“A poet can survive anything but a misprint,” wrote Oscar Wilde.
Break a painter’s heart with a bad photograph of his work.
Look at any of the photos on the Web of famous paintings and compare their colors. There are never two alike. Sometimes they vary so much that you would think the painter made several versions of his work (a good one, a so-so one, and a bad one!).
The abundance of all these photos with unfaithful colors shows that people in general do not pay much attention to color. The artist worried himself sick (and maybe her husband or his wife) trying to get just the right one but most viewers scan a picture only for its subject and the layout of the lines and shapes.
Here is a page from Google with photos of Van Gogh’s famous chair. Guess which is like the original.
(It has to be said that the camera’s or the computer’s color inventions sometimes IMPROVE the original, too!)
(This post, now amended, was originally published on August 29, 2007.)
Yes you are right in saying that. I do think however that it is very difficult to get the same results with different camera’s, especially for people who aren’t professional photographers. However with this particular example I suspect that not all the images are from the same painting. Perhaps some of the pictures were from studies ? I feel the difference is just too big.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I noticed that not all the chairs on that page were vanGogh’s. But I thought they illustrated pretty well the point I was making, so I linked the page.
And I agree that it is really hard to take a good photo, in spite of all the sophistication of the cameras. Of course, the photographer ought to see that his picture matches his subject. Maybe he will have to monkey around at Photoshop or take the picture a second time with a camera he can trust.
I always take many and count on good luck. How about you?
Yes, there is a lot of difference! But almost the same thing happens also in printed media! Sometimes, I look at (supposedly!) the same painting, in two different albums and – wowÀ! – the difference it’s amasing!
You are right also when you say that digital photo and photo software CAN improve a lot a painting…
I’ve seen a few original Van gogh paintings at Montreal (temporary exhibition “Provence on peinture” and others) and I must say I was NOT dissapointed! The originals were BETTER than the reproductions I’ve seen… Not the same thing could be said about some Cézanne paintings which seemed faded (the reproductions were better). Just in one-two cases…
Anyway, I take pleasure in reading your blog, congratulations!
danu
I just saw a Van Gogh exhibition in Madrid too and wasn’t disappointed either, though the paintings were hung in a dark room with strong spot-lights instead of a naturally bright place. That wasn’t the best way to show his colors.
I’ll try to find that old Irving Stone film
there are some other movies about Van Gogh’s life ( I wrote an essay about that – in French at http://iondanu.wordpress.com/) and I can cite them to you: “Vincent & Theo” Robert Altman’s movie with Tim roth as Vincent; and the French “Van Gogh” by Maurice Pialat, with Jacques Dutrons as Vincent. The latest seemed to me the most truthfull, the most balanced.
Good movies, anyhow… Not a lot of them, the painters life movies…
Danu, I’m sorry but I haven’t seen many movies. I will go read your article on Vincent–or decipher it, rather, since my French is not too good. I think yours is a fine blog. I will remember your grandfather now too and the story you tell of yourself and your immigration to Canada. Also your portraits.
I don’t put Henry Miller in the same ballpark with Marcel Proust.
I’ve looked up Vincent’s chair in the past, and noticed the same thing. Vast differences in color, and a lot of fakes as well. Still, so beautiful. I love it that they’re out there. The Internet provides us with a huge art gallery, although it’s never as great as the real thing.
I love your site. All of this wonderful information. You express it so well. And I’m honored that you’ve added me to your Blogroll!
Thanks,Moonbeam. That latest post of yours about what men should do and say was very funny. I will remember the one about the artist who was washed out of New Orleans too. I can’t believe you aren’t a professional writer.
Do you have the complete paintings of Van Gogh? A few years ago I bought a good book called “Van Gogh. The complete paintings.” By Ingo Walther and Rainer Metzger TASCHEN Books,1997. I got it cheap through Barnes and Noble. It is worth having around. The reproductions are good and you would be surprised how many works of his you have never seen. And one more impressive than the other. Almost everything after about 1885 is pure gold.
Hi Swallows,
Are you familiar with the Barnes Collection near Philadelphia? My understanding is that Barnes forbade color reproduction of his collections because he knew how misleading the color was, not to mention the almost complete absence of texture. I recently got two different books on Winslow Homer’s watercolors. For some paintings you almost would think that you weren’t looking at the same painting. All the artist’s agonizings over color go for naught, at least for people who don’t see the real painting.
On the other hand color reproductions on the web often gain a vibrancy that can make art look a little brighter and fresher than it really is. I always have to be careful with my own work to remember to look at the real artwork in my studio and not be seduced by the reproductions on my web site that make the works look a bit brighter than they really are.
Many years ago I went into one of the tourist galleries at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. Some of the paintings were rigged up so that you could turn on a switch and the paintings were illuminated from behind. Now the web does that for free, and actually does a better job since the light is bright white rather than incandescent yellow. Of course if you wanted a warm glow to your landscape the yellow was just what the electric switch gave you. I had to leave the gallery when the salesman said to a potential customer “Our philosophy is that if you like it you should own it.” I just couldn’t believe the combination of ‘philosophy’ and electric gimmickry.
Ken: I just looked up Barnes’ museum. I would like to see his collection. I see he guards it from photographers and even copyists.
I agree that many or most paintings look better on the computer screen, with the light behind them, than on the wall. And nine out of ten improve when you brighten up (“enhance”, they call it) their colors at Photo Editor. I bet people who buy a painting they have seen on the Net from an enhanced picture often feel disappointed when the real, duller thing comes in the mail.
Swallows, I’m glad you brought this up. I recently discovered a painting by Van Gogh I’ve never seen before: Prisoners Exercising. It’s my favourite painting now, but it’s hard to tell the original colours. Some are bluish, some are greyish, greenish, dark or light. It’s a copy after Doré, but I couldn’t find the original illustration. Did anyone see Doré’s original? I would really like to compare the two.
Erika,
Use Google images and search for Gustave Dore and Prisoners. I found a number of images there and then compared them to Van Gogh’s ‘Prisoners’. I’m pretty sure that they are the same. The Dore seems to be called ‘Prisoners Rounds’.
Thank you Ken, I did find the black and white illustration. There was a whole page of Van Gogh’s version, in all the colours of the rainbow, to prove Swallows’ point. I guess I’d have to go all the way to Puskin Museum to find out its true colours.
There is a new film about van Gogh about the year he spent in the asylum in St. Remy. It’s called The Eyes of Van Gogh. The website for the film has information about the cast and notes from the director and author.
Rebellion: Thanks for the link. I always resist watching movies about my heroes but I’m sure many people will want to see this movie. I prefer to get my knowledge of the men not from romanticized scripts acted out by passion-flaunting actors but from sources like the artist’s own letters, raw biographical facts, and my own mental links with the things I’ve read and heard. When I see someone pretending to be the artist, I turn right off, no matter how well he does it. Of course, if I knew nothing about the artist, the movie might make me interested and send me to those primary sources. I know a movie can be very impressive and a work of art in its own right.
I forgot to put in the link. http://www.theeyesofvangogh.com
I borrowed much of this for a post of my own. I had been looking for Van Gogh’s “cornfield and lark”, and the colours are incredible.
Of course as always I will most visibly acknowledge the sources.
Cantueso: Not to worry, borrow all you want.