I find the whole thing ridiculous, and proof that science will never take the place of actual connoisseurship. Van Gogh went out and painted Starry Night in 1889, and then came home and spent some time copying a mediocre painting by a little-known artist? It’s completely illogical. If they were claiming that the painting was an art school study, or an early work it would be one thing. Still unlikely, but possible. I’m still unsure who looked at that painting in the first place and thought - hey! That might be a Van Gogh!
I really love what you wrote here - "proof that science will never take the place of actual connoisseurship." Brilliant! I think there is deep wishful thinking happening here. As I said, the painting doesn't look like any other work he produced in his later years, so it's hard for me to buy that it's an actual Van Gogh. But I'll definitely be interested to see how the case gets dragged out, as I imagine there's a lot of money at stake for LMI.
For sure - I did take a look through the almost-500-page report, and it's pretty astounding how much time and money they've poured into the painting. Part of me thinks we'll wake up on April 1 to find that it was all a big trick that LMI was trying to pull over on us!
Thank you for the feature here, Nicole. And as always, loving your choices on the other news too.
I must admit, my opinion on the van Gogh piece is that there's more chance of the sun rising in the west and setting in the east than for that to be an authentic piece by his hand!
From the colour scheme, to the application of paint, to the way the face is painted, and so much more . . . the whole thing just seems too far off, even compared to any of van Gogh's other studies or experiments over the years.
But with that said, I'm sure the LMI group will not let the matter rest without a fight. So will still be very interested to see where the story goes next.
I'm with you on that, I don't think LMI will let it go, especially when there is so much money on the line for them. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at play here.
It really doesn't look like Van Gogh to me, but it's hard to say. I don't want to rule out the possibility that he experimented with another style, but the fact that it wasn't signed by him is odd to me - if it isn't the 20th century Elimar, perhaps someone else by that last name working in the 19th century?
In a blasé take, I vote that it’s not a Van Gogh just based on the fact that I think it’s quite an ugly painting - and I’ve never found any of Van Gogh’s genuine paintings ugly. So there’s that!
I find the whole thing ridiculous, and proof that science will never take the place of actual connoisseurship. Van Gogh went out and painted Starry Night in 1889, and then came home and spent some time copying a mediocre painting by a little-known artist? It’s completely illogical. If they were claiming that the painting was an art school study, or an early work it would be one thing. Still unlikely, but possible. I’m still unsure who looked at that painting in the first place and thought - hey! That might be a Van Gogh!
I really love what you wrote here - "proof that science will never take the place of actual connoisseurship." Brilliant! I think there is deep wishful thinking happening here. As I said, the painting doesn't look like any other work he produced in his later years, so it's hard for me to buy that it's an actual Van Gogh. But I'll definitely be interested to see how the case gets dragged out, as I imagine there's a lot of money at stake for LMI.
For sure - I did take a look through the almost-500-page report, and it's pretty astounding how much time and money they've poured into the painting. Part of me thinks we'll wake up on April 1 to find that it was all a big trick that LMI was trying to pull over on us!
Thank you for the feature here, Nicole. And as always, loving your choices on the other news too.
I must admit, my opinion on the van Gogh piece is that there's more chance of the sun rising in the west and setting in the east than for that to be an authentic piece by his hand!
From the colour scheme, to the application of paint, to the way the face is painted, and so much more . . . the whole thing just seems too far off, even compared to any of van Gogh's other studies or experiments over the years.
But with that said, I'm sure the LMI group will not let the matter rest without a fight. So will still be very interested to see where the story goes next.
I'm with you on that, I don't think LMI will let it go, especially when there is so much money on the line for them. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at play here.
Must say we're with the Dutch experts on the possible Van Gogh. What do you think, Nicole?
It really doesn't look like Van Gogh to me, but it's hard to say. I don't want to rule out the possibility that he experimented with another style, but the fact that it wasn't signed by him is odd to me - if it isn't the 20th century Elimar, perhaps someone else by that last name working in the 19th century?
Possible. Perhaps the price was right!
In a blasé take, I vote that it’s not a Van Gogh just based on the fact that I think it’s quite an ugly painting - and I’ve never found any of Van Gogh’s genuine paintings ugly. So there’s that!
Thanks for bring the challenge of the “Van Gogh” to my attention. I agree with Jodi! 😊