h1

Understanding the Fanatic Heart of Vincent Van Gogh – Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith

February 13, 2012

Vincent Willem van Gogh

A teaser prologue from the brilliant best seller that will change the way you look at Van Gogh who in turn will change the way you look at everything.

Theo imagined the worst. the message said only that Vincent had “wounded himself.” As Theo rushed to the station to catch the next train to Auvers, his mind raced both backward and forward. The last time he received a dire message like this one, it was a telegram from Paul Gauguin informing him that Vincent was “gravely ill.” Theo had arrived in the southern city of Arles to find his brother in the fever ward of a hospital, his head swathed in bandages and his mind completely unmoored.

What would he find at the end of this train ride?

At times like these — and there had been many of them — Theo’s mind wandered to the Vincent he had known once: an older brother of passion and restlessness, but also of boisterous jokes, infinite sympathy, and indefatigable wonder. On their childhood hikes in the fields and woods around the Dutch town Zundert, where they were born, Vincent had introduced him to the beauties and mysteries of nature. In the winter, Vincent tutored him in skating and sledding.

In summer, he showed him how to build castles in the sandy paths. In Church on Sundays and at home by the parlor piano, he sang with a clear, confident voice. In the attic room that they shared, he talked until late at night, inspiring in his younger brother a bond that their siblings teasingly called “worship,” but Theo proudly acknowledged, even decades later, as “adoration.”

This was the Vincent that Theo had grown up with: adventurous guide, inspiration and scold, encyclopedic enthusiast, droll critic, playful companion, transfixing eye. How could this Vincent, his Vincent, have turned into such a tormented soul?

Theo thought he knew the answer: Vincent was the victim of his own fanatic heart “There’s something in the way he talks that makes people either love him or hate him,” he tried to explain. “He spares nothing and no one.” Long after others had put away the breathless manias of youth. Vincent still lived by their unsparing rules. Titanic, unappeasable passions swept through his life. “I am a fanatic!” Vincent declared in 1881. “I feel a power within me … a fire that I may not quench, but must keep ablaze.” Whether catching beetles on the Gundert creek bank, collecting and cataloguing prints, preaching the Christian gospel, consuming Shakespeare or Balzac in great fevers of reading, or mastering the interactions of color, he did everything with the urgent, blinding single-mindedness of a child. He even read the newspaper “in a fury.”

‘These storms of zeal had transformed a boy of inexplicable fierceness into a wayward, battered soul: a stranger in the world, an exile in his own family and an enemy to himself. No one knew better than Theo — who had followed his brother’s tortured path through almost a thousand letters — the unbending demands that. Vincent placed on himself, and others, and the unending problems he reaped as a consequence.

No one understood better the price Vincent paid in loneliness and disappointment for his self-defeating, take-no-prisoners assaults on life: and no one knew better the futility of warning him against himself. “I get very cross when people tell me that it is dangerous to put out to sea,” Vincent told Theo once when he tried to intervene. “There is safety in the very heart of it.”

How could anybody be surprised that such a fanatic heart produced such a fanatic art? Theo had heard the whispers and rumors about his brother. “C’est un fou.” they said. Even before the events in Arles eighteen months earlier, before the stints in hospitals and asylums, people dismissed Vincent’s art as the work of a madman. One critic described its distorted forms and shocking colors as the product of a sick mind.” Theo himself had spent years trying, unsuccessfully, to lance the excesses of his brother’s brush. If only he would use less paint — not lather it on so thickly. If only he would slow down — not slash out so many works so quickly. (“I have sometimes worked excessively fast,” Vincent countered defiantly. “Is it a fault? I can’t help it.”) Collectors wanted care and finish, Theo told him again and again, not endless, furious, convulsive studies — what Vincent called “pictures full of painting.”

With every lurch of the train that bore him to the scene of the latest catastrophe, Theo could hear the years of scorn and ridicule. For a long time, out of family pride or fraternal affection, Theo had resisted the accusations of madness. Vincent was merely “an exceptional person” — a Quixote-like tilter at windmills — a noble eccentric, perhaps — not a madman. But the events in Arles had changed all that. “Many painters have gone insane yet nevertheless started to produce true art,” Theo wrote afterward. “Genius roams along such mysterious truths.”

And no one had roamed a more mysterious path than Vincent: a brief, failed start as an art dealer, a misbegotten attempt to enter the clergy, a wandering evangelical mission, a foray into magazine illustration, and, finally, a blazingly short career as a painter. Nowhere did Vincent’s volcanic, defiant temperament show itself more spectacularly than in the sheer number of images that continued to pour forth from his ragged existence even as they piled up, hardly seen, in the closets , and spare rooms of family, friends, and creditors.

Only by tracing this temperament and the trail of tears it left, Theo believed, could anyone truly understand his brother’s stubbornly inner-driven art. This was his answer to all those who dismissed Vincent’s paintings — or his letters — as the rantings of the wretched, as most still did. Only by knowing Vincent “from the inside,” he insisted, could anyone hope to see his art as Vincent saw it, or feel it as Vincent felt it. Just a few months before his fateful train trip, Theo had sent a grateful note to the first critic who dared to praise his brother’s work: “You have read these pictures, and by doing so you very clearly saw the man.”

Like Theo, the art world of the late nineteenth century was preoccupied with the role of biography in art. Emile Zola had opened the gates with his call for an art “of flesh and blood,” in which painting and painter merged. “What I look for in a picture before anything else,” Zola wrote, “is the man.” No one believed in the importance of biography more fervently than Vincent van Gogh. “[Zola] says something beautiful about art,” he wrote in 1885: ” ‘In the picture (the work of art), I look for, I love the man — the artist.’ ” No one collected artists’ biographies more avidly than Vincent — everything from voluminous texts to “legends” and “chats” and scraps of rumor. Taking Zola at his word, he culled every painting for signs of “what kind of man stands behind the canvas.” At the dawn of his career as an artist, in 1881, he told a friend: “In general, and more especially with artists, I pay as much attention to the man who does the work as to the work itself.”

To Vincent, his art was a record of his life more true, more revealing (“how deep — how infinitely deep”) even than the storm of letters that always accompanied it. Every wave of “serenity and happiness,” as well as every shudder of pain and despair, he believed, found its way into paint; every heartbreak into heartbreaking imagery; every picture into self-portraiture. “I want to paint what I feel,” he said, “and feel what I paint.”

It was a conviction that guided him until his death — only hours after Theo arrived in Auvers. No one could truly see his paintings without knowing his story. `As my work is,” he declared, “so am I.”

About these ads

3 comments

  1. Some say he didn’t cut off his ear but it was an accident with Paul, and Vincent protected him by taking responsibility.
    Some also say that he did not shoot himself but was accidentally shot by two young boys and he once again protected those he cared about and took the blame.
    Many stories surround the way he lived and how he died.
    His life made a good story.
    When people think “tortured artist” they think of him.
    Have we assumed too much?


  2. The thing about Van Gogh was… (there were a lot of things combined to make a good story)
    One of the most famous stories is the way he died. Suicide. People say he shot himself in the stomach because he couldn’t take the beauty of the world or he suffered from mental illness. There are some who disagree.
    (keep in mind that stories are everywhere)
    Some say that the true story was that some boys playing in a field accidentally shot him and he told his brother Theo and everyone else it was by his own hand. He did this to protect the two boys from getting into trouble. This was more Vincent-like than suicide.
    Suicide wasn’t his style. It’s the tortured artist theme that people eat up. A good story.
    When I say suicide wasn’t his style I mean that it goes against his entire life.
    He was the son of a minister. He practiced religion and believed in charity. Even after renouncing any formal view of religion he sought spiritual fulfillment to fill the void. He found that in nature and in people. The simpler the better. Honest hard working people were a favorite subject of his. His potato eaters and field plowers are well known.
    The way he painted the sun suggests he was in a state of ecstasy. The rate at which he painted landscapes was intense. He loved nature and everything in it.
    There is an excellent film called “Lust for Life” based on his letters and life.
    And that’s what it was. He enjoyed life. Countless books based on his letters suggest this.
    Another point.
    The amount of artists in the world who have not sold a painting in their lifetime are uncountable and unknowable.
    He did good work. I enjoy his use of color.
    Before he died, he spoke with his brother about art.
    He said that art was secondary. Secondary to life. He didn’t have to paint. He thought there were innumerable things for a person to do. It wasn’t important.
    Have we assumed too much about his life and death?


  3. http://www.tadaocern.com/gallery_revealing_the_truth.html



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 260 other followers

%d bloggers like this: