2002 ever, the canvas was cut down to its current format and relined.? It was then transferred to a so-called Manet's reputation as a painter of seascapes was figure 20 stretcher, measuring 73 x 6o cm. Manet established in 1864, when he produced his first probably intended to work further on the remaining great essays in the genre at Boulogne-sur-Mer, near portion of the original picture, as he had done with Calais.1 Although his seascapes were innovative such works as The waitress (London, National g p from the outset, he subsequently neglected the sub- Gallery) and In the café (Winterthur, Sammlung ject, not tackling it again until the summer of 1868 Oskar Reinhart), but nothing ever came of this.8 g when he returned to the same seaside resort - The build-up of the painting now visible is com- whose popularity with the Parisian beau monde had plex and will only be precisely understood following considerably increased in the meantime.2 The artist detailed technical examination. However, we can be Y recorded his impressions in a sketchbook, which he fairly certain it was painted in several sessions. The then used in his hotel room - or later in his Paris boats to the left were part of the initial composition. studio - to compose a range of harbour views, They were originally accompanied by a moderately beach scenes and seascapes.3 large sailing boat at the far right, which the artist p This group includes The jetty of Boulogne-sur- subsequently painted out. It is difficult to tell if the Mer - the first painting by Manet in the Van Gogh foremost jetty formed part of the first design, but the Museum's collection.4 The central motif is formed rear jetty definitely appears to have been an after- by the two jetties at the mouth of the Liane, which thought, as the artist painted both it and the sailing gave access to Boulogne harbour further along the ship to the right over the sea. Clearly, Manet could river. Were one to compare the painted scene to the never resist making small changes, and this be- site itself, the direction of view would be to the comes obvious when we look at the edges of the south, with the eastern jetty in the foreground and canvas. At some time during the painting process, the coast invisible to the left. when he had already executed the foreground pier, The figures leaning over the railing are admir- he covered these edges with brown paper, as was ing a pleasure craft located between the two jetties, usual for relined canvases. Apparently, the artist re- which partially obscure its form. The silhouette of garded his work as finished at this point, but he later the hull is just visible through the timber supports, returned to it, making various new amendments 9 revealing the boat to be relatively low and small, whereby he painted over the tape. with a forward-pointing bowsprit. It is most proba- In composing the scene Manet made use of his bly a centreboard, a type of vessel developed in drawings; these sometimes served as mere aides- America around 184o.5 The boat is clearly moored, memoires but were occasionally literally copied. as the gaff is somewhat lowered and the boom The wooden jetty in the foreground, for example, is 151 VAN GOGH MUSEUM there are no known drawings of the boat in the centre, it is not inconceivable that these once existed. The charm of the painting lies to a large extent 4 in Manet's treatment of the main motif, the two jet- ties.12 The artist hasainted these horizontally Y across the canvas, a simple yet bold presentation of the subject that he undoubtedly derived from Japanese prints, which often feature such horizon- tal compositions (fig. .13 The spatial distribution p (g 5) p of the other elements also suggests Manet drew his inspiration from this recently discovered source. While the foreground jetty is depicted at eye level, head on, the rear jetty is viewed from a raised view- point, as is the horizon, indicating that Manet pre- ferred a stage-like arrangement of fore- and back- ground to correct perspective, a choice undoubted- ly influenced by Japanese models. In the foremost jetty Manet also introduced an almost whimsical effect with the rhythmic repeti- tion of the crossed supports. This was based on his drawings of the motif, in which the promenade jetty is depicted from an angle (fig. i .14 In the painting, g (g ) p g, however, this element is presented frontally, creat- fig. 1 fig. 3 ing an entirely artificial impression. This shows Edouard Manet, Study of the foundations of Edouard Manet, Girl seen from behind, that in composing his picture Manet was guided the eastern jetty, 1868, Paris, Musée du 1868, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Cabinet des principally by pictorial considerations. His objec- Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins Dessins tive was to achieve a kind of `constructed' natural- ness, which is why all attempts to understand The jetty of Boulogne-sur-Mer as a faithful rendering of duction of subtle variations in his depiction of the the actual location are doomed to failure.15 As such figures. The man in dark clothing with a telescope the painting can be usefully compared with two to the left is shown from the side; the woman and other works of the same period, On the beach of the boy are presented frontally; while the group in Boulogne-sur-Mer (Richmond, Virginia Museum of the centre is viewed from the back. Manet also off- Fine Arts) and Moon above the harbour of Boulogne- sets the uniformity of the railings on the foremost sur-Mer (Paris, Musée d'Orsay), which were also as- jetty by representing the standards of the rear rail- sembled from drawings. ings in a fine yet actually illogical rhythm of light Although the painting's power lies chiefly in and dark tones. In order to prevent this effect from fig 2 Manet's representation of the jetty, certain details itself becoming symmetrical and thus tedious, he Edouard Manet, Study of figures along the rail- also claim our attention. The northern area of sea is limited his use of it to the left and centre of the jetty ings, 1868, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Cabinet des finely rendered in the artist's distinctive blue- - accepting that to the right only the railings on one Dessins green, while the figures leaning forwards in the side could be seen, as with the railings in the back- centre are confidently depicted with just a few flu- ground. He also made the boat to the right dark in ent brushstrokes, as are the boats in the back- colour, in order to counterbalance the light- simply inspired by the artist's previous sketches of ground - demonstrations of Manet's virtuosity as a coloured vessels to the left, while the jetty in the the motif (fig. 1), as is the group of people against painter. The work is both detailed and schematic, foreground only casts a shadow on the water on one the railings at the rear 1 ° while the man with the and, as far as the composition is concerned, the in- side. g telescope (fig. 2), the girl with the straw hat in the terplay of horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines is In 1873 Manet sold The jetty of Boulogne-sur- centre and the woman with a parasol at the far right particularly so histicated.16 Mer for 50o francs to the Paris art dealer Paul p Y p (figs. 3 and 4) have been lifted in their entirety from Manet's horizontal representation of the jetty Durand-Ruel.17 It was subsequently acquired b by q Y q the pages of a sketchbook. The latter figure also ap- creates a virtually symmetrical picture, but the Félix Gérard, another dealer, who in 1884 loaned it pears in a beach scene painted in the same period artist has countered any suggestion of monotony to the Manet retrospective at the Ecole des Beaux- (Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts .11 Arts) .1 with a number of clever devices, such as the intro- Arts, where it was hung above the famous painting ( g 152 JOURNAL 2002 Le bon bock of 1873 (Philadelphia Museum of Art and fig. 6 .18 Gérard died in 1 o and in that year g ) 9 4~ Y the seascape came into the possession of the promi- nent Dresden collector Oscar Schmitz (fig. 7). Swiss by origin, Schmitz began acquiring impressionist paintings in 1899, subsequently developing an in- terest in post-impressionism and contemporary German art.19 Although it was expected that a or - g A P tion of Schmitz's collection, comprising 96 paint- ings and 61 drawings and lauded as `the finest pri- vate collection of modern French painting in Euro e,'20 would eventually find a home in the p Y Gemldegalerie, the collector could not agree terms with the museum's directors. Schmitz died in 1933; three years later his heirs sold the majority of the French pictures, including this one, to the Paris fig. 6 art dealers Wildenstein.21 Theerfumer and col- p Godet, photograph of the Exposition des lector Jacques Guérlain later purchased it from oeuvres d'Edouard Manet in 1884, Paris, 22 theiralley sometime between i 1 and 1 g Y 95 955 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes Louis van Tilborgh Provenance Acquired from Manet in 1873 by Paul Durand-Ruel for 500 francs, sold to Felix Gerard before 1884, in 1904 purchased by fig 4 Oscar Schmitz, in 1936 sold to Wildenstein, Paris, sometime between Edouard Manet, Young woman with a 1951-55 bought by Jacques Guérlain, subsequently entered an parasol, 1868, Paris, Musée du Louvre, anonymous private collection, acquired by the Van Gogh Museum Cabinet des Dessins through Giraud-Pissarro-Segalot (Paris and New York) with funds provided by the SponsorBingo Lottery, the Vereniging Rembrandt (supported by the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds), the VSB Foundation, the Mondriaan Foundation, the Vincent van Gogh Foundation, the Rabobank and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Literature Lionello Venturi, Les archives de ('impressionisme Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley et autres Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel Documents, 2 vols , New York 1968, vol 2, fig. 7 pp 191-92, Denis Rouart and Daniel Wildenstein, Edouard Manet Photograph of the salon of Oscar Schmitz's catalogue raisonné, 2 vols , Lausanne & Paris 1975, vol 1, no villa in Dresden, c. 1920, private collection 145, Francoise Cachin et al , exhib cat Manet 1832-1883, Paris (Galeries nationales du Grand Pala's) & New York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1983, pp 312-13, no 119, Robert 1 It is possible that Manet had known Boulogne even before this L Herbert, Impressionism art, leisure, and Parisian society, New Ronald Pickvance has suggested it was the favourite holiday resort Haven & London 1988, pp 274-75, Heike Biedermann, 'Die of Manet's parents, see exhib cat Edouard Manet, Martigny Sammlungen Adolf Rothermundt and Oscar Schmitz in Dresden,' (Fondation Pierre Gianadda) 1996, p 223, no 25 in Adreas Pophanken and Felix Billeter, Die Moderne and ihre 2 Boulogne boasted easy accessibility, with a direct train line from Sammler FranzOsische Kunst in Deutschem Privatbesitz vom Paris to Calais that was extended to Boulogne itself in 1867, see Kaiserreich zur Weimarer Republik, Berlin 2001, pp 213-14, Theodore Reff, exhib cat Manet and modern Paris 100 paint- fig 39 on p 215, p 231, note 19 ings, drawings, prints, and photographs by Manet and his contem- poraries, Washington (National Gallery of Art) 1982, pp 152-53 Notes In 1871 Manet would again stay in Boulogne, where he painted I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Juliet Bareau, with- The croquet match (Denis Rouart and Daniel Wildenstein, Edouard fig. 5 out whose help this text could not have been written – Louis van Manet catalogue raisonné, 2 vols , Lausanne & Paris 1975, vol 1, Utagawa Hiroshige, Miyako: the great Tilborgh no 173) Sanló bridge, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, gift of the Tokyo Shimbun 153 VAN GOGH MUSEUM 3 In Rouart and Wildenstein (op cit (note 2), vol 1, nos 143-50) 9 He did the same with The waitress and In the café, see Bomford francs in 1873, he subsequently entered it as number 2671 in his 1869 is the date adduced for this first visit to the seaside resort and and Roy, op cit (note 8), pp 6 and 8 In The jetty of Boulogne- Livre de stock 1868-1873 Somewhere between 1883 and circa thus for The jetty of Boulogne-sur-Mer (no 145) This dating sur-Mer the artist painted over the tape near the railings and the 1890, it was photographed on the instructions of Leenhoff, who (originally derived from Théodore Duret, Historie d'Edouard sky, although it is unclear whether the additions in the latter area presumably intended to compile a catalogue of the artist's work Manet et de son oeuvre, Paris 1902, p 221, no 116) was subse- are actually by Manet's hand (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Album II, p 76, no 443) quently adopted in Francoise Cachin et al , exhib cat Manet 10 Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit (note 2), vol 2, nos 139, The photograph bears an annotation in Leenhoff's hand 'Peint a 1832-1883, Paris (Galeries nationales du Grand Pala's) & New 142-44 These works and the drawings mentioned in note 11 have Boulogne sur mer ou a Calais - a Gérard ' This new information re- York (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1983, pp 312-13, the same format, from which it may be inferred that they all come garding the work's provenance was supplied by Juliet Bareau, to no 119, but it is incorrect, as shown by the correspondence in- from the same sketchbook (or drawing pad) Only no 139 is small- whom we are extremely grateful In Manet's account book the cluded in the catalogue (p 151) For Manet's correspondence dur- er, but it was probably cut down at a later stage The jetty is also work is described as 'Jetée de Boulogne' and this title has persist- ing his 1868 stay see also Juliet Wilson-Bareau, Manet par lui- depicted in two watercolours in a sketchbook that has been pre- ed, although 'The piers of Boulogne' might be more accurate même correspondance et conversations, peintures, pastels, served intact, see Von Linie and Farbe, cit (note 6), pp 72-73 18 A photograph of the installation was first published in Etienne dessins et estampes, Paris 1991, pp 47-49 Rouart and 11 See Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit (note 2), vol 2, nos 140, Moreau-Nélaton, Manet raconté par lui-même, 2 vols , Paris Wildenstein, op cit (note 2), vol 1, attribute eight paintings to 146, and 200 The beach scene, currently in the Virginia Museum 1926, vol 2, fig 344 Felix Laurent Joseph Gerard, who is record- this visit (nos 143-150) Five of these were composed with the aid of Fine Arts in Richmond, is discussed in Alain De Leiris, 'Manet ed as the owner of the seascape in exhib cat Exposition des oeu- of the sketchbooks, but for three works - nos 144, 149 and 150 - Sur la plage de Boulogne,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts 57 (January vres d'Edouard Manet, Paris (Ecole nationale des Beaux-Arts) this has proved impossible to establish The 1868 dating of the five 1961), pp 53-62 1884, no 51, also owned another painting by Manet (Rouart and works is based on the reasonable assumption that Manet worked 12 Jetties had been introduced as a subject during the 1850s by Wildenstein, op cit [note 2], vol 1, no 360) Gérard had a fram- his drawings from the seaside resort into paintings while still in Eugène Boudin, see Vivian Hamilton, Boudin at Trouville, London ing shop in the 1870s, but was listed as a marchand de tableaux on Boulogne or shortly after his return to Paris & Glasgow 1993, pp 91-98 his death in 1904 (with thanks to Anne Distel, Paris, Musée 4 Before this purchase Dutch museums owned only two works by 13 Manet's admiration for Japanese prints is discussed in Jacques d'Orsay) Manet One is a portrait of a man from 1860 (Otterlo, Kroller- Dufwa, Winds from the East a study in the art of Manet, Degas, 19 The rest of Gérard's collection was auctioned in 1905 at the Muller Museum), the other a still life with flowers (Rotterdam, Monet, Whistler, 1856-86, Stockholm 1981, pp 51-82 Hotel Drouot (28-29 March) Apparently the painting was sold Museum Borlmans van Beuningen), which, however, is not included 14 This indicates that Manet made his sketches from the beach, separately, although the form of the sale is not known Heike in Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit (note 2), see Aukle Vergeest, where he would have viewed the jetty from an angle Biedermann ('Die Sammlungen Adolf Rothermundt and Oscar The French collection 19th-century French paintings in Dutch 15 For example, Manet seems to have added the figures on the Schmitz in Dresden,' in Adreas Pophanken and Felix Billeter, Die public collections, Amsterdam 2000, p 217, nos 656-57 rear jetty simply to bring life to the composition, this southerly jet- Moderne and ihre Sammler Franzosische Kunst in Deutschem 5 Robert L Herbert wrongly believed this was a fishing boat, which ty could not be accessed from the beach, only from a desolate area Privatbesitz vom Kaiserreich zur Weimarer Republik, Berlin 2001, Manet had simply rendered incorrectly, see idem, Impressionism of dunes where tourists presumably never set foot, as appears pp 213-14) states that Schmitz bought The lefty of Boulogne-su- art, leisure, and Parisian society, New Haven & London 1988, from an 1844 map of the resort (Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque Mer at Durand-Ruel's gallery, but inquiry reveals this was based on pp 274-75 The centreboard was a fairly wide, flat vessel, designed Municipale) an error Through exhib cat Collection Oskar Schmitz, Paris to glide over the water, with a board that could be lowered through 16 As part of this interplay Manet probably manipulated his repre- (Wildenstein) 1936, no 38 we know only that he acquired the the keel to prevent leeway In addition to the mainsail, the craft in sentation of the sailing boat's rigging to suit his needs He angled painting in 1904 The Swiss collector hung the seascape in his sa- the painting has two head-sails and a gaff topsail, which has been the backstay too far to the rear, a position from which it would lon, to the right of an unknown relief, with a Monet landscape to lowered With thanks to Kees Posthuma (Van Gogh Museum) and have been impossible to change tack He also depicted the the left (see also Biedermann, p 215, fig 39, and pp 214, 231, Anton Kos (Het Zuiderzee Museum) crosstree in profile, although on a real boat this can only be seen note 19) 6 This and other technical information has been supplied by René from the rear 20 Emil Waldmann, 'Ern Gesamtbild Europaischer Kunst auf der Boitelle (Van Gogh Museum) That the jetty had a lighthouse is in- 17 According to Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit (note 2), vol 1, Internationalen Kunstausstellung in Dresden,' Bremer Nach- dicated by Manet's watercolours of the motif, published in exhib no 145, Durand-Ruel acquired the work from Manet in 1872, to- richten, 20 June 1926, quoted in Biedermann, op cit (note 19), cat Von Linie and Farbe Franzosische Zeichungen des 19 gether with an unknown number of other paintings, for which he p 220 21 After the failure of negotiations in 1931 Schmitz lahrhunderts aus der Graphishen Sammlung im Stdel and aus paid a total of 16,000 francs However, this information, based on moved the collection from Dresden to Switzerland, where he Frankfurter Privatbesitz, Frankfurt am Main (Stadelsches the dealer's recollections (published by Lionello Venturi in Les loaned his French works to the Kunsthaus in Zurich See Kunstinstitut and Stadtrsche Galerie) 2001-02, pp 72-73, no 29 archives de l'impressionisme Lettres de Renoir, Monet, Pissarro, Biedermann, op cit (note 19), pp 221, 233, note 46, and 7 The other part of the original picture has not been preserved or Sisley et autres Mémoires de Paul Durand-Ruel Documents, Collection Oskar Schmitz cit (note 19) cannot been identified as such in Manet's oeuvre 2 vols , New York 1968, vol 2, p 192) does not appear to be cor- 22 In exhib cat Masterpieces festival of Britain, New York 8 These two works of 1878, which were also provided with a rect Durand-Ruel was mistaken as to the year and apparently con- (Wildenstein) 1951, no 15, the Parrs art dealer is still registered as paste relining on Manet's instruction, originally formed one and fused the painting with another view of the same jetty, painted at the owner, but in exhib cat Tableaux des collections parisiennes, the same picture, see David Bomford and Ashok Roy, 'Manet's The the same time, which he would later sell to the collector Léon Paris (Ecole des Beaux-Arts) 1955, no 65, it is listed as belonging waitress an investigation into its origin and development,' Clapisson (see rbrd, p 191, and Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit to a private collection Guérlain is first mentioned as the work's National Gallery Technical Bulletin 7 (1983), pp 3-20, particular- [note 2], vol 1, no 144) Still unknown at the time was Manet's owner in Rouart and Wildenstein, op cit (note 2) ly pp. 4-13 For Manet's painting process see Juliet Wilson-Bareau, account book, a copy of which had been made by his brother-in- The hidden face of Manet an investigation of the artist's working law, Léon Leenhoff (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, p 75) This processes, London 1986. shows that the work was actually sold to Durand-Ruel for 500 154 JOURNAL 2002 quit scene in a highly subtle manner, particularly the Landscapes by moonlight form a special category in model's clothing with all its folds, the gleaming cop- Daubigny's oeuvre. He painted a number of them, per of the saucepan on the stove and the steam rising particularly at the end of his career, and was repre- from the pan against the black background on the sented by a moonlit landscape at every exhibition in left. This dark area is echoed in the foreground by which he participated in 1877 and 1878. As in the woman's black skirt. Both elements form a Daubigny's other landscapes, farmers and their strong contrast with the brightly lit foreground, the livestock, small peasant dwellings or shepherds woman's white blouse and cap, and the wall behind with flocks of sheep generally populate these her to the right. The drawing's serene mood, simple scenes. He preferred to paint and draw his evening composition and striking chiaroscuro are character- landscapes in a long, rectangular format, the width istic of Bonvin's work. Dated 1857, it comes from of these works being at least twice their height. what is generally considered his best period. Daubigny began using this panorama format in the The same model, wearing the same clothing, ap- late 185os, the period in which he produced our pears in a black chalk drawing and a watercolour newly acquired drawing. from 1856 (Weisberg, nos. 253-544). She is also shown The drawing shows a vast moonlit plain, across in profile in these two works, this time while eating. which a shepherd and his flock move from left to Woman by a stove is the first drawing by Bonvin right. Two dark-coloured dogs drive the sheep, one to enter the Van Gogh Museum's collection. bounding around at the far left, the other close be Previously, the artist was only represented by a hind the shepherd. The man stands out as a dark painting, Still life with drawing equipment (s 431 figure against the misty background; he carries a M/1992), acquired in 1992. staff over one shoulder and a coat over the other. The moonlight reflects off the animals' heads and Marije l ellekoop backs. To the right are two small groups of Drawings haystacks. Provenance Commenge, before 1926, Brame, 1926, The drawing is executed in charcoal. The con- Bonvin, Francois M Tempelaere (1927), W Minderman, The Hague, acquired by tours of the sheep, the shepherd, the haystacks and the Van Gogh Museum (2002) several major lines in the landscape have been French, 1817-1887 drawn over in pen and black ink. The artist has left Literature E Moreau-Nélaton, Boman raconté par lui-même, Paris areas of the cream-coloured paper blank in render- Woman by a stove 1857 1927, p 55, fig 27, G P Weisberg, Bonvin, Paris 1979, p 268, ing the light on the animals' backs, although he us- Charcoal, 35.0 x 27 9 cm no 258 es white gouache to represent the pale moon. Signed at lower right. f. Bonvin The subject, composition and proportions of Dated at lower left: 1857 Daubigny, Charles-Francois this work strongly resemble those of a painting d 1114 S/2002 French, 1817-1878 from 1859, which is only known from reproduc- tions. It was Daubigny's first landscape by moon- The subjects Francois Bonvin represented in his Flock of sheep by moonlight 1859 light, measuring 88.5 x 193 cm, which he exhibited paintings, drawings and watercolours remained Charcoal, pen and ink, gouache, 23.2 cm x 51.0 cm at the Salon of 1859. The artist would again use the largely consistent from the beginning of his artistic Signed at lower right. Daubigny same composition in 1877, although in this canvas, career in the 184os until his death in 1887. In addi- d 1115 5/2002 Lever de lune a Auvers, now in the Museum of Fine tion to portraits and still lifes, he principally drew and painted craftsmen and women performing their household tasks. Bonvin derived inspiration for these works from the Dutch and Flemish masters of the 17th century, and 18th-century artists such as Chardin and the Le Nain brothers. Unlike his e con- temporary Courbet, Bonvin never used a large for- mat or dramatic style for these works, saving him from some of the harsher critiques directed at the re- alists in general. He was popular with the critics and even received state commissions. The charcoal drawing W oman by a stove depicts a young woman, seen in profile, stoking up a fire with a pair of bellows. Bonvin has drawn this tran- 155 VAN GOGH MUSEUM Arts in Montreal, he set the flock of sheep some- belonged to Theo and Vincent van Gogh. Thanks to Jansen, Hendricus what further back in the picture plane and placed a the acquisition of Flock of sheep by moonlight the Dutch, 1867-1921 row of three haystacks on the right. The format of artist is now represented by a finished work that is this painting is 106.5 x 188 cm, making it consider- highly characteristic of his oeuvre. Figure for the left wall painting in the ably less elongated than the 1859 work. period room in Museum Mesdag The similarities between the drawing and the Marije Vellekoop Blue chalk, brush in black ink, gouache, watercolour painting from 1859 on the one hand, and the 1877 and white oil, 90 x 28 cm painting on the other, suggest that the earlier land- Provenance W Minderman, The Hague, acquired by the Van Signed at lower right with monogram in brush in scapes were also produced in Auvers-sur-Oise, as Gogh Museum (2002) black ink: HH the title of the later piece indicates. Daubigny would d 1117 S/2002 settle in this little town just outside Paris in 1860. Literature Robert Hellebrandth, Charles-Francois Daubigny The Van Gogh Museum's collection has always 1817-1878, Morges 1976, Sonja Klee, Charles-Francois Daubigny Figure for the right wall painting in the g g P g included two small sketches by Daubigny that once (1817-1878) Die Mondscheinlandschaften (des , Koblenz 1996) period room in Museum Mesdag g Blue chalk, brush in black ink, gouache and water- colour, 90 x 28 cm Signed at lower left with monogram in brush in black ink: HH d 1116 S/2002 In 2002 the Van Gogh Museum acquired two draw- ings of Buddha figures made by the Hague artist Hendricus Jansen for the Museum Mesdag. The drawings are one-to-one cartoons for the wall pan- els installed above the fireplace in the museum's period room around 1916. H.W. Mesdag's private house, now part of the museum, was sold after his death in 1915 to the Bond van Eigenaren van de Nederlandsch-Indische Suiker Ondernemingen (BENISO). This organisation refurbished the painter's former studio on the first floor, transform- ing it into a boardroom in Art Nouveau style, the epitome of modern design at the time. Jansen was asked to design both stained-glass windows and three wall panels to hang above the fireplace in the new office. Hendricus Jansen, who generally signed his work `Henricus,' was a celebrated painter, much in demand around 1915. He produced both illustra- tions and monumental decorations, carrying out commissions from the Carnegie Foundation for wall paintings in the Vredespaleis, and from the lo- cal authorities of The Hague and Rotterdam for dec- orations in the municipal theatre and town hall, re- spectively. Jansen trained at the Haagse Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten. He then moved to Paris, where he found work as an illustrator for periodi- cals like Le Chat Noir, Le Monde Illustré and Echo de Paris. Back in the Netherlands he continued to produce illustrations for publications such as the Spectator. His best-known illustrations were for the 1904 reissue of a medieval work, the so-called Liedeke van Heer Halewyn. Jansen, who died in 1921, during his work on the Rotterdam town hall, 156 JOURNAL 2002 coucher de soleil (New York, The Metropolitan Museum). This painting, on which the artist worked from 1846 until his death, shows a clearing in a for- est surrounded by dense groups of trees. However, there is such a great contrast between the enclosed character of the painting and the openness of this drawing that any direct relationship between the two seems out of the question. Nevertheless, an in- direct connection could be inferred from the simi- larities in size, drawing material, paper colour and drawing style between this drawing and a work in the Louvre, whose subject strongly resembles that of the painting. Both the large format and paper colour are virtually unique in Rousseau's drawn oeuvre. The dating of Rousseau's drawings is generally problematic, as they are usually undated, and the drawing style and technique do not lend themselves easily to chronological classification. Neither do the locations depicted offer any assistance, as the artist continually returned to his favourite spots. Nor would any relationship with the painting cited above provide a solution in the case of our drawing, for Rousseau worked on the canvas for more than 20 years. In his catalogue of Rousseau's works, Schulman dates the drawing in the Louvre to circa 1845, a date that could also be applied to the muse- is now a virtually forgotten artist. However, at the side in search of motifs. From 1836 onwards um's newly acquired drawing, given the similarities turn of the last century he was one of the most Rousseau worked mainly in Barbizon, together with between the two works. renowned figures of Dutch symbolism and Diaz, Decamps and especially Dupré, with whom he Thanks to this acquisition the Van Gogh Jugendstil. Jansen was a close friend of the painter travelled to Les Landes and the Pyrenees in 1844. Museum now owns a drawing by Rousseau as well Willem Adriaan van Koijnenburg (1868-1943). Rousseau strongly identified with the natural world as a painting. The drawing will be included in the he painted, making it his goal to depict what he de- supplement to Michel Schulman's catalogue raison- Maartje de Haan scribed as `the soul of the forest.' In 1853 he peti- né. tioned the local authorities to protect the forest of Provenance Private collection; acquired by the Van Gogh Fontainebleau from exploitation. Despite being Marije Vellekoop Museum (2002) generally acknowledged as the guiding light of the so-called School of 183o, Rousseau lived in almost Provenance Artist's studio, sale Th Rousseau collection, Paris unrelenting poverty. (Maitre Pillet), 27-30 April 1868, sale Charles Tillot collection, Only after the artist's death did it emerge that Paris, 14 May 1887; private collection, France, W M Brady & Co , Rousseau, Théodore he had produced many drawings as well as paint- Inc , New York, acquired by the Van Gogh Museum (2001) French, 1812-1867 ings. The catalogue for the auction of his collection, held a year after his death, lists no fewer than Literature exhib cat Theodore Rousseau 1812-1867, Paris Lisière du Bas-Bréau, Fontainebleau, around 1200 drawings. Although many of these are (Musée du Louvre) 1967-68, Michel Schulman, Théodore winter effect c. 1845? associated with paintings, they go beyond the con- Rousseau 1812-1867 Catalogue raisonné de l'ceuvre graphique, Charcoal on blue paper, 47.5 x 61 5 cm cept of preliminary studies and are works of art in Paris 1997 Signed at lower left with studio stamp: TH.R themselves. d 1112 5/2001 According to the inscription on the verso, this large charcoal drawing represents the edge of the Although he received a traditional artist's training, woods at Bas-Bréau, in the forest of Fontainebleau. Théodore Rousseau developed his original ap- It has been suggested that the work belongs to a se- proach to landscape by working directly from na- ries of drawings and oil studies associated with ture. Even as a student, he went into the country- Rousseau's famous painting La forêt en hiver, au 157 DOCUMENTATION Exhibitions 2002 Vincent van Gogh drawings: Antwerp and Paris, 1885-1888 The necessity of writing: the letters of Vincent van Gogh Y g g 28 September 2001 — 6 January 2002 28 June - 6 October 2002 Exhib. cat. Sjraar van Heugten and Marije Vellekoop, Vincent van Gogh, drawings. Vol. 3: Antwerp and Paris, 1885-1888, Amsterdam & Blaricum New acquisition: Edouard Manet, The jetty* Boulo - q g 2001 Mer, 1868 (ISBN 90-6611-581-5) From 31 July 2002 The photograph and the American Dream, 1840-1940 American Beauty: painting and sculpture from The Detroit The Stephen White Collection I[ Institute of Arts, 1770-1920 28 September 2001 — 6 January 2002 18 October — 19 January 2003 Exhib. cat. Stephen White and Andreas Bluhm, with a foreword by Bill Exhib. cat. Graham W.J. Beal, American Beauty: paintings from the Detroit Clinton, The photograph and the American Dream, 1840-1940, Institute of Arts 1770-1920, London 2002 Amsterdam 2001 (ISBN 185759-285-9) (ISBN 90-6987-029-0) Fire & ice: treasures from thehoto ra hic collection of P g P Van Go h's Parisian circle: prints and drawings from the Frederic Church g P g Van Goh Museum's collection 18 October —19 January 2003 g 7 November 2001 -13 January 2002 Exhib. cat. Thomas Weston Fels and Kevin J. Avery, Treasures from the Photographic Collection of Frederic Church at Olana, New York & Ithaca Van Goh and Gau uin: the studio of the south 2002 g g 9 February — 2 June 2002 (ISBN: 0-8014-4081-5) Exhib. cat. Douglas W Druick and Peter Kort Zegers, Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, New York & London 2001 (ISBN: 0-86559-194-6) 'AJAX-sunflowers': paintings by players and staff of AFC AJAX 9 February — 30 April 2002 Compiled by Adrie Kok 158 DOCUMENTATION Works on loan to the Van Gogh Museum 2001-02 Paintings The following is a list of paintings lent to the Van Gogh Museum between 2001 and 2002. Each work has an in- Cézanne, Paul Haan, Meijer Isaac de ventory number made up as follows: the first letter French, 1839-1906 Dutch, 1852-1895 stands for the technique (s = painting, d = drawing); this is followed by a reference number and then by a capital La montagne Sainte-Victoire 1885 Self-portrait c. 1889-91 letter (B = loan) and the year of the loan Also included Oil on canvas, 54 x 65 cm Oil on canvas, 32.4 x 25.5 cm here is a list of works that have been returned to their s 237 B/2001 s 249 B/2002 owners since the last loan list was published (see Van Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam Loan from a private collection Gogh Museum Journal 2001, pp 183-84) Degas, Edgar Roelofs, Albert French, 1834-1917 Dutch, 1877-1920 Portrait of Elena Carafa c. 1875 Portrait of Jo Reeser Roelofs 1900 Oil on canvas, 69.8 x 54.6 cm Oil on canvas, 158 x 119 cm s 247 B/2002 s 246 B/2001 Loan from the National Gallery, London Loan from a private collection Henri Rouart in front of his factory c. 1875 Loans returned 2002 Oil on canvas, 65.1 x 50.2 cm s 248 B/2002 Sisley, Alfred Snow effect at Argenteuil Loan from the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh Loan from a private collection 159 ISBN 9o-6987-031-2 NUR 643 © Copyright 2002 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. g All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be re - g P P Y produced or transmitted in any form or any by Y means elec - A Y or mechanical, includingphotography,recordin or recording g any other information storage and retrieval system, with- - g Y outrior permission in writing from the publisher. P P g P