Talk:Portraits of Vincent van Gogh/Archive 1

Untitled

I've added the home-made translation Self-portrait without beard to the article. Anybody know of a english name/accepted translation for this painting? ✏ Sverdrup 21:38, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it right to assume that the name of this painting was given by someone else than Van Gogh? Thanks Jimaginator 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Prolificity Needed

This article has nothing to cite. It's merely a collection of his self-portraits done by van Gogh. More information is needed on the individual paintings as to his moods and location during his execution. 24.235.137.120 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree, more information has to be given on each painting to make this article useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.41.104 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1889 Self-portrait

That last self-portrait, I can't find it on the Vincent van Gogh Gallery. Was it really made by him? 200.214.14.4 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Theo Portrait

Now that Louis van Tilborgh has decided one of Van Gogh's 1887 portraits is actually of the artist's brother Theo (I see someone has renamed it here) should it be removed from this page? Perhaps a new section could be created 'Portraits previously thought to be of the artist' or something along those lines? Leaving it in its place while admitting it is now 'Portrait of Theo' seems a little silly. Dalisback1 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it out of the gallery, I think it should remain in the article however...Modernist (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fake photograph of Vincent van Gogh?

There's a fake photograph under the "Portraits of Vincent van Gogh by other artists" section, and its autenticity is based solely on some wild speculations. I think it's not a good idea to have the picture in this article for the following reasons: first, it is a photograph that can't be linked to Vincent van Gogh, thus the act of putting it here creates a stronger link than what's deserved. Secondly, the article doesn't include the only known photograph of Vincent van Gogh (the one taken at Goupil & Cie. while he was living in London). I tried to remove the item twice, and in both instances the change was reverted. Needless to say, it's my opinion that linking what would be an important item based on such wild speculations is way below the standard for publication. Soveran (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

While I do agree with you that the photograph does not depict Vincent van Gogh; I want proof or rather a better reference to that effect; after which we will remove it. Until then I prefer to let it be...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But why then is the standard for publication laxer than that for removal? You want proof of what exactly? What I mean is this: there's no proof that the photograph depicts Vincent van Gogh. Why should I or anyone else have to make an effort in trying to disprove what's not even demonstrated? Soveran (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Come up with something one way or the other; WP:AGF regarding the image - The Guardian...Modernist (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is very simple and straightforward: the burden of the proof should lie in those who claim that photograph to be authentic. In their favor, they argue that the picture was taken in Europe while Vincent was alive, and that the subject "looks similar" to some of his self portraits. That's a very weak argument, and I can disregard it with arguments of equal strength: we know he wasn't in Brussels when that photograph was taken; we know he never mentioned that photograph; we know he did mention a previous photograph taken at Goupil & Cie., when he was an employee, and we know the two subjects don't look alike. But in any case, I insist that the burden of proof lies with those that claim its authenticity. Soveran (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You say we know - and who are you to say that??? Are you a Vincent van Gogh expert? Are you a historian? You say - we know this and that - truth is you don't know...The Guardian article The Guardian says enough to keep the image, these speculations here also say enough: [1] and here: [2] and here [3]...Modernist (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When I say "we know" I mean it's information we can derive from his letters and from what historians say. But also read this blog post, and keep in mind that the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam denies the fact that this is a photograph of Vincent van Gogh. Above all, do you think this picture belongs to the category "Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soveran (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing indicating that the image is genuine; and in my opinion the image is aptly described as being possibly Vincent van Gogh. The heading says: Portraits of Vincent van Gogh by other artists - and the caption reads: Discovered in the early 1990s, experts disagree whether or not it is Vincent van Gogh. ...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess for you Victor Morin is the "artist" that made that "portrait". You asked me to assume good faith, but you are making it extremely difficult. As a side note, the reference in the caption is a link that redirects to the home page of USA Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soveran (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The caption under the disputed photograph already says that "experts disagree whether or not it is Vincent van Gogh". This is a step in the right direction in addressing the problematic nature of this image. Going further, a separate section in our article could be devoted to just this photo. Good quality external links would serve the reader well. Going even further, a separate article could be created just for the disputed photo. But of course these things take time. In the meantime we should be very forthcoming about the disputed authenticity of it, which we have, to an extent, done. Therefore the question is what next incremental step should be taken to possibly ward off misleading the reader in any way? Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems: one, the fact that the picture, even if it were authentic, doesn't belong to this page as it's not a portrait by an artist. The other problem is the fact that the claim of its authenticity is unsound. Here's a good investigation (in Spanish). It's worth reading, and as an example, it explains the fact that the photographer Victor Morin lived and worked in St. Hyacinthe, in Quebec, not in Belgium. There are many other arguments in that article, indeed it's worth reading. My opinion regarding this issue is that including that photograph as it is now, and in that category, is doing a disservice. It's not a step in the right direction, on the contrary, it propagates false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soveran (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One interesting question is whether van Gogh worked from this photograph. "Before the time of this photograph, Vincent’s self portraits were obviously 'eyeballed' (to commandeer David Hockney’s phrase) and did not have a strong sense of realism. However, subsequent self-portraits were as close to photo-realism as impressionist paintings could be. Is it possible that Van Gogh used Morin’s photograph as a guide to painting these new, realistic self-portraits? Some experts now believe that the artist may, in fact, have used the photo along with optical projection as a guide when creating these paintings. This possibility is underscored by the fact that when the Morin photograph and some of Van Gogh’s self portraits are overlaid, the close resemblance is hard to deny. If this newly found photograph does indeed turn out to be of the adult Van Gogh, and if it could be proven that optical projection was used by this great impressionist, the implications could change art history." Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I read that snippet, but it's inaccurate. Besides the fact that calling van Gogh an impressionist is a mistake, the claim that all portraits after certain date look like the photograph is false. The article I linked has very good information, by the way. Soveran (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

But this photograph could have relevance to this article. It is postulated that perhaps van Gogh sometimes worked from this photograph. That is a different working method from perhaps looking at one's image in a mirror. These are considerations that some readers might find of interest. Of course we would want to use language that leaves open the possibility that the photograph might not be of Vincent van Gogh at all. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm not sure if I should drop this issue altogether. I'm puzzled, because there are no basis for those claims, and the only source is so weak, based on arguments of such wildness, that having to go to great lengths to discredit something that has no credit to begin with, is painful to the utmost. The full story, in short: Tom Stanford finds a photograph in Massachusetts of somebody that, according to him, looks like Vincent van Gogh. After some investigations by the University of New Haven, the University sets up the exhibition "Discovering van Gogh: A Forensic Study in Identification", where it claims the authenticity of the photograph based on its similitud with some self portraits. That's all there is in favor of that hypothesis. Now, against that hypothesis are the following facts: experts _deny_ the claim that the subject of that photograph is van Gogh. The origin can be traced to a photography studio in Montreal. The only known photograph of van Gogh, along with many testimonies by people that knew him, describe his physical characteristics in a way that it's clear that the person in the photograph is not van Gogh. Among those discrediting the validity of that document are the experts at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. About the similarities with the portraits, only amateurs and the people at the University of New Haven claim that the photograph was used as a guide. I could go on and on, but if you translate the content of this website you will find more information about what I'm talking about. I have been investigating about this a lot, and it's frustrating that some wild claim, that has ever since been denied by multiple authorities, still carries such weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soveran (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed a photograph of Theo van Gogh that is erroneously attributed to Vincent, and I also fixed the date and the age of Vincent in another photograph. Those changes got reverted by Modernist without any explanation. I consider the fact that those changes got reverted an act of vandalism on the part of Modernist, and I can't possibly assume any good faith. Vincent van Gogh was born on March 30th 1853. The photograph was taken on January, 1873 while he was in London, working at Goupil & Cie. The reference for the date is given in one of his letters to Theo. The photograph I removed is one of Theo van Gogh, and I think it's not necessary for me to provide any more proofs than all the other photographs of Theo van Gogh in existence, some of which are in his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soveran (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture is of Vincent - read this [4]...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I shared information with you and you disregarded it. Then you reverted my changes without investigating. For example, a photograph was taken in January 1873, when he was 19 years old. The source of that information is a letter from Vincent to Theo. Disregarding that, you changed it for 18 years old and a date of 1871-1872, something that makes no sense at all. About Theo, I sent an email to the museum asking for clarifications, because they also suggest it's Vincent in that photograph. But what you linked is a forum with many mistakes. For example, it mentions a photograph of Cor (number 6), when it's clearly Theo. And more errors like that. Check this collection, and also this is a good source, except for that same mistake of 13 yo Vincent. But in those collections you can see photographs of Cor and compare them with those of Theo, they are very different. Soveran (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Do you know how to read? That website is a reliable source - they point out that the images are not Cor but in fact Theo. It says - Update: January, 2000: I've decided to leave the commentary above regarding photographs #5 and #6 to illustrate the ongoing theories about these two photographs. In a recent book devoted to Theo van Gogh, the Van Gogh Museum has declared that photo #6 is actually of Theo and not Cor. In comparing other photographs of Cor, I have to say that I concur with their conclusions. Photo #5 is clearly the same person and is also, therefore, Theo. By the way - click on the images and then you will learn how and why those dates were used. Clearly you don't have a clue. However - click on the image of the 19 year old Vincent and then read the attributions, especially click on the box that says more details...Modernist (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way - if you click on the image of the 19 year old and then click on the box that says More Details and then scroll down - tou can see how many places and other language wikipedias include c. 71-72 age 18. Marc Edo Tralbaut a well known Van Gogh biographer described that photograph as Vincent van Gogh at about 18 years of age...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how you are even allowed in Wikipedia. Your behavior is agressive, you try to be right instead of trying to make Wikipedia right. Even when I proved you wrong with something, you just jumped to insults. Soveran (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)