Van Gogh Bashing

I want to share something with you that I was recently disgusted by while watching a DVD special feature. A very famous and much respected movie director (let's call him ‘Robert Altman’) was being interviewed about the making of ‘Vincent and Theo’, his 1990 film about Vincent van Gogh's life. Mr. Altman said that in preparation for making the film, he read the letters from Vincent to his brother Theo, and that it was obvious from this that Vincent van Gogh was a bum and a reprobate and completely self-serving, and all he was interested in was wringing his brother for money. And that is how he portrayed his character of Vincent in the film. Mr. Altman's quote follows...

‘... we found out that he had written all these letters to his brother, to Theo, and they were all saved, but there weren't any letters of his [Theo's to Vincent] because Van Gogh didn't care about him. Every letter he wrote he was asking for money or support of some kind and it finally just came down to the fact I think that Vincent just wasn't very interested in anything but himself. So I kind of took that position in making the whole project, that Vincent was just mad as a hatter and he was scrambling to keep alive and to be able to paint, keep painting. And he would do anything and his brother is the one he hustled.’

Well that explains a lot. It explains why the first time you see Vincent in the film he is in an argument with his brother, and when his brother admits that the money Vincent has been receiving from his father is actually from Theo himself, Vincent grins broadly showing his paint stained and rotten teeth.

Now here I was thinking that smile meant ‘I am surprised with joy that my brother so deeply cares for me that he would support me in such a selfless way; I am truly loved’. But no! What the director of the film was really saying with that grotesque grin (which only became grotesque to me after I heard his comments) was more along the lines of ;Aha, I have you exactly where I want you, you fool!’

Now I admit I may be stretching the interpretation a bit to make a point and to hopefully add some humor to what could be considered a pretty insulting article, but there is it. Clearly I disagree with Altman about van Gogh's motives and, really, his entire relationship with his brother and even his essence as a person and an artist. And I do not think that is stretching anything.

It is true that I have not read van Gogh's letters extensively, but I have read some, and essays on said letters, and I have read quite a few biographies that do have some variance in opinion as to the artist's personal intentions and motivations. I have viewed and felt his work and have let all of this personal research, as well as common ‘knowledge’, melt into my own opinion of a man who I have only recently come to very much admire and identify with.

When an artist puts his priority on striving to create because it is all he has found that can give him even a small amount of satisfaction, and because he sincerely believes that it is his calling, money can often become a problem. Not only that, but many of us creative types also do not have support in human form. I mean emotional support. This is especially the case when an artist is so focused and driven to communicate something unformed through his art, that he leaves society behind, either geographically like Gauguin, or mentally like van Gogh.

As you probably are aware, it is very difficult to live in this world without money and without emotional support, let alone without just one of these things. These are not things that people give up lightly. Again, Gauguin and van Gogh are perfect examples of this, because they each knew another life before becoming obsessed with creating art. Sure, we could talk about ‘how much money does one really need?’ all day long, but van Gogh was a man who lived in strict poverty after he began painting, which came after some time spent as an art gallery manager, then a teacher, and then a minister. He was never wealthy, but he had choices, and I see a man who was always reaching to find his purpose, not a bigger bank roll. And I do not see a man who was so mentally unhinged or selfish and hateful that he gave up his previous life just out of some kind of lunacy, laziness, or spite.

It turned out that Vincent came to combine his knowledge of and appreciate for art, his natural creative talent (not only as a visual artist, but as an amazing letter writer), and his vision of sharing something true and sacred with other people to become the great artist whose influence was, and is, indispensable to the art world. I for one am thankful for people like that who seek out what they should do and try their best to do it, no matter what the cost. And I am equally thankful for Theo van Gogh who loved his brother and helped him attain his goals and accomplish all he was able to do in less than ten years of painting.

If this is what it means to be a selfish bum, I really do live in the wrong universe.

ShareThis