Is Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' A Fake? The Fake Van Gogh's Timeline
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
NickVenture1
One of the large flower paintings shown in the dutch museum basement has since been rehabilitated. Thanks to new technologies capable of revealing the layers of paint under the visible surface. An overpainted picture of Vincent van Gogh appeared, and the experts knew about this painting through descriptions or sketches. The museum staff was most happy to put back this flower bouquet into the public exhibition. This reminds us that improving scientific tools will help the experts to re-evaluate any artwork, which is recognized or not as part of an oeuvre. Obviously there will be good surprises and also very sad moments. When a laboratory report will describe facts that make it impossible for an artwork to be part of the oeuvre of a certain artist.
Considering that all these sunflowers have been painted while VvG resided in Provence, the chance that the canvasses used to paint on where all cut from the larger rolls which Theo was shopping in Paris for his brother and sending to him by railroad mail is quite large. VvG was cutting himself these large size rolls in order to decide himself how much he will devote of it for each painting. Normally, Christies or somebody owning the sunflower painting before it was sold to the Japanese should have at least an x ray of it. To make an x ray of at least a portion of the picture. possibly several x rays to get all of the quite large surface is technically quite inexpensive and in those days technically very easy. Something like 200$ would cost such an x ray patchwork to do of such a painting. And was it done? Whoever has x rays now can easily digitalise the x ray films and email them to Professor Johnson in the USA. Who is the number one expert and archivist of many VvG canvas x rays and digital images of canvasses. If the canvas of the Japan Sunflowers turns out to be affiliated to other pieces of canvas used by VvG in this time he worked in the Provence, especially as canvas for other sunflower paintings. the probability that theJapan owned version is genuine will be close to 100%. If the canvas of the Japan version does not fit together with ANY other authentic VvG artwork. canvas. the risk that Schuffenecker is behind a posthumous replica increases a lot. We must know that sometimes VvG ran out of canvas while working in the Provence and that some paintings he did also on local purchased textiles. But even these tend to be in groupes. since VvG was cutting such textiles in several parts. and therefore, thanks to the modern technologies developed by Prof Johnson these relationships of the various paintings created by VvG are now becoming visible. It is even possible to put paintings in a chronological order. to a certain extent. Considering that VvG may have rather used a roll of canvas till all was used up before he started to work with canvas of another roll which his brother had to buy and send to him as usual. Also the letters of that time help to put these canvas roll orders in a chronology. Since VvG had to alarm his brother on time to avoid that his stock of paint and canvas runs too low. So basically a simple old fashionned x ray of at least a portion of the Japan Sunflower Painting canvas would be of great help to determine the degree of authenticity. Who has such an x ray? It would be a matter of minutes to email it to Professor Johnson and of a day to get this question answered.
reply
One of the large flower paintings shown in the dutch museum basement has since been rehabilitated. Thanks to new technologies capable of revealing the layers of paint under the visible surface. An overpainted picture of Vincent van Gogh appeared, and the experts knew about this painting through descriptions or sketches. The museum staff was most happy to put back this flower bouquet into the public exhibition. This reminds us that improving scientific tools will help the experts to re-evaluate any artwork, which is recognized or not as part of an oeuvre. Obviously there will be good surprises and also very sad moments. When a laboratory report will describe facts that make it impossible for an artwork to be part of the oeuvre of a certain artist.
Considering that all these sunflowers have been painted while VvG resided in Provence, the chance that the canvasses used to paint on where all cut from the larger rolls which Theo was shopping in Paris for his brother and sending to him by railroad mail is quite large. VvG was cutting himself these large size rolls in order to decide himself how much he will devote of it for each painting. Normally, Christies or somebody owning the sunflower painting before it was sold to the Japanese should have at least an x ray of it. To make an x ray of at least a portion of the picture. possibly several x rays to get all of the quite large surface is technically quite inexpensive and in those days technically very easy. Something like 200$ would cost such an x ray patchwork to do of such a painting. And was it done? Whoever has x rays now can easily digitalise the x ray films and email them to Professor Johnson in the USA. Who is the number one expert and archivist of many VvG canvas x rays and digital images of canvasses. If the canvas of the Japan Sunflowers turns out to be affiliated to other pieces of canvas used by VvG in this time he worked in the Provence, especially as canvas for other sunflower paintings. the probability that theJapan owned version is genuine will be close to 100%. If the canvas of the Japan version does not fit together with ANY other authentic VvG artwork. canvas. the risk that Schuffenecker is behind a posthumous replica increases a lot. We must know that sometimes VvG ran out of canvas while working in the Provence and that some paintings he did also on local purchased textiles. But even these tend to be in groupes. since VvG was cutting such textiles in several parts. and therefore, thanks to the modern technologies developed by Prof Johnson these relationships of the various paintings created by VvG are now becoming visible. It is even possible to put paintings in a chronological order. to a certain extent. Considering that VvG may have rather used a roll of canvas till all was used up before he started to work with canvas of another roll which his brother had to buy and send to him as usual. Also the letters of that time help to put these canvas roll orders in a chronology. Since VvG had to alarm his brother on time to avoid that his stock of paint and canvas runs too low. So basically a simple old fashionned x ray of at least a portion of the Japan Sunflower Painting canvas would be of great help to determine the degree of authenticity. Who has such an x ray? It would be a matter of minutes to email it to Professor Johnson and of a day to get this question answered.
reply
Colchester
The woman talking at 27: 45 is out to prove her case. But she needs to look much more closely than she is doing.
She compares the bandages around Vincent's ear and states that in the second painting, the pad that is over the ear is missing and that only the linen strip is present.
At 28: 11, at precisely the point at whiuch she is stating that the bandage on the ear is missing, it can be seen quite clearly even though the line that divides the pad of bandage from the strip of linen is pale grey, and not a dark, sharply define line. The square edge of that pad can be seen below the line of the hat, and it can also be seen projecting beyond the linen strip at the back. Moreover, Vincent has used a slightly more cream colour.
Everything about Painting No 2 is stronger in terms of form. The face has more structure. (In painting No 1 the eyes are too close together and the nose is wrongly positioned)
In No 2 everything about the green jacket has structure and three dimensionality. The hat does as well.
I am not putting a case that Vincent didn't paint Both pictures. I fact, the quality of his work varied a great deal.
To me, the painting with the pipe is a much less competent picture than that in the Courtauld Gallery.
The Courtauld picture looks to me to be that one that Vincent painted from life, with the watchful and intent look that a great many self-portraits that are done with the aid of a mirror seem to have.
The painting with the pipe is based on the Courtauld picture. but as a separate work, not a direct copy.
The process of copying is very different to the process of painting an original. The artist sees the lines and shapes on a flat surface and reproduces them. He does not see living, three-dimensional form and render it in two dimensions.
The portrait with a pipe is absolutely typical of what happens when an artist is simply copying two dimensional shape. He puts the lines in the right places. more or less. He draws the white shapes of the two parts of the bandage. but fails to resolve how it is that the linen strip goes under the hat and around the top of the head in some way. He gets the eyes the right shape. but positions them badly. He draws the shape of the collar but fails to resolve how it relates to the front opening of the jacket.
IT is in every way a much less competent work by the artist.
It is interesting that exactly the same comparison that I have made here can be made about the two versions of the Dr Gatchet painting.
Everything about the painting in the Musee d'Orsay (the one often claimed to be a fake) has more form, more structure to the figure, and more sign of having been painted from life. The other painting, with its brighter colours, and more van Goghish whirling streaky lines, has a face with the form of an over-ripe Cam, embert cheese. Nothing about it is resolved. The hand against the face is a mess. The wrinkles of flesh pushed up by the hand are not understood, The eyes are not set in the head.
I would hesitate to say that van Gogh DID NOT paint it.
My belief is that he was VERY POOR at copying his own work. . The conclusion that they come to here is exactly the opposite to mine.
.
reply
The woman talking at 27: 45 is out to prove her case. But she needs to look much more closely than she is doing.
She compares the bandages around Vincent's ear and states that in the second painting, the pad that is over the ear is missing and that only the linen strip is present.
At 28: 11, at precisely the point at whiuch she is stating that the bandage on the ear is missing, it can be seen quite clearly even though the line that divides the pad of bandage from the strip of linen is pale grey, and not a dark, sharply define line. The square edge of that pad can be seen below the line of the hat, and it can also be seen projecting beyond the linen strip at the back. Moreover, Vincent has used a slightly more cream colour.
Everything about Painting No 2 is stronger in terms of form. The face has more structure. (In painting No 1 the eyes are too close together and the nose is wrongly positioned)
In No 2 everything about the green jacket has structure and three dimensionality. The hat does as well.
I am not putting a case that Vincent didn't paint Both pictures. I fact, the quality of his work varied a great deal.
To me, the painting with the pipe is a much less competent picture than that in the Courtauld Gallery.
The Courtauld picture looks to me to be that one that Vincent painted from life, with the watchful and intent look that a great many self-portraits that are done with the aid of a mirror seem to have.
The painting with the pipe is based on the Courtauld picture. but as a separate work, not a direct copy.
The process of copying is very different to the process of painting an original. The artist sees the lines and shapes on a flat surface and reproduces them. He does not see living, three-dimensional form and render it in two dimensions.
The portrait with a pipe is absolutely typical of what happens when an artist is simply copying two dimensional shape. He puts the lines in the right places. more or less. He draws the white shapes of the two parts of the bandage. but fails to resolve how it is that the linen strip goes under the hat and around the top of the head in some way. He gets the eyes the right shape. but positions them badly. He draws the shape of the collar but fails to resolve how it relates to the front opening of the jacket.
IT is in every way a much less competent work by the artist.
It is interesting that exactly the same comparison that I have made here can be made about the two versions of the Dr Gatchet painting.
Everything about the painting in the Musee d'Orsay (the one often claimed to be a fake) has more form, more structure to the figure, and more sign of having been painted from life. The other painting, with its brighter colours, and more van Goghish whirling streaky lines, has a face with the form of an over-ripe Cam, embert cheese. Nothing about it is resolved. The hand against the face is a mess. The wrinkles of flesh pushed up by the hand are not understood, The eyes are not set in the head.
I would hesitate to say that van Gogh DID NOT paint it.
My belief is that he was VERY POOR at copying his own work. . The conclusion that they come to here is exactly the opposite to mine.
.
reply
Samua3
He didn't cut off part of his ear to attempt emotional blackmail. There is even reason to believe it may have been cut by Gauguin. He had apparently been to a bullfight where the ear of the defeated bull was presented to the victor. When he and Gauguin argued and Gauguin said he was leaving, Vincent was beside himself! His dreams. about to crumble. The ear lobe, whether cut off by Gauguin menacing him with an epee, or by himself, was taken by Vincent to where he thought Gauguin would be, at his favourite prostitute's residence. Gauguin was probably there but obviously didn't go to the door to see Vincent. The prostitute came to the door instead so the wrapped earlobe was passed to her to give to Gauguin as a sign of submission, making Gauguin the victor so that he might come back. Poor Vincent. It made sense to him at the time in his desperation. It was his attempt at pleading in the most sincere way he could.
Also the assumed shooting of himself now has a more believable version of events.
Lots to learn still it seems.
reply
He didn't cut off part of his ear to attempt emotional blackmail. There is even reason to believe it may have been cut by Gauguin. He had apparently been to a bullfight where the ear of the defeated bull was presented to the victor. When he and Gauguin argued and Gauguin said he was leaving, Vincent was beside himself! His dreams. about to crumble. The ear lobe, whether cut off by Gauguin menacing him with an epee, or by himself, was taken by Vincent to where he thought Gauguin would be, at his favourite prostitute's residence. Gauguin was probably there but obviously didn't go to the door to see Vincent. The prostitute came to the door instead so the wrapped earlobe was passed to her to give to Gauguin as a sign of submission, making Gauguin the victor so that he might come back. Poor Vincent. It made sense to him at the time in his desperation. It was his attempt at pleading in the most sincere way he could.
Also the assumed shooting of himself now has a more believable version of events.
Lots to learn still it seems.
reply
Anthony
OMG! That painting being broken down around the 14 minute mark, is 100% a fake! I've been drawing and painting since I was a toddler, and this guy pointing out the mistakes in the fake is TOTALLY CORRECT. Van Gogh was painting from life, and was creating (as artists do) a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional thing. Right? So there's a constant mental awareness of how the actual physical object exists in 3 dimensions, it's always in your head when you're drawing or painting something. The fake? That artist was essentially creating a 2 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional thing (the painting he/she was copying, which is why this artist tripped up on all of the follow through and flow of the objects, because they weren't ACTUALLY LOOKING at physical objects, they were looking at a painting. This is mind blowing, but yes, that painting is a total fake.
reply
OMG! That painting being broken down around the 14 minute mark, is 100% a fake! I've been drawing and painting since I was a toddler, and this guy pointing out the mistakes in the fake is TOTALLY CORRECT. Van Gogh was painting from life, and was creating (as artists do) a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional thing. Right? So there's a constant mental awareness of how the actual physical object exists in 3 dimensions, it's always in your head when you're drawing or painting something. The fake? That artist was essentially creating a 2 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional thing (the painting he/she was copying, which is why this artist tripped up on all of the follow through and flow of the objects, because they weren't ACTUALLY LOOKING at physical objects, they were looking at a painting. This is mind blowing, but yes, that painting is a total fake.
reply
Walt
Maybe Vincent had an off-day when he painted it? It's quite possible. I didn't make for good conversation period when I first started to paint a million years ago I did about 10 Vanguard just experience it and several friends I had asked me to paint them in his style so they could say that their great-great-grandfather had sat for Vincent van Gogh, it was a good laugh. And best of all they were pretty convincing. Luckily I have a first edition of Vincent Van Gogh's letters to a Dutch friend of his, I enjoying reading what he has to say until the last letter in which he gets mad at his friends critiquing Potato Eaters. Rest in peace brothers
reply
Maybe Vincent had an off-day when he painted it? It's quite possible. I didn't make for good conversation period when I first started to paint a million years ago I did about 10 Vanguard just experience it and several friends I had asked me to paint them in his style so they could say that their great-great-grandfather had sat for Vincent van Gogh, it was a good laugh. And best of all they were pretty convincing. Luckily I have a first edition of Vincent Van Gogh's letters to a Dutch friend of his, I enjoying reading what he has to say until the last letter in which he gets mad at his friends critiquing Potato Eaters. Rest in peace brothers
reply
sandra
It's just my opinion but the movie 'Lust For Life' is kind of ridiculous simply because it's in English. There are other issues with it also.
I read that Rene Secretan was still alive when the movie came out and he disliked Kirk Douglas playing Vincent. Rene said that there's no way Vincent looked like Mr. Douglas because Kirk was too handsome to play Vincent.
When you see a lot of movies starring Kirk Douglas then watch Lust For Life, his American accent doesn't change. He's still himself. I also don't like Willem Dafoe as Vincent. Mr. Dafoe was much too old to play Vincent and his American accent didn't change either.
reply
It's just my opinion but the movie 'Lust For Life' is kind of ridiculous simply because it's in English. There are other issues with it also.
I read that Rene Secretan was still alive when the movie came out and he disliked Kirk Douglas playing Vincent. Rene said that there's no way Vincent looked like Mr. Douglas because Kirk was too handsome to play Vincent.
When you see a lot of movies starring Kirk Douglas then watch Lust For Life, his American accent doesn't change. He's still himself. I also don't like Willem Dafoe as Vincent. Mr. Dafoe was much too old to play Vincent and his American accent didn't change either.
reply
Tim
Isn't it interesting that the monetary value of a work is far more dependent on the name of the person who supposedly created it than on the quality of the work itself? A painting by Van Gogh of a pile of dung could be worth millions of dollars. Yet an almost identical or even aesthetically superior painting of a pile of dung by an unknown would be worth nothing. When it comes to collectors and investors, it isn't the quality that matters; it's the prestige associated with the name. Of course, poor Vincent was virtually penniless when alive because nobody thought his work was worth anything. It is an absolutely crazy world.
reply
Isn't it interesting that the monetary value of a work is far more dependent on the name of the person who supposedly created it than on the quality of the work itself? A painting by Van Gogh of a pile of dung could be worth millions of dollars. Yet an almost identical or even aesthetically superior painting of a pile of dung by an unknown would be worth nothing. When it comes to collectors and investors, it isn't the quality that matters; it's the prestige associated with the name. Of course, poor Vincent was virtually penniless when alive because nobody thought his work was worth anything. It is an absolutely crazy world.
reply
Ila
11. 04: The cafe in Arles was run by his friends the Roulins? Really? I can not believe that such fake information would be in your documentary. Have you ever really read about or by Van Gogh? How ironic, here you present fakes or possibley fakes by Van Gogh and then you deliver yourself fake information or present experts like the one who is known for having endorsed a fake sketch book by Van Gogh, or the one endorsing fake photos of Vincent. Makes me cringe and question the otherwise interesting documentary!
reply
11. 04: The cafe in Arles was run by his friends the Roulins? Really? I can not believe that such fake information would be in your documentary. Have you ever really read about or by Van Gogh? How ironic, here you present fakes or possibley fakes by Van Gogh and then you deliver yourself fake information or present experts like the one who is known for having endorsed a fake sketch book by Van Gogh, or the one endorsing fake photos of Vincent. Makes me cringe and question the otherwise interesting documentary!
reply
dan
. The most striking element in the movie, by far, is the assumption of everybody involved, that artists are consistent, equal to themselves at all times. therefore an inferior work cannot mean that the artist had a lousy day but that it must be a fake. BY NO MEANS VINCENT COULD PAINT THIS. says one, emphatically. he knows. of course.
Visit any contemporary artist's studio and you'll find innumerable items that artists are embarrassed to show (if they are honest, of course.
reply
. The most striking element in the movie, by far, is the assumption of everybody involved, that artists are consistent, equal to themselves at all times. therefore an inferior work cannot mean that the artist had a lousy day but that it must be a fake. BY NO MEANS VINCENT COULD PAINT THIS. says one, emphatically. he knows. of course.
Visit any contemporary artist's studio and you'll find innumerable items that artists are embarrassed to show (if they are honest, of course.
reply
Bonner
twenty -two and a half million. just to hang 'n' to have and hold bragging rights I owned or once owned a Van Gogh. Meanwhile back on planet earth, people are trying to get back on their feet, pay the rent feed the kids, or whatever. The only whatever here are 22-23-24 million guys like yeah whatever. 1% of the people in the united states Owens 99% of the wealth. erroneous don't you think, a little too erroneous I really do think.
reply
twenty -two and a half million. just to hang 'n' to have and hold bragging rights I owned or once owned a Van Gogh. Meanwhile back on planet earth, people are trying to get back on their feet, pay the rent feed the kids, or whatever. The only whatever here are 22-23-24 million guys like yeah whatever. 1% of the people in the united states Owens 99% of the wealth. erroneous don't you think, a little too erroneous I really do think.
reply
Don
The easiest way to tell a Original Van Gogh is that he painted exactly as if he drew it but instead of pencils or charcoal he used paint. He mastered drawing at a very early age. Vincent used hashmarks and cross hashing very efficiently. Very analytical but when he added color, the freedom came naturally almost by accident but it was still analytical, efficient in the most beautiful way.
reply
The easiest way to tell a Original Van Gogh is that he painted exactly as if he drew it but instead of pencils or charcoal he used paint. He mastered drawing at a very early age. Vincent used hashmarks and cross hashing very efficiently. Very analytical but when he added color, the freedom came naturally almost by accident but it was still analytical, efficient in the most beautiful way.
reply
WK
Some of these fakes are quite nice, proving that these artists had talent. I don't understand why they wouldn't simply paint their own subjects. A quick inroads to money and fame, I guess. As in the case of Schencker/Schnekker. Too bad, because the appeal to art is personal, and surely these counterfeits would find someone who rather liked their original work.
reply
Some of these fakes are quite nice, proving that these artists had talent. I don't understand why they wouldn't simply paint their own subjects. A quick inroads to money and fame, I guess. As in the case of Schencker/Schnekker. Too bad, because the appeal to art is personal, and surely these counterfeits would find someone who rather liked their original work.
reply
Boston
I honestly don't get it about fake paintings. You don't know it is fake and can enjoy it but once suspected/proven to be a fake it is worthless. Why? I do agree about giving credit where credit is due. Must say I do enjoy Vincent's work! You know I think those that refer to him as Vincent is because we want to protect him, knowing the life he led.
reply
I honestly don't get it about fake paintings. You don't know it is fake and can enjoy it but once suspected/proven to be a fake it is worthless. Why? I do agree about giving credit where credit is due. Must say I do enjoy Vincent's work! You know I think those that refer to him as Vincent is because we want to protect him, knowing the life he led.
reply
Alex
What if Van Gogh just painted the Yasuda painting as a Sketch, therefore he did not put the time and effort seen in the other 2 versions And you have 2 authentic sunflowers, so which one is the final one? A lot of artist paint a sketch before the final work, so this could might as well be a real Van Gogh for that reason. =)
reply
What if Van Gogh just painted the Yasuda painting as a Sketch, therefore he did not put the time and effort seen in the other 2 versions And you have 2 authentic sunflowers, so which one is the final one? A lot of artist paint a sketch before the final work, so this could might as well be a real Van Gogh for that reason. =)
reply
Kiran
Interesting fact. 5 friends made millions. Sam made fake painting. And put it on auction. Tom bought it 3 million dollar. After year. . jimmy bought it for 10 million, after 2 years Richard bought it for 20 million. william bought it for 30 million. . after seeing this graph. Art collector bought it for 70 million. .
reply
Interesting fact. 5 friends made millions. Sam made fake painting. And put it on auction. Tom bought it 3 million dollar. After year. . jimmy bought it for 10 million, after 2 years Richard bought it for 20 million. william bought it for 30 million. . after seeing this graph. Art collector bought it for 70 million. .
reply
guy
Wether authentic by the hand of VanGogh, or fake, no serious arguments are being forwarded. Any remotely relevant ones, are poorly argumented. A fake, especially a painting, of later epoch, is the easyest thing to identifie, materially. No need for dodgy, pseudo esthetic analisis. or circomstantial 'evidence'.
reply
Wether authentic by the hand of VanGogh, or fake, no serious arguments are being forwarded. Any remotely relevant ones, are poorly argumented. A fake, especially a painting, of later epoch, is the easyest thing to identifie, materially. No need for dodgy, pseudo esthetic analisis. or circomstantial 'evidence'.
reply
Stephanie
As much as I have no particular love for the Japanese, it does seem wrong to talk about the loss of a painting in what was a horrific bombing. In one of the twin towers there was a huge collection of Rodin sculptures amongst other wors of art. I'm sure that they were 'saved' before the event.
reply
As much as I have no particular love for the Japanese, it does seem wrong to talk about the loss of a painting in what was a horrific bombing. In one of the twin towers there was a huge collection of Rodin sculptures amongst other wors of art. I'm sure that they were 'saved' before the event.
reply
English
Truly fascinating and well worth watching. What Tom Hoving, the ex-director of the MET, said truly made sense--that it's muddy and doesn't have the snap that Van Gogh's paintings have. And, when you look at the supposed faker's paintings--they're muddy, and don't have snap.
reply
Truly fascinating and well worth watching. What Tom Hoving, the ex-director of the MET, said truly made sense--that it's muddy and doesn't have the snap that Van Gogh's paintings have. And, when you look at the supposed faker's paintings--they're muddy, and don't have snap.
reply
harlen
The 3rd in my mind is a fake, there is a few forge artist that can copy this paint with ease I have watched other documentary on these artist an Vincent's work is one of the easiest to fake on two accounts this had been said by forgers probably more would say the same.
reply
The 3rd in my mind is a fake, there is a few forge artist that can copy this paint with ease I have watched other documentary on these artist an Vincent's work is one of the easiest to fake on two accounts this had been said by forgers probably more would say the same.
reply
Stephanie
If it looks like a Van Gogh then it's a Van Gogh, if you want to buy it ONLY for it's value then it's what it is. Art is art it cannot be fake. You can still eat out of a 'fake bowl' or drink out of a 'fake glass' and you can admire a 'fake painting' on your wall.
reply
If it looks like a Van Gogh then it's a Van Gogh, if you want to buy it ONLY for it's value then it's what it is. Art is art it cannot be fake. You can still eat out of a 'fake bowl' or drink out of a 'fake glass' and you can admire a 'fake painting' on your wall.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
