Journal i !)

VAN GOGH

MUSEUM

9 ()

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

JOURNAL 1999

Van Gogh Museum

Journal 1999

Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

The Van Gogh Museum Journal 1999

The Van Gogh Museum Journal is published annually in Managing editorg P Y g g

the autumn. Manuscripts should be submitted no later Rachel Esner1'

than 1 December of therevious year for considerationP Y

for the following issue. Editorsg

Rachel Esner, Sjraar Heugten, John Leighton,

^l g g

For more information about the Journal, please contact Benno Tempel^ P P

the editors, Van Gogh Museum Journal, P.O. Box 75366,g 753

107o AJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Subscription and Catalogue authors7 ^ A g

back-issue requests should be addressed to Waanders Andreas Bluhm John Leighton, Benno Tempel,q ^ g P

Publishers P.O. Box 1129, BC Zwolle, The Louis van Tilborgh, Marije Vellekoop g l p

Netherlands.

Thea er and binding of this book meet all guidelinesPP g g

forermanence and durability.P Y

Abbreviation: VGMJ

Unless otherwise indicated, allhoto ra hs are courtesyp g A

of the institution orerson owning the work illustrated.P g

Nota bene: References to Van Go h's letters are given in

g g

the form of two numbers. The first refers to De brieven

van Vincent van Gogh, ed. Han van Crimen andg ^ Crimp e

Monique Berends, vols., The Hague 1 o, and the secq 4 g 99 -

and to Verzamelde brieven van Vincent van Goh, 4g

vols., Amsterdam & Antwerp 1952-54. All quotationsPq

have been checked against the original letters by thegY

translators.

Translators

David Alexander, Rachel Esner,

Annabel Howland, Wendie Shaffer

Research assistance

Monique Hageman, Fieke Pabst, Benno Tempel,q g P

Anita Vriend

Designg

Studio Roozen, Amsterdam

Printing

Waanders Printers, Zwolle

Distribution

Waanders Publishers, Zwolle

DOCUMENTATION

132 Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings, drawingsg q P g^ ^

and sculptureP

August 1 8- Jul 1g 99 Y 1999

146 Works on loan to the Van Goh Museumg

1997-99

Table of contents

Director's foreword

8 Review, August i gg8 -July 1999

VAN GOGH STUDIES

Jan Hulsker

24 Facts instead of suppositions: Roland Dorn revisitedpp

Richard Kendall

30 `I kept on thinking about Degas ... ': Vincent vanp g g

Goh and the `little lawyer'Gogh Y

Roland Dorn 149 Exhibitions in the Van Goh Museumg

42 Van Go h's Sunflowers series: the fifth toile de o 1g 3 1999

Andreas Bluhin 150 The Van Gogh Museum staff

62 Displaying Van Gogh, 1886-1999

19TH - CENTURY STUDIES

Fred Leeman

84 Theainter as prey: Courbet's Hanging roe deerp p Y g g

in the Museum Mesdag

Caroline Irag

94 Spatial engineer and social recorder: Giuseppe deg pp

Nittis and the development of 19th-centuryp 9 Y

cityscape imageryp g Y

Fred Leeman

104 Hendrik Willem Mesdag's Breakers in the North Seag

(1869-70)

Benno Tempelp

112 `Such absurdity can never deserve the name of Art':Y

impressionism in the Netherlandsp

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Director's foreword

On 23 June 1999 the new exhibition wing and3 999 g -renovated existing building of the Van Gogh Museumwere opened in the presence of Her Majesty Queenp p J YBeatrix. This was a momentous occasion, markingthe beginning of a new phase in our history. Fromg g p Yits origins as a showcase for the collections that had

been cared for by the artist's family, Van Gogh

Y Y^ gMuseum has developed into one of the most popular

p ppmuseums in Europe. Over the years, the museum'sp Yambitions have expanded in numerous ways: the

p Ycollection has been broadened to encompass a widepran e of paintings, sculptures, drawings and prints^ p ^^ p ^ g pfrom theeriod c. 184o-192o, formin a crucial linkp formingbetween the collections of our neighbours thegRijksmuseum and the Stedelijk Museum; changingl J ^ ^ gexhibitions have become an essential complementpto theermanent displays; new activities have beenp

added and more -onemphasis is now placed educa

p ption and making the collection accessible to a broadgpublic.

Throughout the 1 8os and 1 s these ambi-^ 9 99o setionslaced increasing pressures on the originalP gpbuilding designed by Gerrit Rietveld and his art-^ g Y pners and the need for extra space was urgent. Thisp gneed was met by an extraordinarily generous d

Y Y -onagtion from therivate sector. The Yasuda Fire andPMarine Insurance Company Ltd. provided, via Thep Y PJa an Foundation, the funds which enabled theJapa

to create a new building to house its tem-orar exhibitions. This spectacular addition wasp Y p

desidesigned by the Japanese architect Kisho^ Y PKurokawa. The interiors are intended to be fur-nished in countless different ways for the changing

Y g gshows, but the museum did not want neutral andcharacterless rooms. Kurokawa's architecture, with

its fluid forms and breathtaking spaces provides p p sadramatic setting for our varied programme of exhi-

g rammep gbitions.

While the new wing was under constructiongthe museum also carried out a major renovation of1the Rietveld building, the auspices of theg ^ pRi'ks ebouwendienst (Government BuildingsRijksgebouwendienst ^Agency). Numerous improvements have been madepto the fabric and layout of the building, virtually g^ Yall the facilities - from the cafeteria to the auditorium- have been upgraded. The permanent collection nowpg poccuoccupies the entire Rietveld building in a new

p g -resenptation which emphasises both the depth of our hold-p pins of Van Go h and the breadth of our collection ofg ^other nineteenth-century artists. As documented inYthis volume of the Journal, the new displays containnumerous new loans and acquisitions. Especiallyq P Ypleasing is the addition of a major work by Kees vanp g major YDon en the first in the collection, purchased with

g >Pfundsrovided by the Great Sponsor Lottery.p Y p Y

Althou h Van Gogh remains at the heart ofAlthough gourresentations and research, the museum aimsptoe a rich overview of many diverse andprovide Ysometimes contrasting trends in 19th-century art.^ 9 YThe Van Gogh is part of that effort.g pAs well as reporting on our activities over the pastp g pear and cataloguing the latest acquisitions, theY ^ ^ q

Journal is intended as a vehicle for scholarly re-Ysearch ranging across our area of interest. I would^ glike to thank all the authors for their distinguishedcontributions. I am especially grateful to Rachelp YgEsner for her skilful editing and management ofthisublication and to Benno Tempel and Sjraar

p ^ S'pvan gHeu ten who assisted her in this task. As be-fore we have included articles . by outside scholars.yThisublication is the only one of its kind devoted

p Yto object-based research on the 1 th century, its

l 9 Y^continued vitality depends on the participation andY p p psupport of the wider scholarly community. Your

pp Y Ycomments feedback andro osals for new articlesp pare warmly welcomed.Y

John LeigDirector

7

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

The exhibition wing of the Van Gogh Museum, spring 1999g g P g8

''"‘"^^^C^^^:

Review

August 1998 — July 1999

The new wing

In recentears the activities of the museum'sYstaff have been dominated by building projects. TheY ^Acreation of a new wing for exhibitions was in itselfgan ambitious undertakingut this was carried outg,inarallel with a major renovation of the existing faA l g-cilit . On 1 September 1 8 the museum closed toY P 99theublic in order to facilitate both constructionpand renovation. With the successful completion ofPthis work, the museum has virtually doubled in size,Yand it is no exaggeration to state that, 26 years afterit first opened, a new Van Gogh Museum has beenP ^ gcreated.

In 1991, the Yasuda Fire and Marine99Insurance Company Ltd agreed to donate, via thep Y gJa an Foundation, a sum of . million DutchP ^ 37 5guilders to finance the construction of a newbuilding for temporary exhibitions. The internation-^ P Yall acclaimed architect Kisho Kurokawa receivedYthe commission for its design, and his first planswere revealed to theublic in the same year.A YHowever the location - behind the existing building gin the Museumplein - was a sensitive one. Theprocess of obtaining approval to add landprocess ^ Pp-a new

mark to this historically important space took many P P Y

years and construction work did not begin untilY -earg1 in i .Y 997

From an early stage it was decided that theY ^new wing should be an independent structure with

^ Aits own architectural identity, than an exten-Ysion to the existing building. Kurokawa's originalidea for a circularavilion was modified into an ele-Pgant oval form in order to accommodate the de-mands of the new -layout of the Museumplein, develY Ao ed by the Danish landscape architect Sven-IngvarP Y p gAndersson. In its final form, almost two-thirds of thebuilding is set beneath ground level. Access to the

^ gwin is from the ground floor of the Rietveld build-wing gin . An escalator (or a panoramic lift) takes visitorsg pdown to the basement level where a broad, crescent-shaped corridor skirts a shallow, Japanese-style oolP ^Pand leads to the exhibition rooms. The thin layer ofYmovin water in the and reflects the titanium fa-moving pon

which isierced by a projecting cuboid printp Y p l g proom clad in aluminium. Otherarts of the exteriorpare constructed in deer-brownranite quarried ing ^qCanada and tooled in YItal . The materials are mod-

fig. 2

Cross section of the Rietveld building and the exhibition wing

9

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 3

Her jMaest the Queen of the Netherlands with Head ofMajesty

Exhibitions Andreas Bluhm at the official opening on 23

June 1999

fig. 4

Her jMaest the Queen of the Netherlands with KishoMajesty

Kurokawa and Director John Leighton at the official

opening on 23 June 1999

ern and hard-edged et take on surprisinglysubtleYreflections eand fl ctions and colours in the ever-

changing conditions of light and weather.g g gr equally dramatic. In additionThe interiors are q Y

there are three floorsto service and storage areas,gsome 2 2 cubic metres of exhibition space Aoffering ^ 93 ace

1 room for the museum's ambitiousample -roAAr shows. All the spaces, with thegramme of temporary sg A Y A

exceexception of the 'print box,' ' can be illuminated withA A

h re is also a sophisticated artificialdaylight, butt e Alilighting systemm designed by Georges Berne ofg g Y g Y egL Obse a ory

the t flexibilityire. The first exhibitions have demon-

strated of these new spaces. Both the Amodemodernistic retrospective of Kurokawa's own careerA

motheand r traditional presentation of the Theoe A' n seemed equally at home in thevan Gogh exhibition seg q Y

same building.gr kawa' design was enthusiastically so g Y-re

r s here in the Netherlands andcelvel by the press AThe architect has been praised for creating e g aA

highly-original buildin et one that manages to pay

building, yet g A Yghoma e to some of the best features of its counter-

part designed by partners. ned b Gerrit Rietveld and his artners.

renovationThe of the Rietveld building

The other mainro'ect of the period under re-A l Ahe renovation of the Rietveld building, the g, -car

ried out under the auspices of the Ri'ks ebouwen-A l g(Government Buildings Agency) and super- - erpg g Y

Martien van Goor of the Greinervised by architectYn Goor partnership. Some of the changes are notvan G A A g

readil apparent. example, For exam le, numerous improve-readil have been made to the fabric of the building

and the worn-outt installations for climate control More obvious is the new been replaced. Yout

of the entrance area, now has a spacious lobby A Yto help improve the flow of visitors in and out of theA A

afeteriabuilding.The cafeteria, auditorium and shop, Ahave all been renovated, and a new office block hasbeen added at the rear of the building.g

theAll interiors have been upgraded fromAgn . Particular attention has been paid tofloor to ceiling. A

the lightingn of works of art. With Van Gogh's sun-g g g in mind, the original buildingpaintingsg was^ g

'nfl x of natural light into thecreated to allow the influx gxhibition spaces. Unfortunately, this generous al-exhibition A Y^ g

lowance of daylight was often at odds with modern and over the years therestandards of conservation, Y

have been successive attempts is to create a satisfacto-A building. Under thelighting system in the RietveldrgY g g Y

uidance of Georges Berne a new solution to thisg groblem was developed, ed combining the lively ambi-A A ^ g Y

ence of natural, changing in daylight with a supple-g g AAa lighting system of the highestmeetar artificialVY g g ^ g

ualitquality.Y

10

,,,

JOURNAL 1999

There is broad consensus that architectMartien van Goor has struck a successful balancebetween the essentialualities of Rietveld's designq ^and the demands of a modern museum. Touote theqcritic of the Volkskrant: `It has become a more com-fortable museum, an airy building with pleasantY g Arooms filled with daylight. More than ever, VanGogh's works come into their own.'

The collection during the closureg

During the closure of the museum the entirecollection was moved to locations in the Netherlandsand abroad. A total of 14o works of which o by Van4^ 9 YGogh) were shown in the south wing of the Ri'ksg g -Jmuseum from 19 September 1 8 to 16 May 1 and9 A 99 Y 999arow of 20 works was lent to the Rijksmuseum^ PTwenthe in Enschede. The closure of the museum of-fered the opportunity to mount a major exhibitionpp Y majo

A selection ofo works was shown in the7National Gallery in Washington D.C. October 1 8Y g 4^ 99toJanuar 1999) and the Los Angeles CountyJanuary 999 g Y

fig. 5

Queues at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC

during the Van Gogh exhibition

Museum of Art. January to 16 May 1 Entitled7 Y Y 999Van Gogh's Van Goghs: masterpieces rom the Vang g ^Gogh Museum in Amsterdam this exhibition was ex-tremel well received by both the press and publicY Y P Palike. Some80 0o visitors saw the show in4^ ^5Washington and after a longer run, 820 000 in Los

and, g >Angeles. The exhibition was accompanied by catag A Y -alo ue written by Richard Kendall, with contributions^ Yby myself and Sjraar van Heugten. The Van GoghY Y l ^ gMuseum works in closeartnershi with the Vincentp Pvan Gogh Foundation, the owners of the majority of^ ^ l Ythe works in the-eermanent collection. We are es

A espe-cially grateful to Vincent Willem van Gogh, Chairman,and to his fellow members of the Board of theFoundation for theirenerous collaboration on thisgexhibitionro'ect and for their continued support of

P l Ppthe museum and its activities.

New dis la sPYThe remodelling of the Rietveld building has

allowed the museum to develop new ways ofA Y -rep

sentin its rich and varied holdings. Now the entireg gRietveld building can be devoted to the museum'spermanent collections. New space has been won forP pthe display,s and the stud room on the second floor Yhas been expanded with the aim of keeping as many P ^ Y

as possible on view to the public.paintingsp PThe displays follow a broadly chronological

Y ^s an from around 18 o to the first years of the lothP 4^ Ycentur and embrace a succession of movementsY,from romanticism and realism -srethrough to im

g psionism and symbolism. Yet rather than provide a

Y Asim le 'stepping stone' review of the history of artp AP ^ Y -in which one important development appears to lead

P P APinevitabl to another - our aim is to suggest sY g^ -omethin of the diversity and dissonance of the periodg Y Pwhich forms the background to Van Gogh's art. It is aview which recognises the contribution of minor asgwell as ma' or talents, and which is international inmajo

outlook, acknowledging the importance of Paris^ g Pas an art centre but including works by artists fromg Yall over Europe.P

The main displays are divided over theground, first and third floors. On the ground floorseveralartition walls have been removed to createp

a single large space. Paintings are mingled withg g p g g

11

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 6

The exhibition wing, lower gallery

sculptures in a manner intended to evoke something gof the variety of public exhibitions in the last centu-Y Pr where innovative works frequently had to com-Y^ q YA ete with more traditional ones. The contents of thisroom range from the precision of artists like Ary P YScheffer and Gustave gBoulan er to the coarser real-ism of Courbet or Millet, but very broadly offers anY Yoverview of the various strands in academic and nat-uralist art around the middle of the century. Many ofY Ythe artists and indeed several of thearticular worksPon view here would have been familiar to Van Gogh,some of whose own-ictures have also been inco oA Arated into the hanging.

As before, a chronological display of Van^ P YGogh's works is arranged over the first floor, at thevery heart of the building. Arriving at this level theY g gvisitor is first confronted by an impressive group ofY P gself-self-portraits, including perhaps of the most faA ^ g -sP p one momous in the collection, the Self-portrait as an artist.Extra space has been created on this floor by turnp Y -ing an old depot into a public area, making it possi-ble, for example, to expand the presentation of VanP ^ P PGoGogh's early work to include his periods in Theg Y p

Hague, Drenthe and Antwerp. The superb group of^ ^ p P g Apictures from Arles remains a highlight, but inP -engeral theictures have been hung more spaciouslyA g A Ythan before. This not only helps ease overcrowding p garound the -somesalsobut

masterpieces, ut als allows important works by Van Gogh to be hung alongside Y g ^ sideg

b other artists elsewhere in the building.paintingsby .^If theround floor contains mainly works b

g Y byVan g predecessors,Gogh's redecessors the third floor is dedicat-ed to his contemporaries and followers. The firstAroom devoted to impressionism and neo-im res-p psionism includes works by Monet Degas, Monet,Pissarro, Cézanne, Signac and Seurat. The workson view hererovide an excellent context for VanAGogh's work, in particular his Paris period when heg ^ p pwas confronted with the full impact of modernPFrench art for the first time. Some of theaintin sA gare by his friends and acquaintances, and his ownY qaintin s of Paris are shown alongside relatedP -icg g p

tures by Signac and the museum's recently-ac- acY --^ Ywired panel by Georges Seurat (see the Van Gogh P Y hg g

Museum Journal 1997-98). Subsequent rooms areqdevoted to Van Gogh's immediate circle of friends(with works by Gauguin, Bernard and Laval),Y g >symbolist art (Redon, Denis, Bocklin Stuck),and fi-nall to a display which reflects -Gogh'scts Van Go h' influ- P Y g

12

JOURNAL 1999

ence on earl -loth century art (Picasso, Kandinsky, Y ^ Y,Sluijters).

Now that there is a wing entirely consecratedg Yto temporary exhibitions, the permanent collectionA Y ^ Awill not need to be reshuffled every time the muse-Yum mounts a new show. However, while the dis-la s of the collection will be more stable it is notA Y

our intention that they should become frozen andYstatic. From time to time, new acquisitions andqloans will be added to invigorate the displays andgthe hang will be changed, either to give^ g ^ -ag new embasis to a particular movement or period, or to setP A A

individual works in different contexts. Most Aim or-tant in this respect is the expansion of the study p Ycollection on the second floor. Thoseaintin sA gwhich are not included in the main displays willnormally be on view here. Alongside the displayY g p Ycases are reading tables with a selection of the mu-seum's catalogues and other publications, as well^ pas computers which give access to the Van Goghp ^ ^Museum Internet site. Visitors can explore thePbreadth of the collection in this 'open storeroom'Pand also have access to detailed information aboutthese and other works. Theresentations in theAstudy collection will be enhanced by occasional di-Y Y ndactic displays exexploring particular themes in theP gAwork of Van Gogh and his contemporaries. The firstg pof these is devoted to aspects of Van Gogh's tech-ni ue. Also on the second floor is a new area for theqexhibition ofprints and drawings. Selections fromA gtheermanent collection of works on paper will bep PPon show here, the first of which was devoted to re-cent acquisitions of drawings.q ^

Newacquisitions and loansq

Theaintin s collection has been enriched

P ^with several important acquisitions. ArnoldP qBëcklin's Sleeping nymph sspied on by twofauns is

^ g ^ y

the first work by this artist to enter a museum inYthe Netherlands. Purchased with the support of thepPVereni in Rembrandt and the Prins BernhardVerenigingFonds, this-newicture adds an important centre

P piece to the museum's representation of later 1P -thP 9

centurysymbolism. Kees van Don en's The blueYY Dongen' is a major work dating from 1 1o. It was ur-

g 9 Pchased asart of a new initiative whereby the Van

P Y

Gogh Museum, together with three other nationalmuseums are to be beneficiaries of one of the most

o ular lotteries in the Netherlands the GroteppSponsor Loterij. Although this scheme was only ) g Ylaunched lastear, it has alreadygenerated suffi-Y ^ Yene^cient funds to make a substantial difference to themuseums'urchasin power.P gp

In addition to the acquisition of the Bëcklinqand the Van Don en we were delighted to receiveas a gift one of Hendrik Willem Mesdag's finestaintin s Breakers in the North Sea. As Fredp g^

Leeman recounts in this volume of the Van GoghgMuseum Journal, the favourable Arece tion accord-ed this-roicture at the Salon of 18 o was an imP 7 imp or-

milestone in -sMesdag's career and helped eg ptablish his -reputation in the Netherlands. The icA Pture was donated by Johan Poort, who has tirelessly ^ Ydocumented Mesdag's life and work in numerouspublications. Mr Poort has also given a portrait ofA ^ AJozef Israëls by Mesdag to the Museum Mesdag g gwhich already owns a pendant portrait of Mesdag A A g

by Israëls).YThe new hangings also include numerous

new loans. Many of these are from institutions inYAmsterdam, including the Rijksmuseum, the

fig. 7

Arnold Eicklin, Sleeping nymph spied on by two fauns

1884, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

13

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 8

Edouard Manet, Study for the 'Bar at the Folies - Bergère'

1881, Loan from a private collection

Museum and the Amsterdams HistorischStedelijkdMuseum. In recentears we have worked closely y

our colleagues in these museums to develop ou co p are logicalpresentation of the collections inmo g p

Amsterdam. The result is a new agreement cover-areas of the holdings which overlap,1n those ,^ p

are potential conflicts of interest. Verywhere there pwith regard to the 1 th century,broadly, ,Y g 9 Y

11 collect and disla Dutch 1 thRijksmuseum will co ct display -9r the Van Gogh Museum willcentury art, whereasy ^ ^

r international scope, concentrating onhave a more gp

The Stedelijk Museum willthe period 184o-192o.p2 h centur and beyond, anddevote itself to the ot Y Y

1 placed the bulk of its 19th-centuryyhas generouslyYp 9h disposal of the Van Gogh Museumforeignart at the d p ^

i agreement has been implemented bThis ag P by -a numbetween the institutions: at the Vanber of loans be

g thereumeMuseumGoghare now loans of works byCorot, Daubigny and Monet from the Rijksmuseum

among n others, Cézanne, Bonnard andand, gJawlensky from the Stedelijk Museum.

Y lInnother new initiative, the National

a ,GalleryG London has lent Cézanne's LandscapeY in o

efor one year in exchange for an early poplars o Y g Ypainting by Van Gogh, A r o shoes. The lack of aP ^ Y g ^ pair

in the permanent collection was keenlyCézanne t pand this vibrant landscape from the 188osfelt, -roa pp

excellent comparison with Van Gogh'svides an ce

P gown southern landscapes. The P. and N. De BoerpFoundation has kindly lent eight works by VanY g Y

1 din a major painting from the ArlesGogh,lncu major p g -ep

riod and a view of Amsterdam, as well as arou of^ p

Thanks to the generosity of a privatefine drawings. a

^ Y pcollector an important picture by Manet has beenp p Y

It is a famous study foron loan since the reopening. Y

artist's Folies-Bergère and is familiars Bar at the g

to the Amsterdamublic as it was on loan to thep

t dell k Museum formamany years before being soldSe YY glr are no significant paintings by Manetabroad. There

p ^ Y and this spirited workin Dutch public collections,

p p

1 then the immakes a welcome -

me return to strengthen resg pionist displays at the Van Gogh Museum.sg

14

JOURNAL 1999

Exhibitions

The museum's new wing opened with two ex-^ Phibitions. The Ps ace on the basement level was de-voted to a retrospective of the work of architectPKisho Kurokawa. This show, which had already trav-yelled to Paris, London and Berlin, documented themajor steps in Kurokawa's career from the 1 6osJ P 9and the movement he described as Metabolismthrough to his development of the concept ofg p PSymbiosis, a blend of western and eastern ideas andYhiloso hies. Intricately-crafted scale models, draw- --P Y

ins andphotographs brow ht man of his major g many jorprojects to life; of articular interest was naturally J ^ A Ythe section illustrating the genesis of the Van Goghg ^ gMuseum's exhibition win .

The major exhibition for the reopening was

J A ^devoted to Theo van Gogh(1857-1891). Theo la edgplayeda crucial role in the career of his brother Vincent,whom he supported over many years. Despite this,

PA YY Phe has largely remained a shadowy figure, only at-

g Y Y g ^ Ytracting attention insofar as his life had a bearing onhis famous brother's life and work. The exhibitionand accompanyingpublication focused on Theo'sA

fig. 9

'Theo van Gogh (1857-1891): art dealer, collector and

brother of Vincent,` Van Gogh Museum 1999

own career, revealing his work as an influential artgdealer in the 188os. As manager a branch ofBoussod, Valadon & Cie. on the BoulevardMontmartre, Theo came into contact with many ofythe leading artists of his time. The show included agbroad cross-section of work Theo bought and sold,from established names such as Gérome and Corotto more challenging works by Monet and Gauguin.

^ ^ Y gPreviousl it had been customary to describe TheoPreviously yas a fearless champion of impressionism, but both

P Pthe exhibition and the catalogue offered a more nu-anced view, showing how his attempts to expand his

g p Afirm's business were usually modest and based on aYsensible judgement of the future development of theJ g Part market. The show was accompanied by a full ilp Y --Ylustrated catalogue written by Chris Stolwijk andg Y JRichard Thomson, with a contribution by Sjraar vanYJHeugten. The show in Amsterdam was supervised b^ p byAndreas Bluhm and in Paris, at the Musée d'Orsay,

15

The ',i on Gogh Museum is

now open!The museum reopened on24 June, following a total

and thecompletion of the newwing for

Back Forward Reload Home Search Guide Images Print Security Stop

ocation : ,= f http:1/259.249.169.110 iehp.html

VAN GOGH MUSEUM n hletscalpe: Van Gogh Museu r

fig. 10

Homepage of the Van Gogh Museum's new websitePg

(28 Septemberr i through January 2000 by HenriP 999 g Y Yn Monique Nonne. A two-day symposiumLo retie and q YLoyrett

'Art trade in the 19th Century' was held at9 YV n Gogh Museum on i and 2 July ithe Van Y 999•

Thomson (University ofSpeakers included Richard YPr Whiteley (University of Oxford),Edinburgh), Linda^, ^ Y YDurand-Ruel aCaroline r nd-Ruel Godfroy (Durand Ruel &Y

in rdi (City University of NewCie.),Patricia Ma a Y YWard (University of Chicago),FrancesYork Martha Y

11 of Art),Madeleine Fidell-Fowle (Edinburgh Collegeg gBeaufort (American University,Paris),and Chris

Museum). The proceedings willStolwijk (Van Gogh P gggainpublishedbeb future volume of the Van GoghP

Museum Journal.

Publications

The Museum's project to catalogue its entirecollection of works by Van Gogh continued with thepublication of the first in a series of three volumesdevoted to the paintings (the first two of four on thedrawings collection have already been published):Louis van Tilborgh and Marije Vellekoop, Vincent

van Gogh: paintings. Volume r: Dutch period

1881-1885, Amsterdam & Bussum 1999. All of the 44paintings in the collection from the artist's years in

Holland are documented and described in detail.

n detailed technical exami-Each picture underwentd a teA

supervision of Cornelia Perez, under the sue , andPthe results of this research are described in the en-

The catalogue, which also includes an essaytries.g y on' materials and a study of how the colleVan Go h s ateg Y -c

tion was formed, isublished in both Dutch andpEnglish editions.g

correspondence between TheoThe complete pvan Gogh and Jo Boner has also now beenpub-gg P

Kort geluk: De briefwisseling tussen Theo vanlashed. Ko t g g

B n er ed. Leo Jansen and Jan Robert,Gogh Jo o^ gHan van Crimen Amsterdam & Zwolle i 999intro. Ha 1999.Crimp en

i letters the couple exchangedThemamajority of the o P gl Yn during their three-month engagement;were written g

Theo was then in Paris, while Jo was living with hergparents in Amsterdam. The letters offer insights intogtheirlans and dreams as well as the more practicalp P

r life together. Theo'srran ements for their futurea ggn ambitious young dealer in Parisrole as an active and a Y g

the the 188os also comes to t e -fore. The book is pub-lished in Dutch, and an English edition is in re ara-

, g A Ption.

Published to coincide with the reopening ofP gthe museum, Van Goh Museum architecture:g

16

i ? ?^a.::a^.,.•^^^^..., r^>

aimed atrimar level school children entitledP Y`Vincent en Theo. Broeders in de kuns' • written FrankGroothof it contains notes for teachers. New materialfor secondary school pupils has also been developed

Y PP Pin close collaboration with teachers and exerts inPthe field. Thisacka e is designed to complementp ^ ^ p

theh students own work as part of their curriculumpand whereossible to supplement it with a visit toP , PAthe museum. The first in a series of lively Van Goghuseu Y g

a`news ers' aimed at this age group has been ubPA ^ g P -Plished as well as several informationacks onpar-tcu

P Alar aspects of the collection. The museum's newP

w ggsite www.van o hmuseum.nl will also be fur-web sit

P Pdeveloped as part of this move to reach and in-spire a younger audience. To date this material isp Y ^available only in Dutch.Y

fig. 11

Guided tour at the Museum Mesdag

Rietveld to Kurohawa (Rotterdam 1999),traces thehistory of the Van Gogh Museum building, focusingY g g^ ginarticular on the new extension and the renova-ption of the main building. It is richly illustrated with

g YphotographsY b Jannes Linders and includes an ac-com an in essay is by the architectural historian

P Y ^ Y YHans Ibelings. The text sets the new building against

g g gthe wider context of recent museum architectureand explores the ideas behind Kurokawa's design.A g

Education

The new study area on the second floor de-Yscribed above) is just part of a new drive to enhancel Pand expand the educational programmes at the mu-P P ^seum. Many of the existing explanatory materials,

Y ^ P Yincluding wall texts, labels and the audio tour havebeen revised and augmented. A new introductory Ybrochure with an overview of Van Go h's life andGogh'

is available (in seven languages)to all visitorsfree of charge, and the upgrading of the auditorium

^ ^ Pg goffers many new possibilities — for example, a new

Y p p^introductory video on Van Gogh is in currently in

Y g Yre aration.P A

Most im ortantl a ran e of material about

A Y, gVan Gogh and the museum has been developed to as^ -p

sist teachers and students. A book has beenroducedp

The Museum Mesdag

The Van Gogh Museum also manages theg gMuseum Mesdag in The Hague. This delightful mug -g gseum houses the collectionut together by theP ^ Ypainters Hendrik Willem Mesdag and his wifep gSientje Mesdag-Van Houten. Since its reopening af

l ^ P ^-ter a major renovation in 1 6 our efforts have beenl 99directed at building up a local and national audienceg Pfor the museum. There have been several series oflectures on pas ects of the collection and other edu-cational activities, including the painting by childreng P ^ Yof a vastanorama to 'complement' Mesdag's ownP P gfamous Panorama, located nearby. A new compact

Y Pguide to the museum has been prepared and will beg P Ppublished in late 1P 1999.

Attendance figuresgIn 1998 (1 January to 1 September) the Van99 Y P

Gogh Museum was attended by758,263 visitors. The

g Yattendance figure for the Museum Mesdag in 1 8g ^ 99was 11,446.^4^4^

John Leighton

Director

17

r..^ Abi woo,

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

The renovated Rietveld building

JOURNAL 1999

The exhibition wing

19 North facade

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

The exhibition wing

ower an upper ga e [ICS20

JOURNAL 1999

The exhibition wing

21 Staircase

VAN GOGH F

JOURNAL 1999

The exhibition wing

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

24

VAN GOGH STUDIES

Facts instead of suppositions:

Roland Dorn revisited

Jan Hulsker

When I started reading the series of Van Gogh Studies in

g g

the Van Gogh 1997-98 this was at the beg--

ginning of 1 - I was surprised to see that the first ofg g 999 P

these articles was almost entirely devoted to what I hadY

written about Vincent's Arleseriod. `Devoted to' is, ofP

course, a manner of speaking because the author, the art

P g,

historian Roland Dorn seems to have felt it was his task to

correct or condemn most of my findings, at the same timeY g

also criticising a few points in the work of Ronaldg A

Pickvance. He had thereforeiven his study the modishg Y

subtitle `Pickvance and Hulsker revisited,' using as hisg

main title the even more intriguing `Refiler à Saintes-g g

Manes?' 1 My surprise soon turned to stupefaction when IY p P

discovered that all Dorn's supposed `corrections' were, inPP

fact, blatant errors.

Had heublished his article in a newspaper I wouldP

have reacted immediately. It is at the request of JohnY q

LeiLeighton, director of the Van Gogh Museum, to whom Ig ^ g

sent an extensive survey of all Dorn's mistakes, that I haveY

written the following rebuttal.g

There are six mainoints about my research on the Arles

P Y

period which Dorn believes to be erroneous:p

1 In the manuscript of one of Vincent's letters[624/4941,P

Johanna van Gogh-Bonged chap ed the words `Je refile àg g g

Saintes-Maries' to `Je file à Saintes-Maries.' According tog

Dorn this change makes no difference, as filer can alsog

mean re filer. It cannot and moreover, Van Gogh intendedf g

to say re ilex - i.e. retourner.Y

2 According to Dorn the Yellow House was owned by ag ^ Y

certain Mme Vénissac. In reality it belonged to the owner ofY g

the building to Vincent's left.g

Dorn claims that Van Gogh had great difficultypaying the3 g g YP Y g

rent on time. The lettersrove this was not at all the case.P

According to Dorn letters between Paris and Saint-Rémy ^ Y

took two days. Many letters confirm what I had already Y Y

25

been told by the French postal service, namely that in VanY P ^ Y

Gogh's time they took only one day.g Y Y Y

Dorn states that Vincent's stay in Saintes-Maries took5 Y

place from 10-16 June 1888. It can be proven that he wasA p

actuall there two weeks earlier.Y

6 Dorn was thus also mistaken in his dating of Van Gogh'sg g

series of harvest scenes, stating that they were painted ing Y p

`two tranches,' one before and one after the visit to the

coast.

The following is a more detailed account of these questions.g q

Linguisticsg

Let us begin with the issue Dorn hints at in hisg

main title: the meaning of the word refiler. This verb wasg f

used in a letter to Theo in the sentence: `Si to m'envoies la

prochaine lettre dimanche matin it est probable je rep -queP q

file ce jour-la à Saintes-Maries'[624/494]. When Johannal

van Gogh-Bonger published the letters in 1914, she

g g P

changed the word refile to file (one of man such unfof f

g Y -rtu

nate interventions in the original text). The result was

that in the English translation, for example, the line now

g ^ p

reads: 'Ifyou send me the next letter on Sunday morning,Y Y g

I shallrobabl take myself off that day to Saintes-

P Y

Maries.' 2 In a longparagraph Dorn ex lains that for varig-explain

reasons re filer could also be taken to mean filer.refile

in his view Jo's `correction' was unim ortant;Therefore, P

otherwise the sentence would have implied that VincentP

had been in Saintes-Maries before, and - according tog

Dorn - he had not.

This shows that the author has not read the letters

closely enough. The fact is that Vincent had been in

Y g

Saintes-Maries earlier and had thus indeed meant to return

1 Roland Dorn, "'Refiler à Saintes-Maries"?: Pickvance

and Hulsker revisited,' Van Gogh Museum Journal 1997-

98, pp. 14-25.

2 The complete letters of Vincent van Gogh, 3 vols.,

New York 1988 (3rd printing), vol. 2, p. 578.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

there. This isroven by at least two letters. In 622/ ,

p Y 499

written to Theo from Saintes-Maries itself, Vincent states:

`Mais 'je compte encore retourner ici'; and in a letter to hisl P

friend John Russell (written in English): `I have been to the

seaside for a week and very likely am going thither againY Y g g g

soon'62 / 01 a .95

This first error and some further discussion of

Vincent's stay on the coast leads Dorn to the conclusion:Y

`All this seems to indicate that Van Gogh h was in Saintes-

Maries from 10 to 16 June 1888.' 3 Well, he was not; far from

it. In the middle of June Vincent was actually in Arles, hardY

at work on his series of harvest scenes. The correct dates of

his visit to Saintes-Maries wereo May to June, and3 Y 3

Pickvance (whom Dorn also attacks here) hasreceded mehasprecede

no less than I years in citing this period. 4 At the time,Y 5Y g P

he did not explain how he had come to these dates, andp

readers of today cannot be blamed for wanting some proofY g P

of their accuracy. The shortest and simplest way ofy p Y -con

firminghem seems to be as follows:g

We know for certain that letter 615/490 was written

on a Saturday; the postscript clearly states: `il ne me rest

y p P Y

d'argent que pour demain, dimanche.' That particular

g q p ^ p

Saturda could only have been Saturday, May - and notSaturday Y Y^ Y

19 May or 2 June - as follows from the text of the preceding Y P g

and following letters. Therefore, the Sunday mentioned in

g Y

615/490 must have been Sunday, May. That day VincentY^7 Y Y

wrote Theo again this time more ur entl : `Ecris-moi aus-

g , g Y

sitót je n'ai plus d'argent du tout'[616/49i].

J P g

The next day -Monda , 28 May -the rescuing letterY Y Y g

containing a 10o-franc note arrived, confirmed by Vincentg Y

with the words: `Ta lettre de ce matin m'a faitrand plaisir,g p

je to remercie beaucoup du billet du ioo fr. qui était in-p q y

clus ' and he could now tell Theo: 'Je Pcom to faire un ex-

cursion à Stes Mariesour voir enfin la Méditerranée'p

[617/492]. However, as it was the end of the month he had a

fewa ments to make and thus could not start his trip untilp Y p

early in the morning on Wednesday, o May.

Y g Y^ 5 Y

Dorn erroneously states that the trip VincentY p -an

nounced in this letter was unexpectedly cancelled. HeP Y

came to this conclusion on the basis of letter 626/496,4^9

which he dates toJune (the correct date is 12 June),and5

where one reads: `Je ne suisas parti pour Stes Maries - ilsp p p

ont fini deeindre la maison et j'avais à payer et puis j'ai àP j'avais pY p l

rendre provision -toilesrovision de toile assez considérable.' It is unnecp P

essar to point out that this time Vincent was referring toY p g

hislan to return to the coast.p

The Yellow House and the rent

In reference to the so-called Yellow House, which

Vincent had rented for four months on I May, Dorn assuresY

his readers that Vincent hadreat difficultypaying his

g YpY g

monthly rent: `the landlady's agent was apparently on theY Y g pp Y

doorstep on the very first of the month.' 5 (The rent, it shouldp Y

be noted, was no more than the very modest sum of IY 15

francser month.) Again, Dorn is entirely wrong. To beginp g Y g g

with the house was not `owned at the time by the widowY

V'ni a .' 6 Vincent's own correspondence confirms that ite ss c

-osbelonged to the neighbour at his left, who was also ing g p

session of the large building on the same side of the square.g g q

He mentions this in the very letter of I May in which he an

Y Y -

nounces the rental. It is worth repeating the surprising dep g p g -

tails about the house he notes, as they also reveal who theY

owner actually was: `Cela to araitra dróle que le cabinetY p q

d'aisances se trouve chez le voisin dans un assezrand ho-g

telui appartient au même propriétaire'[604/480]. Theq PP p p

`veuve Vénissac' was thero rietress of the restaurant lo-p p

cated to Vincent's right, across the side street. The artistg

mentions this establishment in letter 695/543,where he -ex

plains: 'C'est la le restaurant oà je vais diner tous les 'ours.'P J J

As thisroves it was not Mme Vénissac, it must havep

been the owner of the building to Vincent's left who (sup- -p

osedl caused him so many problems: `As regards thep Y Yp g

rent too, Van Gogh had trouble obtaining even the slightestrent, g g g

referral.' In reality, the landlord appears to haveY> PP

been extremely generous. Even before the first month wasYg

over Vincent could writeroudl to his brother: `J'aip Y

obtenuu'on peindra la maison, la fa ade, les portes, et lesq p ^ p

fenêtres à l'extérieur et à l'intérieur à neuf.' And for all this

work he had only to pay 1 o francs `as his share' 616/ 1Y p Y 4^ .9

And what of the harassment on the first of every

month? Let us take aood look at the letters:g

1 June: evidently no problem. Vincent seems to haveY p

aid on time having received Theo's letter (which evenp ^ g

contained Ioo instead of the usualo francs) on 28 May Y

[617/492].

1 July: again Vincent could pay punctually,Y g p Y p Y^ having

gotten Theo's o francs on 29 June[638/507]. Later ong 5 9 Later, 5

July, did complain a little, writing that he astonY^ p ^ g -was

ished to already see `the bottom of his purse'; this was notY P

surprising, however, because he had begun the month withg

onl o francs, and he openly admitted: `Il faut bien savoirY5 ^ p Y

que si ''en abstrais la nourriture et le logement, tout leq l

26

JOURNAL 1999

reste de mon argent va encore dans les toiles'[639/508].g

1 August: what happened here is even more interest-g PP

in . Vincent had certainly received Theo's francs time Y o5 on me -

he thanked him for it in a letter of1 July[656/516]- and et3 Yyet

his next note he had to acknowledge: `Je ne pouvais payerg p

ma loer le ier ayant modèle en train pour toute la semaine -Y Y P

-''ai deux portraits du même modèle en train ui sont plus iml p q p

ortants pour moi que le reste'[658/517]. As is well known,p p q

the modèle was his friend, theostman Joseph Roulin.p p

And did this cause a lot of trouble? Quite the o opp-

site. Vincent pp Ya arentl knew how to handle such a situa-

tion. According to letter 658/517,he sim 1 asked `the good

g simply g

fellow' to come back `lundirochain.' The man, he wrote,phad only reminded him that it was Saint Michael's Day -Y Y

September, the date when rentals were usually renewed orp , Y

cancelled; and indeed, on i May Vincent had rented the

house for four months. But let Van Gogh tell the rest of theg

stor • ` 1 u e chose qu'il pouvaitin his own words: 'II a dit ue u pY q q Q

trouver un autre locataireour la maison si 'e n'étais pas

P 1 P

décidé à laearder. Ce qui m'étonne peu puisque moi je l'aig q p P q

fait réparer et qu'elle a gagné.' However, we know thatp q Y g g

Vincent had already decided to keep the place for a few

Y p p

months more ... and that is the end of the undramatic tale

told by Dorn under the heading `The rent.'Y g

Theostal serviceP

In therecedin section `Dates and chronology'),

P g

Dorn discusses theroblem that most of Vincent's letterspare undated, and notes that the dates written above them in

atable' •8 I don't think there areanother hand are often deb t,

many scholars who would disagree. He then on to exY -goesg g

amine the reference

-system I developed based on the reguY p

larit of Theo's dispatches of money, that mY P Y^ declaring Y-so

called 'Saturday theory' had led me to underestimate the

Y Y

time it took for letters from Paris to reach Vincent in Arles

or Saint-Rémy. What Dorn fails to mention, however, is thatY

r o.°my writings on this system date from almost q,o years ago.° g Y Y

Nor does he allude to the fact that it was thoroughly revisedg Y

in my Vincent van Gogh: a guide to his work and letters,Y g g

ublished by the Van Gogh Museum in i . As for Dorn'spublished Y g 993

own ideas about the rapidity (or slowness) of the mail, p y , he

here refers back to what he wrote in his dissertation in

199o: `Thus in general Van Gogh only received a letter99 'Thus, g g Y

from Paris after two days, that is on the third day after itsY^ Y

composition, and could have counted on receiving a replyp , g PY

to his own letter only on the fifth day after writing .' 1 °Y Y g it

Anyone who has had anything to do with publishing Y g p g

Vincent's letters, or a selection thereof, will immediately Y

recognise how mistaken Dorn is once again. The readers ofg g

theresent article may even have noticed it for themselves,P Y

in connection with theuotations given above: letterq g

615/49o: 26 Ma • 616/ 1: 27 May; 617/492: 28 Ma , whileY^ 4^9 7 Y^May

must have written Vincent on Sunday, May since

Y^ 27 Y

Vincent's reply is from Monday, May.p Y Y^ Y

I would like toive one more example, which mightg P^ g

be said to speak for many others. It has to do not with anp Y

gexchan e of letters between Paris and Arles but rather be-

tween Paris and Saint-Rém some 2 kilometres northeastY, 5

(it is worth noting that there still was a railway station ing Y

the village in Van Gogh's day). In 18 o, when Vincent wasg g Y 9

in the asylum, Theo and his wife Jo congratulated him onY ^ g

his birthday o March). As he was in very poor health atY 3 Yp

the time, they certainly would not have wanted to risk be-Y Y

in late with their good wishes, yet et both sent their let-g g

ters only the day before, on 2 March. This even followsY Y ^ 9

from what Theo actually wrote: 'Comme 'e serais contentY l

deouvoir aller to voir demain pour to serrer la main lep P

jour de to fête'[861/T31]. And Jo wrote: `Amon all the let-jour'Among

tersourou will receive tomorrow from brothers and sis-Y you

mine should not be wantin to wish ou all the best', g Y

86o/T o . And Vincent's reply? He would probably have3 pY

thanked them the next day,but he did not; nor did he do so

the following day. But that was not because the mail tookg Y

27

3 Dorn, op. cit. (note 1), p. 19.

4 See Ronald Pickvance, Van Gogh in Arles, New York

1984, p. 83.

5 Dorn, op. cit. (note 1), p. 18.

6. Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., p. 17.

9 Jan Hulsker,'Van Go h's extatische maanden in Arles,Gogh'

8 (1960-61). 315-35; English version: 'Vanpp

Go h's ecstatic years in Arles,' Vincent 1 (1972), no. 4,Gogh'

2-17.

10 Roland Dorn, Decoration: Vincent van Goghs

Werkreihe fur das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Hildesheim,

Zürich & New York 1990,. 482: 'In der Regel durftep

Van Goh also einen Brief aus Paris erst am ubernachsteng

Tag, also am dritten Tag nach Abfassung erhalten haben,g g

and mit einer Antwort auf einen seiner Briefe konnte er

wohl erst am funften Tag nach Abfassung rechnen.'g

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

more than one day to reach Paris: he was simply so ill thatY PY

he could not even read the letters that had arrived for him

in the course of that month.11

The visit to Saintes-Maries and the

harvest scenes

I now come to the longest chapter of Dorn's study,g P Y^

discussion of Vincent's series of harvest scenes, illustrated

with ten such canvases or related ones. I am sorry to say that

Y Y

here, too, I am in complete disagreement with his findings.P ^ g

Theroblems surrounding this group of works are not new top g i7 P

me: only recently I wrote a9-page reexamination of theseY Y

questions, which I sent to the Van Gogh Museum inq g

December 1998.99

Dorn begins his discussion, published under theg ^P

headin `La moisson en Provence,' with a long-windedheading ^ -- seng

tence summarising the entire issue and, at the same time -g

certainly without realising it - exposing the two points onY g A g A

which he is wrong. It is the sentence of which I have already Y

quoted the introduction: `All this seems to indicate that Van

Gogh was in Saintes-Maries from io to 16 June 1888.' Dorng

continues: `The series ofaintin s known collectively as 'La ^ Y La

moisson en Provence' - which Pickvance, based on his new

-echronology, considered to have been executed in a single^Y g A

riod of work betweenand 20 June - would then have to be4

divided into two tranches, separated by the Saintes-Maries

P Y

episode, just as they had been before his rearrangement.' 12P ^) Y g

`Would then have to be divided' may sound bit he-t a s

itatin , but let us not be mistaken - `then' meaning: if Vang g

Go h really was in Saintes-Maries from 1 o to 16 June, asGogh Y

Dorn believes. This becomeserfectl clear when one turnsP Y

thea e and reads: `The first tranche was produced in theP gA

week fromto to June [...]. The second ... was executed in3

the days following his return to Arles from Saintes-Maries onY g

16 June.' 13 However, as I havedemonstrated,is a e in reality

Vincent was not in Saintes-Maries from to to 16 June, and

therefore his harvest-aictures were not painted in two sepa- P P

rate tranches. I have already noted the proper dates of

Y P A

Vincent's stay on the coast: o May to June. I will now showY 3 Y 3

what the artist himself had to say about his `études des blés.'Y

When he returned to Arles from his excursion to

Saintes-Maries, Vincent immediately set about executing aY g

aintin after the drawing of boats on the beach he hadP g g

made earlier that

-smorning. A few other paintings after studg P g

ies from Saintes-Maries followed. This is confirmed by let-Y

ter 626/496 of 12 June (the letter in which he states that he49

28

had notone back to Saintes-Maries). Here we read:g

deux ou trois nouveaux dessins et aussi deux ou trois nou-

velles étudeseintes.' And, even more important withA ^ -reP

gards to the harvest works, he told Theo: `J'ai un nouveau

motif en train, des champs à perte de vue verts et jaunesA P l

ue j'ai déjà deux fois dessiné et que je recommence enq l déjà q l

tableau.' Once thisaintin was finished he began hastily g g Y

working in the wheatfields, which were now in the middleg

of being harvested.g

On 1 June he was forced to stop working outside due

9 P g

to sudden torrential rains; all he could do was to console him-

self withaintin portraits in the studio. He reported this toP gA P

Theo on 21 June, and - fortunately for us - also wrote: `J'ai euY

une semaine d'un travail serré et raide dans les blés enleinP

soled; it en est résulté des études de blés,a sa es et - une> A Y g

esquisse d'un semeur' 6 1/ of . In addition he reported on

q 3 5 P

his activities to his friend Emile Bernard, and in one of these

letters even mentions the exact number ofaintin s he hadA g

managed to produce in these six or seven days of hectic workg P Y

between 1 and 19 June: `J'ai set études des blés' 6 6/B .

3 9 P 3 9

However, he had to confess that they all had been doneY

rather hastily: `faits vite vite vite et pressé.' As an example he

Y P P

referred to theaintin Summer evening (F 465 JH 1473), aP g g 45

sizeo canvas: le l'ai peinte en une seule séance.'

3 P

All this information isrovided by Vincent himselfP Y

whoave it to his brother and friends. It is equally certain,g q Y

however, that neither the famous Harvest F12 JH 1 o in4 44

the Van Gogh Museum) nor the picture he referred to in let-

g P

ter 627/497 as `une ferme et des meules' were among the

7 497 g -sev

en mentioned in the letters. And let me add: this is not be-

cause these two works belonged to `a first tranche,' paintedg P

before Vincent made his excursion to Saintes-Maries! It is be-

cause they have nothing in common with the others. UneY g

ferme et des meules F245

because aicture of a farmhouse and a few haystacks is by no

A Y Y

means a harvest scene or `une étude de blé.' And The harvest,

which Vincent called La moisson, cannot be included be-

cause this masterly, panorama, with - again - a

Y^ P ^ g

ha stack placed prominently in the middle ground, was not

Y p P Y g

be un before Vincent had thoroughly prepared the com osi-

g g YP P P

tion in two watercolours. It can thus hardly be described asY

`faite vite vite vite etressé.'A

12 Dorn, op. cit. (note 1), p. 19.

13 Ibid., p. 20.

JH 1442) cannot beart of the seriesP

11 He started writing to Theo again not before the end

of April 1890.

JOURNAL 1999

Roland Dorn replies:

My essay explains the premises upon which a dating of the

Saintes-Maries episode could be based, and demonstrates

that there is an alternative to Ronald Pickvance's 1984 inter-

retation one which - with the exception o a few necessaryp p

r visions - corresponds to the reconstruction proposed be p p p by

Johanna van Gogh-Bonger.

g g

In 1988, Jan Hulsker adopted Pickvance's point of^ p

view • he is certainlyfree to repeat his belief in its accuracyf

y ^

ithout adding anythingnew to the discussion. However, itw g

does seem appropriate to set the record straight on a fewg

ppoints.

In the irstlace^ according to information rom the

p g f

r s Bureau de cadastre, the veuve Vénissac owned not only le y

the restaurant she ran (lot 400),the Yellow House (lot 398)

and the Café de la Gare (lot 401),all located on the Place

Lamartine, but also some o the properties `to the left,'situat-

f ^

ed on the Avenue Montmajour (lot 396, etc.).lSecondl the recentpublication o Theo's correspon-

y^ p f

dence with his then-fiancée Jo has shed new light on theg

Orkin s o the postal service: a letter sent rom Arles in thew ffg p

mornin does indeed appear to have arrived in Paris on themorning pp

evenin o the following day; letters sent later, however,evening f

f g y,

were only delivered the day that.y y after

Operating with these and other hypothesis developed yp edpp g

in the discourse enables work on a scholarly basis - `sine irai y

io ' as it should be, and with that grain o modestet stud f y thatg

mimpressed Vincent in Meissonier: `La science, nul ne l'a.'sof p ,

Roland Dorn

Zurich, September 1999

29

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

Edgar Degas, Girl drying herself, 1885, The National

30

Gallery of Art, Washington, DC

VAN GOGH STUDIES

'I kept on thinking about Degas [...]':

Vincent van Gogh and the 'little lawyer'

Richard Kendall

In January 188 a few days after his notorious self-mutila-

Y 9^ Y

tion in Arles Vincent van Gogh wrote to his brother Theog

that the wound was 'healing very well,' but recalled severalg Y

days of sleeplessness and anxiety: `M suffering from this inY p Y 'My g

the hospital was frightful and yet through it all, even when I

p g Y g

was more than a bit drugged, I can tell you that - curiously ^ Y Y

enough - I kept on thinking about Degas. Gauguin and I had

g p g g g

been talking about Degas before, and I had pointed out tog g ^ P

GauGauguin that Degas had said: `I am saving my strength forg g g Y g

the Arlésiennes. Nowou know how subtle Degas is, soY g

whenou get back to Paris, just tell him that I admit that u

Y g ^l up

to theresent I have been powerless to paint the women of

p p p

Arles as anything but poisonous, and that he must not be-Y g P

lieve Gauguin if Gauguin speaks well of my work, for it has

g g p Y

only been a sick man's so far' 8/ o .y 73 57

Why was it that Van Gogh, at this moment of physical

Y g ^ p Y

and emotional crisis, 'kept on thinking about Degas?'p g g

Startlin though his outburst is, it can be shown to form part

Startling g ^ p

of aattern of engagement with the art and personality of

P pY

Edgar Degas in the late 188os extending from the time ofg g ^ g

Van Gogh's arrival in Paris to the period in the asylum at

g p Y

Saint-Rém . During these years we encounter a succession

Y g Y

of references to -Degas in Van Gogh's correspondence; evi

g g p

dence of his admiration for specific examples of De gas's artP P g

and

-attempts to emulate certain of his images; and the clear

p g

est indications ofpersonal acquaintance between the two

p q

men and respect for each other's achievement. In summary,pit appears that Degas was important to the younger artist inpp g p Y g

three distinct was. The first was as a traditionalist - inY

De gas's capacity as the pre-eminent draughtsman in im resg P Y -p g p

sionist circles and as an advocate of the disciplined study of

p Y

the human figure. Confusingly,the second function appears

g pp

to be just the opposite, namely De gas's identification at this

just pp ^ Y g

date with conspicuously modern subjects and with an urban,

p Y

literary-based realism. The third category transcends both,

y g Y

concerning De gas's significance as a professional and per- -

g g p P

sonal role model in the later stages of Van Gogh's career.g g

fig. 2

Vincent van Gogh, Plaster statuette of a female torso, 1886-87

(F 216g JH 1055), Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museumg

(Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

In the long letters written from Antwerp immediately p Y

prior to his journey to Paris in February 1886 Van Goghp l Y Y ^ -reg

veals a still imperfect awareness of the impressionist projectp p p l

and its leading personalities. Curiously, appears to havegp Y Pp

been better informed abouteri heral or minor associatesp p

of therou such as Manet, Braquemond and Raffaëlli, andg p ^ ^ q

about their contemporaries who favoured the Salon, among g

them Meissonier, Roll, Breton, Besnard and Tissot. Despite

31

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

the detailed correspondence with his art-dealer brother inP

Paris, the names of Monet Renoir, De as and Pissarro are> g

still effectively absent from his narrative. He was clearly Y -ea

er to know more, however, and some of his preoccupations ^ ationsP P

in the city and the works of art he made during his brief stay Y

there seem like rehearsals for the move to the French Pca i-

tal. In his vivid descriptions of the streets and waterfront atP

Antwer , we sense the Dutch landscapist recasting himself

P P g

as a 'painter of modern life,' evoking the dockside crowdsP ^ g

and busy bars, the spectacle of `a sailor being thrown out of a

Y P g

brothel by the girls' and the `Ja onaiserie' of the harbourY g P

scene8/ . Pictures already underway included draw-54^ 437 Y

ins in coloured chalks of dance-halls and theatres and ag

painting girl of `a irl from a café-chantant,' while a letter tof

Theo speculates that the Café-concert Scala in Antwerp P

might be 'something like the Folies-Bergeres'g g g

Before he left Antwer Van Go h also threw himself

P, g

with characteristic energy into fulfilling an ambition thatgY g

had haunted him for severalears: to develop his drawing P g

and to work directly from the naked model. Writing of anY g

`immense longing to improve my knowledge of the nude,' heg g P my g

rereported his experience of life classes at the AcadémieP P

Ro ale des Beaux-Arts and at an evening drawing club,Y g g

where he made studies from antique casts and from maleq

and female models. In each situation he was frustrated by

the teaching and by the attitudes of his fellow-students, andg Y

soon began to dwell on the superior working conditions he

g P g

believed he would find in Paris. Attempting to persuadeP g P

Theo of the desirability of this move, he declared his newY

priorities and revealed an unexpected pragmatism: `I greatly P g g Y

prefer to paint the figure, and I also think the market might P g ^ htg

be overloaded with landscapes' he wrote in December 188P 1885

Above all, he explained, he wanted to study[551/44o].P ^ Y the

Old Masters in the Louvre and enrol in arofessional studio,P

such as that of Fernand Cormon, where he could draw from

the nude in relative freedom. Still -anxloyal to the past yetY P Y

ious to engage with the metropolis, Van Gogh summed u

P ^ g up

his ambitions when he announced `The ancients will not

prevent us from being realistic, on the contrary. Of course IP g ^ Y

am also longing enormously for the French pictures'g g Y P

62/ .5 4^ 15

Recalling his arrival in Paris, Van Gogh told theg ^ g

EnEnglish painter Livens somewhat later: `in Antwerp I didg P P

not even know what the impressionists were; now I haveP

seen them and though not being one of the club, yet I haveg g ^Y

much admiration for certain impressionist pictures: - a

I P

De as nude figure, a Claude Monet landscape' 2/ a .Degas g ^ P 57 459

His choice of artists is doubly instructive. Consciously orY Y

otherwise, Van Gogh had singled out the two leaders of rivalg g

factions in the early impressionist group and at the sameY P g P

time, represented each painter by his most characteristic

P P Y

subject. As early as the 18 6 impressionist exhibition, whensubject. Y 7 P

De as had shown drawings and paintings on figurativeDegas g P g g

themes and Monet arou of rural canvases, a critic hadg P

saluted them as the gdrau htsman and colourist of the fu-

ture: 'Degas will take the place that Ingres holds now, while

g P g

that of Delacroix is saved for Claude Monet.' 2 In this sense,e se,

Van Gogh's pleasure in the `Claude Monet landscape' isg P P

consistent with his known tastes and with a more recent de-

light in colour that had begun to show itself in his Antwerp g P

pictures. The more unexpected choice of a 'Degas nude fig-P `P g g

ure,' on the other hand, seems to correspond to a differentP

Antwer project, that of the study of draughtsmanship.PP ) ^ Y

Hailed as the successor to Ingres, Degas was already knowng ^ g Y

for his attachment to the Old Masters and for hisrounding g

in traditional skills. In his complex and sometimes confusedP

resresponse to Degas, it is clear that Van Gogh identified himP g g

withrecisel these qualities and sought to learn directly Y q g Y

from them, though his chosen path of study was far fromg P Y

predictable. There is very little evidence, for example, thatP Y ^ P^

he followed De gas's lead by copying in the Louvre and onceg Y PY g

enrolled at Cormon's, he seems to have worked only s o-YP

radical) from the live model.Y

During the time he spent in Paris, however, Vang P >

Gogh had exceptional opportunities to acquaint himself withg P PP q

De as the draughtsman and the master of the human figure,Degas g g

in two -asimportant public displays of recent drawings and

P Pg P

tels. Within weeks of his arrival, the eighth and final im res-

g P

sionistxhi i i n included b t o eluded a much-noted installation of

Degas portraits, milliner studies and bathers, the latter de-g P

scribed by the artist as a `suite de nuds de femmes.' ThisY

controversial series ofpastels shows women crouched inP

their bathtubs, standing beside their beds and in the case ofg

Girl drying herself (fig. occupying herself in the open air.y ^ (g )^ PY g P

Perha s incorporating the 'Degas nude' that so impressedP P g g P

Van Gogh at this moment, this series represented a crucialg ^ P

statement about De gas's own fusion of the linear and theg

ainter) at a key point in his mid-career. Individualpainterly Y pictures P

of a similar kind could occasionally be seen at galleries and

Y g

inrivate collections, and in January 1888 shortly beforeP ^ Y ^ Y

Van Gogh left Paris, a second showing of Degas pastels of theg ^ g g P

nude tooklace at the Boulevard Montmartre branch ofP

[553/442].1

32

JOURNAL 1999

Boussod \'aladon & Cie. Again the emphasis in the drawingsg p

was On domesticity and informality, this time the exhibi-t',

tion was

-brought even closer to home in the person of the org p

ganiser a promising voun g employee of the gallery calledp g^, gg

Theo v an Gogh. Critics responded energetically and variousg p g Y -

Iv to both shows, one finding in the 1886 nudes `the loveli-g

ness andower of a gothic statue' and another arguing that

p g g g

they vwere 'decidedly chaste' or comparing a figure to a. y P g g

'kneelin Venus,' while others believed them to be de ic'kneeling ^ -p

' whores.3Bons of tradesmen's wives or overweight og

For Van Gogh, Degas's 1886 pastels appear to have

For g ^ g p pp

offered an immediate stimulus to his draughtsmanship. In a

scattering of drawings in his Paris sketchbooks, datable tog

the spring -p ring of 1886 and thus concurrent with the impression-I ^ p

ist exhibition, yve find him tackling the female figure withg g

lugunprecedented confidence, using energetic lines and boldly1 ^ g g

ememphasising breasts, thighs and even, in one instance, pubicu g ^ g >P

hair. 4 Bizarrelyt seems that even the most vigorous of^^ g

these studies were not based on living models, which wouldg

still have been beyond his slender financial means, buty

rather on plaster casts of classical sculptures. Away from the

>J p

unrul Antwer p life classes, Van Gogh was now able to con-1 ^ g

trol his relationship with these surrogate bodies, yet wasp g y

forced to animate them in his -imagination and in the alcheg

m ï of his materials. The same casts also appear in about ati ppe

dozen small oilaintin s on canvas and card, among themp g ^ g

Piaster statuette of a fewale torso (fig. 2),where the artist has

added warm tones and the swelling forms of flesh to theg

white statuettes in front of him. The links between these

tivorks and Degas'sastels are even closer than we might atP g

first suspect. In at least three of the paintings, the casts arep A g

positioned to recall poses from Degas' `suite de nuds,' thep p g

lower abdomen of Plaster statuette of a female torso, for ex-

ample replicating closely – albeit in mirror reversal – the1 ^ B g

hersel .5 In addition, the use of a fine, of Girl dryingf ,

hatched brushstroke to build up a pattern of multicolouredp p

modellin on two of the painted studies is strongly suggesmodelling p gY -

tive of Degas's handling in the 1886 pastels, which is often

g g p

characterised by barlike strokes in chromatic opposition.Y pp

Contradictor r though it may seem, one of Van Gogh's most^ g Y ^ g

distinctiveaintin techniques, which first appears in his artp g rl ^ pl

at exactly this time, ma y have originated in his stud y of

y may

Degas's pastels and by extension, in Degas's current atg p and, -g

tem is to unite line and colour, the draughtsmanship ofp ^ g u

In res with the painterliness of Delacroix.g p

The ambiguity of Degas's peers towards his i 886g ^ g p

nudes can be seen inart as a reflection of the artist's ownP

shift, as the decade advanced, from brash contem p oraneity to

greater elusiveness and a blurring of context. Encounteringg g

Degas's art for the first time, Van Gogh was obliged to comeg ^ g g

to terms with its evolving character, acknowledging the seng ^ g g -

suousla of form in the 188os pastels as well as Degas's

p Y p g

command of the urban subjects that had formerly attractedsubjects Y

him in Antwerp. A ain Van Go h's sketchbooks reveal thisp g , g

process of absorption, as he experimented with materials andp p ^ p

themes widely associated with the older artist. Drawing inY g

coloured chalks or crayons, he made a number of rapid -p id study ^ 1

ies of musicians seen close-to and from behind (fig. 3), a

much-used device in Degas's orchestra and ballet-rehearsalg

ictures and their supporting drawings. Though he is unlikepicture

known Degas's '

g -

to

g g

l y ass ltil. Gouffé (fig. first hand,ff g ^y g ( 4) at sex -

eral comparable figures occur in related works and some

p g

s probable.° Justkind of primary or secondary influence seem. pp ^ Y

as speculative, but equally compelling, is the link betweenp ^ q Y

Van gGo h's Nude woman squatting (fig. and certain ofq ^ (g 5)

Degas's monotypes of brothel subjects executed in the lateg Yp subject

h as tIóman at her toilette (fig. 6 .^ The majority of18705, such (g ) ) y

Degas's monotype series – especially those of a more indelig Yp p Y -

33

1 The drawings in question are F 1350v11-1967, F 1350a

JH 968 and F 1350b JH 969.

2 Cited in Charles Moffett (ed.), exhib. cat. The new

painting: impressionism 1874-1886, San FranciscoP

(The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco) 1986, p. 179.

3 Cited in Richard Kendall, 'Signs and non-signs: Degas's

changing strategies of respresentation,' in Richardgg g p

Kendall and Griselda Pollock (eds.), Dealing with Degas,

London 1992, p. 186-201.

4 See Johannes van der Wolk, The seven sketchbooks of

Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam 1987, pp. 103, 108, 143,

144 and 189.

5 The otheraired examples are F 216j JH 1059 andp p

Degas's Femme s'essuyant après le bain (St Petersburg,g

Hermita e Museum), and F 216i JH 1072 and LaHermitag

ère (Henry and Rose Pearlman Foundation). Thisg Y

link was first suggested in Fran oise Cachin and Bogomila

gg ^

Welsh-Ovcharov, exhib. cat. Van Gogh a Paris, Paris

(Musée d'Orsay) 1988.

6 gDe as's drawing was already in a private collection ing

Paris at this time.

7 Other related images are included in Eugenia Parry

Janis, Degas monotypes, Cambridge, MA 1968, nos. 153,

190, 191 and 193.

fig. 3

fig. 4

Vincent van Gogh, Double-bass player, 1886 (F1244cv

Edgar Degas, M. Gouffé, the string bass player,

JH 1153), Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van c. 1869-70, New York, Pierpont Morgan Library,

Gogh Foundation)

Thaw Collection

cate nature - were never exhibited, though some were giveng g

to friends and the remainder were occasionally seen by visi-t Y

tors to his studio. So forceful is the resemblance between

these two works, however, that some contact with De gas'sg

image - or with comparable studies by urban realists in hisA

immediate circle - seems inescapable.p

Recent scholarship has shown the extent to which,A

while still in Holland, Van Gogh had become an avid readerg

of naturalist novels, sharing copies of favourite works withg ^

Theo and moving eagerly in their subsequent discussionsg g Y q

between the visual and the literary culture of the FrenchY

ca ital. $ Familiar also with suchp with suc texts as Emile Zola 's writ-

ins on Manet, Van Gogh was well prepared for hisg -eng P P

counter with an artist like Degas, who knew a number ofg

the authors concerned and whose work makes reference to

theirublications at many different levels. In a series ofIJy

drawings, paintings and prints from the 186os and 18 os

g P g P 7

Degas had given form to specific incidents and charactersg g p

from the writings of Zola, Ludovic Halévy and the Goncourtg ^ y

brothers, and some of his most celebrated images, such asg

L'absinthe (Paris, Musée d'Orsay) and La petite danseuse deY ^

uatorze ans U erville, VA, Mellon Collection had beenq AP

vilified by the press for their real or imagined links with

y P g

these and other novels. 9 The curiousrou of paintingsg p A g

made by Van Gogh depicting contemporary books

Y g A g -oraryp as com

onents of still life compositions(1887-88),are a touching A g

tribute to a shared taste and represent several volumes thatA

both Degas and Van Goh are known to have read. In one

g g

of theseictures Still lie with books (Amsterdam, VanP f

Gogh Museum), Gogh has meticulously spelled out theg ^ g YA

title of Zola's Au bonheur des dames a work that excited a

visual, if even more eccentric, response from Degas aroundp g

this time. 10 In broader terms, te s, it is difficult to see Van

Go h's Agostina Segatori sitting in the du Tambouring g ^ ^ Cafe

(Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum), completed in 188 withg ^ P 7^ -

out thinking of De gas's grimly modern L'absinthe - a workg g g ^

that seems to both propose and resist a literary narrative. AY

number of his other Parisictures also suggest oblique actsP gg 01

of homage, or at least a common source. A second series ofg

ainted nudespoint to the brothel rather than the life classp p

34

fig. 5

Vincent van Gogh, Nude woman squatting, 1886

(F 1376 JH 1162), Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

(Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

depicting Van Go g h's far-from-classical subjects reclining ^ ï; subjects g

of brazen dis la r . 1 ^ Like Degas'sOn beds and in attitudes o p y g

inonot y )es of prostitutes, they have a generic as much as

an illustrative relationship with such narratives as EdmondA

de Goncourt's La %ille Elise but, for all their differences of

st y le and technique, they point to further incursions by the

y ounger artist into territory dominated by his elders,

among them Manet Rops, Forain and Degas himself.among ^ P^ g

As a relative newcomer to Paris, Van Gogh's most

immediate channel of information about Degas's o - -in^ P

ions and w orks of art would inevitably have been hisY

brother Theo. Around this time Theo must have begun

his p atient courtship of Degas on behalf of Boussod,patient P g

fig. 6

Edgar Degas, Woman at her toilette, 1880-85,

present location unknown

Valadon & Cie. with a view to acquiring pictures directlyq gp

from the artist anderha s establishing a long-termP A g ^

workin arrangement with him. Letters show that Theo

working ^

made regular visits to Degas's Montmartre studio and

g

there are indications that Vincent was alert to the stock

thatassed through Theo's hands. A critical and oftenP ^

underestimated factor in these contacts would have been

theeo ra hical proximity of the brothers' lives to that ofg ^ P A Y

Degas. In his first weeks in the city, Vincent sharedg y

Theo's small flat in the Rue Laval, later renamed Rue

Victor Massé, a street at the lower edge of Montmartreg

where Degas had lived as a young artist and to which heg Y g

was soon to return for the remainder of his working

8 See Judy Sund, True to temperament: Van Gogh andY

French naturalist literature, Cambridge 1992.

9 See Theodore Reff, 'The artist and the writer,' in

gDe as: the artist's mind, New York 1976, pp. 147-99,

and Douglas Druick, 'Framing the Little dancer aged

fourteen,' in Richard Kendall, Degas and the Little

dancer, London & New Haven 1998, pp. 77-96.

35

10 In Paul Valéry's Degas Manet Morisot (New YorkY

1960, p. 84) Berthe Morisot remembers Degas's sugges-

tion that a ps ecial New Year's edition of Zola's book,

which deals with a pde artment store, ought to be pro-

duced 'with samples of materials and lace on facingP

pages.'

11 F 328 JH 1212; F 1404 JH 1213; F 33011-11214; and

F 329 JH 1215.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 7

Vincent van Gogh, The Boulevard de Clichy, 1887

(F 1393 JH 1217), Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

(Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

life. 12 At the date inuestion Degas's apartment was in

q ^ g p

the Rue Pigalle, a street that crossed the Rue Laval andg

was only minute's walk from the building in the RueY g

Le is to which Theo and Vincent moved in June 1886. ALepi

and related study made by Vincent the following Y g

year seems to celebrate the quarter they shared, showing a Y g

the main gthorou hfare that bounded the area and simul-

taneousl exploring a number of techniques derived fromY p g q

artists associated with the locality, among them Degas. InY g g

theen and coloured chalk version of The Boulevard dep

Clichy (fig. 7 , a broad city space is interrupted in the fore-

.Y( g ) Y -rep p

round by an abruptly truncated figure group, a featureg Y p Y g g P

that Degas had given its characteristic form in his Place

g g

de la Concorde of circa 1876 (St Petersburg, e7 g^ Hermitag

and in several monotypes of the same date. 13Yp

Thou h Van Gogh chose to omit this feature from the fi-Though g

nal oil of the scene, his experiment speaks eloquently ofp p

an early qac uaintance with the formal and narrative vo-

cabular of Degas and his immediate circle.

Y g

Theo, too, seems to have turned their location to

his advantage, dealing directly and frequently with Degas

g g Y q Y g

over such matters as finance,icture-framing and thep g -se

lection of the artist's works for sale and exhibition, and

evidently gaining access to pictures - perhaps including g p p p g

such semi-restricted objects as the brothel monotypesJ Yps -

36

12 For the significance of this area and Degas's resi-

dence in it, see Van Gogh a Paris, cit. (note 5) and

Richard Kendall, Degas: beyond impressionism, London

& New Haven 1996, ch. 1.

13 See, for example, Janis, op. cit. (note 7), nos. 206,

217 and 264. See also the article by Caroline Igra in this

volume of the Van Gogh Museum Journal.

14 See John Rewald, 'Theo van Gogh, Goupil and the im-

pressionists,' in Studies in post-impressionism, London

1986, pp. 7-115. See also, most recently, Richard

Thomson, 'Theo van Gogh: an honest broker,' in exhib.

cat. Theo van Gogh: art dealer, collector and brother of

Vincent, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) & Paris (Musée

d'Orsay) 1999-2000, pp. 107-10. The letters in question

can be found in Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent

van Gogh Foundation, family correspondence, letter b

1145 V/1962, b 1151 V/1962 and b 1149 V/1962.

15 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, letter b 1147

V/1962.

16 Ibid., letter b 1152 V/1962. Boussod, Valadon &

Cie.'s printing establishment was located at Rue Chaptal.

JOURNAL 1999

that had et to reach the market. Several short, busi-y

nesslike letters from Degas to Theo survive from theseg

years including two that have remained unpublished,

addingo our knowledge of Degas's reliance on his deal- - as

g g

ers for a supply of day-to-da y cash and shedding furtherPAY ^ Y g

light on his detailed concern with the presentation of hisg p

ictures. In group of notes discussed by John Rewald,P g p Y

Degas p olitel y reminds Theo of sums still outstanding;g 1 g

urges him `to come tomorrow to see the drawing I haveg

made for vou' • advises him that a recently acquiredpaint-Y cl p

ing `is too wet: take it out of the frame and dry it a little';^, Y

and suggesting that another work be exposed to the airg ^ g P

1 under glass. 14 Always courteous andbefore being put g ^

demonstrabl at ease in his practical dealings with Theo,Y p g

in the unpublished letters Degas again asks him to call

p g g

`avez la bonté de passer asser demain mn à l'atelier, cher^^

Monsieur Van Gogh,' he wrote in May 1888 or to give a

Y g

his superiors.15 An undated letter, probably to p , p y

from 1887, `Voulez-vows prier Mr Etienne Boussod

7^ p

de venir voir leastel cue je vous ai montré l'autre jour.p 1 J jour

ne Bois pas, it me semble, l'envoyer rue Chaptal avant.

1 Y p

sa visite. Avez-vows faiteindre la cadre en bleu? Si vousp

uvez passer à l'atelier demain vers h 1/2 , j'ai quelqueP A 9 l q^

' ce sujet.' 16 During the months ofchose a ^ ous dire a J g

V incent's stay in the Rue Le is apartment, Degas's confi-P p ^ g

dence in Theo was expressed by the sale of a number of

p Y

substantialictures to Boussod, Valadon & Cie. In 188 ,p ^ 7

Theo acquired the important oil painting Woman seated1 p p g

beside a Lase of flowers New York The MetropolitanP

Museum of Art),a work completed in 1865 that wasA 5

r early canvases. 17anion Degas's s most audacious ea yg g

Depicting an aggressively modern figure cropped b r theA g gg Y g pp y

frame and her g picture s, this icture - although al-

ready more than two decades old - would again haveg

-orbrow ht Vincent into close contact with Degas theg g p

traitist of contemporary life.p

A further element in the exchanges between the Vang

Go h brothers and Degas during this period was theirGogh g g P

shared acquaintance with Paul. Gauguin. A loyal exhibitor

q g Y

at the impressionist exhibitions since 18 , Gauguin had

P 79 g

for some time enjoyed an unusual rapport with Degas thatJ Y Pp g

resulted - as was sometimes the case with the older artist,

who took an active interest in the work of his juniors - in a

1 influence. 18 Vincent got to know Gauguin pperiod of mutual g

in the early months of his Paris visit, soon showing his picY g -

tures alongside those of his new friend and coming underg g

the spell of certain of his distinctive ideas. Even as he wasp

ursuin Degas, Theo was also building up a businesslike

pursuing g ^ g p

relationship with Gauguin, buying his first canvas,p g Y g

Baigneuses (present location unknown), from the artist in^ p

188 and exhibiting and selling a number ofpictures in1887 g g p

v ars. 19 Such contacts would inevitabl y T have led

successive inevitably

to a casual gexchan e of information about artists like

gDe as whose work was of common concern, and to mo-

ments of shared enthusiasm. In January 1888, the exhibi-t

tion organised by Theo at the Boulevard Montmartreg Y

alle y provided just such an opportunity,offerin Degas's

gallery p just offering Degas'

sequence of bather pastels to an admiring audience

q p g

- ll ectors. 20 Like Vincent twoof fellow artists critics and co e

years earlier, Gauguin was quick to register his respect forY ^ g q g l

the Degas nudes, making a sketchbook drawing of severalg ^ g g

works on the walls and later introducing at least one figureg g

r r oire. 21Into his own e e tp

More secure in his own draughtsmanship, thou rhthoug

frustrated by a lack of models Van Go h left Paris forY ^ g

Provence in February 1888 with a much diminished urgeY g

for academic study. More surprisingly,erha s the flirtaY -perhaps,

tion with urban themes that had begun in Antwerp, , foundg p

encouraencouragement in the writings of Zola and the Goncourts,

g g

and flourished briefl y in the shadow of Degas, Signac andY g g

Toulouse-Lautrec also seems to have lost its hold. In the

south, it was less Degas the draughtsman and pioneer ofg g p

For Degas's preoccupation with coloured frames at thisg p P

time, an interest that Van Gogh briefly shared, see

Isabelle Cahn, 'Edgar Degas,' in Eva Mendgen et al., ex-

hib. cat. In perfect harmony: picture & frame 1850-1920,

Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) & Vienna (Kunstforum

Wien) 1995, pp. 129-38.

17 The sale of theicture by Theo to Emile Boivin isP

recorded in Rewald, op. cit. (note 14), p. 89; see also

Thomson, op. cit. (note 14), p. 107.

18 For Degas's friendship with Gauguin, see Francoise

37 Cachin, 'Degas et Gauguin' in Degas inédit, Paris 1989,

pp. 115-27 and Richard Kendall, Degas landscapes,

London & New Haven 1993, pp. 227-28.

19 See Rewald, op. cit. (note 14), p. 90; see alsop

Thomson, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 137-41.

20 For the 1888 exhibition see Thomson, op. cit. (note

14), pp. 109-10; idem, Degas: the nudes, London 1988,

p. 132; and Kendall, op. cit. (note 12), p. 41.

21 The drawing is in the Cabinet des dessins at the

Louvre. For gGau uin's reuse of one of Degas's figures,

see Thomson, Nudes, cit. (note 20), p. 170.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

realism and more Degas the man who found a continuing

resonance in Van Gogh's life. Letters to a variety of c

g Y -orre

s -Degaslondents cite De as an arbiter of taste and an exem1 g

lar of detachment, often couched in terms that suggestA ^^

considerable intimacy with the older artist's whims andY

private conversations. During his first weeks in Arles, Vanp g

Gogh's knowledge of De gas's rising prices and successfulg g g gp

manimanipulations of the art market prompted him to proposeP P P P P

that the more senior -'impressionists of the grand bouleA g

vard' - with g always as's name always at the head of the list -

should help their younger colleagues in a cooperativeP Y g g P

venture58 /4^ Although . Althou h this initiative came to noth-5

in g, Van Gogh was able to use his links with Theo to fol-

low De gas's fortunes from a distance, congratulating his^ g g

brother in the spring of 1888 on the sale of an unnamedp g

picture, and commenting on the group of artists aroundA g g A

Jan Veth in Dordrecht who were -'good enough to conde^ g

scend to Degas and Pissarro, without ever having seen ag g

scrap of their stuff'[623/5001. And, as we have seen, theP

subject of Degas the portraitist was still very much in VanJ g A Y

Gogh's mind.g

Gauguin had arrived in Arles more than two monthsg

before Van Gogh's experience in the Arles hospital andg A P

both artists had been variously involved in making oY g -rP

traits,aintin themselves, each other and the people ofp g p P

Arles, and actively debating the problems of the genre. In

Y g p g

December 1888 they had travelled together to the museum

Y g

at nearby Montpellier, famed for its group of portraits ofp g A A

the collector Alfred Bruyas by such artists as Courbet,

Y Y

Delacroix, Cabanel, Couture and Tassaert. Recounting theg

visit to his brother, Vincent reflected at length on the vexedg

uestion of resemblance, concluding with the instruction:question ^

`Tell Degas that Gauguin and I have been to see the portrait^ g A

of Brias [sic] by Delacroix at Montpellier, for we haveA

coura e to believe that what is is, and the portrait of Briasg p

b Delacroix is as like you and me as another brother'Y Y

173o/5641. His statement reads like a continuation of an es-

tablished dialogue, perhaps originating in Paris with Degas

g p p g

- who had visited the collection at PMont ellier - and eer-

tainly informed by De gas's affection for Delacroix's art inY g

eneral and his portraiture in particular. Within a fewgeneral A A

ears of this incident, Degas was able to acquire for hisY ^ ^ a

own collection no less than three of Delacroix's oil-aintp

ins of male subjects, including one -Baron Schwiterg subjects, g

(London, National Gallery) - that rivals the much-admiredY

Bru as picture in scale and magnificence. 22Y P ^^

It was against this background that Van Gogh, ag g g

week or two later, 'kept thinking about Degas,' and eviA g -asg

dentl in the specific context of the modern portrait. If VanY A A

Go h's remark that he `had pointed out to Gauguin thatg p g

De as had said [...] `I am saving myself n for theDegas g y P

Arlésiennes' is not y transparent, mayimmediately trans arent, it ma be ex-

lained b the statement that follows in which DegasP Y

seems to anticipate news of Van Gogh's latest portraits ofA g A

women of the town. That this intelligence would comeg

from Gauguin is implicit in his text, as is the possibility thatg p ^ p y

Degas wasre arin himself for an encounter with thep p g

themselves, presumably when they were sent topaintingsp Y

Theo in Paris. Sadly, the outcome of the story is not known,Y Y

nor is there any direct evidence of the impact of Van Gogh'sY P ^

ortraits on those of De as at this moment or vice versa. Inp g

hisortraiture as well as in his other concerns, Van Goghp ^ g

was already moving beyond, or stepping back from, hisY g Y PA

man mentors in Paris, making fewer direct references toY

their -nehtimetimtheueimagery, theories and techniques. By hea

tered the asylum at Saint-Remy in May 188 he had ex licY ,^ Y 9 ^ -P

itl rejected many -y of the innovations of his former colt rejected Y

leagues, such as Georges Seurat and Emile Bernard, and

we find him turning again to the time-tested achievementg ^

of figures like Delacroix, Millet and Degas himself. All

three artists embodied an element of the traditionalism

that was still an important factor in Van Gogh's thinking,A ^ g

and all three seemed to offeruidance as he tried to recon-g

struct and redirect his career.

In the letters from Provence, Van Gogh h often reflect-

ed on his-rah sical condition and the nature of his tempera-PY P

ment, citing fashionable notions of inherited weakness andg

expressing doubts about the suitability of his constitutionp g Y

for theainter's life. Once he had moved to the YellowP

House in Arles, he told Theo that he wasraduall^ Y -recover

in from the excessive drinking and smoking of Paris, andg g ^

made a resolution to mend his was: `I want m nervesY Y

steadier [...] a decent establishment and my own health,' heY

claimed.uotin the advice of a certain Dr Grub - `to eatQuoting Y

well, to live well, to see little of women' - he added: 'Degasg

did it, and succeeded'60 / 81 J . On several occasions, he54^

insisted on the vitality of De gas's figures, writing of a nudeY g g ^ ^

in a Rembrandt etching `One might call it a Degas becauseg bg ^

the body is so true, flooded with animality'[651/B12]. SomeY

time later, he returned to the theme more frankly in anoth-Y

er letter to Bernard, after warning him of the dangers ofg

historicism and 'metaphysical meditations': 'Why do youY Y

38

JOURNAL 1999

sa y De g as is impotently flabby? Degas lives like a littleDegasflabby? g

law yp er and does not like women for he knows that if liked

them and w ent to bed Nvith them too often he would be-

come intellectuall y diseased and would no loner he ableg

to p aint. De g as's painting is virile and impersonal for the P

very reason that he has resigned himself to be nothing per-.

sonall y but a little lawyer with a horror of going on a spree.lawyer g g

Ile looks on while the human animals, stronger than him-g

self g et excited and screw around, and he paints them,^, ^ p

well, exactl y because he doesn't have theretension to getP

excited himself'6^ /B14 .09

De gas's significance as a model of propriety and^ g p A Y

constraint was

-repeatedly stressed in Van Gogh's later core g

res p ondence and reinforced b r the news he received fromI 5

Paris. Early in 18 o for exam le Theo told him of a recent9 , p

visit he had made to pDe g as's apartment, this time in theDegas's

company of their youn er sister VVif. In his reply,VincentI . . g

noted rather enviously: `I think she was lucky to see Degasg

at his home,' beforeoin on to discuss such related topicsg g p

as the dail y discipline of the artist, his belief that `a painter

^ P

reall y ou g ht to work just as hard as a shoemaker,' and his

p lans to make careful copies after Daumier, Delacroix andI

\fillet85 5 /626. A letter sent directly to his sister repeated0o p

his assessment of her v isit and was followed immediately

b y a remark about `a portrait of an Arlésienne' that he con-. p

tinued to associate with Degas [582/W21. It is from Theo'sg 5

orig inal announcement of the event, however, that the

most intri guin g details emerge: in this version, we learn

that Degas told Wil that `she reminded him of various fig-g

ores in the old Dutch p aintings and that she made him

want to g o and see the museums in our native country. He

trotted out quite a number of his things, which pleased her1 g^ p

g reatly. She understood those nude women very well'

I855/T281. AV Bile Degas's appetite for Dutch painting hasg pp p g

long been acknowledged, his willingness to `trot out' a sucg g ^ -neg

cession of works to entertain aoun lady he had only justY g Y

met is distinctly y illuminating. Even more striking is the dis-g g

covery that these pictures included studies of the nude — a. p

subject that seems to have encapsulated Degas's art for the1 p g

entire Van Gogh family — and Theo's belief that these worksg family

which, as we have seen, were sometimes taken to repre-

sentrostitutes had been well `understood' b the dau hp Y -g

ter of the Nuenenastor.p

But it was to Degas the private individual, whose res-g p

i gnation to his status as a ` little lawyer' enabled him to in-y

tensif his art, that Van Gogh most frequently turned. Aftery ^ g

he had committed himself to the mental -hospital at Saintp

Rém Van Gogh carried this argument a stage further.

y ^ g g g

Better nourished and following theeregular regime of th e -ing g

stitution he wrote from his cell-like room to reassure Theo

about his circumstances and his condition. Stressing thatg

his emotions andh y sical strength were still unpredictable, py g

he nevertheless seemedroud of certain aspects of his newP p

life: 'Degas always says that drinking in cabaretswhile youg y Y g wh

areaintin pictures is paying too dearly for it. I don't deny

painting p 5 g

it, but would he, like me, then go into a monaster y or to> og

church?'802/60 . In these surroundings, it a ppears, Van5 g^ appears,

Gogh believed he had actuall y exceeded Degas in asceti

g g

cism renouncing not just the temptations of alcohol, tobac-g just

co and the opposite sex but all kinds of distraction outsidepp

the studio. Not only does this open up the possibility that5 p p p

Van g5Go h's voluntary admission to the asylum was intend-

ed among other things, to replicate the austerity of Degas'sg g^ P austerity g

life, it alsooes some way to explain his calmness, even

g way p

self-satisfaction in its very restraint. His extreme self-de-

nial he felt, had already been beneficial and had strength-gth

> y g

ened hisaintin . In the same long letter he tells his brothp g g -

er: 'My work is going well, I am finding things that I have

y g g ^ g g

sou ght in vain for years,' describing portraits in progresssought ^ ^ gp

and a copy he has just completed, `m brain so clear and mypY just p ^ 'my

fingers so sure that I have drawn that Piéla by Delacroix

g Y

without taking a single measurement' 802/60 , .g g 5

Van Gogh's devotion to the work of Delacroix hadg

bebegun long before he settled in France, but during his stay

g g g

at tiSaint-Rém r 0889-90) it found a new and more conspicu-99

ous outlet in a series of elaborateainted co p ies. Thoughp copies

have no known connection with Degas, they wereg

made with an awareness of a shared admiration for their

predecessor and were concurrent — coincidentally or other-

wise — with an unexpected revival in Degas's -g as's own engageg

mentwith the master. In 1889 Degas made a brief pilgrim-ilgrim9 g p

age to Tangiers, describing in a letter the colours and seng g ^ g -

sations he encountered, and explaining to a friend: `I tell

passed here.' 23 Perhaps this because Delacroix pa -s , p s stimu

lated )b T this experience, Degas himself carried out twop

22 See Ann Dumas et al., exhib. cat. The private collec-

tion of Edgar Degas: a summary catalogue, New York

g g Y

(The Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1997, nos. 192, 196P

and 201. Degas's visit to Montpellier as a young man, as

well as his aac uaintance with Arles is recorded in

Theodore Reff, The notebooks of Edgar Degas, 2 vols.

Oxford 1976, notebooks 3 and 4.

23 gDe as letters, ed. Marcel Guérin, Oxford 1947,

39 p. 140.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

transcriptions in oil on canvas of Delacroixictures TheA

Battle of Poitiers (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery) and They

fanatics of Tangier (Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario),and

b ^ Y

was soon toour his energies into an obsessive accumula-

p g

tion of Delacroix's sdrawin watercolours and paint- -p

in s. 24 Less well-known,

g e nown, but just as pertinent in the re-J p p

sent context, is Degas's respect for Millet, an artist heg P

ranked with `In res and the earlier Corot' as the greatest

g g

`amon the moderns,' according to Walter Sickert. 25 Again,'among ^ g g

Van g preoccupationGogh's revived reoccu ation with Millet in the Saint-

Rém months offers a parallel rather than an immediateY p

link with Degas, but it is worth noting that it was rinci-

g g p

all

-y to Millet the figure painter rather than the landpally g p

sca ist that both artists turned: Van Gogh in his painted

p g p

studies and Degas in his acquisition of Millet's drawings,

g q g,

prints and a single oi1. 26p g

Theof nant finale to this surprising tale of artistic

p g p g

affinity took place in the mid-18 os some four years after

Y P 9 ^ Y

Vincent's death and at the time when Degas was at theg

hei ht of his collecting fervour. Addingpaintings b

g g gp g by

younger contemporaries to his rapidly growing stock of

p p Y gg

works from earlierenerations De as showed some of hisg , g

latesturchases to his young admirer, Daniel Halévy,

p Y g ^ y^

recorded the incident in his journal on 22 December 18 .J 95

After subjecting Halév y to the history of two recently-ac- aJ g Y Y --cY

uired portraits by Delacroix, Degas produced yet moreq p Y ^ g p Y

ictures: `Here is new Van Gogh, and my Cézanne • Ipictures: my g^ Y

buy! I buy! I can no longer stop myself,' he exclaimed. 27

Y Y g P Y

The Van -cansGogh was one of two of the painter's A

vases to enter his collection at this time, Sunflowers of

1887 (fig. 8), reviousl the property of Gauguin butp Y p p Y -nowg ex

changed with Vollard against two studies of dancers, andg

Still life with fruit (The Art Institute of Chicago) from theg

sameear again obtained from Vollard. 28 Around the

Y , g

same date, Degas also acquired a Van Gogh drawing,enti-

g q g

tled Glaneuse in the Degas sales catalogue and now rovi-g g p

sionall identified with a Nuenen study that remains in

Y Y

private hand . 29 What at is unmistakeable in all three ur-p P

chases is the robustness of Degas's taste: Two sunflowersg

is an abrasive, richly patterned composition that seems asY pp

much woven from coloured brushstrokes asainted • Stillp

life with fruit is even more uncompromising, hallucinap g^ -a

for confection of bars and striations of paint that explodes

Y p p

outward from its centre; while the solitary drawing isY g

among Van Gogh's mostpowerful

g g yet touching studies ofY g

the human figure. Collectively, sum up much of Van

g Y^ they p

40

Gogh's radicalism dedication to the commonplace,g p

hisassion for colour and line, the physicality of his techp ^ P Y Y -

nique - and their acquisition b Degas must surely be seenq Y g Y

as a token of respect and understanding fromp g -one uncom

promising artist to the memory of another.p g Y

24. Degas's copies are Copie d'après 'Les convulsion-

naires de Tanger' de Delacroix (private collection) and

The Battle of Poitiers, after Delacroix (Zurich, Barbara

and Peter Nathan).

25 Walter Sickert, A full house, London 1947, p. 150.

26. See Dumas, op. cit. (note 22), nos. 893, 894, 895

and 896. For the links between the artists, see Louis van

Tilburgh, exhib. cat. Millet: Van Gogh, Paris (Musée

d'Orsay) 1998-99 and Kendall, op. cit. (note 18), pp.p

142-43.

27 Daniel Halévy, My friend Degas, Middletown 1964,

p. 86.

28 See Dumas, op. cit. (note 22), nos. 595 and 596.

29 Ibid., no. 597.

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 8

Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers, 1887 (F 376 JH 1331),

41

Kunstmuseum Bern

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers (F 457 JH 1666), 1889,

42 Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art

VAN GOGH STUDIES

Van Gogh's Sunflowers series:

the fifth toile de 30

Roland Dorn

At first glance it seems we are quite Nvell informed about^, 1

the series of sunflowers Van Gogh p ainted during his staygl

i ► r Arles. The works are mentioned in no fewer than six let-

ters, alI ri p en within the same week at the end of August

► 888: three NI, ere addressed to his brother Theo 6 0/ 26,7 5

672/527, 675/5281,t wo to his sister \Villemien 6 ► /W6, 7

674/NN 8 , and one to his friend and collea gue Emilecolleagu

/B r ~ . Theo and Bernard AN ere the first to be9 0

informed of \V incent'slan to paint a dozen, orperhaps halfU P ^

a dozen sunflower still tires to decorate his studio; the first

number is mentioned in the letter to Theo, the second in

the one to Bernard. It was to be `une symfonie en bleu et

'aurae,' and the artist had thrown himself into theprojectJ P

w ith the enthusiasm of someone front Marseilles eating

bouillabaisse. At the time three versions were already `en

train': two of smallish size and one toile de 30 1670/5261.

From his brother's second letter, Theo learned of a fourth

sunflower p icture `sun fond 'aurae'; and from the third thatl ^ )

this too, was a size0. The p revious work in this format3 1

had been `stir fond bleu ert,' as Vincent exp lained to his

sister, w ho w as then staying with Theo in Paris. Five. g

months later, at the end of January n88 Van Gogh told his, ^ 9^ g

brother he h a d recentl y finished makingcopies of the twog 1

lar g e versions `ré étitious absolument ér uivalentes &large ^ P 1

Pareilles' /^ . IA hen his friend Joseph Roulin paid1 7^7 047 A l

him a call on the twenty-eighth, he had just completed theg ^ just A

w ork: `Lors q tie Roulin est venu j'avais justement fini la1 1 J

ré rétition de mes tournesols'8/574^ 070

Sixaintin g s of sunflowers are thus alluded to inP

Van Go g h's letters. Recently,this fact has been used to

claim that onlyhese `documented' works can be consid-y

ered genuine, and therefore that all other versions are sus-

p ect – a p erfect example of a non sequitur. Were w -e conI perfect A ^

cerned here not with Van Gogh's correspondence but with

g A

an apple orchard, it would be obvious to an y schoolchild

that six apples on the round do not necessarily constituteg

43

the entire harvest. And an schoolchild would be more thany

a little sceptical if one tried to convince him or her thatP

these six apples two small, four large – were the same1P g

ones he or she had seen lying under the tree the da y , the. g .

week or even the year before. In short, it is illogical to as-

sume that 1sim p ly because Van Gogh only mentions six sun- g

flower paintings only six exist. Logically speaking, we cang .

conclude at most that Van Gogh painted at least these six,g P

six or perhaps even more. Further restrictions are inad-

missible due not only to the exigencies of logic, but also tog g

the nature of the documents inuestion which are far, farg

from incontestable.

The sources

Almost everything we know about Van Gogh hasg g

beenleaned front his letters – letters to colleagues,g g

friends and members of his family that are mostly undated.

Somearts of this complex collection have been throu g hA throug

r adventures: things that belong to gether haveti g g togethe

e

separated; known material has disappeared; new -letA ^ Pl

ters have surfaced and been gfor otten. An annotated schol-

arly edition of the ncom p lete corres p ondence is onl y ow inA P

The sequence, chronology and relationship ofpreparation. g. 1

the letter fragments to one another cannot yet be deemedg

final although recent decades have seen much of the, g

roundwork accomplished.g P

This article is a revised version of a lecture held at the

Schweizerischen Institut fur Kunstwissenschaft on 28

January 1999, which presented an overview of my re-Y p

search on the Sunflowers series,reviously published inp

Roland Dorn, Decoration: Van Goghs Werkreihe fur das

Gelbe Haus in Arles, Hildesheim, Zurich & New York

1990 (hereafter Dorn 1990). While that publication

sought to analyse the broader interpretative context ofg Y p

Van Gogh's work, it now seemed appropriate to examineg

those aspects previously treated only marginally.

I

p p

am indebted to many colleagues for informa-Y

tion, pins iration and the opportunity to study the origi-

nals under optimal conditions; I would particularly like to

thank John Leighton, Han van Crimpen, Joseph J. Rishel,g p

Ashok Roy and Hubertus von Sonnenburg.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

It is Jan Hulsker'sreatest contribution to haveg

demonstrated that the core of these documents — Vincent's

letters to his brother Theo — wasrimaril y business corre-P Y

s ondence: Theo sent money, and Vincent notified him of itsU

receipt, as a rule by return of ost. 1 Only the procedures1^ Y P Y A

chan red, in accordance with the circumstances. In theperi-

od under consideration, Theo forwardedo(occasionally5

loo francs to Arles once a week.usually by letter, but some-. Y

times by p ostal order. It generally arrived on Monday, and

Vincent wrote back the same dayhis 'weekly report' usual-5 ^ -sA

ly began with professional matters — his latest work — andb ^

then continued in a more conversational tone. Many issuesy

were raised and debated in this way, but b y no means all, not

y Y

even as far as the artist's-ex

wasroduciion concerned. ForP

ample, Vincent described his Soir d'été 1^ 465 JH 1473) toP 4^ 5 473

[mile Bernard in a letter of June 1888, but in his missives to

Theo he merely spoke generally of `studies of cornfields.' It5P ^ Y

is only from later letters that we can reconstruct his pursuitsy A

in December 1888 .3 and often the reports become t ^ e orts bec-ome vague andp

lacunal when theicture under discussion was destined forA

someone other than Theo.4

In addition, Van Gogh appears to have formulated.g 1111

certain projects long before he actually got around to car-

ryin r them out: Café de nuit (F 463 J111575), Le oète F 62^ . 4^ 3 p 4^

JH 1574 and the Dechargeurs du sable F JH 1 o are^ 437 57

striking examples. 5 Other undertakings were abandoned,^ A g

more closely defined or altered without so much as a men-Y

tion. For the time being, then, Vincent's statements can on-

ly be considered valid at the time of writing. This means,

however, that not only the words themselves but also theiry

context — its constants and transformations — are of funda-

mental importance.

Theo received the first dispatch on the sunflower se-

ries6 o/ 6 out of the regular sequence. Written to7 53 -uence ang q

nounce the arrival of a letter from Gauguin, it took up ong ^ P

Vincent's last 'regular' communiqué of circa Monday,

g q Y^

Au ust 6 and at the same time, gave preliminaryg, g e a p e nary report on

the week's activities: since the four works mentioned (three

of sunflowers and a study of thistle probably tookpaintingsY P Y

around four days to complete, the letter was likely written on

Y P Y

Friday, 24 August. The next note[672/527],too broke withY 4^ g too,

the usualattern: it should be dated to 25 or 26 August andA 5 g

included an urgent order for paint, as well as a request that

g p ^ q

Theo make a certain suggestion to the colourman whichgg

Vincent hoped would help reduce his costs. 8 It was only withA p Y

the following letter of circa 27 August[673/528]that theg 7 g

Monday rhythm was reestablished.Monday Y

Since the frequency in communication decreasedq Y -

cre on

l slightly in the weeks that followed, we may infer that Vany g Y ^ Y

Gogh did anything but systematically follow through on his^ Y ^ Y Y g

lan to paint a dozen or half a dozen) pictures of sunflowers.P A p

In fact, he seems at first to have returned to -orfigures andg p

traits, which had occupied him in early August, and then toP ^ g

an even older undertaking, ni ght café (F 463 JH 1 . Ing night 4^ 3 575

the meantime, his flower-models faded, and when he came to

summarise the current state of the decorativeJro'ect in mid-P

October he referred only to the two larger works, soon to beY g

hun in Gauguin's room.9 It was there, as Vincent later re-hung ^

marked, that Theo must have seen them when he hurried to

Arles at Christmas: `tors de to visite je crois que to dois avoirq

remar ué dans la chambre de Gauguin les deux toiles de oq g 3

des tournesols Je viens de mettre les derrières touches aux

répétitions absolument équivalentes & pareilles' /A q p 747 574

This letter is dated (in another hand, as are the others men-

44

1 See Jan Hulsker,'Van Gogh's extatische maanden in

Arles, Maatstaf 8 (1960-61), pp. 315-35; English version:

'Van Gogh's ecstatic years in Arles,' Vincent 1 (1972),

no. 4.2-17.pp

2 See letters 631/501, 630/B7 and 636/B9; fora com-

plete overview see Roland Dorn, 'Vincent van Gogh: Soir

d'été, 1888,' in Dieter Schwarz (ed.), Texte zu Werken

im Kunstmuseum Winterthur 1999 (forthcoming)

3 See letters 744/573 and 747/574, and Dorn 1990,

p. 53.

4 For example neither the Self-portrait (F 529 JH 1658)

nor the version of the Arlésienne (F 488 JH 1624) given

to M and Mme Ginoux are mentioned.

5 See Dorn 1990, pp. 370-75, 356-58 and 364-67.

6 Letter 668+664 (second sheet) / 523+522 (second

sheet).

7 'Chardons poussiéreux avec une innombrable essaim

de papillons blancs' [670/526]; probably F 460 JH 1676.

8 Roughly grated pigment was indeed cheaper, but it

had precisely the opposite effect Van Gogh had hoped

for: it did not increase the intensity of the colours but

rather weakened them. Consequently, the idea behindq

the request was just as unfounded as Jan Hulsker's no-

tion that this letter was never mailed (see Jan Hulsker,

'De nooit verzondenen brieven van Vincent van Gogh:

de paradox van de publicatie,' Jong Holland 14 (1998),

no. 4, pp. 42-52): were this the case, the request for

JOURNAL 1999

boned below `28 Jan' 89'; Boutin came to call the same day9^

and as Van Gogh reported in his next note ` 0 Janvier 89'),^ p 3

NA as shown theortrait of his wife, La berceuse, hung he-portrait

tween the sunflower still lifes8/74^ 575

In connection with Van Gogh's earlier statements,g

these remarks allow us to conclude that in theer iod lead-p

ing up to 28 January 1889 the artist executed only the two1 January 9

replicas -p licas in addition to the four versions of August. Theo re1 ^

ceived Vincent's next dispatch on February; it is labelledp 4 5

V\ ith the dateof the postmark?) ` Fevrier 8 ,' and writ-( p 3 was9

ten on therevious evening, i.e. 2 February[749/576].p g ^

do not know what Van Gogh worked on during the next four

da y s. OnFebruary – before he could write his next letter –7

the artist was admitted to hospital by order of the p olice, hisA by 1

neighbours having claimed to have seen signs of an a p -

-

€^ g g p

p roaching crisis (Vincent himself believed he had been poi/ ^

sone(1 .11

His condition im p roved after about a week, and a

few -da ys later he was released on trial: the same day, rob

, ^p

abl y r or r 8 February he wrote to Theo, who discovered

^ 7 .,

1 12the missive on the evening of the nineteenth /g 75 077

Ile seems to have answered by return ofost, and Vincentp

a > p arentl y did the same: his next letter is marked with thell

date (of the postmark?) ` 2 2 Fevrier 8 .' The day before, thatp 9 y

is on 20 or 21 February, he had begun to work afresh, tack- -g

g1752/5781. 13 Whathn the fourth version sion of La berceuseg

happened in the next four or five days is unknown. On 261I

February , however, after aetition by his frightened neigh-p by g g

bours the artist was hospitalised once again, and his studiop

sealed. Van

-Gogh's next letter was written from the hos ig p

al on 19 \larch /^ 14 and he returned to the Yellowt 9 754 079

House that Saturday2 March) in the company of Paul3 p

Signac, who at Theo's request, had stopped off in Arles on^ ^ d ^ pp

his wayo his spring painting campaign in Cassis. In theY I ^ p^

days that followed Vincent was again more or less allowedY g

to look after himself, and began yet another copy of Lag ^ p^

berceuse before being drawn to depict the newl y blossom-gnewly

ing trees.15

There are thus `blank spots' both at the beginningp g

and end of February 188 periods of four or five da y s about9^ p.

which nothing is more is known than that Van Gogh was^ g

busy working. If he did in fact, paint more than six v ersionsg , p

of the Sunflowers then it was most likely during this time.

Theo's improvised retrospective 1890-91p PFurther clarification is offered by the series of docu-

ments used by Johanna van Go h-Bon g er to manage her. g g

brother-in-law's estate. The task fell to her following the

death of her husband Theo, who succumbed to a g rave ill-.

ness only half a year after Vincent's suicide. Left alone withy

her one-year-old son, Johanna certainly had other things on

her mind than 1assemblin g a p erfect dossier on Van Gogh's^

art in order to smooth the way for future art historians. She

-kept records as far as seemed necessary, based on the handp .

g Vincent van Gogh. '16 Thiswritten 'Catalogue des oeuvres de V inc e tg

catalogue had been put together at the time of the family'sg p €^

move to a nearby, larger apartment in September 1890, .^ g p P

where there was room enough to hold an improvised -provised retrog 1

o f Vincent's work. 17 On the da y of the mo ve rspech y c ^ 4

September, Theo also had a number of pictures brought to1 ^ P g

n r ithe house which had been stored in Tanguy'sg^tis attic. 18 A few

days ys later, on 18 September, tember, he wrote to Emile Bernard re-

uestin his help with the installation of the show thatq g p

2 0 Se tember. 19Saturday, p

10 w-e

10 See also Kort geluk: de briefwisseling tussen Theo van

Goh en Jo Boner, ed. Leo Jansen and Jan Robert, intro.g g

Han van Crimpen, Zwolle & Amsterdam 1999, no. 37.

11 Letter from Frédéric Salles to Theo van Gogh, 7

February 1889; published in Jan Hulsker, 'Vincent's stay

in the phos ital in Arles: unpublished letters from the

Reverend Mr Salles and Doctor Peyron to Theo van

Gogh,' Vincent 1 (1971), no. 2, pp. 24-26, no. 1.

16 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, b 3055 V/1962 - cited below as 'Catalogue.'

The successive editing phases have yet to be sorted out

in detail.

17 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, letter from Andries

Bonger to his parents, 4 July 1890, letter b 1856 V/1970:

'Theo heeft nu ook gehuurd, naast hun. Net [=Johanna,

Theo's wife and Andries's sister] is er heel blij mee.' This

apartment was rented until 1 July 1891; see the letterp

from Johanna van Gogh-Bonger to Emile Bernard, 9 April

1891ublished in 'Emile Bernard et Vincent van Gogh,'p

Art-Documents 17 (February 1952), p. 14.

18 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, letter from Theo van

Gogh to Wil van Gogh, 27 September 1890, letter b 947

g g p

V/1962 + .b 2055 V/1982.

19 See Emile Bernard, 'Préface,' Lettres de Vincent van

Gogh a Emile Bernard, Paris 1911, pp. 2-3 and Bernard's

answer,ostmarked 18 September 1890 (Amsterdam,p p

Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Foundation, fami-

ly Pcorres ondence, letter b 1154 V/1962), as well as

Theo's letter to Wil of 27 September 1890, cit. (note 18).

paint would have been even more urgent in the next let- 12 See Kort geluk, cit. (note 10), no. 51.

ter; however, there is no mention of it whatsoever.

13 Ibid., no. 56.

9 See 675/529 and the following, in particular the sec-

ond sheet of 695/543 (which probably belongs to 14 See also 755/580 and 756/581.

691/541a) and 708/552.

15 See letter 757/582 and the following.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

On Sunday and the days that followed Bernard arranged

and hung theaintin s, while Andries Boner, Johanna's

P g Bonger

was responsible for editing the catalogue: the

g g

manuscri t appears to be in his handwriting.

P Ap^

In the beginning, the catalo gue included 299 works,catalogue 99

classified chronologically according to the locations whereg ^ g

they were painted. Later, another dozen (nos. 00- l l. A 3 3

were added under the rubric `Divers,' as were several `his,'

`ter' and 'quarto' numbers. The inventor comprises a totalY P

of6 individual paintings with titles, as well as a section54^ P g

(4 '20 études de Hollande (toiles volantes).' Once ga ain –

logically – it is purely accidental that here, too, we find just A

six Sunflowers: two of these are easily identifiable as the

`smaller' works painted in August t (nos. and 211IJg 95 ;

the other four are classified as toiles de 30 nos., 1 , 19^1 9 94

and 195). 20

Jo's loan lists

Johanna used this catalogue when lending to exhibi-g

tions untilo ; the numbers served to identify the pictures,

95 y A

and were noted on both the loan lists and the corresponding

p g

works. Unfortunately, however, they have disappeared fromY they PP

all of the Sunflowers.

resurface for several of the shows to which Johanna lent

from 1892 onwards. The various catalogues indicate that9 g

sunflower still lifes were shown, but they give no indication

whatsoever of which versions were on view .22

Three of the renderings catalogued in 18 o – theg g 9

smallest (no. 211 and two sizeo canvases (nos. 11 and3 9

1 – are never mentioned in the known lists. Here we95

find only the other three: the one `sue fond bleu' (no.Y 95)

and two toiles de 30 nos.4 and 4 . Vlore important,9 9 P

however, is that de facto Johanna had not only these two

size , o works at her disposal, but a third as well: one (r3 A

8 J11 1 66 was never sold and thus became part of the458 7 P

Van Gogh collection; one F 456 JH 1 61 wasg 4^5 5

sold in 10 via Paul Cassirer to Hugo von Tschudi, finding95 g g

its way into the Neue Pinakothek in Munich following his^ g

death no.; the other r JII 1 62 went to the94^ 454 5

National Gallery in London in 1925. The estate papers alsoYAP

indicate the sale of the version 'stir fond bleu' no.in95

1908 F HI r , 6o (see Appendix). Thus, if one sticks9 459 5

closely to the documents and abstains from any form of in-

ter olation, the p ossibility cannot be excluded that thereA possibilit

not merely six versions of the Sunflowers, but actual-

ly seven, among them five size o canvases.g 3

The depot 'chez Tan u ' (1891-94)p gY

We canartially reconstruct how it came about thatA .

Johanna had access only to a p ortion of the original estate.P

Theo became seriously ill in early October 18 0; in mid- -early 9

November he was transferred to a hospital in Utrecht,P

where he died at the end of January 18 1. Johanna accom-9

anied her husband to the Netherlands, leaving her aP g apart-art

ment and the improvised exhibition in the care of her)J

brother Andries, who kept t the `show' open en for anyone in-

terested. Following Theo's death plans were made to bring P g

the family's belongings, includin the works of art, back toYincluding

Holland. This was much to the dismay of Emile Bernard

who, with the help of Odilon Redon and Joris-Karl

21 Furthermore the records have yet to

46

20 Only information that can be absolutely verified is

given below (in parentheses). For more detail on the

identifications, derived from all the information currently

available, see the Appendix.

21 These numbers have survived only rarely. They can

be seen on the fronts of two landscapes (F 240 JH 1268

and F 315 JH 1320) and in old reproductions of the still life

F 335 JH 1226. The number on the latter (27) has even

been mistakenly interpreted as the date; see Francoise

Cachin and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, exhib. cat. Van

Gogh à Paris, Paris (Musée d'Orsay)1988, no. 55: 'Daté

en haute a droite: 87.' There is also a number on the back

of the Soir d'été (F 465 JH 1473): '100.'

22 The versions shown at the following exhibitions

cannot be identified: Nagelaten werken van Vincent

van Gogh, Haagsche Kunstkring 1892, nos. 3 and 13:

'Zonnebloemen'; Den Frie Udstellning, Copenhagen

1893, nos. 182 and 186: 'Solsikker'; Vincent van Gogh,

Groningen 1896, nos. 5, 17 and 45: 'Zonnebloemen';

Paul Cassirer, IV. Jahrgang, 3. Ausstellung, Berlin

1901, cat. not traceable (loan list Leclercq / Cassirer,

b 2186 V/1982, no. 7: 'Zonnebloemen' / 'Tournesols'

[without identifying number!]). It is also impossible to

know which versions were shown during Van Gogh's

own lifetime, e.g. at the Les Vingt exhibition in Brussels

in 1890 (nos. 1 and 2) and the Artistes Indépendants

show in Paris the same year (no. 840), referred to only

as 'Tournesols.' After 1905 loan lists are missing for,

among others: London 1910, The Hague 1913 and

Paris 1921. In addition, two versions are noted on the

loan list for the exhibition at the Larensche

Kunsthandel, Amsterdam 1911, but only one is men-

tioned in the catalogue.

23 See, among others, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum,

Vincent van Gogh Foundation, family correspondence,

JOURNAL 1999

Huysmans had ho p ed to fulfill Theo's dream of a full-scaleho p e

.23 Johanna eventually yielded and a corn -proI ., ^ I

mise was found, although nothing more is known about

the ag reement than that some of the pictures were to re-

in in Paris tem JOr'aril.m^1 1 ti24

The paintings that were to g o with Johanna were

p acked at the be g innin g of April 18 1. The packaging andl ^, ^ p 9

transport were organised by Rouge!. and Bernard. The

I ^ by ^

shi p ment consisted of 2 parcels, each containing a max-i 7 A

a p 2 0 in tota1. 25 Theimum often canvases, i.e. fewer than 7

discre p anc y between the number of works catalogueddiscrepancy g

and those actuall y sent to Holland — apparently aroundPA

i oo — indicates that a large number stayed in the French

ca p ital. Among these were the ten then on display at the11..

Artistes Indépendants, as well as nine which, accordingl ^ g

to Bonger's notation in the catalogue, had been sold ing

Paris afterwards. 26 The others were ver y likely stored in

good faith yvith Van Gogh's friend, the colourman Julien

Tangu y .No p recise list has come to light, however, which

^ I g

naturall y led to complications after the latter's death: atP

that time there were still tenictures on consignment, all

P g

a .27of \A hrc h NN ere soon deposited at Durand-Ruel'sp

The three sunflower p aintings were certainly not

the onl y ones which became unavailable to Johanna once

she was back in Holland. When allocating the works,g

Bonger and Bernard had apparently seen to it that re li-

PP y A

cas of those size 53lo p ictures with several versions re-

mained behind: La berceuse, Le radin Lcr charrzbre à

compositions. 28 The smallcou^frEr and the two sunflowerp

sunflower study, too, stayed in Paris, as an undated letter

to Tanguy demonstrates: in it, the buyer, Octave Mirbeau,

instructs the dealer to dis g uise hisurchase of two VanP

Goghs in order to prevent him from getting in to trouble at

home. 29 Both `les Iris et les Soleils' — the formerpictures,

now in the Getty Museum, Los (Angeles i 6o8 691)

and the smaller version of the Sunflowers (no. 2 t 1; r 453

Hi r — can be seen in a photograph of Mirbeau's din-n559

in 18 8. 30 The estate papers, thoughing room published g 1 ^ ^, ,

contain no reference whatsoever of this transaction,

which allegedly took place in 18 1 but was certainly ung y -

P 9

dertaken by Tanguy. This may indicate that Tanguy, like

Gachet Aurier and others, had received one or the other

NA, ork as souvenirs.

The sale to Schuffenecker (1894)

Reliable documentation exists, however, for the

sale of a further sunflowers -care:cstricture in Tan y': llortA Tanguy'

after his death — he was buried onFebruary 1894 —7

Emile Schuffenecker sought to p -purchase a Van Gog h paintg p Gogh I

in from his widow. Madame Tanguy wrote to Andriesg g^

Ron er whom she apparently still considered Johanna'sg , PP

ga ent: `Monsieur Chauffenecker est venu me voir et it de-

sirerai avoir un tableaux de Mr Vincent c'est le soleil et je

lai fait sixcent franc lerix que mon ma gi Ie fesaient et it aP q

du voos ecrire à ce suet 'e na irai ue d'a p rès v os ordees

1 1 g q 1

'31 Boner informed his sister, and on \larchBonger ^ 7

Schuffenecker himself wrote to thank her for her letter

and to make the followingproposal: `Pour les tableaux jeg I p

voos offre00 fcs pour les fleurs et 200 fcs p our la pay sage3 A 1

1r les deux.' 32c u1 est plus petit ce c u1 fart oo fcs porl P P 1 5 1

Andries Bonger to Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, 8 January

1891, letter b 1868 B/1970.

24 See Emil Bernard to Johanna van Gogh-Bonger,

1 March 1891, ibid., letter b 1089 V/1962); see also Jo's

letter to Bernard of 9 April 1891, cit. (note 17).

25 See Emil Bernard to Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, 7 April

1891, ibid., letter b 1090 V/1962: 'Nous avons ficellées les

toiles ar paquets de 10; chacun de ces paquets porte unp pq

numero d'ordre. depuis 1 jusqu'a 27. quelques ons néan-

moins ne sontoint de 10 toiles parcequ'il y aurait eu oup

des inconvenients de poids ou de format[.] Les paquets

portent one designation du nombre de toiles qu'ils contien-

nent. sur le même cóté et auprès de leur numéro d'ordre.'

26 'Catalogue' nos. 42, 136, 185, 213, 227, 228, 264,

293 and 294 were sold in the course of 1891; nos. 135,

181, 260 and 275 were shown at the Indépendants.

27 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, b 1449 V/1973, 'Tableaux de Vincent van

Gogh appartenant a Madame Vve Theo van Gogh, restant

en dépót chez la Vve Tanguy', 12 April 1894; see also Jo's

correspondence with Durand Ruel, 19 April and 2 May

1894 (ibid., family correspondence, b 1207 V/1962 and

b 1208 V/1962). A letter from L. Moline to Jo (b 1316

V/1962) suggests that paintings from the estate may havegg p

been deposited with Armand Guillaumin as well.p

28 Among others, the following works listed in the 'Cata-g

to ue' can no longer be verified as part of the estate: no.g

109 - 'La Berceuse (30)'; no. 148 - 'Chambre de Vincent

(30)'; no. 164 -'Rochers (30)'; and no. 226 -'Iris (30).'

29 See Artistes et Cie., ed. Georges Besson, Paris, May

1925,. 237-38 (Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum,p

Krantenknipsels, no. 106).

30 See Achille Segard, 'Octave Mirbeau chez soi,'

Revue Illustré 13 (1 January 1898), n.p.

31 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, Mme Tanguy to

Andries Bonger, c. 8/15 February 1894, letter b 1446

V/1973; firstublished in Mark EdoTralbaut, 'Andrép

Boner, l'ami des frères Van Gogh,' Van Goghiana 1g

(1963),. 41; the interpretation given here was firstp p

p ppublished in Dorn 1990, .460 and the document first il-

lustrated in Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, 'The ownershipg

of Van Gogh's "Sunflowers,"' Burlington Magazine 140

(March 1998), p. 190, fig. 40.

32 See Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van

Gogh Foundation, family correspondence, Emile

Schuffenecker to Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, 7 March

1894, letter b 1427 V/1962.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

We know from Schuffenecker's thank-you note of 1Y 5

March that Johanna accepted his offer - probably withoutP A Y

knowing exactly which pictures he was talking about.^ Y p g

There are, however, only two possibilities - unless, of

Y P

course, one wants to become involved in wild speculation:pthe Yasuda Sunflowers and the Jardin de Daubi n now in

the Rudolf Staechelinsche Familienstiftung, (atg ^ -reP

sent on extended loan to the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort

Worth .33

Ambroise Vollard

The only version of the S unflowers with a gap in itsY gA

p rovenance is thus the one in the Philadelphia Museum ofprovenance A

Art: it can he traced back only as far as 21 D ecember 18 6,^ 9

when it wasurchased by Comte Antoine de laA Y

Rochefoucauld from Ambroise Vollard. 34 At about the same

time, Vollard also had two other Van Gogh sunflower stillg

lifes for sale: the two smaller Paris versions (see Appendix)AP

given to Gauguin in exchange for his Martinique land-

sca e. It has therefore been thought that the PhiladelphiaP g A

sizeo also once belonged to Gauguin. 35 However, this he3 g g s -t

sis already suffers from the fact that although GauguinY g g

would have loved to have owned a large Sunflowers, he hadg

his eye not on the version `sur fond bleu vert,' but rather on

the one `sur fond jaune.' 36 It may even be that Gauguin'sl Y g

wish was what motivated Van Gogh to make his replicas ing p

the first place. In any case, had the exchange actually takenIJY g Y

place there would be some record of it, either in the corre-

s ondence between Vincent and Theo, or in that betweenP

Gauguin and Jo. Following Tan guy's death, though,

Gauguin only asked her to return a 'Berceuse,' an

`Arlésienne' and a 'Coucher de soleil.' 37 It is therefore all

the more disturbing that an important piece of evidenceg P P

has been overlooked in the examination of Vollard's

ledgers: the dealer repurchased the Paris Sunflowers (see

g A

AAppendix) he had sold in February 1895 to Felix Roux only Y 95 Y

eight months later, apparently arently reselling it immediatel y to

g Pp g immediately

Degas. 38 Its pendant, in Vollard's hands since April 1 6

g p s s c 8 ,P 9

was bought by Cornelis Floo endijk in 1897 or 18 .39^ Y Hoog endijk 97 99

Where exactly Vollard got the Arlesian sizet -o^ 3 can

vas he sold to the Comte de la Rochefoucauld remains a

mystery. However, it could only have been the second ic

Y -P

ture that had remained in Paris in 1891, either en cadeau or9

en udepot at Tan 's. It would certainly not be the only i^ gY y Y -m

ortant painting to have gone its way without leaving any P g g Y ^ Y

traces in the estate documents.40

En vitrine chez Tan u ?gY

Two thins now seem robable: first, that there

g A

were seven versions of the Sunflowers among Vincent's ef-g

fects, two small works and five sizeo canvases, one of3

which - second - was not included in the 1890 catalogue.

9 ^

We can only speculate on the reasons for its omission.YA

When the still fifes arrived in Paris, Theo had immediately

hung one in the dining room above the fire lace 41 and itg ^ p

may have remained in a private area of the apartment even

Y P P

after the move - inaccessible to the visitors of the Pim ro-

vised Pretros ective and therefore not listed in the invento-

r . There is, however, a more plausible explanation:

Y plausible p

charmed by the work, which he had been asked to frameY

for the upcoming Les Vint exhibition in Brussels, Tan u.A g g ^ gY

had already put a sunflower picture on display in the winYP P p Y -

dow of his shop in the autumn of 188 . 42 As shrewd busi

P -a9

nessman, Theo may well have recalled this bold move. OneY

can hardly imagine a better advertisement for the CitéY g

-Pigalle show than Vincent's 'armes parlantes,' the rimor

g A p

dial version of the Sunflowers, showing the bouquet setg q

aagainst a yellow background.

g Y g

48

33 Emile Schuffenecker's Van Gogh collection has been

partially documented; verifiable, among others, are his

purchases in 1900 (through Leclercq's correspondence

with Jo and the catalogue of the exhibition at Bernheim-

Jeune in 1901); other works are mentioned in Meier-

Graefe's Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modernen Kunst

(Stuttgart 1904) and in Jean de Rotonchamp, Paul

Gauguin, 1848-1903 (Weimar 1906). We can conclude

from these sources that all other Van Gogh landscapes

Schuffenecker owned were the same format as the

Sunflowers.

34 See Paris, Musée d'Orsay, Fonds Vollard, BMN Ms.

421(4)-2, fol. 37, 21 December 1896: 'Doit Mr le Cte

Antoine de la Rochefoucauld 19 rue d'0[illegible] / 1

toile de Van Gogh (son portrait) 1 it Vang ( po a t) 500 / tole de a

Gogh (Soleils ds pot) 400 / 1 toile de Gauguin Diane

bretonne 100.'

35 See Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 31),

pp. 184-92.

36 In exchange for the smaller studies he had left behind

in Arles, Gauguin apparently asked Van Gogh for 'vos

tournesols sur fond jaune que je considère comme une

page parfaite d'un style essentiellement Vincent'; see Paul

Gauguin: 45 lettres a Vincent, Théo et Jo van Gogh, ed.

Douglas Cooper, The Hague & Lausanne 1983, no. 34.

JOURNAL 1999

Document andaintinP gSo much forhilolo . One does not, however, have

p gY

to rely merely on `art-free' circumstantial evidence. VanY

-Gogh's letters reveal much more, in particular his descrig p p

tions of the first four versions of the Sunflowers, written in

August 1888: `J'ai toiles en train 1 grosses fleurs dansg 3 3g

un vase vert fond clair toile de 15 2) fleurs une fleur ense-5 3

mence et effeuilles & un bouton sur fond bleu de roi toile

de 25 douze fleurs & boutons dans vase jaune toile de53 1

o '[67o/526].One or two days later he commented on the3Y

fourthicture: 'Ce quatrième est un bouquet de 14 fleurs etp q q 4^

est sur fond jaune'[672/527]. He also differentiated it from1

therecedin size 3o: it was `encore un autre que le récéP g -

5 q p

dent avec 12 fleurs sur fond bleu vert'6 /W8 .74^

In reference to the first small study (F JH 1 ,Y 453 559

Vincent was wrong about the dimensions: it is not painted

g P

on a size 1 6 x cm , but rather on a size 20 7 x 6o

5 5 54 3

cm) canvas. Mistakes can happen: after all, a six or eight

pp g

centimetre difference is not very much; in any case, theY Y

original shows no signs of having been enlarged in anyg g g Y

way. The second small study (F JH 156o), however, isY 459

another story: Van Gogh did indeed enlarge it, probably ^ g A Y

painting over the strips of canvas that had been used to at-P ^ p

tach it to the stretcher (some time later - it is not known

when - the canvas may have been put on panel); he also

Y ;P p

added a sixth flower in the foreground. Unfortunately, theg Y

onoriginal has now been lost; it can be pieced together tog p g

some extent using the available illustrations, but this re-g

construction can no longer be verified. Finally, as for the^ Y

two sizeo canvases (F 456 JH 1 61 and F JH 1562), Van3 4^5 5 454

Gogh writes of bouquets of 12 and 14 flowers, whereas^ q 4^

there are, in fact, 13 and 1 ; looking at the originals, one

3 5 g

can clearly see that here, too, the artist has supplemented

and changed his composition, adding one flower to each.^ p g

In the version with thereen-blue background, theg g

thirteenth sunflower fills the original a in the wreath ofgap

four heavy blooms towering above the vase. The pentimentig

in the earlier state of the pcom osition are obvious in the x-

ray i . especially in the fully realised inner contour of

Y( g )^ p Y Y

the withered, dark-brown bud on the left. Unlike in the rest

of the work, where the support is often visible between thepp

stro p , thick brushstrokes, the squashed, half-hiddeng q

flower covers the canvas completely.

In the fourth version, Van Gogh later added a small

bud, dangling to the left of the vase against the yellow

g g g Y

back round. In contrast to the rest of the composition, itsg p

area was not originallyleft in reserve; instead, the flower

has beenainted on top of the mostly-dry surface, so thatp p Y Y

the structure of the underlying layer remains plainly visiY g Y p Y -

ble in the addition (fig. 2) - it can even be seen in the post-

card of the detail sold by the National Gallery in London. InY Y

addition, here and there theressure of the correctingp correcting

brush has caused some of the still-wet background to shift,g

buildin moraine-like deposits beside the brushstrokes.building P

ExExperience suggests that there was about a week or morep gg

between the laying-in of the background and this alter- - rg g

ation.

Van Gogh never alluded to any of these chan ges.

g Y changes

as early as his letters of September 1888, someY 9 p

two weeks after first mentioning the subject, he ceasedg subject

speaking of either 1 2 or 1 or even 13 or 15 flowers, simplyp g 4^^ 3 5 p

referrin instead to ` randes tournesols jaunes' orreferring g 1

`".normes bouquets de tournesols.' 43 From then on, whene q , -

ever he mentioned the series, he simply called themPY

`Tournesols.'44

By the time Vincent had completed his replicas inY p p

January 1889, questions of form, to which these emenda-

tions bear witness, were no longer relevant. Nothing betterg g

Van Gogh decidedly rejected this request: see letter

740/571, as well as 744/573 and the following.

37 Paul Gauguin: 45 lettres, cit. (note 36), nos. 43-45.

We still cannot be certain exactly which paintings

Gauguin received, particularly as there are several ver-

sions of both the'Berceuse' and the'Arlésienne.'

38 See Paris, Musée d'Orsay, Fonds Vollard, BMN Ms.

421(4)-2, fol. 8, 15 February 1895: 'Doit Monsieur Félix

Roux / 1 tableau de Van Gogh (Soleils) / [... plus one

painting each by Gauguin and Pissarro, and a pastel by

Renoir] ensemble 1000'; fol. 21, 23 October 1895:

'Dolt Monsieur Félix Roux / 1 pastel de Denis femme

assise 500 / Avoir le même / 1 toile de Van Gogh (tour-

nesols) 350 / 1 lith. de Denis pelerins d'Emmaus [no

price]'; fol. 22, 29 October 1895: 'Doit Monsieur Degas

/ 1 toile de Van Gogh (deux tournesols) 400.'

39 Ibid., BMN Ms. 421(4)-2, fol. 41, 1. September 1897:

'Doit Monsieur Hoogendijk / 1 lot tableaux Van Gogh /

Méry, Maurin payé 2000'; BMN Ms. 421(4)-3, fol. 131,

17 May 1899: 'Hoogendijck onze pastels de Steinlen, cinq

Cézanne, un Van Gogh, deux marines de Cézanne, un

Monet (douze mille huit cent francs) 12800.-' [Entrées].

'Catalogue' of 1890, but only reappeared in 1901, as a

loan from Jos Hessel to the exhibition at Bernheim-

Jeune (no. 19).

41 See letter 793/T12, 16 July 1889: 'Un des tour-

nesols j'ai mis dans notre salle a manger contre la chem-

inée.'

42 See letters 827/T21 and 833/T22, 8 and 22

December 1889.

43 See letters 680/534 and 681/W7 (first part).

40 See, for example, the second version of the

'Chambre à coucher,' which is verified in the 44 See Dorn 1990, pp. 335-36.

fig. 1

fig. 2

X-ray of Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers

X-ray of Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers

(F 456 JH 1561), 1888, Munich, Neue Pinakothek

(F 454 JH 1562), 1888, London, National Gallery

characterises these later versions as copies than the factP

that from the very be innin s ace was reserved in theY g g, P

background of all three for the thirteenth and fifteenthg

flowers respectively; the were an integral part of the comthey -g P

osition. Assuming the reverse would be absurd: one wouldP g

not set out to make an `exact' copy only to leave out half atPY Y

the inception. Moreover, anyone with the slightest underP ^ -

Y g

standin of oil painting would never provisionally smearg P g P Y

over apart of his canvas simply because he felt like going PY g g

out for a drink with a friend, knowing full well that wheng

he sat back down to work it would only get him in to trou-Yg

ble. To suggest such a thing is pure nonsense.gg g P

Old methods, new mythsyIt should - it must - make us wary that even seri-Y

ous exerts have tended to take Van Gogh's earliest state- - sg

ments at face value when dealing with this central aspectg P

of the entire series, unanimously referring to 1 2 or 1

Y g 14

sunflowers in theaintin s' titles. We need only look toP g Y

' catalogue raisonné. 45the 1970 edition of De la Faille's catalo u97 ^

This simultaneous mistrust of the eye and reliance on theY

word the total insistence on facts and figures, has thusg

proven a highly irrational component in the arguments toP g Y P

date. It re resents final) a refusal to reflect on the artP , Y^

historical apparatus, and this is significant in two ways.

PP ^ g Y

On the one hand, we know more about Van Gogh thang

about any other artist of his generation - his goals, plansY g g P

androjects. Much of this knowledge is wasted, however,

P l g

when one does nothing more than employ traditional ing P Y -

struments of analysis - which, it should be noted, wereY

created in order to allow an art historical discourse even

without written sources - andluck the appropriate bonP

mots from the correspondence when necessary. Would itP Y

not be more fruitful toroceed the other way around, deP Y -

velo in new tools out of the rich fund provided by Van

P g P Y

Gogh's letters, tools that would allow for a more groundedg ^ g

discussion of his activities and aims, as well as those of

his era? Many issues would certainly then appear in dif-

Y Y PPear a

ferent light.g

Likewise, various methods established for the

treatment of older art have been used to study Van Gogh'sY g

aintin s without any consideration of whether they g Y Y are

even applicable to the works of the post-romantic era.

PP P

These approaches take the finished product as their start- - P

50

JOURNAL 1999

vÍ0LE1'

fig. 3

Colour star, from Charles Blanc, Grammaire des arts du

dessin, Paris 1867

in point and Van Gogh's oeuvre has been dealt with ining ^ g

the same fashion. Theenesis of the works, the intendedg

relationships between pictures, the working process: nop p ^ gP

other artist of theeriod can provide more insight intoP P g

these facets of creation, andet they have been practically Y p Y

ignored. Scholars have thus missed an extraordinary og Y -p

ortunit for the clarification of questions of authenticity, y ,q Y

as well as the chance to formulate the kinds of historical

questions that would enable a rewarding dialogue withq g g

technolo .gY

Theenesis of the seriesg

Van Gogh associated a number of ideas with hisg

sunflowerictures. The most important was that they p Y

were to be a kind of décoration for the little Yellow House

in Arles, where he hoed to establish a `studio of theP

south' with Paul

-Gauguin. Even his choice of subject matg subjec

wasro rammatic: Gauguin had received two smallp g g

sunflower still lifesainted in Paris in 1887 in exchangeP 7 g

for a Martinique landsca e. 46 The trade sealed their

q p

friendship; it also led to Gauguin's call for help from Pontp ^ g p -

Avers which in turn resulted in the invitation to Arles in

June 1888 - an invitation Gauguin more or less accepted:g 1

`^' Oui.'47as he wrote to Schuffenecker, al repondu presque^l p p q

The artist arrived in Provence at the end of October, but

only two months later the experiment ended in disaster:

Y P

Van Gogh suffered a breakdown, and Gauguin departed.g ^ g P

Vincentuickl abandoned the idea of a sun

g Y -purep

flower decoration - formulated in gAu ust 1888 in the ex-

citement of mutualact with Gauguin - integrating only g g g Y

the two sizeo canvases into the final decorative project.

3 p l

From the beginning he viewed these two works as a

g g,

complemental unit, characterizing their association with

p ^ g s

the traditional term 'pendants.' For him, the connectionp

la in their opposition. This can be read - to borrow aY pp

assa e from Charles Blanc's Grammaire des arts dup g

' colour bible48 - as a confronta-

dessin (fig. 3 ), Go h s co

( g 3) g

tion between the cool light of the north and the warmg

51

45 See Jacob Baart de la Faille, The works of Vincent

van Gogh, Amsterdam 1970, pp. 206-08. Because thisg pp

edition dispensed with descriptions of the works, thep p

ublisher apparentlythought it necessary to give thep

aintin s more descriptive titles, based on the systemp g p

employed at the Rijksbureau voor KunsthistorischeRijksburea

(RKD). This meant not only that the tradi-

tional titles, which De la Faille had originally adopted,

were abadoned, but also that the interpretive clues usu-

al) contained in the titles used by the artist himself wereY Y hi

lost. If only for this reason, more sensitivity to aspects

such as these would be more than appropriate.

46 See Annet Tellegen: 'Vincent en Gauguin:

jschilderienruil in Parijs,' Museumjournaal 11 (1966),

nos. 1-2, pp. 42-45.

47 PCorres ondance de Paul Gauguin. 1, 1873-1888,

ed. Victor Merlhès, Paris 1984, no. 152; first published in

its entirety in Victor Merlhès, Paul Gauguin et Vincent

van Gogh 1887-1888, Taravao (Tahiti) 1989, p. 68.

48 See Charles Blanc, Grammaire des arts du dessin,

Paris 1867 (3d ed. 1876), p. 571 and Dorn 1990, p. 80.

light of the south: a cold, wet-in-wet incorporation ofg ^ p

white into icy light turquoise-coloured paint (vertY g q p

veronèse 49 against a cool lemon yellow o ye ow containing barely Y

noticeable traces of-conofgreen. In terms ofpalette, theg

trast between the two compositions could hardly have

p Y

beenreaher.g

The copies of mid-January 1889 exactly replicatep Y 9 Y p

not only the compositions but also the colour schemes -Y p

the are, indeed, `absolument p areilles.' Compared to theY ^ 1 A

initial version, the colours may seem a little paler, buty P

this is simply the result of a more economical applicationP Y pp

ofaint and a thinner impasto, factors which allow thep p

whiteround layer to interfere more stronglyn theg Y gY

whole. This is different in the Yasuda version. Here the

bouquet =is set not against a cool, almost unbrokenq g

chromeellow, but rather a warm yellow-green, probably Y g ^p Y

a mixture of vert veronèse and lemonellow acne deY

chrome . This difference in coloration - not even noted

in the debate until now - is of fundamental importance: itp

is a reference to the work's original context.

The sunflower experiment: light and colour

p gThe sunfloweraintin s originated as a tological,

P gg

rocedurall perfect, experimental series,procedurally ^ -e s was onp

1 transformed in to a decorative project when Gauguin'sY P 1 g

letter arrived from Pont-Aven. In the beginning there wasg g

only a small `Etude d'apres nature,' designed to showY p ^ g

nothin more than a particular `effet': the play of lightnothing P p Y g

and shadow as reproduced using a palette derived fromp g A

colour theory and by avoiding shades of grey. Three-di-Y Y g -g Y

mensionalit was generated by exploiting the slight -Y g Y P g difg

ferences in brightness between the pure colours, and theg p

fig. 4

Vincent van Gogh, sketch in a letter to Theo van Gogh,

c. 22 May 1889 [778/592], present location unknown

whole is built up in the middle tones demanded by the

P Y

use of vert veronèse for the background. In the secondg

version, Van Gogh created space through line, thus

g p g -erp

mittin himself access to those areas of his palette revi-g p P

ousl been blocked by the coloured chiaroscuro; this inY Y

turn allowed him to arbitrarily chose the darkest tone atY

his disposal for the background, a 'royal blue.' In thep g ^ Y

third version, the colour of the background marks theg

end of the blue scale in tone and -ermebrightness; a lightg ^ g

ald tone, it is located on the border toreen. Finally,g Y^

the fourth canvas, Van Gogh employed the most brilliantg

shade he had, a lemonellow. When seen in this context,Y

the Yasuda version with its warm, green background, o^ -ro cg g

cupies the only remaining extreme position on the colourY g p

wheel - at the transition fromellow to green. It thus fitsY g

and logically,into the tonal programme of theperfectly, p g

entire sunflower suite - and this is certainly no accident.Y

The 'Berceuse' triptych

The `atelier du Midi' became untenable with

Gauguin's departure, and Van Gogh apparently began tog P ^ g pp Y g

think of other uses for his décoration. The result was the

assignment of the sunflower pendants to the Berceuse, ag p

ortrait his friend Joseph Roulin's wife. Van Gogh mentionsportrait p g

the idea only in passing, simply that he had shown

Y p g^ stating P Y

Roulin theortrait hung between the still lifes, morep g ^ -reP

cisel : that he had presented him with two versions of theY P

ortrait between the four sunflower canvases available atp

52

fig. 5a

Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers (F 458 JH 1667), 1889,

Amsterdam, Van Goh Museum (Vincent van Goghg

Foundation)

5b La berceuse (F 507 JH 1672), 1889, Amsterdam,

Stedelijk Museum (on loan to the Van Gogh Museum)

5c Sunflowers (F 455 JH 1668), 1889, Philadelphia

Museum of Art, Mr and Mrs Carroll S. Tyson Collection

the timefi . 4). The whole ensemble, he wrote further,(g^)

could be made up of either seven or nine pictures

p P

. 50 It is unclear how one should interpret this/ P747 574

somewhat cryptic remark: one Berceuse surrounded by six

YP Y

or eight Sunflowers? Or three triptychs of the Berceuseg

flanked by sunflowers? Once we consider the Yasuda ver-y

sion an integral part of the overarching colour scheme of

g P g

the Sunflowers series, othergroupings based on the various.^ ^

tones becomeossible. Such arrangements (fig. 5a - c) canP

sometimes be found in books on Van Gogh, although there,g ^ g

of course, theyprobably result simply from the author orY pY PY

picture editor's taste.51p

The fifth 'toile de 30'

Sooner or later, when the pA Yo ortunit arises for a

thorough technical examination, it will become clear thatg

the APsu ort of the Yasuda Sunflowers is cut from the 20 me-

tres of burlap Gauguin purchased soon after arriving inp g A g

Arles, and which heenerousl shared with Vincent. Weg Y

know of 11 sizeo pictures and one small portrait by each3 P P

rial. 52 Twenty-four (orartist painted on this rough mate yp g

even 25 if one were stingy enough) toiles de 30perhaps5 gY g

could begotten from such a roll; in the end, though, itg roll; g

seems to have been only 2 with a little piece remaining.Y 3^ p

AApparently Van Go h onl dared to use the last of the sizePP Y, g Y

o canvases once Gauguin had left - for the Yasuda3 g

49 Van Gogh worked with two different pigments, vertg

véronèse (emeraldreen in English; the chemical name isg

Schweinfurtreen) and vert émeraude (viridian), while ag

thirdi ment, cinabre vert très clair, is mentioned onlyPg

once. These technical terms, however, appear only in thepp

lists Van Gogh compiled when he ordered a fresh supplyg p

ofaint (see letters 595/475, 756/581, 762/584 and thep

ostscri t on inall published with the latter and laterp p g Yp

associated with 689/540, although itrobably belongsp

to 680/534). In describing his paintings he preferredg p p

common terms that related to the visualualities of theq

i ments: 'émeraude' thus indicates a deep forest greenPg– which technically appears to be viridian – while 'vertY pP

clair' refers to a variety of turquoise – apparently vertY q

véronèse. Whatever the tubes Van Gogh received under

this label contained, the note of Schweinfurt green is

more or less exclusively found in paintings dating fromY p

theeriod of his collaboration with Gauguin.p

50 'Je gm'ima ine ces toiles juste entre celles des tour-

nesols,ui ainsi forment des lampadaires ou candelabresq p

à cóté de mêmerandeur; et le tout ainsi se compose deg

7 ou de 9 toiles.'

51 See Jean YLe marie, Qui était van Gogh?, Geneva

1968, fis. 134-36 and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov,g

Vincent van Gogh and the birth of cloisonism, Toronto

(The Art Gallery of Ontario) 1981, I. 18-20: each show-y p

i n F 458 JH 1667; F 508 JH 1671; and F 454 JH 1562.g

The garran ement in Susan Alyson Stein, Van Gogh: a ret-

rospective, New York 1986 (pl. 59-61: F 456 JH 1561;

F 506 JH 1670; and F 454 JH 1562) probably comes

closer to the artist's intentions.

52 Van Gogh used this support for a portrait study

F 546 JH - and, in addition to the Yasuda Sunflowers

(F 457 JH 1666), for the following size 30 works: F 450

JH 1627; F 486 JH 1620; F 487 JH 1621; F 4891H 1625;

F 495 JH 1626; F 496; JH 1630; F 497 JH 1632; F 498

JH 1635; F 499 JH 1636; F 5481H 1653; and F 569

JH 1623. For Gauguin's work on canvases from this roll

see Georges Wildenstein, Gauguin, Paris 1964, nos.

296; 300; 301; 302; 303; 304; 305; 306; 309; 310; and

311 (all toile de 30), and probably also the small Self-

portrait, no. 384.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Sunflowers. The work remained unsigned, like one of theg

versions of the Berceuse. The idea here, as there, was

probably to differentiate the - otherwise indistinguishable uishableg

-ictures from one another. 53P

The Yasuda version accomplishes still more: itP

solves aroblem which did not occur to Van Gogh at first.P g

When he conceived of the composition in August 1888 heP g

left the uppermost sunflower sticking out above the othPP g -ove

ers, only millimetres from the edge. As long as the picture^ g g P

remained surrounded by the narrow,y a ow, P ytem orar frame he

had nailed to the stretcher, this wouldose no difficulties.P

Were the work to bero erl framed, however, there was

P P y >

a danger that the tip of the flower would disappear. Vang P PP

Go h seems to have become aware of this only after heGogh y

had completed his replica. He solved the dilemma by atP P y-

tachin a wooden slat to the top of the copy, inte ratg P PY^ -g

in the new segment into the whole. The join is plainly g join P Y

visible, even inoor re roductions.P P

As a scale illustration of the three versions demon-

strates (fig. 6a-c), from the outset, the uppermost flowerPP

was set lower in theicture plane in the Yasuda painting P P g

than in the other two. Theroblem was thus not only cirP Y -

cumnavi ated, it was solved aesthetically. In terms of theg y

chronolo of the series, this discovery locates the Yasudachronology ^ Y

workrecisel at the moment when, according to the do c- y ^ g -c

uments, a fifth sizeso

o picture was both plausible and -3 P P P

sible: at the very end of the sunflower series in February y

188 9.9

The 1901 repairP

Seen against the background of this framing robg g g -P

lem and its solution, a further episode that has recently Y

led to aood deal of speculation begins to come in to^ P g

focus. In the summer of 1900, Julien Leclerc borrowed

9 ^ q

-eight of Vincent's paintings from Johanna van Gogh-g P ^ g

Boner in the hope that they might find buyers among P Y g Y g

the visitors to the Exposition Universelle • Leclercq ^ q

confirmed the receipt of the pictures on 15 June. Among P 5 g

them was the still life of sunflowers listed in the 'Cata-

lo ue' as number 1 . Leclerc would have loved tog 94^ Leclercq -urP

chase the work himself; he tried desperately to bring Y g

down therice suggesting to Jo that according to hisP ^ gg g g -re

storer at least 200 francs worth of work was necessary toy

ensure that theicture remained intact. Apparently all heP PP Y

accomplished, however was that she asked him to haveP >

the work looked after. Leclercq settled his accounts with

fig. 6a

Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers (F 454 JH 1562), 1888,

London, National Gallery

6b Sunflowers (F 458 JH 1667), 1888, Amsterdam,

Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

6c Sunflowers (F 457 JH 1666), 1889, Toko,Y

Seiji Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art

Johanna on 28 December: he returned the unsold-aintP

ins but kept the Sunflowers, stating: Je -garde à vous eng .^P ^ `

g g

core les Tournesols à j1 0o fr. que je vais faire rentoil-4^ q

er.' 54 Nothin came of this lan as he wrote to her ong P

6 February 1901: `Les Tournesols ne peuvent pas êtreY9 P P

rentoilés. Le réparateur se livre sur eux à un travail sansP

dan er mais très minutieux et très long: it injecte avecg g l

une-etite seringue de la colle sous les parties ui se déP g P qu

et it attend-renu'un coin séche bien pour en re

q P repren-

un autre.' 55 These measures took some time and

were only completed at the end of March.y P

When one considers that in those das more or lessy

any picture that seemed endangered was givenY -aP g g sec

ondar support, there must have been a very good reason

Y PP ^ y g

54

why this was impossible here; something must have beenY P here; g

- literally - in the way. Of all Van Gogh's toile de 30 sun- - g

floweraintin s onl the Amsterdam version would havep g^ Y

presented the restorer with a problem, namely the woodP P ^ Y -

r cher. 56 This sheds new light onen slat attached to the st et g

the findings of Ashok Roy, who examined the painting ing Y P

1 2: `There are numerous areas with unusual small99

holes, about the size of the ps ace between the crossed fi-

bres of the original canvas, showing in the paint and^ g P

round whereyoucan see through to the lining canvas.g Y

Some of the original fibres can also be seen to have bro-

ken in these holes under magnification.' These holes wereg

not easily ex lained Ro noted and he believed that theY P , Y

wax-resin mixture had made its way through the erfora

Y -g P

tions during relining, causing some of the paint layer tog g g P Y

come off `like small volcanoes.' Roy had only one ex lana

Y Y -A

tion for the origin of the holes, and he was apparently not^ Pp Y

entirely satisfied with it: he suspected that the back of theY P

canvas had been `too heavily sanded before lining and notY g

filled where losses occurred. 57 An alternative Pinter reta-

tion is offered by Leclerc 's description of the repairs:Y q P P

tinctures he had caused himself were unlikely to haveP Y

been overlooked by an experienced restorer like J.C.Y p

Traas, who relined theicture in i 61 (see Appendix) but

p 9 Pp

he could easily have missed those made by a predecessor.Y Y p

Schuffenecker's role

The Yasuda version has not been relined; however,

the edges of the original canvas have been extended on allg

sides with narrow strips and then painted over, thus

P p

slislightly enlarging the picture surface. It is hard to imag Y g g -

P g

ine conservational reasons for this, but rather aesthetic

ones: the first owner, it appears, felt that the composition

was still not airy enough. Emile Schuffenecker `tonedY g

53 See F 504 JH 1655; F 505 1H 1669; F 5061H 1670;

F 507 JH 1672; and F 508 JH 1671.

54 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, Julien Leclercq to

Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, 28 December 1900, letter

b 4131 V/1984.

55 Ibid., 6 February 1901, letter b 4134 V/1984.

56 Removed during Traas's relining and then reat-

tached; see Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Ashok Roy,

Examination report, 11 May 1992.

55

57 Ibid.

fig. 7

Vincent van Gogh, Self-portrait with a bandaged ear

(F 529 JH 1658), 1889, Private collection

fig. 8

Emile Schuffenecker, copy after Vincent van Gogh,

Self-portrait with a bandaged ear, Amsterdam,

Van Gogh Museum

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

56

down' Van Gogh's Self-portrait with a bandaged ear (F 529 pg 59

Jx in much the same way when he came to make a copy PY

of it inastel (figs. 7 and 8 .P (g )

The tired hatching along the edges (fig. 9) and theg g g ( )

hesitant, smudgy yellows and greens, which vaguely recallgY Y g g Y

rather than reproduce the brilliance of the neighbouringP g g

tones and therefore seem to have adapted the original col-A

oration to the ability of a lesser artist - these are the hall-Y

marks of an g picturee i one. The entire icture would have to re-

semble these edges had it had been painted by Schuffen

g P Y -

ecker. A comparison with his known works is proof enough:p P g

there, too, we find these same characteristics.

Schuffenecker occasionally 'improved' the works ofY P

art in hisossession. In 1927,for example, when Cézanne'sA P

Grandin et terres rouges (Tokyo, private collection) was^ g Y P

1 the Gan gnat auction for a record rice he freely d at t o Ga at auct o 0 0 ,58

g P Y

admitted having filled in some of the parts that had been

g P

left unfinished. In the same interview he mentioned having

handled other works by the artist in a similar fashion: aY

view of Esta ue aportrait of Madame Cézanne and a viewq , P

of the fountain at Jas de Bouffan. 59 Schuffenecker was not,

of course, the only person to (mis)treat Cézanne's picturesYP p

in this ways the overt additions to another Grand arbreY,

m n ra .60 Any restorer in those days wouldclearlyde o st to Y Y

have done the same had he been asked.

In theears up to 1987, Van Gogh's fifth toile de 30Y Pg

hun side-by-side with its initial version in the Nationalhung Y

Galler in London. Whoever wanted to could compare theGallery P

confident brushwork anderfect impasto of the two works,p P

or weigh the cool light of the first version with theg

sonorous tones of the -replica. Or - to quote Van GoghA q g

sim 1 find solace `en contemplant des tournesols.' At mostsimply P

the additions at the edges were a slight irritation.g g

58 See John Rewald (in collaboration with Walter

Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman), The paintings of Paul

Cézanne: a catalogue raisonné, 2 vols., New York 1996,

no. 537.

59 See Maximilien Gauthier, 'Faux et repeints,' Rumeur

(26 November 1927). The other Cézanne paintings men-

tioned in Gauthier's interview with Schuffenecker are not

identified in Rewald, op. cit. (note 58).

60 Rewald, op. cit. (note 58), no. 601.

fig. 9

Detail of Vincent van Gogh, Sunflowers (F 457 JH 1666),

1889, Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum

of Art

57

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

This appendix supplies information on all of Van

Gogh's sunflower paintings: basic data, letter refer-

ences, provenance, reproductions, etc. Only the

`early' exhibitions (i.e. before the publication of De

la Faille's catalogue raisonné in 1928) are given,

with no pretension of completeness and with only

those exhibitions noted where we can be certain

which pictures were shown, particularly those doc-

umented in the loan lists. These are kept in the

archive of the Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van

Gogh Foundation). The works are catalogued in

chronological order. For orientation, a toile de 30

ideally measures 92 x 73 cm. Titles are derived

from the correspondence and have been slightly

systematised.

Appendix

Van Gogh's Sunflowers

Paris 1887

SunflowersOil on canvas (toile de 30 figure), mounted on

triplex at a later date, 21 x 27 cm

F 377 JH 1328

Letters —.

Study for the following painting.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; in

1962 transformed into the Vincent van Gogh Foundation

and now on permanent loan to the Van Gogh Museum,

Amsterdam (s 121 V/1962).

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estate

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,

no. 44: 'Tournesols gelés.'

First reproduced in De la Faille 1928.

SunflowersOil on canvas (toile de 12 paysage basre),

43.2 x 61 cm

Signed and dated: Vincent 87

F 375 JH 1329

Letters 740/571: '[one of] mes deux tournesols qu'il [i.e.

Gauguin] à prises a Paris'; for the second painting see the

following entry.

Provenance Vincent van Gogh, Paris; given (in December

1887 or January 1888) in exchange to Paul Gauguin,

Paris; sold 10 April 1896 to Ambroise Vollard, Paris; sold

in 1897 or 1899 to Cornelis Hoogendijk, The Ha ue; soldg 1 Hag u

auction 12 May 1912 (directly?) to Alphonse Kann,

Paris; sold in November 1917 while on exhibit in Zürich

to Richard Buhler, Winterthur; sold 1 October 1928 to

Galerie Thannhauser, Lucerne - Berlin (- New York); sold

in 1949 to The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

(inv. 49.41).

Exhibitions Zürich 1917, no 109: 'Soleils. Coll. A. K.';

Winterthur 1922, no 52.

First reproduced in De la Faille 1928.

58

JOURNAL 1999

SunflowersOil on canvas (toile de 12 figure), 50 x 60.7 cm

Signed and dated: Vincent 87

F 376 JH 1331

Letters 740/571; see the previous entry.

Provenance Vincent van Gogh, Paris; given (in December

1887 or January888) in exchange to Paul Gauguin,Y

Paris; sold 9 January 1895 to Ambroise Vollard, Paris;

sold 15 February 1895 to Félix Roux, (Paris?); re-

acquired 23 October 1895 by Ambroise Vollard, Paris;q

sold 29 October 1895 to Edgar Degas, Paris; sold at

auction 26/27 March 1918 to Paul Rosenberg, Paris;

sold (directly?) to Arthur and Hedy Hahnloser-Buhler,Y

Winterthur; by descent to Hans R. Hahnloser, Bern;

donated in 1971 to the Kunstmuseum Bern (inv. 2140).

Exhibitions Winterthur 1922, no. 51; Basel 1924, no. 33;

Zurich 1924, no. 32 and 21 (depending on the catalogue

edition).

First pre roduced in the sale catalogue of the Degas col-

lection 1918.

SunflowersOil on canvas (c. toile de 40 marine), 60 x 100 cm

F 452 JH 1330

Letters -.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; sold in

1908 via C. M. van Gogh, Amsterdam, to Helene Kroller-

Muller, The gHa ue; Kruller-Mullerstichting: on perma-

nent loan to the Króller-Muller-Museum, Otterlo.

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estatepY

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,p

no. 84: 'Soleil (40)'; transferred to Bussum in April 1891;

loaned to various exhibitions from 1893 to 1908:

Copenhagen 1893, no. 190: '*Afblomstrede Solsikker'

[for sale]; Rotterdam 1896, no. 28: 'Uitgebloeide zon-

nebloemen'; Paris, Vollard 1896, no cat. / loan list

b 1437 V/1962, no. 23: '84 Tournesols fanés 500';

Wiesbaden 1903, no. 12 / loan list b 3257 V/1962, no.

4: 'Tournesols défleuris 84 [M.] 1800'; Groningen 1904,

no cat. / loan list b 1956 V/1962, no. 10: '84 -

Uitgebloeide zonnebloemen 2000'; Amsterdam 1905,g

no. 47: 'Uitgebloeide zonnebloemen'; Utrecht 1905,

no. 14: 'Uitgebloeide zonnebloemen' [annotated '47'];g

Rotterdam 1906, no. 14; Middelburg 1906, no cat. /

loan list b 5443 V/1996, no. 14; Paris, Bernheim Jeune

1908, no. 26: 'Tournesols défleuris' [annotated '11000']

/ loan list b 4046 V/1989, no. 10 / 10: 'Tournesols

mortes 47 [hfl.] 4500'; Munich, Brakl & Thannhauser

1908, no. 6: 'Sonnenblumen (ausgebluht) 4500' [anno-

tated '47']; Dresden, Richter 1908, no. 6; Frankfurt

1908, no. 9; Rotterdam 1910, no. 26: 'Zonnebloemen.

Eigendom van Mevrouw A. G. Króller te 's Gravenhalte,';g

Cologne, Sonderbund 1912, no. 29: 'Vier Sonnen-

blumen. 1888. Besitzer Frau A. G. Krbller.'; The Hague

1913, no. 133; Antwerp 1914, no. 26.

Reproduced while on exhibit in Groningen: Onze Kunst 3p

(Jul 1904), no. 7, plate following p. 6; photographed in(July P

Paris, February 1908 (Druet 7200).

Arles 1888

'Tournesols' ('étude d'après nature')Oil on canvas (toile de 20 paysage), 73.5 x 60 cm

F 453 JH 1559 (see Dorn 1990, pp. 336-37, pl. 1)

Letters 670/526: '1) 3 grosses fleurs dans un vase vert

fond clair toile de 15 [...].'

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; (given

to?) Julien Tanguy, Paris; sold in 1891(?) to Octave

Mirbeau, Paris; sold (before 1927) to Jacques Doucet,

Paris; sold from his estate to Wildenstein, Paris and New

York; sold c. 1948 to a private collector.

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estatep

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,p

no. 211: 'Tourne-sol (20)'; Paris 1901, no. 4: 'Tournesols

sur fond bleu. Appartient à M. Octave Mirbeau'; Parispp

1909, no. 27: 'Tournesols. App. à M. 0. Mirbeau.'

Photographed while hanging in Mirbeau's dining room

(cf. Achille Segard, 'Octave Mirbeau chez soi,' Revue

Illustré 13 [1 January 1898], ill.); and while on exhibit inY

Paris, November 1909 (Druet 7184, 7796 and 21349).

'Tournesols' ('fond bleu de roi')

Oil on canvas (toile de 25 figure?), mounted on

wood and enlarged to 98 x 69 cm

F 459 JH 1560 (Dorn 1990, pp. 344-48, pl. 1)

Letters Initial state of the composition described in letterp

670/526: '2) 3 fleurs une fleur ensemence et effeuilles &

un bouton sur fond bleu de roi toile de 25.'

A sixth flower was added when theainting was elargedp

(bottom center).

59

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; sold in

July 1908 while on consignment with C. M. van Gogh,

Amsterdam, to Fritz Meyer-Fierz, Zürich (and exhibited

there); from spring 1919 on consignment with Paul

Vallotton, Lausanne; sold in 1920 (via Bernheim Jeune,

Paris?) to Koyata Yamamoto, Ashiya/Kobe; destroyed in

February 1945 by fire.

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estate

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,

no. 95: 'Tourne-sol (40) sur fond bleu'; transferred to

Bussum in April 1891; loaned to various exhibitions from

1893 to 1908: Paris 1896, no cat. / loan list b 1437

V/1962, no. 3: '95 Soleils (fond bleu) 800'; Amsterdam

1905, no. 105: 'Zonnebloemen, op blauw fond'; Utrecht

1905, no. 34: 'Zonnebloemen, op blauw fond' [annotat-

ed '105']; Rotterdam 1906, no. 32: 'Zonnebloemen op

blauw fond.'; Middelburg 1906, no cat. / loan list b 5443

V/1996, no. 32: 'Zonnebloemen - blauw fond 1200';

Paris, Bernheim Jeune 1908, no. 34: 'Tournesols' [anno-

tated '6000'] / loan list b 4046 V/1989, no. 41 /38:

'Tournesols fond bleu 105 [hfl.] 2500'; Munich, Brakl

& Thannhauser 1908, no. 29: 'Sonnenblumen (blauer

Fond) 2500'; Dresden, Richter 1908, no. 29; Frankfurt

1908, no. 34; Zürich 1908, no. 23: 'Sonnenblumen';

Zürich 1914, no. 49: 'Sonnenblumen. Oel' [exhibition of

the Meyer-Fierz collection]; Tokyo 1921, no. ?

Photographed in Paris, February 1908 (Druet 7206).

'Tournesols' ('fond clair')

Oil on canvas (toile de 30 figure), 91 x 72 cm

Signed on the vase (below the line): Vincent

F 456 JH 1561 (Dorn 1990, pp. 340-43, pl. 1)

Letters Initial state of the composition described in letter

670/526: '3) douze fleurs & boutons dans vase jaune

(toile de 30).'

A thirteenth flower was added shortly afterwards, closing

a gap in the centre of the flowers above the vase.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; on con-

signment with Paul Cassirer, Berlin, and sold 20 May 1905 to

Hugo von Tschudi, Berlin/Munich; acquired on 25 January

1912 from his estate by an anonymous benefactor and do-

nated to the Neue Pinakothek, Munich (inv. BSG 8672).

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estate

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,

no. 94: 'Tourne-sol (30)'; transferred to Bussum in April

1891; loaned to various exhibitions from 1892 to 1905:

Antwerp, Association pour I'Art, May/June 1892, no. 3:

'Tournesol'; Paris, Vollard 1896, no cat. / loan list b 1437

V/1962, no. 9: '94 Soleils (fond vert) 800'; The Hague

1898, no. 2: 'Sunflowers' [annotated '94' and 1215'];

Munich 1903, no. 233: 'Die Sonnenblumen*' [for sale];

Wiesbaden 1903, no. 16: 'Sonnenblumen' / loan list

b 3257 V/1962, no. 6: 'Tournesols 94 [M.] 3000';

Groningen 1904, no cat. / loan list b 1956 V/1962, no. 2:

'94 - Zonnebloemen (groen fond) 1800'; Berlin, Paul

Cassirer VII/7 1905, no. 28 / loan list b 2185 V/1982, no.

19:'94 - Zonnebloemen - groen fond 2200 -1320';

Vienna 1906, no. 21: 'Sonnenblumen. Berliner Privatbes.'

Photographed while on exhibition in Antwerp 1892; re-

produced in 40 Photocollographies, Amsterdam 1904, pl. 29.

'Tournesols''('fond jaune')

Oil on canvas (toile de 30 figure), 92.1 x 73 cm

Signed on the vase (above the line): Vincent

F 4541H 1562 (Dorn 1990, pp. 337-40, pl. 1)

Letters Initial state of the composition described in letter

672/527: 'Ce quatrième est un bouquet de 14 fleurs et

est sur fond jaune.'

A fifteenth flower was added shortly afterwards, i.e. the

bud hanging down to the left of the vase.

Relined in 1942 by Helmut Ruhemann while removed

from London due to the war.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; sold in

January 1924 to the Tate Gallery, London while on ex-

hibit at the Leicester Galleries, London; transferred in

1961 to the National Gallery, London (inv. 3863).

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estate in

Paris, September 1890?; transferred to Bussum in April

1891; loaned to various exhibitions from 1905 to 1923:

Amsterdam 1905, no. 104: 'Zonnebloemen, op geel fond';

Hagen 1905, no cat. / loan list b 2103 V/1982, no. 14:

'104 Zonnebloemen 10000 [hfl.]'; Paris, Bernheim-Jeune

1908, not exhibited / loan list b 4046 V/1989, no. 40 /

37C: 'Tournesols 104' [no price]; Berlin, Paul Cassirer X/7

1908, no. 8: 'Sonnenblumen'; Dresden, Richter 1908,

no. 74: 'Sonnenblumen' / loan list b 2191 V/1982, no. 9:

'Sonnenblumen 104 unverkaufl.'; Berlin, Paul Cassirer

XI/2 1908, no. 40: 'Sonnenblumen' / loan list

'Bijgevoegde,' b 4058 V/1989, note: '[in Berlijn is]

Zonnebloemen 104 -' [not for sale]; Berlin, Paul Cassirer

XI/9 1909, no cat.; Munich, Brakl 1909, no. 20:

'Sonnenblumen 104 unverkufl.'; Frankfurt 1910, no cat.;

Dresden, Arnold 1910, no cat. / loan list b 2181 recto,

no. 20; Chemnitz, Gerstenberger 1910, no cat.;

Rotterdam 1910, no. 9 / loan list b 2200 V/1982, no. 4:

'Zonnebloemen 104 6000'; Amsterdam 1911, no. 37(?) /

loan list b 5479 V/1996, no. 19: 'Zonnebloemen op geelp

fond onv. 104'; Hamburg, Commeter 1911, no cat. / loan

list b 3817 V/1989, no. 24: 'Zonnebloemen 104 un-

verkuflich'; Breslau and Dresden, Arnold 1912, no. 14 /

no list, evidently the previous exhibition; Cologne,

Sonderbund 1912, no. 28 / loan list b 3815 V/1989, no.

2: 'Zonnebloemen onverkoopbar'; Berlin, Paul Cassirer

1914, no. 44 [annotated '93:73' and 'sign.']; London,

Leicester Galleries 1923, no. 26, ill. p. 21 / loan list

b 5935 V/1996, no. 1: 'Sunflowers Insurance F. 15 000.-'

[not for sale].

Photographed in Paris, February 1908 (Druet 8170), and

in Cologne, summer 1912 (Rheinisches Bild-Archiv

32015, 32411).

Arles 1889

'Tournesols' 'fond clair') 'repetition'POil on canvas (toile de 30 figure), 92 x 72.5 cm

Signed on the vase (below the line): Vincent

F 455 JH 1668 (Ronald Pickvance, Christie's review of

the season 1987, p. 70; Dorn 1990, pp. 455-56,1.9)p

60

JOURNAL 1999

Letters 747/574.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; prob-

ablyn consignment with (or given to?) Julien Tanguy,Y g

Paris; sold (directly?) to Ambroise Vollard, Paris; sold 21Y

December 1896 to the Comte Antoine de la Roche-

foucauld, Paris; sold to Paul Rosenberg, Paris and New

York; sold 28 July 1928 (under the title 'Soleils sur fondY

jaune'!) to Carroll S. Tyson, Philadelphia; bequeathed inI Y P

1963 by his widow to The Philadelphia Museum of ArtY P

(inv. 63-116-19).

Exhibitions On display with other works from the estateP

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,P

no. 119 or 195: 'Tourne-sol (30)'; Paris 1901, no. 6:

'Tournesols sur fond jaune. Appartient au Comte Antoine

de la Rochefoucauld' [in the copy dedicated to Jo

(b 5737 V/1996) Leclerc emended 'jaune' and addedq

'veronése']; Paris 1905, no. 8: 'Soleils (peinture).

Collection Comte Antoine de la Rochefoucauld.'

Photographed in Paris, spring 1905 (Druet 2390).

'Tournesols' 'fond jaune') 'repetition

1 pOil on canvas (toile de 30 figure), enlarged to

95 x 73 cm

Signed on the vase (below the line): Vincentg

F 458 JH 1667 (Dorn 1990,. 461-62, pl. 9)PP

Letters 747/574.

Background along the upper edge repainted when eng g PP g -P

lar ed by addition of a strip of wood, 3 cm high; proba-g Y P

bl restored in January/March 1901 in Paris; relined byY Y

Traas in 1961; examined by Ashok Roy in May 1992.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; trans-

formed in 1962 into the Vincent van Gogh Foundation

and now onermanent loan to the Van Gogh Museum,P

Amsterdam (s 31 V/1962).

Exhibitions On disla with other works from the estatePY

in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055 V/1962,P

no. 194: 'Tourne-sol (30)'; transferred to Bussum in April

1891; on loan from June 1900 to March 1901 to Julien

qLeclerc , Paris, and restored towards the end of this peri-

od; on disla for several days at an exhibition arrangedPY Y

by Leclerc at the Galerie Bernheim Jeune, March 1901,Y q

hors catalogue / 'Lijst van de Schilderijen en Parijs bijg 1

Leclerc 6 Rue Vercingetorix,' b 5738 V/1996, no. 7: '194q

x Zonnebloemen f 600 fr. 1200'; Amsterdam 1905, no.

103: 'Zonnebloemen, op geel fond' [annotated 'Utrecht'];Pg

Utrecht 1905, no. 33: 'Zonnebloemen, op geel fond' [an-

notated '103']; Amsterdam 1911, no. 37(?) / loan list

b 5479 V/1996, no. 18: 'Zonnebloemen op geel fond.

onv. 103'; Basel 1924, no. 40; Zurich 1924, no. 39 and 35

(depending on the catalogue edition); Stuttgart 1924,P gno. 16; Paris, Marcel Bernheim 1925, no. 26.

First reproduced in De la Faille 1928.P

'Tournesols' 'fond vertjaune')J[colour variant]

Oil on burlap (toile de 30 figure), enlarged toP

100x76cm

F 457 JH 1666 (Ronald Pickvance, Christie's review

of the season 1987, pp. 70-73; Dorn 1990,

pp. 456-61, pl. 9)

Letters –.

Provenance Estate of Vincent and Theo van Gogh; on

consignment with Julien Tanguy, Paris, and sold in Marchg

1894 to Emile Schuffenecker, Paris; sold c. 1903 to

his brother Amédée Schuffenecker, Meudon; sold in

(late) 1907 to Eugène Druet, Paris; sold in 1910 to

Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Berlin; sold to

Paul Rosenberg, Paris; sold in 1934 to Sir Alfred andg

Lad Edith Beatty, London; by descent to HelenLady Y

Chester Beatty, London; sold at auction 30 MarchY

1987 to the Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance

Company, Ltd., Tokyo, and now on permanentP

disla at the Seiji Too Memorial Yasuda KasaiP Y J g

Museum of Art, Tokyo.

Exhibitions On disla with other works from thePY

estate in Paris, September 1890, 'Catalogue' b 3055p

V/1962, no. 119 or 195: 'Tourne-sol (30).'; Paris

1901, no. 5: 'Tournesols sur fond vert très pale.

Appartient à M. E. Schuffenecker.'; Brussels 1904,PP

no. 173: 'Tournesols. Exposition des XX, 1890.*' [forP

sale]; Mannheim 1907, no. '1072 and 366c (depend-

in on the catalogue edition): 'Blumen' (first edition;g g

changed in the second to fourth editions into)g

'Sonnenblumen, Oelgemlde [...] aus Sammlung

Schuffenecker, Paris,' with acknowledgements to

the lender 'Schuffenecker, Amédée, Meudon,' p. 14;

Paris, Druet 1908, no. 35: 'Tournesols. Galerie

Druet.'; Paris, Druet 1909, no. 12: 'Tournesols. App.

a M. E. Druet.'; London 1910/1911, no. 72: 'Les

Soleils (Lent by Herr Paul von Mendelssohn-Y

Bartholdy).'

Photographed in Paris c. 1907 (Druet 6559), and in

November 1909 (Druet 21350).

61

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

Vincent van Gogh, Alexander Reid in an easy chair, 1887

(F 270 JH 1207), Oklahoma City, Collection of Mrs

62

Aaron Weitzenhoffer

VAN GOGH STUDIES

Displaying Van Gogh, 1886-1999

Andreas Bliihm

`Let the museum curators and administrators do as they

like; they are slaves to fashion, and one trend is not worseY

than the other. I have retained the most wonderful and last-

in memories of the works of art from all my visits to museg Y -

ums andalleries but I do not remember how they wereg Y

classified grouped or framed or the colour of the walls on,g P

which they were hung.' - André Fontainas 1y g 937

Once it has left the easel, aaintin is never the sameP g

again. Environments, lighting and perception all changeg ^ g g p p g

over time, and with them the work of art. How aicture hasp

been displayed in the past can thus tell us much about thephistor of its reception. It is therefore all the more sur risY -p p

in that art historians have regularly failed to address thisg g Y

aspecteaspimportantim in their studies. This is not due to apaucit of sources but rather to a lack of interest. Scholarsp Y

often examine the social and theoretical context in which a

particular work has been created, but generally ignore itsp ^ g Yg

immediate surroundings.g

Before the 19th century, painter could be relatively Y^ p Y

certain about his work's final destination, particularly ifp Y it

was a commission. Its eventuallace of display was a factorp p Y

that had to be taken into account. Once the free market be-

an to develop into art's most important forum, however, theg p p

artist's chances of influencing his picture's fate diminished.g p

This was already the case in the Netherlands in the 1 th cent' -7

tur . During the course of the 1 th century, market beY g 9 Y^ -

came increasingly dominant, with the result that traditionalgY

locations for works of art - churches palaces, academies,p

and the Salon - soon lost their relevance altogether.g

Presentation was a matter ofreat importance tog p

artists as we know from their numerous pcom laints re-

g g hangingardin the han in of annual exhibitions, where the avail-

able walls were literally covered with pictures. The imY -p

ressionists rejected not only the Salon juries' selectionp rejected Y sJ

criteria, but also theirrind les of display. Full aware ofp pFully

the commodity value of art the took matters into theirY , Y

own hands, systematically developing new ways of showing Y p g Y g

theiraintin s. Martha Ward's pioneering Art Bulletin arti

p g p g -

cle published in 1 1 gives an excellent overview of the

^ p 99 ^g

changes in exhibition practice that began to take place in

g p g p

h 18 05. 2 Ward draws aparallel between the liberalism oft e 7 p

63

The epigraph is drawn a letter to the editor written by

Fontainas in pres onse to the survey launched by the mag-

azine Beaux-Arts on the occasion of the Van Gogh exhibi-

tion in Paris in 1937 and printed on 27 August.

A number of my colleagues have read this manuscript andY g

made important corrections and contributions. In particu-

lar, I would like to thank Hans Luijten for his substantial

editing, Leo Jansen for checking the quotations from theg

letters, and Fieke Pabst for her detective work and for

helping me find my way around the archives. Unless oth-p g Y Y

erwise indicated, the material illustrated is housed in the

archives of the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam.g

1 For Van Goh see Fritz Novotny, 'Die Popularitát vang

Goghs,' Alte and Neue Kunst 2 (1953), no. 2; Carol M.g

Zemel, The formation of a legend: Van Gogh criticism,

1890-1920, Ann Arbor 1977; exhib. cat. Rond de roem van

Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 1977;

Griselda Pollock, 'Artists' mythologies and media genius,Y

madness and art history,' Screen 21 (1980), no. 3,

pp. 57-96; John Rewald, 'The posthumous fate of Vincent

van Gogh 1890-1970,' Studies in post-impressionism,

London 1986,. 244-54; Walter Feilchenfeldt, VincentpP

van Goh & Paul Cassirer, Berlin: the reception of Vang

Goh in Germany from 1901 to 1914, Zwolle 1988; exhib.g

cat. Van Gogh and die Moderne, Essen (Museum

Folkwang) & Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 1990-91,

especially Roland Dorn, 'Die kunstlerische Auseinander-p Y

setzun mit Vincent van Gogh - Prolog,' pp. 189-91;g

Tsukasa Khdera (ed.), The mythology of Vincent van Gogh,

Toko & Amsterdam 1993; Nathalie Heinich, The glory ofY

Van Goh: an anthro olo of admiration, trans. Paulg P gY

Leduc Browne, Princeton 1996. None of these works exam-

ine the history of Van Gogh's museological presentation.Y

2 Martha Ward, 'Impressionist installations and privateP

exhibitions,' The Art Bulletin 73 (December 1991),

pp. 599-622. See also her latest publication: Pissarro,

neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde,P P

Chicago & London 1995.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

the Third Republic d e ubhc and artistic individualism, whereby ^ Y

painters sought to raise their work above the mass of con-eg

sumeroods by hanging them in such a way that theirg Y g g Y

uniqueness came to the fore. The impressionists' unusualq P

coloured frames and tinted exhibition walls lent an addi-

tional aura to works whose highly 'personal' execution al-g YP

read bore witness to a certain self-assuredness. Most im-Y

ortantl y , the impressionists recognised the necessityofP y P g

roper display, which b now had become a central artisticP Pby

concern.3

Beginning around the middle of the century, hibi-g g Y^ ex

tions,alleries and domestic interiors had been joined by ag joined Y

new venue - one which was to become increasingly imgy -orP

tant: the museum. Public collections, which slowly butY

surely began to develop an interest in contemporary art,Y g P P Y

P completely goals private com letel different oals than their rivate coun-

ter arts, and their influence should not be underestimated.P

The traditionalatron was soon joined by a class of rofe-P joined Y sP

sional connoisseurs, critics and historians, who looked at

art from a very different perspective and sought to classify P P g Y

it -systematically. Then there was the anonymous publicY P

amateurs, the merely curious, potential buyers. This multi-

Y ^ ersP Y

Plication of sites and audiences offered the artist first and

foremost a-reater freedom of choice. It created new og P

ortunities, but was also potentially dangerous. ArtistsP P Y g

were suddenly faced with pressing questions: for whomY P gq

were they painting? Where would their pictures eventually g P Y

be shown? Every decision in favour of a certain form ofY

presentation was also, necessarily, decision againstP Y ^ -an^

other. The risk for the 'artist-entrepreneur' was thusP

ggreater than ever before.

Van Goh as viewerg

In his struggle for recognition, Vincent van Goghgg g ^ g

never looked at art exclusively from the perspective of theY P P

maker, but from that of the recipient and consumer as well.P

Not only was he the nephew of three art dealers and theY P

brother of a fourth, he had also been employed at Goupil'sP

in The Hague, Paris and London(1869-76). In contrast to

g ^

most other artists, he was thus able to familiarise himself

professionally with the wishes of his potential clients. As isP Y P

well known, Van Gogh made no secret of the fact that theirg

taste and his had nothing in common - which surely did lit-g Y

tle to advance his career. Even after he had left the busi-

ness, however,alley windows remained one of his mostg Y

important sources of information on contemporary paint-P P Y -P

m . In addition, he was a dedicated museum-goer, visiting ^ g ^ g

the collections of Old Masters in Amsterdam, Antwerp,

Brussels, The Hague, London and Paris. During his first

g ^ g

years in the French capital(1874-76)the newl -oY Pnewly-openedY P

Musée du Luxembourg - the temple of modern art - wasg P

also a major attraction.lRonald Pickvance has examined the relevantas-P

saes in Van Go h's letters and come to the conclusiong g

that, although he frequently refers to museum visits, no

g q Y

realattern of behaviour can be established. 4 Interesting, g,

too, is Pickvance's observation that Van Gogh h went to mu-

seums more often fbe ore he decided to become a painterP

than after. He found a welcome diversion in art, particular- -P

1 during his theology studies in Amsterdam (from May g gY Y

18 - which certainly contributed to his failing to77 Y g -com

fete his courses. Johanna van Gogh-Bonger reports that atP g g P

the time there was even some discussion within the family

of Vincent making a career in the museum world. 5g

As to the frequency of Van Gogh's museum visits,

q Y g

the dearth of letters from the Pariseriod makes it difficultP

to make a sound judgement. When he unexpectedly arrived

l g P Y

in the French capital at the beginning of March 1886 it wasP g g

certainly no coincidence that he asked Theo to pick him u

Y P up

at the Salon Carré of the Louvre. In the months that fol-

lowed Vincent made numerous studies of the museum's

treasures, and his drawings after Egyptian sculptureg gYP P

demonstrate the breadth of his interests. After its -enreoP

in in April of the same year, the Musée du Luxembourg P Y ^ g

64

3 Degas, for example, demanded that paintings at the

Salon be hung in only two rows and that artists be allowed

to suggest where their pictures should be placed; see

Ward, 'Impressionist installations,' cit. (note 2),. 600.p

4 Ronald Pickvance, 'An insatiable appetite for pictures:

Vincent the museumgoer,' in Evert van Uitert and

Michael Hoyle (eds.), The Rijksmuseum Vincent van

Gogh, Amsterdam 1987, pp. 59-67 and 89. Pickvance

does not, however, discuss the (rare) passages in which

Van Gogh mentions museum displays. See, most recent-

ly, Martin Bailey, exhib. cat. Van Gogh and Sir Richard

Wallace's pictures, London (Wallace Collection) 1998.

5 See Johanna van Gogh-Bonger's introduction to the

1914 edition of the letters, reprinted in De brieven van

Vincent van Gogh, ed. Han van Crimpen and Monique

Berends-Albert, 4 vols., The Hague 1990, vol. 1, p. 9.

6 See 801/604.

7 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, 25 August 1885, letter

b 1820 V/1970: 'Toen we de zaal der bronzen afgietsels

JOURNAL 1999

once

-again became a favourite haunt. In the provincesg p

whether Drenthe or the south of France - and without

money to travel, however, there were few opportunities toy ^ pp

see original works of art. Only once, in December 1888 andg y ,

in the company of Gauguin, did Van Gogh venture from

p Y g ^ g

Arles to Montpellier to visit what is now the Musée Fabre.p

Months later, he was still making use of what he had seen.6g

A trueicture of Vincent's artistic preferences can

P p

hardlyhardly be gleaned simply from the passages in his corre-g AY p g

s ondence devoted to museums. His comments on instal-^p

lations are even more cursory, h he was by noY^ g Y

means uninterested in them. On 28 January 18 , in oneY 73

of his first surviving letters, he wrote to Theo regardingg ^ g g

r am's plans for a new lar er Rijksmuseum: `It willAmsted p g )

be aood thing: the Trippenhuis is too small and the icg g pp -p

lr s are hung so that one can't look at them properly'tl e g 'p p Y

[4/4]. To Theo, however, the end results were less than

His friend Andries Boner reports on theirsatisfactory.g p

vre and the favourable impression itjoint visit to the Louvre pJ

had made on them when compared to the Rijksmuseum:p Rijksmuseum

we entered the room with the bronze casts ... we let

out a cry: how calm and dignified everything appeared ino y g Y g pp

comcomparison to those tastelessly decorated rooms inp Y

Amsterdam's museum! What a shame that such a hugeg

project is a failure.

ost y

It will stand for centuries, ... an an-

n grit .' 7 But even the Louvre was notance for allY p

left uncriticised. In a letter to Vincent ofFebruar 1890,9 February

Theo describes the rehanging of the Dutch Old Masters,g g

concluding: 'Anyway,the 've finally made some changesg Y Y s -

it was about time'8 /T28 .53

These remarks

-might surprise today's viewer of hisg p Y

toricalhotophotographs of museum interiors, in which the in-p g p

stallations always look more or less alike: the picturesY

hue frame to frame, three or more rows high. However,hung ^ g

museum hangings were not only different from those of ex-Y

hibitions andalleries the were also more differentiated.

g , Y

The arrangements - according to epoch, school, subjectg g p

matter artist and format - were frequently subject to altermatter, q Y -subjec

reflecting new points of view or changing taste. Theg p g g

lose proximity the works to one another was not felt toc p y

be disturbing - or even worth commenting upon until alg g --p

ternatives had been tried.

Artalleries sought to give visitors the feeling of be

g g g g -

in welcomed into a palace or great house, or to recreateg p g

the kind of -bourgeois domestic interior for which the icg p

tures were, finallyntended. But there were also enormousY,

differences between the various exhibitions, despite theirp

'wallpaper' hangings: at the Salon, for example, works^ p

were arranarranged alphabetically,while at the Exposition

g p

Universelle they were divided into sections according toY

-nationality. Situations which at first glance look remark

Y g

abl similar were experienced as quite various by contem

y p q Y -

r ries. 8po a

Even more than museums, it was gthrow h exhibi-

tions that Van Gogh came in to contact with contemporaryg p

art. Between March 1886 and February 1888 there were atY

2 0 shows - and quite possibly many more - that wouldleast q p y y

have attracted his attention. It is hard to gima ine that an in-

satiablyurious artist like Van Gogh would have missed a

Y g

sin le Salon, or any of the numerous shows held by the im

g ^ Y Y -

ressionists indépendants, incohérents or at the rogresp p ^-p

sivealleries. In May 1886 for example, he could have vis

g Y ^ -p

i ion. 9 Beforelted the eighth and last impressionist exhib t

g p

movie to Paris, he had no first-hand knowledge of themoving g

theseainters' works. The incredible speed with which he

p A

absorbed elements of the most recent artistic trends is evi-

dent in the development of his own style, and bears witness

p Y^

to therofound impact the modernists had made on him.

p p

In comparison to its predecessors, the final im p resp p ^ 1 -

sionist show was arranged in a rather sober manner, whichg

- as many contemporaries noted - was to the benefit of theY p

works on. For Van Gogh, however the installation mustg >

have been new and exciting. While still in the Netherlandsg

he made oftenuite detailed) remarks on mounts, framesq

65

binnenkwamen, [,..] ontsnapte ons een kreet: hoe rustig enp

stati in vergelijking van de smakeloos versierde zalen vanstatig g 1 g

het Amsterdamsch museum!- Hoe jammer dat zulk een

groot gebouw mislukt is. Daar staat 't nu voor de eeuwen,g g

[...] ik denk tot ergernis van het nageslacht.'g

8 These differences have often been pointed out; see

John Sillevis, 'Vanlint tot plafond: de presentatie vanp P

eieigentijdse kunst in de negentiende eeuw,' in Riet deg J g

Leeuw (ed.), De kunst van het tentoonstellen: de presen-

tatie van beeldende kunst in Nederland van 1800 tot

heden, Amsterdam 1991.27-42, esp. p. 35, and

p P P

Patricia Mainardi, The end of the Salon: art and the state

in the early Third Republic, Cambridge 1993, esp.y

pp. 106-12. See also Giles Waterfield, 'Picture hanging

andaller decoration,' in exhib. cat. Palaces of art: artg Y

galleries in Britain, 1790-1990, London (Dulwich Picture

GallerY) & Edinburgh (National Gallery of Scotland) 1992,

pp. 49-65.

9 See Fran oise Cachin and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov,

exhib. cat. Van Gogh a Paris, Paris (Musée d'Orsay) 1988,

28-34.On the eighth impressionist exhibition seepp. g P

Ward, 'Impressionist installations,' cit. (note 2), p. 619.P

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

and walls, as well on combinations of his ownaintin s.P g

There are numerousassa es regarding the backgroundp g g g g

colours that would work best with hisictures on the useP

ofra mats for the early Hague drawings 21 /186 and onofgray Y g g 5

acquiring gold frames for the peasant studies and The otag -

g p p

to eaters (Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum): `the would

g Y

look just asood against a wall papered the deep colour ofg g pp p

ripe wheat' o1/ o .p 5 4^ 4^

Van Gogh as exhibition organiser

g g

After aear in Paris, in March 188 Van Gogh be

Y ^ 7^ -g

gan to organise his own exhibitions. We do not knowg

whether the experiments of the impressionists had any ef-

p P Y

fect on the installations. In Agostina Segatori's Café du

g g

Tambourin Vincent firstut up a display of Japanese wood-p p p Y -ane wop

cuts and later one of his own works. The enterprises were aP

commercial disaster, whether due to the choice oficturesA

theresentation or the location is unclear. These failuresp

did not, however, prevent Van Gogh from trying again, this

^ pg Y g g

time at the Grand Bouillon, Restaurant du Chalet on the

Avenue de Clichy. The participants this time included

Y P p

Bernard, Anquetin, Arnold Koning and Toulouse-Lautrec,q ^ g

anderha s Gauguin, Pissarro and Guillaumin. The showp p g

did not attract a large audience, but a few items were sold.g

In December 1887, Van Gogh, Seurat and Signac

7^ Y^ g ^ g

showed together in the rehearsal room of the Théátre Libreg

d'Antoine. Nothing is known of the installation. 1 ° Due e to

the location and a lack of funds there wasrobabl little

p Y

opportunity for 'extras,' such as painting the walls in apP Y ^ p g -p

propriate colours.

As far as the hanging of pictures in general

g g -was p g con

cerned Vincent could naturally take lessons from his

brother Theo, or help him with the formulation and execu-p

tion of his ideas. As manager of a branch of Boussod,g

Valadon & Cie., Theo had been an active artrofessionalp

for many years. Of the 12 exhibitions he held at the gallery, Y g Y,

two date from before Vincent's departure for the south. Inp

December 1887, showed works by Gauguin, Guillaumin

7^ Y g

and Pissarro, and in January 1888 pictures by Degas andY p Y g

GauGauguin. Unfortunately, do not know if, or in what way, Y> Y,

Theo's hangings differed from those normally seen at theY

firm's other venues. In 1890, however, he had electric light9> g

installed and allowed Raffaëlli to cover the walls with

brightly coloured fabrics. 11 There is another y yet a other indication

of the special interest the Van Gogh brothers took in the

P g

newest ideas about arranging pictures: it is no accident thatg gP

the onlypainting Vincent dedicated to his brother is alsoY pg

the only one in his oeuvre with a specially designed frame,

Y p Y g

namel the S till life withfruit of 1887 (Amsterdam, Van

Y f 7

Gogh Museum . 12g

Interiors

The efforts of the -sreimpressionists and other rop p g

sive artists to extendictorial space did not end with the

p p

frame. Theaintin 's surroundings were increasinglye g g gY -con

sidered as well. The interior - apartment, exhibition hall orp

aller - became an integral part of the work of art and vice

gallery g p

versa. For Van Gogh, interior and artwork were one, or at

g ^ ,

the very least should be carefully attuned to one another.

Y Y

Vincent believed that impressionist painting, the workp p g^

of the Dutch Old Masters, onl y came into its own when

seen in thero er setting: `Just as an interior is unfinished

p p g

without a work of art, so aaintin is incomplete if it failsp g A

to form a whole with its unique environment, which mustq

be related to theeriod in which the work was created'p

[781/59413

Van Gogh's own interior was chiefly his studio. Hisg Y

modest means left him with little choice but to hang repro- -rop

ductions and his own studies on the wall, tacked up withp

drawing pins. However, these woodcuts and lithographsgp ^

clipped from magazines had more than a merely decorativepp g Y

function: Van Gogh used this poor man's private collection

g P P

to bolster his visual memory. In Antwerp, also began toY p^ g

add Japanese prints. Finally, Saint-Rémy, painted

p p Y^ Y^ P

66

10 See Van Gogh à Paris, cit. (note 9), pp. 19-20.

11 On Theo as an art dealer and collector see exhib. cat.

Theo van Gogh: art dealer, collector and brother of

Vincent, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) & Paris

(Musée d'Orsay) 1999-2000. In a letter to his sister

Willemien, dated 2 June 1890 (Amsterdam, Van Goghg

Museum, Vincent van Gogh Foundation, family corre-

spondence, letter b 931 V/1962) Theo wrote regardingg g

the Raffaëlli exhibition: 'Een heel origineel idé [sic] van

Raffaëlli was om een van de 1zaaltjes in de winkel heel en

al met lichte kretonne te doen behangen. Dat staat welg

wat vreemd maar erg vrolijk en de jschilderien komen er

goed tegen uit [...].' With thanks to Chris jStolwik.

12 See Louis van Tilborgh, 'Framing Van Gogh, 1880-

1990,' in Eva Mendgen et al., exhib. cat. In perfect har-

mony: picture & frame 1850-1920, Amsterdam (Van

Gogh Museum) & Vienna (Kunstforum Wien) 1995,.pp

163-80 and no. 47. Van Tilborgh's articleermits a cur-e

sory treatment here of the subject of framing.

13 Van Gogh had read Maurice de Fleur 's article 'LaFleury '

d'un moderniste' (Le Figaro. PPSu lément lit-

JOURNAL 1999

copies after reproductions of paintings by Millet, Delacroixp P p g Y

and Rembrandt; as a motive for this exercise he noted that

he simply did not wish to be surrounded by nothing but hisp Y Y g

own works[8o5/W14]. 14

Albeit to a lesser extent, Van Gogh was also con-

cerned with decoration of the homes of those closest to

him. Members of his family were his most obvious 'cus-Y

tomers ' and he made copies of his works so that his sisters,p

too could build up a collection. Likewise, in expectation ofp ^ eA

Gauguin's arrival in Arles, the decoration of the Yellowg

House became a central concern. The `studio of the south'

was designed to offer his friend, and those whom Vincentg

ho phoped would follow, an appropriate accommodation.p ^

The desire to create a decorative furnishing for theg

interior was an important incentive to his creative work,p

riod.15 In principle, Van Gogh'sparticularly in period.15 later p p gP Y p

concern for decoration - which he shared with other avant-

garde painters, such as Monet, Bernard and Seurat - wasg p >

not unlike that of more established artists. Even the propo-

nents of historical revivalism had called for the stylisticY

unity of interiors and had sought to realise this idea in theirY g

buildin s. The younger men simply followed other modelsg Y g pY

and used them in original was. The new generation ofways. g

artists >put endeavoured to ut their novel formal inven-

tions to functional use. From Lucien Pissarro they learnedY

first hand about the new schools in England striving tog g

bring fine and applied art together, and which appeared tog pp g ^ pp

have succeeded in uniting the modern aesthetic withg -racp

tical applications. For both Van Gogh and his friends, theA pg

drivin

y

force behind this interest in decoration was cer-driving

tainl T the need to give some deeper meaning to their activi-g p g

ties andovert -stricken lives, a deep-seated wish to seep Y ^ p

their much-criticised art becomeart of society as a whole.

P Y

Van Go g, with his c cles series and decorations, was thusg ^ Y

hardly alone in his desire to see his art in an integratedY g

sspatial context. The place of the picture thus came to havep p A

an importance equal to that of the picture itself.p q p

Theo's apartmentp

When Theo was looking for a flat for himself and hisg

oun wife Johanna his main concerns were somewhatY g

more banal, but he, too, sought to arrange his immediate> g g

surrounden s in an aestheticallypleasing way. Since hisg Yp g Y

motives and criteria were surely not any different fromY Y

those of his contemporaries - or, for that matter, from thoseP

of newlyweds today - it might seem pointless to subject hisY Y g p subjec

to a critical examination were it not for the largeY

number of his brother'saintin s it included. The dozensp g

of Van Goghs - works from all phases of his career - mustg p

haveiven the otherwise typically bourgeois interior a veryg Yp Y g

-special quality. The pictures belonged to Theo, given in exp q Y p g g

chap e for his regular financial support. Unfortunately, deg g pp -Y

site all the letters, the sources are so meagre that we cane ^ -reg

not even be certain what he actually thought of them. WeY g

do know, however, that they were not merely stacked> Y Y

against the wall or under the bed, although only a handfulg ^ g Y

of documentsive us an indication of which paintings hung

g p g

where and why.Y

The only visual record of Theo's living quartersy gq

comes from theeriod when Vincent was stain with himp staying

in the Rue PLe ic. It shows the brothers' friend, the art deal-

-. 16 The orer Alexander Reid, seated in an armchair(fig.) p

trait is closely cro ed but threepictures can still be madeY pp , p

out in the background: two by the American painter Frankg Y p

MMyers Boggs, now in the Van Gogh Museum, with, betweenY gg ^ g

them a barely identifiable study of a peasant's head by Van

Y Y p

h. 17 This symmetrical arrangement seems to indicate aGo gg Y

kind of system, although it is unclear what the relationship ^ g p

between the works is supposed to be. Perhaps the combinapp -sp

tion was meant to exemplify the common bond betweenp Y

artists, both these two inarticular and all those of similarp

opinions.P

In 1889, Theo went about furnishing his fu

9^ g -

ture family's apartment in the Cité Pigalle, Johanna was

Y p g

still in Holland. This separation, as unfortunate as it was,p

67

téraire 14 [15 September 1888], no. 37, pp. 146-47)p

withreat enthusiasm, reporting shortly thereafter in de-g p

tail to Theo on this 'impressionist house' in Auteuil, withp

a facade of glass bricks; see 685/537.

14 On these copies see Cornelia Homburg, The copyp

turns original: Vincent van Gogh and a new approach to

traditional artractice, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1996.P

15 See Roland Dorn, Décoration: Vincent van Goghs

Werkreihe fur das Gelbe Haus in Arles, Hildesheim,

Zürich & New York 1990. Van Gogh had already consid-

ered theendants Jardins potagers à Montmartre (F 350p

JH 1245) and Vue de Montmartre (F 316 JH 1246 ) as

decoration for a dining room or country house when theyg

were shown together at the Indépendants exhibition ing

1888; see Van Gogh à Paris, cit. (note 9), pp. 140-43,

nos. 51-52.

16 See Van Gogh à Paris, cit. (note 9), no. 38.

17 Perhaps F 135 JH 585, now in the Cincinatti Art

Museum.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

did, however, necessitate written correspondence,giving g g

us alim se of the nest-building process. On i Marchg p gp 4

1889, he wrote Johanna detailing his activities. Particularly g Y

interesting is the passage in which he describes how heg p g

plans to hang his brother's pictures: `I'm oin to han allp g p g g g

theaintin s with dark or gold frames in the dining room.P g g g

In the living room will be the ones with the slender, very ^ Y

simple white frames, which hardly take up any space at all,p Y p Y p

and then only a few in the bedroom. In the hallway thereY Y

will be some drawings. It's not possible to find a good placeg p g p

for everything just yet, but we can change it bit by bit later,y g] Y ^ g Y

until everything is seen at its best.'18 What is astonishing g g

here is the importance given to the frames; the picturesp g frames; p

themselves, their size, colours and subject matter, appearsubject ^ pP

to havela ed only a subordinate role.p Y Y

The first exhibitionFor both brothers, the way pictures were hung in

Y pg

exhibitions was more important than how they disp Y -were

in the private sphere. Theo and Vincent had detailedplayedp p

discussions regarding the latter's contributions to variousg g

exhibitions. Vincent was well aware of howaintin s couldp g

change depending on their `nei ghbours': in a letter of Juneg p g 'neighbours'

he describes how one of his newictures had simplyp pY

overwhelmed all the others62 7 / . By the same token,7497 Y

however, certain-enictures, when placed together, couldp p g

hance each other. According to Van Go h this was true notg g^

only of paintings conceived as series or pendants, and notY p g p

onl of his own work. For example, he wanted to see hisY p^

Portrait of Patience Escalier (Pasadena, Norton Simon

Museum) next to Toulouse-Lautrec's likeness of Suzanne

Valadon (Poudre de riz, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum,g

Vincent van Gogh Foundation), which belonged to Theo:g g

`I don't think my peasant would do your Lautrec any harm,Y pY Y

and I would eveno so far as to say that the simultaneousg Y

contrast would make the latter seem even more distin-

uished; mine, too, would improve through this unusualg p g

combination, because his tanned skin would stand out even

more when seen next to her white complexion, the powder

p ^ p

and her toilette chic' 66 / 20 .35

For the 1888 exhibition of the Société des Artistes

Indépendantes, the brothers chose works with relatedP

themes: i:heendants Vue de Montmartre (F 16 JH 12 6p 3 4

and Jardinsota ers et Montmartre: la Butte Montmartre^ g

F 350 JH 1245), as well as Romansarisiens (F JH 1 2

^ 359 33.

In November 1889h Go h received an invitation from9, g

fig. 2

Vincent van Gogh, sketch on the back of a letter from

Octave Maus showing the hanging plan, 15 November

1889 [820/—], Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent

van Gogh Foundation)

Octave Maus toartici ate in the sixth Les Vint exhibi

p p g -

tion, which was to takelace in Brussels from 18 January toP Y

23 February 18 o. The only restriction was the length of the3 Y 9 Y g

wall, a limitation with which Van Gogh was naturally Y -un

happy. Officially, was given four metres, although in a

pPY Y^ g ^ g

letter from 16 November 1889 [821/T2o] Theo speaks of

9 P

five to seven metres. On the back of his invitation Van Goghg

drew a hanging plan, the only one we know by his hand

g gp Y Y

(fig. 2). In a letter to Theo he detailed the works to be sent

[822/614]; two versions of the Sunflowers (as pendants); ; .fl ap

icture of ivy with a vertical format, a blossoming Y ^ g orchard,

a red vineyard, and a wheatfield with a rising all relay ^ g -sun -

tivel new, accomplished, and highly colourful works. 19 He

Y ^ p ^ g Y

confirmed his choice to Maus and apologised for probablyp Y

having gone beyond the wall space allotted. These paint- -g Y p p

ins, Van Gogh wrote, would give `un effet de couleur ung g g

eu varié [823/614b]. 2 °' 82 /61 b . He arranged the workp 3 4 g o symmetri-

cally: orchard-sunflowers-ivy-sunflowers-wheatfield, withY Y

the red vineyard hanging below, like a predella on a

Y g g ^ p

winged altar. Motifs relating to work in the fields thus sur-g

round and support the still lifes with, in the centre, the

Pp>

view of theark and bench, inviting the viewer to rest.

p ^ g

It is not known what became of Vincent'slanp

whether it was carried out or not. There are no surviving

and the contemporary criticism offers no

photographs, p Y

clues. It can be assumed, however, that the artist's wishes

were respected, at least to a certain extent. The exhibitionp

-commucatalogue lists the pictures in the order Van Gogh

g p g

nicated them to Maus, and with the same titles:

68

fig. 3

Works by Van Gogh at the Association pour I'ArtY

exhibition, Antwerp 1892

`Tournesols Le lierre, Verger en fleurs (Arles), Champ de> g P

blé, soleil levantSaint-Rém La Vine rouge Mont

y ^ g -g

Major .' Nonetheless, it is now impossible to analyse thep y

colour effects, not only because we have no idea which ver-Y

sions of the Sunflowers were shown, but also because two

of the other fouraintin s are known only from black and

p g y

whitehoto ra hs. In general, though, it seems safe to say g p g ^ g^ y

that for Van Gogh simply contrasting colours within one

g py g

composition was not enough; part of his artistic strategyp g ^p

was that theaintin s in combination should also relate top g

one another.

1890 to the First World War

Vincent died only six months after the opening of

y p g

the Les Vint exhibition in Brussels. In the aftermath Theog

initially sought to organise a memorial exhibition atY g g

Durand-Ruel's but his idea was rejected. There was no1

other choice but to hold the show in his own apartment.

Theo, now himself already weakened by serious illness,

y y

asked Emile Bernard to help with the installation. The twop

men distributed around 1 ooictures throughout the rooms,

p g

where they remained for several months, more or less ig-y

nored by the public. On 31 December 18 o the corres onY -p 3 9 p

dent for the gAl emeen Handelsblad, Johan de Meester, re-

ported that a small number of Dutch citizens had come to-

ether to admire Van Go h's oeuvre `in the darkenedg g

rooms of an uninhabited pa artment in Montmartre.' De-

spite displayedite the fact that they were dis la ed in `an uncomfort-

able cold space,' the works on show made such an im res- p

sion on the author that he hoed the artist's native countryP

would soon take notice of one of itsreate st sons. 21g

As an `artist's artist,' Van Gogh h had had some influ-

ence on his contemporaries even during his lifetime. How

p g

well he was known inro ressive circles is demonstratedp g

by the fact that his death was followed by a rash of osthy y -up

mous invitations to takeart in exhibitions. Following g

Theo's demise, Johannaroved tireless in fulfilling thesep g

requests. 22 No exhibition of the European avant-numerous eq p

arde could do without its share of Van Goghs.g hsg

The earliest survivingphotograph of a Van Go h ing-Gog

dates from 1892 and shows the exhibition of the9

' Antwerp (fig. . 23 The list of worksAssociation pour l'Art in Antwe (g 3)p p

in the catalogue does not correspond exactly to those illusg p y -

trated: `feu Vincent Van Gogh 1. Fleurs, 2. Abricotier,g

. Tournesol, 4. Nuit étoilée Rhone près d'Arles), . Lierre,3. ^4^ p 5

6. Café de nuit . Vue Meditérranée, 8. Moissioneurs,7

Saint-Rém . Id. Id. Dessins: 1o. Fontaine, 11. Jardin,Y ,9

12. Bateaux.'24 Considering that exhibition makers at theg

time wereenerall unconcerned with issues of rhythm or

g y y

dramaticresentation this rather crowded arrangement

p ^ g

was certainly not unusual. There seems to be no systematicY

organisation according to date, subject or colour.g g subjec

18 Kort geluk: de briefwisseling tussen Theo van Gogh

en Jo Bonger, ed. Leo Jansen and Jan Robert, intro. Han

van Crimen, Zwolle & Amsterdam 1999, no. 70: 'In dep

eetkamer hang ik op al de schilderijen in donkere of ver-g p

guide lijsten. In de salon vooral die van Vincent in witte

heele eenvoudige lijstjes die bijna geen plaats inneemen

en in de slaapkamer maar heel weinig. Dan in de gangp

eenaar teekeningen. Zoo in eens is het niet mogelijkp

om eenoede plaats voor alles te vinden maar dat veran-g p

deren wijwi dan later nu en dan eens tot dat alles het best

uitkom

Theictures are very likely: Orchard bloom withP

o lars in the foreground (F 516 JH 1685), April 1889,Pp

Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemldesammlungen; F 454 JH

1647; Trees with ivy (F 609 JH 1693), 22 May 1889, pre-

sent location unknown; F 456 JH 1561; Enclosed field with

oun wheat and rising sun (F 737 JH 1862), NovemberY g

1889, formerly Princeton, Mrs J. Robert Oppenheimer; andY p

The red vineyard (F 495 JH 1626), November 1888,y

Moscow, Pushkin Museum. The latter was bought by the

brothers' friend Anna Boch from the exhibition.

20 Dorn, op. cit. (note 1), p. 189, speaks of 'einero demp p

Kreis der sechs Grundfarben einbeschriebenen Zyklus der

Jahreszeiten mit emblematischen Polen der Sonnenblu-

men: einer Sujet and Farbdominanten als inhaltlichp

zusammengehorig ausgewiesenes "Ganzes", in dem Van

Gogh seine "Impressions de la Provence" zusammenzu-

fassen suchte.'

Algemeen Handelsblad (31 December 1890).

22 See 'Chronology,' in The mythology of Vincent van

Gogh, cit. (note 1), p. 452.

23 See gKlaus-Jur en Sembach and Birgit Schulte (eds.),

exhib. cat. Henry van de Velde: ein europaischerY

Kunstler seiner Zeit, Hagen (Karl Ernst Osthaus-

Museum) 1992, p. 84.

24 Thehoto ra h shows one painting too few: theP g p p

Café de nuit is missing. It is also uncertain if the small

works to the gri ht are drawings. Other photographs indi-

cate that this seemingly arbitrary arrangement was not

provisional, but rather represents the actual hanging.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

In Van Gogh's native country, like Jang Y^

Toorop and R.N. Roland Holst, as well as the painter-

P r-p

is Jan Veth, took up his cause. Roland Holst, for example,P ^ P

was responsible for an exhibition at the KunstzaalP

Panorama in Amsterdam in 1892 which included 1129

works. The manager of the gallery, vang g Y^

Kesteren, sent Jo a floorplan to help her prepare theP P P P

hanging. Holst was particularly concerned about the inA Y -concern

stallation: he rejected the use of highly-decorated oldl^

frames out of hand 25 and even borrowed the fabric that

had been used in Antwerp to create an appropriate backP-

drop. Since not enough was available, he took up Henry g ^ p Y

van de Velde's offer tourchase more. 26A

At the Kunstzaal Panorama theictures wereP

arranged primarily according to their dominant colours,g A Y g

the blue-toned ones on the left, theellower ones on theY

right, with the orchard paintings in between. 27 This exhibig ^ P ^ -s en

tion was revolutionary in other was too: Holst divided theY Y^

accordin the places where Van Gogh had livedpaintingsaccording P g

and worked. He found it far more important to give the year

A g Y

and location than to invent titles for theaintin s. 28 TheP g

care taken with the installationroved to be worth the ef-A

fort. The exhibition was a success with both the critics and

theublic. The Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (or NBC)p

praised the choice of works and the arrangement, criticise -emg

in only the li htin .29

g Y g g

For the Parisian art scene, the retrospective held ate

the Galerie Bernheim-Jeune1 1 March 1 01 was the,^ 3 9

first important Van Gogh event. 71 works were on display,e g 7 e Y,

among them - as later became known - several false attri-g

butions. Here, however, if one is to believe the ecorres on-

dent of the NBC, theaintin s had to hold their own in aP g

'sloppynstallation.' 30 Although this statement gives little

eeY g g

real information it does demonstrate the critics'rowin

g g

awareness of this important aspect of exhibitions.P P

The most influential of the early one-man showsY

was certainly the retrospective held at the StedelijkY A Stedelij

in Amsterdam in 1905. No fewer than pictures,474 A

were on view. Both the critics and theublic appear toP AP

have been overwhelmed by this hue number. As with most

Y g

of the other exhibitions at this stage, nophotographs of theg ^

installation are known, although the review in Onze Kunstg

reveals that the organisers had carried out their work withg

exceexceptional care: `The exhibition itself was superbly

A A Y

arranged. The sensitive hanging,which everywhere took

g Y

account of the decorative effect on the whole wall, was in

excellent taste. The same can be said of the choice of

frames, although the effect was somewhat spoiled by a fewg P Y

of the older ones, to which the depraved and severe air ofA

the modern German-alleries seemed to cling. The robg g p

lem of installing the difficult long wall in the main gallery g g Y

was brilliantly solved by a strong arrangement, with a loY Y g g ^ -g

rious central image formed by the radiant blue-orange elf-

g Y eg s

portrait with two amber-yellow sunflower still lifes at eiA -sY

ther side. This wall, containing Vincent's late work, the ic^ ^

-P

tures in his manière claire gave off a brilliant shine which,g

was reflected, now more silvery and quiet, on the flanking q ^ g

and facing walls. When one considers the bathroom-likeg

colour of the walls and the deathly black of the panelling e g

then what has been achieved here is truly remarkable.' 31Y

As at the Panoramaalle y show of 18 2 the most

g Y 9

e geographicalim ortant stations in the artist's life estab-

lished the hanging's connecting thread: Nuenen, Paris,g

Arles, Saint-Rémy, Auvers - an organisationalprinciple still

Y g

found in the Van Gogh Museum today. The separation ofg Y e

Arles and Saint-Rémy - which could have been joined col- - joine

25 See exhib. cat. Tentoonstelling der nagelaten

werken van Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam (Kunstzaal

Panorama) 1892.

26 See Han van Crimpen, 'Johanna van Gogh: a legacy,

a mission,' in The mythology of Vincent van Gogh, cit.

(note 1), p. 364.

27 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh

Foundation, family correspondence, R.N. Roland Holst to

Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, 12 December 1892, letter

b 1233 V/1962: 'Mijn voorloopig plan is, bloeiende

boomgaarden in 't midden, links daarvan de olijven en de

blauwe-toon schilderijen, rechts bergen van St Remi en

de geele-toon schilderijen.'

Tentoonstelling, cit. (note 25), n.p.: 'Bij het samen-

stellen van den catalogus heb ik gemeend dat het van

meer belang was, het jaar waarin en de plaats waar het

doek geschilderd werd op te geven, dan ieder schilderij

apart te betitelen met een per slot niet van direkt belang

zijnde naam.'

29 Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (6 February 1892):

'Het is jammer dat de zaal dezer dagen, doordien de kap

niet wordt schoongehouden, dikwijls al te donker is. In

dat opzicht, schoon in dat alleen, waren de van Goghs

van den zomer in de dagen van hellen zuidelijken zonne-

schijn in den Haagschen Kunstkring beter geëxposeerd.

Maar hier laat de keuze en de schikking niets te wen-

schen over.'

70

JOURNAL 1999

lectively under the rubric `Provence' - particularly em hay p Y -p

sised the spiritus loci. With the publication of the letters,p p

which had already begun in 1893 with Emile Bernard's se-Y g 93

ries of articles in the Mercure de France, Van Gogh's lifeg

and work were increasingly seen as one. In 1905, the artistgY

was transformed into an historical -

-

metafigure, , and thisg

mormorphosis was given expression in the Stedelijk's installap g P Stedelijk'

Not only did manyyounger artists now recognise himY YY g g

as a father

-figure, the exhibition also marked his breakg

throw h with the general public and was thus extremely g p Y

significant for the future.g

In its show of over ioo works, the so-called

`Internationale Kunstausstellung des Sonderbundesg

Westdeutscher Kunstfreunde and Kunstler zu Coln 1912'9

stressed Van Gogh's role as a pioneer of the modernistg p

vement (fig. . 32 Here, at perhaps the most importantmovement (gq,) p p p

exhibition of contemporary art to take place on the eve ofp Y p

the First World War - where cosmopolitanism was mixedP

with dangerous elements of nationalism - Van Gogh wasg g

forced tola the role of mediator between the French andtoplay

German 'spirit.' This conflict was typical of the period andp Yp p

of Expressionism in particular, a movement that had justp p ^ jus

its zenith and that looked to Van Gogh for historicalpassed g

legitimation.g

The installation broke newround, and was meantg

toive form to a new way of thinking. Five rooms were deg Y -.g

voted to Van Gogh, four of them located on the building'sg ^ g

middle axis, with a central, octagonal gallery around which> g g Y

the rest of modern art circled as around a fixedole. Thep

fifth room waslaced in the middle of the German andwasplace

sections - rather than near Gauguin andg

Cézanne - as if to demonstrate the Dutchman's affinities

with the Germanic world.33

fig. 4

Works by Van Gogh at the Internationale

Kunstausstellung des Sonderbundes Westdeutscherg

Kunstfreunde and Kunstler, Cologne 1912

All the rooms wereainted white, so that the ic

p ^ -p

tures - as the Kolnische Zeitung wrote on 24 May - wereg 4^ Y

given `a uniform background.' In this way, contemporaryg g Y

democratic ideals were applied to art. The paintings were

pp p g

mostly hung in a single row, with the occasional workY g g

laced above. The bottom edges were aligned, a not entireplaced g g -

1 newprinciple robabl dating from the Salon era when aY probably g

dado had determined the wall's lowesterimeter. Evenp

withoutanellin this sty remained current until the latep g, Y

1920S and sometimes even into the os when pictures beg 5 -p

an to be hung at average eye-level. As in Amsterdam ing g g Y

1905,the paintings were hung rhythmically and in a sym p g g Y Y -

n ment. 34metrical arra eg

Oneear later, the legendary Armory Show introY ^ g Y Y -

duced the New Yorkublic to the European avant-garde.

p P

30 Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (26 March 1901): 'Een

slordig ingerichte expositie -- op de meeste schilderijen ont-g

breken nummers -- en slecht uitkomende in de op het punt

van verlichting, en niet alleen op dat punt, matig bedeelde

g p p

jbovenzaaltjes van Bernheim jeune in de rue Laffitte.'

31 W. Vo elsan , 'Tentoonstelling Vincent van Gogh,'

g g

Onze Kunst 4 (1905), no. 2, pp. 61-62: 'De tentoon-

stellingelve was voortreffelijk gearrangeerd. De ver-g

standi e manier van hangen, die overal ook met het dec-g

oratieve effect vaneheele wanden rekende, verried eeng

positieven geschoolden eschoolden smaak evenals de keuze der lijst-

en, waar die niet door reeds bestaande, sterk naar de per-

vers-pikante atmospheer van den modernen Duitschenp p

kunsthandel riekende, exemplaren bedorven werd. De

moeilijke opgaaf bv. om op de lange wand der ongeniet-moeilijke pg

barerote zaal dragelijk te exposeeren, was door debaregrot

e indeeling met het blauw-oranje lichtende, doorkrachtig

barnsteengele zonnebloemstukken geflankeerde

pzelf ortret, als stralend middenstuk, prachtig opgelost.

Van die wand,eheel behangen met stukken uitg

Vincent's lateren jtid, dien van de manière claire, ging een

machtige schittering uit, door de wanden terzijde eng g

gte enover stiller zilverig gereflecteerd. Vooral ook, in aan-

merkin genomen de badkamerachtige tint der muren engg

het doodkisten-zwart van het houtwerk en de lambriseer-

in g, was wat hier bereikt was bewonderenswaardig.' Thisg

article also appeared in French: 'Exposition Vincent van

Gogh,' L'Art Flamand et Hollandais 9 (1905), no. 2, pp.

61-71, quotation on p. 64.

32 See Wulf Herzogenrath, 'Internationale

Kunstausstellung des Sonderbundes Westdeutscher

Kunstfreunde and Kunstler zu CoIn 1912,' in Bernd

Kluser and Katharina Hegewisch (eds.), Die Kunst der

Ausstellung: Eine Dokumentation dreig ig exemplarischerg

Kunstausstellun en dieses Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt amKunstausstellunge

& Leipzig 1991, pp. 40-47.

33 Ibid.. 45. The cataloge also recommended visitingp

the rooms in a certain order.

34 Cf. Hugo von Tschudi's hanging in the National-g gg

galerie Berlin of circa 1908; see Francoise Forster-Hahn,

'Constructing new histories: nationalism and modernityg

in the disla of art,' in Francoise Forster-Hahn (ed.),py

Imagining modern German culture: 1889-1910,

gWashin ton, DC 1996, p. 85, fig. 19.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 5

Works by Van Gogh and Cézanne at the Art Institute of

Chicago, 1913, from Milton W. Brown, The story of the

Armory Show, New York 1988

With only 18 works, Van Gogh was much less strongly rep-

g gY p

resented here than in Cologne, although it should be noted

g g

that a large number of these loans already came fromg Y

Americanrivate collections. The exhibition was organisedp g

and installed with a speed that can hardly be imagined top Y -g

da : i, oo works were hung in the space of only two days.Y 5 g p Y Y

Artists wereiven more or less isolated stands. In Newg

York, Van Gogh shared space with Cézanne; at the exhibi-g p

tion's second venue - the Art Institute of Chicago - Gauguing g

was added, thus returning the artist to the French context.g

We havehoto ra hs only of this latter exhibit, whichp g p Y

show theictures hung close together in two rows (fig. 35p g g (g 5)

The Art Institute installation appears to have had nopP

internal or decorative scheme; the same was true of the

1914 exhibition in Antwerp `Kunst van heden' (fig. 6 . Here,

p ( )

too, Van Gogh played a major role, with dozens of paintingsg p Y major ^ p g

on display. From the survivingphotograph of the hanginggg g

there appears to be no system and no relationship betweenpp Y p

the individualictures. Interesting, is the group g> g p

of self-portraits at the right, which are arranged as a kindp g ^ g

of altar. Here, too, we find the same emotionalism as in

Amsterdam and Cologne, with the cult around Van Gogh'sg ^ g

erson being reinforced by the installation.person g Y

From avant-garde artist to Old Masterg

The exhibition-makers of the -3051920S and contin

9 5

ued in the tradition of theirredecessors. In the wake ofP

the Suprematists and Marcel Duchamp innovation wouldp p

have been difficult, if not impossible and with the exce -

p and, p

tion of their revolutionary experiments, `linear' entaY p ^ -resP

tion (to borrow Germano Celant's term) remained stan-

dard. According to Celant, this type of hanging stresses the

g Yp g g

aura of the original and replaced the 'quantitative method'

p q

of the second half of the -ex19th century. 36 One possible9 Y p

ce tion may have been the Van Gogh installationsP Y g

There were few -eclarge-scale Van Gogh retros

g g A

tives during the interwar period. The first such notableg p

event was the exhibition `Van Gogh en zijn tijd enoten'

g zijn J g

which tooklace at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam inp

193o (fig. 7 . According to the keynote speaker, the head of93 ( ) g Y p

the municipal council on culture, Polak, the show wasp >

meant as compensation for the artist, who had remainedA

unrecounrecognised during his lifetime. 37 What little evidenceg g t tt e e de ce we

have suggests that the works were aligned along their botgg g g -

tom edges and hung against light-coloured walls. The disg g --g g

tance between the works was not muchreater than theg

breadth of two frames. As the German critic Walter Cohen

reported, the Van Gogh's pictures were positively `boxed inp g p p Y

by the work of his artistic ancestors and contemporaries,' Y

the viewer being offered almost too much of a good thing.g g g

In his review, he spoke of `the noble Dutch penchant forp p

pcompleteness,' which in this case resulted in the same feel-

in of satiety caused by `almost every Dutch meal.' On theg Y Y Y

other hand, `since the aim was to reveal both the source

and effect of Vincent's art,' this type of extensive resenta-

Ypp

tion wasrobabl the most appropriate. Cohen also lookedp Y

back over the history of Van Gogh exhibitions, reminiscing g g

on the now `historical' Sonderbund show of 9i 12. In con-

trast to earlier events, the viewer in Amsterdam saw not

only the famous works of Vincent's last four years, but alsoY Y

the 'terribly heavy and labourious s -[paintings] of his DutchY Y p g

Belgian period.' These pictures, however, did nothing butg p p ^ ^ g

arouse theri i ' pity. 38c tcspty.

Paris, 1937

During the i Exposition Universelle in Paris a

g 957 p

ortion of the new Palais de Tokyo was devoted to an large-portion Y -eg

scale Van Gogh retrospective (figs. 8 and . The hanging,

g P g 9 g g,

wall colour and framing were controversial, but it was theg

extra room containing documents, newspaper cli ins,gclippings,

of the places Van Gogh had worked (taken bphotographsp g Y

John Rewald39 andanels with texts pertaining the p gtot e

painter's life and philosophy which provoked the fiercestp p PY p

72

fig. 6

Works by Van Gogh at the 'Kunst van heden' exhibition,Y

Antwerp 1914

response. These reactions, both positive and negative, rep -p g

flected not only current museological debates, but also theY g

status Van Gogh had now achieved among both specialistsg g A

ublic. 4oand thegeneralp

The facts are simple enough: the exhibition was in-

p g

stalled in the right wing of the new museum for moderng g

art, while the left wing was occupied by an overview of artg p Y

in France since the Middle Ages. Clearly, the Dutchmang Y

Van Gogh could not be included in this show; nonetheless,g

he was considered auintessential representative ofq p

French art and so wasiven his own rooms. In addition, theg

exhibition wasart of a trilogy designed to acquaint thep gY g

visitor with the latest ideas in museology: the Van GoghgY g

show exemplified the art museum, the `French theatre inP

the Middle Ages' the historical museum, and the `Peasantg

dwellin in France' the ethnological museum. The aim ofdwelling g

35 Milton W. Brown, The story of the Armory Show,

New York 1988, pp. 107-08, and passim.

36 Germano Celant, 'A visual machine: art installation and

its modern archetypes,' in Reesa Greenberg et al., Thinkingp

about exhibitions, London & New York 1996, p. 374.

Celant's Ambiente Arte: Dal Futurismo alla Body Art,

Venice 1977, is a good source of visual material. Forster-

Hahn p(o . cit. [note 34]) illustrates an interesting example

of the ornamental hanging style of the turn of the century.

37 Quoted after Algemeen Handelsblad (7 September

1930).

38 Walter Cohen, 'Van Gogh and seine Zeitgenossen,'

Pantheon (1930), p. 574.

39 John Rewald had already begun taking photographs in

Provence in 1933 in the context of his research on Cézanne;

see Anne de Margerie (ed.), Les sites cézanniens du Pays

d'Aix: gHomma e a John Rewald, Paris 1996. He resued the

Van Gogh photographs in his article 'The artist and the

land,'ublished in Van Gogh: an Art News picture book forp

the exhibition at the City Museum of St. Louis, the Toledo

Museum of Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, New York

1953,. 23-32. An interesting reversal of circumstancespp

can be seen in Auvers-sur-Oise today, where the local

tourist office has set up weatherproof signboards with re-p

roductions of Van Gogh paintings depicting the town.P p

40 The information given below is drawn from the

Dutch, gBel ian and French newspaper clippings on the

show now kept in the Van Gogh Museum's archive.

van de Yan Go h-teritoonst+élli^t irc. 9 J

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 7

Van Gogh exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum,

Amsterdam 1930, from Algemeen Handelsblad

(7 September 1930)

this -erenterprise was to answer a number of questionsp q p

tainin to the meaning and purpose of museums in generalg g p p g

and to their ideal target group - the cultivated elite, the un-g p

educated masses, or both.

Over theears, René Huyghe, he, curator of paintings at

Y ^g p g

the Louvre and spiritus rector of the Van Gogh exhibition, '"

^ g

had been responsible for various museological innovations,p g

some of which he had been forced to eloquently defend.q Y

For the 1937 show he painted the walls light green and,137 P g g

ave all the pictures of the French period uniform whitegave p P

frames. The differentrou s of works were organised bg p g by

theme: `L'homme';aintin s; still lifes and nudes; techni-p g

cal development; and drawings.p g

`An example of a modern museum installation (DepTijd ; 'Uproar surrounding white frames ... (Dep g

Tele raa ) ; `An extraordinary installation' (Het Vaderlandg Y

`New exhibition style ... 'Het Nationale Da blad - 'udY g -1 g

in by these headlines in the Dutch press, the exhibitiong Y P

ororganisers had certainly succeeded in one thing: in all theg Y g

reviews and -intheofctecorespondents' reports the subject P J

stallation far outweighed any discussion of the works them-g Y

selves. On 13 August, Beaux-Arts magazine, published b

3 g g P by

George Wildenstein, even started a survey among its adg Y g -re

ers, requesting their opinions on the show. They wereq g p Y

asked what they thought of the colour of the walls and theY g

frames; whether it wasermissible to display items thatp p Y

usually appeared only in magazine articles; whether sourceY 1 pY g

documents should be exhibited separately; if the thought they g

the arran gements were a success; and if the believed a

arrangements success; Y

work of art should be admired alone or, on the contrary,

provided with explanations and comparisons.p arisons

p p

As one might expect, already strongthere were alread strop dis-

g p

agreements about the colours of the walls and frames. Afterg

much experimentation, Hu he had chosen thep ^ Yggreeng -

variously described as `tendre,' `vert d'eau,' `ton bleu vert,'Y

and even as `l'azur vert des matinées d'Arles' - because it

harmonised with the majority of the paintings. Readers'Y p g

-excelopinions ranged from `désastreuse' to `a réable' to `p g g

lente.' Some found coloured walls to be a bad idea inen-g

eral, as they had a tendency to overpower the works of art.

Y Y p

The tenor was similar when it came to the white frames.

For many viewers, this desire for unity appeared artificialY Y ppe

-despite the fact that Hu he had sought to illustrate thep Yg g

roblem of framing by hanging three differently-framedproblem g Y g g -- reY

productions in the didactic section, and had based his

choice on Van gGo h's own wishes. This was thus undoubt-

edl the first 'historically correct' Van Gogh exhibition, butY Y g

it failed to convince everyone. Some readers felt that theY

artist's desires shouldla no role in the display,as toda 'sp Y today'

- anspaces were different from those of the past;

p pother thought artists were fundamentally incapable of

g Y p

framin their works correctly; and a third even went so farframing Y^

as to declare that every frame was an 'accessoire incom at

Y -pible à toute oeuvre d'arteinte.'p

The debate was still more heated when it came to

the documents and wall texts. Hu he pointed out (in vain)Yg p

that this room had been conceivedurel as an ex eri

P Y -pment, and that in four of the five rooms theaintin s couldp g

be Ylen o ed undisturbed; furthermore, those with no inter-

est in the sources andhoto ra hs were in no way obligedp g p Y g

to look at them.

The arguments against Hu he were naturally ideg g Yg Y -o

logically tainted. Many critics, among them Waldemarg Y Y g

Georg, com ared hispedagogical method to that of theg ^ p

Soviets Csauce marxiste') and even the Fascists. The agedg

ainter Jac ues-Emile Blanche referred to it as `la méthodep q

allemande,' although it is not clear if he was thinking ofg g

Hitler's 'degenerate art' exhibitions or the new museumg

education system developed by Alexander Darner, himselfY p Y

victim of Nazi persecution. 42a ct o a pe secutro

At the heart of this discussion lay the fundamentalY

question of whether the museum could - and should - take

74

QUEREZZES 1,5TISÉ'OGRA.FHIQI7ESr

Pour ou Contre 1'Expostiontawr. o.a

quetes :musk,

Le Muse°, oeuvre sociale

sxíale, 1eLienf^its á

osítèY Ne ss-c-;^ pss 1<eft.tc at ^r, ad cnn,-'il lui denund¢.t0a bitn

AU MUSEE DUQUAI DE TOKIO:PRESENTATION

DE VAN 000H

NICROMEGA4 i•

o^detic. Paer.tl4HuJghe, htirain;

. per N, René Hupg^ja. : rovdn óttn rns P+i. ei

"B"1,';',6BiencS

nbiateevt£tuii:

fig. 8

Floor Ian of the Van Gogh exhibition at the Palais deFloorpla

Paris 1937, from Van Gogh. Exposition interna-

tionale de 1937, Paris 1937

fig. 9

View of the Van Gogh exhibition at the Palais de Tokyo,

Paris 1937, from Micromégas (10 October 1937)

over the role of schools and libraries, a notion that filled

most readers with horror. According to them, future energ -g

ations did not expect to find the artist's words and deeds inp

i master ieces. -e43 The judge-the museum, but simply his p ) gp

ments about the installation thus depended strongly on thep gY

readers' conception of whom the museum was supposed top ppo

serve. Huyghe made no secret of his conviction that artYg

should be accessible to the widestossible audience. ForP

him, true understanding began not with reading about art,g g g

but with curiositynd curiosit needed to be stimulated:Y, Y

`Canualit cope with quantity? That is the question of

q Y p q Y q

Democrac in general, and it now appears to be that of mu-Democracy g ^ pp

m as well.'44 Some of his adversaries even went so farseu s

as toenerall denounce Hu he's ideal of education for

g Y Huyghe'

masses - that `monstre anon me ' as the Belgian criticY ^ g

Paul Fierens called them.45

Since the debate was limited to experts and the in-

terestedublic we will never know what the curator's `tar-

g group' actually thought Huygheet rou ' actual) thou ht of the show. While Hu he him-

self was moved by the patience with which spectators stud- -p p

ied the textual material, another commentator noted just

the opposite in a letter published in Beaux-Arts on 17

pp p

SeSeptember: `Just look at the visitor. He deciphers the h -ierop p

1glyphs of the first panel with difficulty, peruses the second

g Ypp Y^ p

distracted) and does not even bother to stop at the third.'Y^ p

In the midst of the uproar Van Gogh and his oeuvrep g

wereracticall forgotten. Paul Fierens complained that

p Y g p

the artist had been made into a kind ofuinea pig for

g pg

Hu he's experiments. However, the 'experiment' had al

Y gp ^ -p

read set a development in motion that could not be

Y p

sto ed. In Hu he's opinion, museums could no longer

pp Yg p ^ _

simply concentrate on collection-building and erva

p Y g -resp

tion: they had an obligation to mediate and educate. AndY g

the future was torove him right.p g

Theostwar periodp p

In the 1937 Paris exhibition, artworks and documen-937

tation were clearly separated. The visitor could chose be-y p

tween rapt contemplation and explanation, empathy andp p p p

insi ht and these two approaches were meant to com leinsight, pp -p

ment one another. The cultural-historical approach, whichpp

sou ht to place the once-autonomous work of art in an ap-

g p

41 In addition to Huyghe, the art historians MichelYg

Florissoone and John Rewald, the architect M.J.Ch.

Moreaux and the documentalist M. Mazenod were in-

volved in the Van Gogh project's realistation.

42 Aortrait painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche had alsop p q

worked as a critic for several years; see Bruno Foucart,

'Blanche, critique d'art: Corot et Manet contre Picasso et

Matisse,' exhib. cat. Jacques-Emile Blanche, peintre

(1861-1942), Rouen (Musée des Beaux-Arts) & Brescia

(Palazzo Martinengo) 1997-98, pp. 15-18. Dbrner's inter-

national) recognised reforms, carried out under his direc-t g

tion at the Provinzial-Museum in Hanover, combined

originals, texts and reproductions for the first time, andp

ma well have had an influence on the Paris exhibition.Y

See S. Cauman, Das lebende Museum: Erfahrungen eines

Kunsthistorikers and Museumsdirektors - Alexander

Deirner, Hanover 1960 (English edition: The living muse-

um: Pex eriences of an art historian and museum director

- Alexander Dorp er, New York 1958).

43 One opponent stated that Van Gogh himself wouldPp

have so disapproved of this idea that he would have beenpp

inspired to cut off his other ear [sic] in protest. As an

original alternative to the texts, one respondent suggest-

ed the reconstruction of the artist's bedroom in Arles —

'combien plus émouvante, évocatrice.'

44 René Huyghe, 'Querelles muséographiques,'

Micromégas 2 (10 October 1937), p. 1.

45 Paul Fierens, 'Les nouveaux musées de Paris et I'ex-

osition Van Goh,' Les Beaux-Arts: Bulletin du Palaisp g

des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles 7 (22 October 1937), p. 17.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 10

Van Gogh exhibition at the Villa Hiigel, Essen 1957

-aeepropriate context, required a change in exhibition sthete q g

ics that is not to be underestimated. In any case, curatorsY

now had areater freedom of choice.g

Following the Second World War the public was

g e

hun r for pictures. The Stedelijk Museum, where Vanhungry e Stedelij

h's paintings had been on display from 1 to the out-Gogh's g e Y 93o

break of hostilities, could finally put them on view again.

^ pg

An exhibition of 1 works opened already in 1 • it was53 e Y 94^5^

promoted as a 'documentary exhibition,' and the installa-Y

tion certainly did justice to this claim. In contrast to Paris

Y jus tic

1937,photographs and aintin s were shown together;937 paintings g

the museum was so-reroud of this arrangement that itp g

roduced aphotograph of the installation in the accome- ae

n in catalogue. 46Y g g

In theears that followed, the interest in Vantheyear

h increased both steadily and rapidly. In the wake ofGogh Y

Neue Sachlichkeit and the international `classical' revival

of the 91 205, the artists of the Ecole de Paris and 'in-

formel' movements were now busy reintroducing the arty g -

lovingpublic to strong colour and gestural painting. Ingp g g p g

1947 the Tate Gallery showed i 8 Van Goghs, and in 1

947 Y 7 g ^ 1949

-xero158 works travelled to New York and Chicago. Other g

hibitions tooklace in Sweden, Norway, Britain, ^ Y> >

Belgium and France, and in 1953 the Kriiller-Muller

g 953

Museum and the s-eStedelijk both organised large-scale ret-l g g

ros ectives celebrating the centenary of the artist's birth.

e g Y

The film Lust for life, based on Irvin Stone's novel ofIrving

1934 and released in 1 6 served to cement the connec-

934^ 95

tion between Van Gogh's life and work - as well as theg

ublic's expectations.public's e

The collection of the Belgian art historian andg

archivist Mark Edo Tralbaut1 02-1 6 -which had al9 97

read formed the basis for the documentation at the 1

Y 945

Amsterdam exhibition, was again integrated into a showing g g

at the Villa Hu el in Essen in 1957 (fig. lo). In his introduc-g 957(8

tion to the catalogue, Tralbaut justified his strategy withg justified gY -re

cent exhibition history. Following the war, art had begun toY g ^ g

76

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 11 Van Gogh exhibition, Tokyo 1958, from

Wereldkroniek (November 1958)

travel to theeo le an 'encouraging result' of culturalp p ^ g g

`Once interest in everything the geniuses ofprogress:Y g g

aintin and sculpture have given mankind has been awakpainting -p g

ened it should be deepened systematically, so as to lead topa more complete understanding of the works admired. Wep g

do not believe that the emotions aroused by initial contact -Y

that is, love at first sight! - are enough.' Regarding Vang g g g

Gogh specifically,Tralbaut continued: `Given today's stateg Y

ofeneral admiration, the broad masses should be regard-g ^ -g

ed as mature enough to see this art not only from its emog Y -

tional side, but from otheroints of view as well. More thanpany other virtuoso of the palette and pencil, Vincent is ..Y p p

fated to become therota onist of educationalp g

exhibitions.'47

The desire to

-explain Van Gogh's mysterious, fascip g Y

natin oeuvre did not, however, dominate presentationsg p

ever where. The exact opposite approach was taken at theY Ap pp

first Japanese retrospective, held in Tokyo in 1 8. 1 0p p Y 95 3

works from the Krdller-Muller Museum wereut on dis-pla . The illustrated magazine Wereldkroniel wrote aboutp Y g

the transportation and installation as if reporting inp p g -on an

vasion and indeed the show was to take the country bY by

storm (fig. . 48 For the first time, the Japanese got a closersto (g ) p g

look at the work of an artist who had sought to internalizeg

their culture like no other before him. The curatorial `strat-

egy' eschewed all attempts at interpretation: the roomsgY p p

were darkened and theictures illuminated only by spot-P YY -sP

lights. The gloom created an almost sacred atmosphere,g g p

while the accent lighting not only isolated the picturesg g Y p

from one another, but also made themlow like jewels.g jewels

type of dramatic presentation later became standardYpp

in the exhibition of archaeological treasures.g

The Van Goh Museumg

A short time later, in 1960, the Vincent van Gogh9 ^ g

Foundation was established. In theseears Theo's son, theY

engineer Vincent Willem van Goh began negotiationsg Gogh, g g

with the Dutch state for the creation of a museum to house

the work of his uncle and his own father's collection. It

seems to have been the engineer's wish that the museumg

be built by Gerrit Rietveld, the `Grand Old Man' of the DeY

Stijl movement. The reasons behind this choice are notJ

recisel known. In addition to the fact that Rietveld was ap Y

renowned architect who, furthermore, had already put hisYp

stam on the Krdller-Muller Museum, the ideas of Willemstamp

Sandberg, director of the Stedelijk, must also haveg ^ Stedelijk

played an important role. 49 The paintings of Van Goghp Y p p g g -eer

tainl had a place in his conception of the museum as aY P p

li ht open venue for the presentation of modern art. In any ^ p P Y

case, the selection of Rietveld was a declaration of belief in

classical modernism, and a recognition of the importanceg p

of the museum and itsatron.pThe hopes placed in Rietveld were to be realised, al

p -pthou h not by the architect himself, who only lived long Y Y g

-enough to make the first designs. Although a permanent ing g g p

stitution cannot really be compared with temporary exhibit P p Y -

tions it is nonetheless interesting to examine the Van Goghg g

Museum in the context of this article. As the shows in

Essen and Tokyo had demonstrated, both the State as

Y ^ -aptron and the Vincent van Goh Foundation as owner couldg

chose among various presentational strategies. Moreover,g p g

the new museum was more or less -obliged to take a osig p

tion in the current museum debate, not only architectural- -

1 but in terms of content as well. Midway between theY^ Y

radically educational approach and the museum as sanctuY pp -ro

ar when it opened in 1973 the Van Gogh MuseumY^ P 973 g -rep

77

46 Exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh: een documentaire

tentoonstelling, Amsterdam (Stedelijk Museum) 1945.

47 Mark Edo Tralbaut, exhib. cat. Vincent van Gogh

(1853-1890): Leben and Schaffen, Dokumentation,

Gemalde, Zeichnungen, Essen (Villa Hugel) 1957, n.p.

48 See Wereldkroniek, November 1958.

49 Emile Meijer, 'The Grey House in Amsterdam: a mu-

seum as a monument,' in Van Uitert and Hoyle, op. cit.

(note 4). 9-18, esp. p. 12. See also Hans Ibelings,pp

Rietveld to Kurokawa: Van Gogh Museum architecture,

Rotterdam 1999.

^ ^^=i^.: Éh 3.

fig. 12

The Van Gogh Museum in 1973

sented itself in a completely new and unprecedented way.P Y P Y

It attested not only to the artist as the father of the avant-Y

arde but also to the notion of the museum as a locationg

available to everyone, where it was possible to wanderY ^ A

freely from one experience to the next (fig. 12).Y P

Critics went so far as to refer to the Van Goghg

Museum as a `turnip point in museum design', its accessi-

'turning g

bilit and popular appeal even led them to call it a `non-Y P P PA

'5o The lack f rooms doors and the customarymuseum. e ac o o y

museum furnishing,s well as the gleaming white of theg g g

interior, were the buildings's most notable characteristics;g

the absence ofold frames completed the installation,g P

putting Van Gogh's palette in the proper - that is, brightP g -g P P P g

li ht and freeing thepictures from all distractions. Here,

g , g P

too, we may note the influence of contemporary art, artic-Y A Y P

ularl the `colour fields ' `hard edges' and `white cubes' of

Y ^ g

Americanalleries which b now had also reached theg , Y

Stedelijk Museum next door. A sober almost monastic spiritl P

pervaded the architecture, and Rietveld's design came toP g

78

JOURNAL 1999

-express the notion of the museum as a place for contem lap p p

tion: as in a cloister,

-spectators wandered through the varip g

ous floors around a square, open atrium.q p

Fashions in museumresentation have not passedp p

the Van Gogh Museum by in the two and a half decadesg Y

since its opening. In the beginning, Vincent's paintingsp g

were strictly separated from those of his friends and col-t p

lealeagues. Due not only to the number of works but also tog Y

theresentation he was the pole around which all the oth-p p

ers circled - as at the Sonderbund exhibition in 1912.9

Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec and Bernard were reduced tog

the status of mere p`contem oraries,' whose role was to un-

derline Van Gogh's genius and his position as the archetg g p Yp-

al modern artist. This notion was strongly criticised even atgY

the time, withoun artists expressing their disapproval ofY g p g pp

Van Gogh's new cult status in more or less original was.gways

museum's early years were thus marked by aYY Y

a c for anidentityes r -h f r n and social function. 51 In an effort to

dispel the notion that the institution was nothing but ap g

mausoleum, aro ramme of exhibitions was developedp g p

which ranged from Diane Arbus in 1975 to `The image ofg 975 g

women in thera hic arts of the GDR'(1976), to the Worldg p

Press Photo shows held between 1974 and 1979. These 979 -. se ac

tivities had nothing to do with the collection and inevitably Y

led to conflicts regarding the museum's policy, conflictsg g p Y

which were regularly, but usually only briefly, solved b

Y Y Y by

the appointment of a new director. Modifications to thepp

resentation of thepermanent collection were rare in thesep p

otherwise so volatile times, and slowly but surely the Van

Y Y

Gogh h Museum threatened to fall behind international de-

velo ments.p

In 1986 the Dutch Minister for Education, Culture9

and Science asked Ronald de Leeuw, curator of exhibitions

at the (former) Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, to become di-

rector of the Van Gogh Museum. With both caution andg

ersistence, De Leeuw introduced changes that were topersistence, g

have an important effect on the display of the permanentp P Y p

collection. Van Gogh's paintings were to maintain their

g p g

centralosition but were to be more firmly embedded inp ^ Y

the art of his time. Predecessors, pcontem oraries and fol-

lowers were freed of the Van Gogh straitjacket. An activeg

exhibitions and acquisitions policy brought the work of

q p Y g

artists and movements into the museum which had no -

parent

p

arent relationship to the institution's namesake. These ef-p

forts led, among other things, to a rediscovery of Van Gogh

g g Y g

as an artist of the 19th century.9 Y

This historicism approach, which was introduced.g Pp

with the opening of the Musée d'Orsay in Paris in 1 86,p g Y -un9

intentionallyllied `conservative' and 'progressive' art hisY-

torians. For the latter, rehabilitated academicaintin r sp ^

were documents of an era - theirualit was unimportant

q Y -p

while the former could nowublicl express their admira-p Y p

tion for artists who had been banned from museum walls

for decades. One reason for this development may well

P Y

have been that the gavant- arde itself had now become his-

torical and no longer needed father-figures to justify its

g -acg justif

Van Gogh could now leave this role behind, closing g

hi chapter in the reception of his work. 52this c apte e p

Thisaradi m shift was not without consequencesp g ^

for the Van Gogh Museum, a space for confronting original

g ^ p g origina

of art. Had the museum been conceived a decade lat-

er, there is no doubt it would have looked completely dif-p Y

ferent although perhaps not better. One of the architec-

g p p

ture's best characteristics is that itermits the realisationp

of a variety of museological concepts, and it remains to beY g p

seen whether the morela ful museum buildings of thep Y g

1 8os and os will withstand changes in taste equally well.9 9 g q Y

Withreat foresight, Vincent Willem van Gogh factored in

g g g

theossibilit of change: `Oh well, this is how we have in-

A Y g

stalled it now, but in 25 years people may have completely5Y p p Y p Y

different ideas.'53

The museum's rediscovery of the 1 th century,

Y 9 Y

then, was to takelace in - of all places - Rietveld's cement

p p

cube. One of the first steps, taken already at the beginningp Y g g

of the 1 8os was to remove the simple protective frames9 ^ p p

iven Van Gogh's paintings during the war and replace g p g g lacep

79

50 Building Design (1 June 1973).

51 On the history of the vicissitudes of the museum in

these years see Ronald de Leeuw, 'Introduction: the Van

Gogh Museum as a national museum, 1973-1994,' Van

Gogh Museum Journal (1995), pp. 9-24.

52 It is no accident that it was at just this time that the

history of this reception also became an object of study; see

note 1.1978 saw the publication of Griselda Pollock and

Fred Orton's Vincent van Gogh: artist of his time, a book

aimed at the general public which, simultaneously, sought

to break with the myths and legends about the artist.

53 Quoted in Caroline Breunesse, 'Een heldere structu-

ur: de bouw en verbouwing van het Van Gogh Museum

1973-1998,' Van Gogh Museum Bulletin 13 (1998),

no. 2, p. 10: 'Ach, nu hebben we het zo ingericht, maar

over vijfentwintig jaar heeft men wellicht geheel andere

opvattingen.'

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 13

The Van Gogh Museum in 1987

them withilded examples. Since 1 8 efforts have beeng p 97

made to tone down the dominating white of the walls, nowg

felt to be too abstract and cold. In the beginning this wasg g

achieved by placing the paintings against a single darkY pg p o g g

stri of colour (fig. which certainly helped improve theP (g 13), Y p A

luo ymin sit of the works.54

In the last two decades, theresentation of VanP

Gogh's paintings outside the Amsterdam museum hasg P g

chapchanged as well. As the artist's popularity grew, so too didg I P Yg

conservational concerns; these came tola an increasinglytoplay gY

central role in variousermanent collections, with the re-P

sult that-eictures were lent less and less frequently. LarPg

scale retrospectives hardly seemed possible anymore. Asp Y A Y

earl as 1 in Essen many had already to the conearly 957 Y Y -come

clusion that this wasrobabl the last such occasion.A Y

One solution to thisroblem was to concentrate ex-P

hibitions on a specific period or group of works. ThematicP P g P

selections and in-depth scholarship also helped draw attenP P -p

tion back to Van Gogh the artist, and to a certain extent tog

free his work from the burden of myth. Excellent examplesY P

include `Van Gogh in Arles' 1 8 and `Van Gogh in Saintg 94^ -g

Rém and Auvers'(1986),both at the Metropolitan MuseumY A

of Art and `Van Gogh à Paris,' held at the Grand Palais ing

1 88 (fig. 14). The latter, curated by Bogomila Welsh9 (^ 4^) ^ Y -omg

Ovcharov, adopted quite different policies for the catalogue

p q P g

and exhibition. While the catalogue separated Van Gogh'sg P g

work from that of his contemporaries, in the show itselfA

the were hung side by side. The arrangements were basedY g Y g

on style, topographyand iconography. The al to creY^-goal wasg

ate a dialogue between the participating artists, very muchg A P g Y

in Vincent's spirit. 55P

1990 marked the centenary of Van Gogh's death and99 Y g

thus offered the opportunity for another retrospective. The

PP Y P

Van Gogh Museum and the Krbller-Muller Museum joinedg joine

withaintin s on view in Amsterdam and drawingsp g g

in Otterlo. In Amsterdam, the exhibition was aretext forA

a reinstallation of the museum's first floor. The renowned

interior architect Marijke van der Wijst was asked to ad-

J Wijs

on the Jdesigns. One of the major issues was the ex-g

Aected number of visitors. Factors such as exhaustion and

p flaggingspectators' fla in concentration were taken into consid-

eration with the result that theaintin s were hung closerP g g

gto ether towards the end of the exhibition than at the be-

innin .56 By this time crowds had become a persistentg g Y P

roblem: the museum had been conceived for only 6o,000A Y

80

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 14

The 'Van Goh in Arles' exhibition at The Metropolitang

Museum of Art, New York 1984

visitorser year but now had to deal with ten times asp Y

man . Van der Wijst's structural additions were minimal:many

openness of the first floor was slightly reduced, andp g Y

tourists wereentl encouraged to take a specific route.gently g A

The architectural additions became 'permanent' featuresp

following the show's closure.

Van der JWi'st's most radical intervention had been

the use of veneered wooden walls g 5)fi . ii). These had no his-walls(fig

justification and were felt to be foreign bodies in

justification g

Rietveld's building; they were therefore removed only a few

g ^ Y Y

Y yyears later. Under the direction of et another interior de-

gsi ner Peter Sas, the division of the various floors was fur-

ther accentuated. Walls were installed giving the museum,g g

rooms and cabinets. Thear uet floors that replaced theP q p

worn wall-to-wall carpeting proved to be particularly benep gp p y -

ficial the reflections thus added bringing a welcome im-g g

rovement to the lighting conditions. In addition to -p g g ractip

cal advantages, the new flooring gives the building a moreg ^ gg g

noble appearance: it has become a bit more `classical' with- -e

out however, changing the overall architectural concept.> g g p

TheresentThep resen

construction of the new exhibition wing and theg

renovation of the Rietveld building have necessitated re-g

newed reflection on theresentation of Van Go h in thepresentation g

Van Gogh Museum. The experiences of the last eight years

g P g Y

have -helped formulate the criteria which condition the re

p p

sent and future. Looking back, the extent to which the reg ^ -p

sentation of Van Gogh's oeuvre was affected by its recepg Y -

tion has become clear. With an increase in historical

awareness, Van Gogh has developed from father of theg P

avant-garde to an artist who is more and more understoodg

as a man of his time. Although during his life the quality ofg g q Y

his works was recognised by only a handful of connois-g Y Y

seurs today he is assured the admiration of the entireY

world. The desire to use him to justify artistic positions of

l Y p

an kind has thus been on the wane for several decadesY

54. On the use of colour in museums see Ronald de

Leeuw, 'Kleur in musea,' Jong Holland 11 (1995), no. 2,

pp. 22-31.

55 gBo omila Welsh-Ovcharov was kind enough to im-

part this information to me in a letter of 9 April 1998.

56 Oral communication from the former director of the

81 Van Gogh Museum, Ronald de Leeuw.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 15

Retrospective exhibition at the Van Gogh Museum,

Amsterdam 1990

now. If nothing else, this means that the painter's 'uncondi-g ^ sP

tional modernity' is no longer the determining factor in the

Y g g

presentation of his work. However, a precise construcP ^ -reP

tion of an historicalresentation would require decisionsP q

that could be both misleading and distorting. For one thing, g g,

we know far too little about theast - to say nothing of theP Y g

banal fact that colours and lighting conditions have long g g

since undergone more or less permanent changes.

g P g

Moreover, the museum is about the lastlace Van Gogh

P g

would have thought of as a setting for his paintings. The

g g P g

display of his works in a public institution can thus never

P Y P

be anything but interpretation. In addition, it is now clear

Y g P

that an artist's intentions in no way end at the edge of theY g

canvas, but include framing, in and environment -g ^ hanging

something many museums are row increasingly taking in

g Y gY g-

to consideration. An art history that takes the word 'history'Y Y

seriousl cannot - and must not - avoid dealing with issues

Y g

of intention.

A conscious understanding of the possibilities andg P

limits of the display medium gives today's curator bothP Y g Y

new freedom and confronts him with old restraints. For

the Van Gogh Museum, certain lessons have emerged from

g ^ g

the history of the presentation of Vincent's oeuvre: the

Y P

han in should preserve the dignity of the artworks, inhanging P g Y -

crease their significance, and not put them at risk in any ^ P Y

way. The moment of a picture's creation can be evokedY P

throu h historically responsible supporting material, andg Y P PP g

the sensible and comprehensible arrangement of other

P g

works. Frames and wall colours have no value in them-

selves, but result from thisoint of view. The wishes andP

Pex ectations of the visitor are to be taken into considera-

tion,articularl the need for good lighting and factual inP Y g g g -

formation. The emotional character a museum visit may

have - certainly in the case of Van Gogh - should never beY g

uashed by an overly clinical presentation.

quashed Y Y P

In concrete terms, this means that the first floor of

the museum continues to be devoted to Van Gogh; here theg^

visitor can trace his stylistic development. The chronolo i-

Y P g

cal hanging and division according to the topographical

g g g

stations of the artist's career have also beenreserved asP

they offer important points of reference and the o ortuni-Y P P PP

t for the viewer to pause and reflect. The various phasesY P P

announced by Van Gogh's change of location are briefly g g Y

ex lained to hel make the visitor aware of artistic shiftsP , P

and theirossible causes. As before, works that are as-P

sumed or known to belongtogether remaingrouped. Th eg g

' hanging marks the highlights as such, and the visitor'sg g

empathy and understanding are further stimulated by theP Y g Y

exhibition of objects from among Van Gogh's possessionsg g P

in the Study area.Y

Relatively new is that Van Gogh's paintings are noY g P g

loner shown only in ioisolation on the first floor and in theg Y

study collection, but are also hung amidst those of the real-Y ^ g

ists, impressionists and post-impressionists (fig. i6 . The aimP P P (g )

82

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 16

Works by Daubigny, Van Gogh, Dalou and Courbet

in the Van Gogh Museum, 1999

of these arrangements is to increase the viewer's insight in

g g

to the works on display,whether by Van Gogh or his rede Y -

g P

cessors and contemporaries. They stress stylistic or themat-P Y Y

is similarities, or underline differences. In this way, andY

without too much textual explanation, the public will comeP ^ P

to a better understanding of the pictures, one which weg P

hoe goes bey the clichés. Here lie the roots of the VanP g Y

Gogh Museum's new role as a museum of the i th century,g 9 Y

a role which does justice to its namesake precisely by lac-

P Y YP

in him in the context of the art of his time.g

Like Van Gogh's rece tion opinions about what isg P , P

desirable and sensible will naturally be subject to furtherY subjec

e. Consciously or not, art institutions will adapt tog Y ^ P

these new demands, whatever they may be. In the relatively Y Y

short history of museums no one perfect system has yet toY P Y Y

be discovered, androbabl never will be. Van Gogh, too,P Y

agonised over the presentation of works of art. Confrontedg P

with the choice between cutting out a series of illustrationsg

from The Graphic or leaving them intact, he wrote to his

^ g

friend Anthon van Rappard in 188: `You'll understand thatPP 3

I'm of two minds about thisuestion. If I cut out and mountq

thea es they'll look better and I can organise them bP gY g by

artist. But then I'm neglecting the text, which is useful ing g

case I want to look something up .. ' o6/R2 . It is comg P 3 4^ -

fortingo know that Van Gogh himself suffered the daily g Y

dilemma of the museum curator, who is forced to choose

betweenresentin works of art as autonomous or placing g P g

them within their historical context.

83

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

Gustave Courbet, Hanging roe deer, 1858, The Hague,

84

Museum Mesdag

19TH-CENTURY STUDIES

The painter as prey: Courbet's Hanging roe deer

in the Museum Mesdag

Fred Leeman

In the Museum Mesdag in The Hague hangs Gustave

g g g

Courbet's Hanging roe deer (fig. perhaps the most beauti-

fulaintin by this great French realist in the Netherlands.P gY g

Huntin scenes occupy an important place in Courbet's oeuHunting PY -A P

vre. The Hanging roe deer is closely related to the artist'sg g Y

first large hunting scene, The quarry: deer hunt in the forestsg g ^ q y

o the Great Jura which he submitted to the Salon of 18f ^ 1857

. 2 . Hanging roe deer appears to be a preparatory study ) ^ g pP p P Y Y

for thisaintin . However, the relationship between the twoP g ^ P

is considerably more complicated and casts an interesting A g

light on Courbet's working method.g g

The critics were notarticular/ enthusiastic aboutP Y

Courbet's new huntictures. Both his supporters and de

P PA -

tractors had fundamental objections to them, although they g Y

appreciated the way they were painted. And yet these subPP Y Y -P Y

'ects remained part of Courbet's repertoire for more than1 A P

tenears. This was undoubtedly due in part to the fact thatY Y P

the sold well, although this cannot sufficiently explainY ^ g Y A

their -ensignificance for the artist - he was far too indeg p

dent-minded for that. Hunting scenes enabled him to em-g

hasise certain qualities of his artistry he could not inA q Y

otherenres.g

`It would appear that I have been very successful at the exPP Y -

hibition thisear ' Courbet wrote on 23 June 1857 fromY ^ 3 57

Montpellier. 1 He was referring to the Paris Salon where sixP g

of hisaintin s were on view. The most famous of these -P g

and the most controversial - was undoubtedly the Young g

ladies on the banks o the Seine (Paris, Musée du PetitfPalais). But the other two important, large canvases wereP g

huntin scenes: The quarry and Exhausted doe in the snowhunting 9 .Y

(fig. 3). Both these scenes are full of pathos, showing(Jura)fi(g 3) p g

vulnerable, wild animals entirely at the mercy of their at-Y Y

tackers. In a snow-covered landscape, a hunted doe liesP

breathless on theround while, in the background, theg ^ g

hounds come running to deliver the final blow; in Theg

the slaughtered roe deer is shown hanging bquarry, g g g by its

hind leg from a tree while, under the watchful eye of theg ^ Y

hunter the hounds wait to be thrown the entrails. In the

background, a boy blows a signal on a horn.g ^ Y g

These two works form the beginning of a seriesg g

that continued until the end of the 186os and which com-

prised a number of large Salon paintings, such as Springp g A g ^ g

rutting: the battle o the stags (fig. and L'hallali (Musée.Í g4^g g(

de Besan .on . These pictures were extremely important^ P Y p

to Courbet, although they have been rather neglectedg Y g

since. The reasons for this are open to question, but itP q

ma be interesting to ask why Courbet came upon theY g Y P

subject of the hunt and what these works might haveJ

meant to him.2

85

1 Correspondence de Courbet, ed. Petra ten

Doesschate-Chu, Paris 1996, p. 141, letter to Amand

Gautier, Montpellier, 23 June 1857.

2 Klaus Herding has already called attention to the anar-

chisticualities in Courbet's love of the hunt, and discussedq

the suffering of the hunter's prey as a metaphor for political

persecution, with which the painter could have identified;

see Klaus Herding, 'Equality and authority in Courbet's

landscape painting,' in idem, Courbet: to venture indepen-

dence, New Haven & London 1991, pp. 84-88. See also

Klaus-Peter Schuster's entries in exhib. cat. Courbet and

Deutschland, Hamburg (Hamburger Kunsthalle) &

Frankfurt/a.M. (Stadelsches Kunstinstitut)1978-79, nos.

247-54. Michael Fried (Courbet's Realism, Chicago

& London 1990) has also analysed La curée as an allegorical

self-portrait of the artist. His interpretation is rather imagi-

native,articularly with regards to the supposed oppositionsp

he discovers in the painting; the point of this exercise ap-

pearsears to be to more to demonstrate the author's ingenuity

than to arrive at an accurate reading of the picture. This

does not mean, however, that his individual observations

are entirely invalid. He alludes to the passivity of the hunter,

the lack of blood, and to the sexual aspects of the hunter/

hunted relationship. I also owe much to Fried for his discus-

sion of the non-theatrical character of Courbet's hunting

scenes. Both my approach and my conclusions, though, are

quite different from his. I have sought to make my reason-

in more plausible by examining the pictures within theirg P

historical context and in light of the artist's intentions.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

First and foremost, Courbet's hunting scenes wereg

based on his own tangible experiences: the artist was a fa-

g P

natical hunter. He regularly ventured into the Jura forest

g Y

near his birthplace with his hunting comrades, not only inP g ^ Y

hisouth but whenever he visited the region. Hunting ^ g g

gave Courbet a great deal of pleasure, and he especiallyg g P ^ P Y

1 exertion in the land f his roots. 3 Hedelighted in physical exe t on t e a d o rg PY

frefrequently wrote about these hunting parties in letters toq Y gP

his friends, and they contributed to the image of the virile,

Y g

all-rounder he liked tolro'ect. However, his identifica-P

tion with the figure of the hunter went still further: in thisg

ideal role he couldersonif his own rejection of conven

e Y -rejectio

To him, he was a `man with an ;independent spirit';P P

he was free. Courbet expressed his intensely romanticP Y

feelings :for nature in his statements regarding the hunter:g g g

`he is a wounded soul, with a heart whose -languor is fosg

v the melancholy of the forests.' 4tered by the vague and t o eY g Y

For Courbet this freedom and independence wasP

closel associated with a challenge to authority. AlthoughY g Y g

it was illegal, he repeatedly went hunting in winter andg ^ P Y g

he was once even arrested by the gendarmerie and sub-Y g

'ected to a large fine. 5 Many of his scenes, such as the1 g Y

Exhausted doe fi . show hunters in the snow. Based( g 3) ^

on thisaintin the critic Maxime de Camp felt certainP g^ P

that theainter had never hunted in his life; after all,P

hunting in the snow had been outlawed since May 18 .g 3 Y 4^4^

He also thought one could easily see that the scene wasg Y

'pure fantasy.' 6 By claiming that the paintings were notPuY Y g P g

realistic, the critic was attempting to deliver a severeP g

blow to Courbet's art. This raises theuestion of how re-q

alistic theseaintin s actually are and, by implication,P g Y Y P

how they relate to the artist's own realist aims at this

time, around 186o.

Courbetlaced himself at the heart of The quarryP 9

fi . 2 standing model for the shady-looking hunter le( g )^ g Y g -an

in with folded arms and downcast eyes against a tree.g Y g

Althou h he is the central feature of the composition, heAlthough P

erforms the part with a decidedly low profile. It is theP P Y P

fifigures surrounding him that demand attention: the roeg g

deer; the hesitant hounds as they approach; the minuteY PP

horn blower with his red vest. Each has beenaintedP

with areat deal of emphasis, both in terms of colour andg P

brushwork. The background of woods is renderedg

schematicall mainly using a palette knife. Despite ourY^ Y g P P

admiration for theowerful execution of each individualP

element, the wholeroduces a slight feeling of alien-

P g g -n

fig. 2

Gustave Courbet, The quarry: deer hunt in the forests of

the Great Tura, 1857, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts

ation. It is as if each of thesearts has been conceived in-P

dependently; scale and light seem not so much to follow g

an overalllan as to have been formulated as the needP

arose. This lack ofers ective and correct proportions

P P P P

was a constant theme in the criticism of Courbet's work.

Théophile Gautier praised the artist's `exécution,' butP P

sspoke of his insufficient 'feeling for proportion andP g P P

ground distances' •? Edmond About wrote of his 'mal-ou ,

adresses deers ective.' $ Only the painter-critic

P P Y P

Zacharie Astruc, the defender of Manet, was able to a> -P

reciate these presumed ineptitudes. He argued astutely P P g Y

that `no superior human endeavour' could exist withoutP

such i e ect o s`'m rf i n .'9 (Horace: 'Li sometimes even ex-P

cellent Homer nods.') However, it never occurred to any

of these critics that Courbet gmi ht not have been at all in-

terested in linking his figures and groups 'properly.' After

g g g P

all, every graceful arrangement presumes the artist's in-Y gg P

tervention and is thus an unavoidable form of con-

trivance. This -rejection of artifice had a social and oliti

rejection P

cal significance. When one of Courbet's pupils expressedg PP P

a desire to depict a beautiful view, the master roared withP

86

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 3

Gustave Courbet, Exhausted doe in the snow (Jura),

1857, New York, private collection

laughter. The student, he said, reminded him of'that

poor Baudelaire,' ' who had once wanted to show him aP

beautiful sunset at an exquisite location: `How bour eois!

q g

? xist?'10What are views exactly? Do they really eY Y Y

The innocence of an event as it is visually perceivedYP

is lost in the selection ofictures ue elements. It becomes

P q

a theatrical arrangement, constructed by the painter tog ' Y P

obli e the spectator, but which nonetheless seeks to giveg P

the impression that the scene took place the way it is deP p Y -

icted and no other. Just as using the palette knife top g p

es read colour leaves much to chance, and therefore con-

stantl reminds the viewer that what he is looking at isY g

paint, collage can be used to signal that what is shown isP ^ g g

inevitabl an arrangement - albeit one that is as accidentalY g

asossible. The configured elements are indeed derivedP g

from reality, the whole has been subjected to the will of

Y' subjecte

artist. An awkward composition, in any case, can giveP ^ Y g

the illusion that the design is not premeditated. In his fa-g P

mous open letter `Aux jeunes artistes de Paris,' publishedP J 'p

in the Journal de Dimanche, Courbet argued that 'painting' g P g

is essentially a concrete art and consists only in the re re

Y Y -P

sentation of real and existing things. It is an entirely physi-g

cal -language that uses for words all visible objects; an abobjects

object, not visible nonexistent, is not of the domainJ ' '

87

3 See Correspondence, cit. (note 1), p. 119, letter to

Alfred Bruyas, Ornans, November-December 1854.Y

4 Courbet raconté ar lui-même et par ses amis, ed.p

Pierre Courthion, 2 vols., Geneva 1948-50, vol. 1, p. 39:

'Le chasseur est un homme d'un charactère indépendant

ui a I'es rit libre ou du moins le sentiment de la liberté.q p

C'est un áme blessée, un coeur qui va encourager sa

gIan ueur dans le vague et la mélancolie des bois.'

5 Correspondence, cit. (note 1), p. 111, letter to Francis

Wey, Ornans, 22 December (?) 1853.

6 Maxime du Camp, Le Salon de 1857, Paris 1857, p. 103.

7 Théophile Gautier, 'Salon de 1857,' L'Artiste 3

(September 1857), p. 34.

8 Edmond About, Nos artistes au salon de 1857, Paris

1858, p. 152.

9 Zacharie Astruc, Le Salon intime: exposition au

Boulevard des ltaliens, Paris 1860, p. 64.

10 Quoted after Charles Léger, Courbet, Paris 1929, p.

191: 'Etait-il assez bourgeois, hein! Quest-ce que desg q

p qu'il de vue? Est-ce u'il existe des points de vue?'

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 4

Gustave Courbet, Spring rutting: the battle of the stags,

1861, Paris, Musée d'Orsay

ofaintin . Imagination in art consists in knowing how toP g g g

find the most complete expression of an existing thing,P P g g^

never in conjecturing or creating the thing itself.' 11

J g g g

This notion can, of course, be well AI^a lied to land-

sca e, still lifes and portraits. However, when it comes toP P

fifigural works, it is very difficult to avoid composition and tog ^ Y P

rein in the imagination. Courbet's large figure pieces fromg g g A

the 18 os, such as The stonebrealrers (destroyed), The5

painter's studio (Paris, Musée d'Orsay) and A burial at^ ^ Y

Ornans (Paris, Musée d'Orsay), consist of 'uxta siY^ -o) P

tions of figures that lack dramatic concentration. Althoughg g

these works wereainted in the format of history paint-P Y -P

ins, the artist avoided all the visual rhetoric usually Y -asso

ciated with the-extionoenre – composition, choice of moment,g A

ressive body language and revealing facial expression. Inp Yg P

terms of this avoidance of the theatrical, Courbet's hunting

scenes are in some respects an exception.p p

As if sensing that something else was at stake ing g

these huntieces than in his earlier large canvases, CourbetP g

often emphasised the trouble he had taken in trying to makeA Y g

these monumental works as realistic asossible. His BattleP

of the stags (fig. 4 , for example, was based on rutting scenesg ( ) P g

he had seen a fewears earlier in Wiesbaden and BadY

Homburg. `I am completely sure of their movements,' heg P Y

wrote and hastened to explain how strong these animals

P g

were, even though no muscles show on the surface. This wasg

the terrain he regarded as his own, `a fact that belongs to

g ^ g

me ' and theaintin s were to form a series intended forP g

hunters. He added confidently that these pictures broughtY A g

somethin entirely new to the history of art: `the know nosomething Y Y 'they

ge ual, either in tradition, or in modern times.' These dra-

matic tableaux were completely realistic because `the [did]

P Y 'they

not contain arain of idealism.' On the contrary, stoodg Y^ they

out through their observed precision: `in their quality they P q Y Y

are asrecise as a mathematical sum.' 12 However, deer areP

not inclined toose in their natural habitat in the positions

A P

desired by the painter. For the final rendering of the Bat tle ofY

p g

the stags, executed in Frankfurt, he had to turn to two stuffedg

88

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 5

Photo by E. Carjat showing Courbet at work, from M.

Fried, Courbet's Realism, Chicago & London 1990, fig. 70

deer. His admiration for the taxidermist was considerable:

'this is nature caught in the act.' 13th s s atu g

Because theirerformance was entirely natural,p Y

deer were ideal actors for Courbet. 14 They embodiedthese dee e e y

everything that made history painting exciting - action,Y g Yp g

passion, violence - without the artist having to invent anp ^ g -Y

thing. The theatricality of history painting - a compositiong Y Yp g P

arranged to affect the viewer in a certain way - was thusg Y

avoided. Theicture was simply a combination of animalsp pY

and landsca e albeit that the German deer are situated inp^

a spring forest in the Jura. But even here Courbet was ablep g

to appeal to realism, stating that `the event in the paintingpp g

determines the time ofyear.' 15 This reveals something ofY g

his working method. The animals were done first and theg

landscape added later: the deer in the Battle of the stagsp g

wereainted in Frankfurt and the landscape after thep p

r return to France. 16 Further evidence is supplied bartist's pp by

ahoto ra h (fig. 5) of Courbet at work on the deer at thep g p ( g )

centre of L'hallali which shows that the desperate animalp

was initially painted against a neutral background; there isY pg g

no evidence of a -encompositional sketch or plan. Thep P

toura e hounds, hunters and landscape were carried outg ^ ^ p

afterwards.

This cumulative method of workingccounts for theg

lack of composition so criticised by Courbet's contemp Y -op

raries. The effect is even more accentuated in Theuarry9

. 2 where the artist painted the various parts on five se(fig )^ -p p p

arate canvases, which were subsequently sewn together.q Y g

The small overlaps between the whipper-in and the houndsp pp

are designed to suggest unit but each of the elements hasg gg Y,

been-way.ainted and lit in a different wa The sections showp Y

in the master and the dogs are executed in thick impasto,g g P

usin bright colours and sharp modelling, while the deerusing g p g^

and the hunter are pde icted in much softer tones and tem-

pgered light. Bruce K. MacDonald has reconstructed the se-

uence in which the work was made: Courbet first did aq

study of the hanging deer, to which he then added the

Y g g

hunter; he then ppsu lemented this with two additional can-

h hvases one showing the horn blower, the otherr the hounds. 17g

Final) a thin strip of landscape was appended on the right.Y^ p p Pp g

This was the state of theaintin at the Salon of 18 , as wep g 57

can see from a lithographic rereproduction that appeared in

p pp

L'Artiste on 18 July 18 8 (fig. 6 . It will come as no surpriseY 5 ( g ) p

that Jules Casta nar who immediately became a greatg Y^ Y g

supporter of Courbet's, was full of raise for the painting in

pp p P g

his Salon review, although there was one aspect his critiqueg P

did not 'thespare; he felt there was a compositional error: `P ^ p

11 Correspondence, cit. (note 1), p. 184, 'Aux jeunes

artistes de Paris,' 25 December 1861: '...la peinture est un

art essentiellement concret et ne peut consister que dans la

représentation des choses réelles et existantes. C'est une

langue toute physique, qui se compose, pour mots, de

tous les objets visibles. Un objet abstrait, non visible, non

existant, nest pas du domaine de la peinture. L'imagina-

tion dans ('art consiste à savoir trouver ('expression la plus

complète dune chose existante, mais jamais à supposer ou

à créer cette chose même.' Translation from Joshua C.

Taylor (ed.), Nineteenth-century theories of art, Berkeley,

Los Angeles & London 1987, pp. 347-48.

13 Courthion, op. cit. (note 4), vol. 1, p. 133.

14 They can be likened to the hounds in Wim T.

Schippers's notorious play Going to the dogs, in which

the cast consisted entirely of canines.

15 The classical notion of proprietas seems equally valid

for both academicism and realism.

16 An earlier version of the landscape had been painted

in Frankfurt, but was later Pover ainted with the scene of

the Jura forest; see Courthion, op. cit. (note 4), vol. 1,

pp. 134-35.

Courbet,' Boston Museum Bulletin 57 (1969), pp. 52-

71. The hounds also appear in a picture that was proba-

blyainted slightly later, Hunting dogs (New York, Thep

Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Horace Havemeyer,

1933. The H. 0. Havemeyer Collection). The German

painter Otto Scholderer recalled how he saw Courbet

working on this painting in Frankfurt. The hounds were

pco ied from The quarry, which he had brought with him

from France. The artist bought the hare from a butcher

andainted the landscape from memory; see the letterp

from Otto Scholderer to Henri Fantin-Latour, cited in

Charles Léger, Courbet et son temps, Paris 1948, p. 69.

12 Correspondence, cit. (note 1), pp. 174-75, letter to

Francis Wey, Ornans, 20 April 1861. 17 See Bruce K. MacDonald, 'The quarry by Gustave

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 6

Lithograph after The quarry, from L'Artiste (18 July 1858)

f^ '18 Perhaps in resresponsepainting stops too abruptly at the top:/8P g P P Y PP

to this criticism, or at the request of his dealer, Jules Luquetq q

- who hoped to increase his chances of selling the painting g P g -

an extra p iece of canvas was added to the upper edge inpiece PP g

the figures with more air. 19186 ,providingt e4 g

At whatoint do the histories of the painting in the Mesdag P g g

Museum (fig. and The quarry coincide, and what is the re-

lationshi between the two paintings? It is evident that theP P g

Mesdag picture shows the same deer, although the landg P ^ -g

sca e is slightly different. Is it thus a preparatory study, as isP g Y P P Y Y

commonl accepted? This seems an obvious conclusion,Y P

since the Hanging roe deer shows just part of the com osi-g ^ just P P

tion of Theuarr . Three things, however, make their asso-9 y

ciation less straightforward than it initially appears. In theg Y PP

firstlace the Mesdagpainting is dated ` 8 ' at least oneP ^ gP g 5

year later than The quarry. Then there is the question ofY 9 ^ q

scale: assuming that the canvas on which The quarry wasg q ^

begun originallyshowed onl the deer, with the standing only ^ g

hunter being added later, not only would it have been

g ^ Y

smaller than that of Hanging roe deer, the proportions of the^ g ^ P P

w 11.20 It is, however, itself would have been smalleras e ,

highly unlikely that a preparatory study would be largerg Y Y P P Y Y g

than the finalaintin .P g

In addition, the rendering of the fur in the Mesdag g

painting is considerably more subtle, suggesting that it is, inP g Y gg g

fact, an -

wasimproved version of the Salon picture. It the ex

^ P

ce tional refinement of the painting that struck Paul MantzP P g

when he saw it at an exhibition in Lyon in 1861: `For as longg

as vigorous brushwork and sureness of touch are valued ing

France the Roe deer will be appreciated.' He, too, saw aPP

connection between theaintin and The quarry: heP g ^ y

thought it was the 'original study,' but it also seemed to himg g Y^

that it might be a 'fragment of the painting ... that hung atg g P g g'21 the later dat-the Salon of i 8 The discrepancyb57etween

in and its possible function as a preparatory study was sg P P P Y Y -uP

riousl solved by Robert Fernier, who read the date at theY Y

lower right as '55, Hélène Toussaint interpreted the dateg 55 ^ P

correctl and identified the Mesdag painting as an indepen- g P g -enP

90

JOURNAL 1999

dent work of art. Like Mantz, she was unable to establish a

morerecise relationship with The quarry other than to say p 9 y Y

that it waserha s a première pensée, or a repetition.p P P p ^ p

Bearing in mind Courbet's occasional carelessness with dat-g

in she decided to stick with the first inter retatio n.22g ^ P

However, such a stopgap measure is unnecessary when onepg p Y

considers Courbet's working method.g

Courbet lived in Frankfurt from the beginning ofg g

August 18 8 and it was here that one of his pupils, Ottog 5 ^ p p

Scholderer, saw the Hanging roe deer a s a completed ic^ g -

p p

ture: `A deer hanging from a tree; the landscape is mirroredg g tree; p

smal stream.' 23ain small r m.' 23 It seems plausible that the artist fin-p

ished and dated theaintin in Frankfurt. In the first place,p g p

there is a major difference in the way the animal and theJ Y

background have been painted. It looks as though the deerg P g

was attentively painted from nature, literally a natureYP ^ Y

morte, while the background has been applied with virtuosog Pp

strokes of thealette knife, one of the artist's technical sP ^ -ep

cialities. In addition, the border between the animal and the

background is marked by a dark outline. The following Y g

chronology thus seems most likely: the roe deer in thegY Y

Mesda picture was painted from life in 1857 or shortly beMesdag p 57 Y -

fore perhaps after an animal provided by a butcher in the^ p p p Y

Rue Montorgueil, where Courbet frequently acquired gameg ^ q Y q g

i intro s. 24 A little later he repeated the painting in aforh s a p gpaintings. 24P

slislightly smaller format, to which he subsequently appendedg Y ^ q Y pp

the various fragments, resulting in the Salon picture of

g ^ g P

18 The quarry. He then took the Hanging roe deer with57 ^9 y g g

him to Frankfurt in 1858, where he filled in the background5^ g

and dated it. When he decided to add more space to TheP

he took the background from the Hanging roe deerquarry, g g g

as an example for the new bits of landscape. There is also ap p

reduction of Theuaarry, which may have been used to as-

q Y

parts on the painting. 25sess the effects of the additionala s 25p gP

Hunting scenes provided Courbet with the o ortug p pp -

nit to record dramatic events without transgressing theY g g

tenets of realism as he himself had defined them. Within

his oeuvre, the hunting scene occupies the same position

g p p

that historypainting did in the academic tradition: a largeYP g g

aintin with a variety actors all of whom are focusedp g Y

on a )major climactic incident. Courbet's realism demand-

ed that the ssubjects of his paintings even those of a sensa-J P g^

tional variety, to have been observed by himpersonal-Y^ Y P

1 and he knew the hunt like the back of his hand. For himY,

it was a symbol of freedom, and the hunter was a free manY

who entered into a direct confrontation with his environ-

ment. In a certain sense, this was a sublimated form of the

confrontation between theainter and nature. The passion

p p

of the subject is intensified by the defenceless creature inJ Y

the immediate foreground, causing the viewer to identify ^ g Y

more with there than with the hunter. At this point,P Y p

oddl ambivalent emotions arise, feelings which are diffi-Y ^ sg

cult to understand for those unfamiliar with the hunt:

there is the seductive thrill of catching and killing the vicg g -

tim but also sympathyadmiration and even love for the,

captured animal. This love and admiration is manifest inp

Courbet's hunting scenes. It was not simply the desire tog pY

give a free rein to his abilities as a painter that led Courbetg p

tout so much effort into the Hanging roe deer. He wasP g g

fully aware that hunting was as much about love as it wasY g

about sport. He even drew this comparison himself in ap P

scribbled note: 'during the periods when hunting is not al-

g p g

lowed there are always pretty young girls to be found inY P YY gg

ty game,the hay.'26 a ame whose frivolous side he also saw

and gacknowled ed. After all, `the hunt cannot be taken se-

riousl in a civilised country. Here it is a game in whichY Y g

one can develop many talents and instincts and expendp Y

much ener .' 27u energy:2

18 Jules-Antoine Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879),

2 vols., Paris 1892, vol. 1, pp. 26-27.

19 Jules Luquet acquired the painting in 1862 in an ex-

change with the Antwerp dealer Van Isachers, who hadg p

bought it in 1858 without paying the full price; seeg

Robert Fernier, Courbet, 2 vols., Paris 1977-78, vol. 1,

p. 116. Luquet in turn sold it to the Allston Club in

Boston in 1866. It was reproduced in Le Magasin

Pittoresque as a woodcut in 1864 (Le Magasin

qPittores ue 32 [March 1864], p. 81) and was probably

also exhibited at Luquet's gallery around this time.

20 Theuarry measures 210 x 180 cm, the originalq

canvas was 162.5 x 94 cm; Hanging roe deer is

x 128 cm; the animal in the latter work is thus about

10% larger.

21 Paul Mantz, 'Exposition de Lyon,' Gazette des

Beaux-Arts 9 (1861),. 323: 'Tant que la fermeté dup

pinceau et la sureté de la pratique seront appréciées en

France, on tiendra en quelque estime le Chevreuil, qui

parait être l'étude originale, et comme un fragment du

tableau de la Curée, exposé au Salon de 1857.'

22 Exhib. cat. Courbet, Paris (Grand Palais) & London

(Royal Academy) 1977-78, no. 144.

23 Letter from Otto Scholderer to Henri Fantin-Latour,

quoted in Léger, op. cit (note 17), p. 69: 'Un ChevreuilqP

accroché a un arbre, avec un petit ruisseau dans lequel se

reflète le paysage.'

24 Léger, op. cit (note 10), p. 72.

25 The quarry, 56 x 44 cm, London, Stoppenbach

& Delestre; see Fernier, op. cit. (note 19), no. 187.

26 Courthion, op. cit. (note 4), vol. 2, p. 38: 'Dans lesp

temps ob la chasse est défendue it y a de jolies filles dansP

les campagnes, au foin.'

27 Ibid., p. 39: 'La chasse en pays civilsé ne peut être

prise au sérieux. Dans notre pays c'est un grand jeu ob I'onp pY

eut dé lo er beaucoup de talent, d'instinct et d'activité.'p pY p

fig. 7

Gustave Courbet, Dead roe deer, 1876,

Paris, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris

In this sense, theaintin manifests a peculiar ara-P g A A

dox. The event depicted is the bloodiest part of the hunt,P P

andet the prey's suffering is not shown. In the SalonY P Y g

piece, a small pool of blood is visible on the ground whereP ^ P g

the hounds are sniffing, in Hanging deer, all referg ^ g g -roe

ences to cutting and disembowelling have been avoided:

g g

the deer's sliced-open belly is turned away from the viewP Y Y -

er. Yet there had long been a convention in painting whichg A g

did not eschew blood andore. Courbet would have had ac-g

cess to Rembrandt's Disembowelled ox in the Louvre,

which shows the staked-open animal in all its fleshyglory.P Yg Y

In Courbet'saintin however, we are only shown the at-P g> Y

tractive side of the animal which - there is no other way ofY

putting it - has been painted with a great deal of affection.p g P g

The tragic look in the empty blue eyes is underlined by theg PY Y Y

animal's-reowerless pose. In his letters the artist spokeP P P

s ectfull of the beauty and vitality of deer, and by render-P Y Y Y Y

in the creature so discretely he appears to have wanted tog Y pP

save it from any further humiliation. It would seem thatY

Courbet, who, on the whole, never spared his audience, has

92

JOURNAL 1999

here recoiled at a certainoint, probablypreciselybecauseP p Y

he did know the realities of the hunt. He has here appliedpA

therind le of decorum used in history painting to guar-A p

antee the integrity of the human figures, even if the respectg Y g p

he shows wasrom ted by his reverence for nature ratherP p Y

than theaintin tradition.

p g

Courbet's friend andreat admirer, the criticg

Champfleury,author of the manifesto L e réalisme, howev >-

er, had a different view. He found that his hero, theainterp

of large-scale, democratic, modern historypaintings thatg Yp g

rejected beauty - The stonebrealiers (1849) and A burial atY 49

Ornans (185o) had abandoned his true calling for the sake

5 g

of commercial success. The writer saw the Hanging roeg g

deer at an exhibition on the Boulevard des Italiens and

wrote: `The roe deer, having been so successful at theg

Salon [he is here referring to The quarry] and the privateg 9 y p

exhibition on the Boulevard des Italiens has won over the

timid souls who, seeing nothing but a dead animal in a

g g

landsca e and relieved no loner to be confronted with

p ^ g

frightening human figures, seek to propel the artist tog g g ^ -p p

n rate.' 28 This is a fascinating piece of criti

wards the second g -p

cism firstly because it comes from a friend who was radu-

Y g

all becoming alienated from Courbet, and secondly beY g ^ Y -

cause it contains aerm of truth. Courbet did indeed man-g

age to sell the Hanging roe deer at this exhibition for theg g g

of 2 o francs.29 His Battle o the stags sum o o f s^ 5 g

was almost sold at about this time to the Administration des

Beaux-Arts, and he was nominated as a candidate for the

Légion d'honneur. Appearances therefore certainly suggestg PP Y gg

that Courbet was being coopted by the establishment of the

g p Y

Second Empire, whereas it had been precisely their rejec

p ^ p Y -J

tion of this regime that had tied him to Champfleury. BgY

choosing to paint animals, Courbet had abandoned his roleg p

as a militantainter, Champfleury argued, because al

p ^ p Y -g

thou h `a great artist [is] capable of rendering worthwhileg g P g

all that is touched by his brush,' this did not mean that allY

subjects were equally important: `man is of greater interestq Y P g

than an animal, and artists who focus exclusively on theY

pre resentation of fowl and livestock are artists of an inferi-

r kind. Ironically, Champfleury, who clearly had noo Y^ p Y^ Y

time for l'artpour l'art, has here re-introduced the ancientp

hierarch of genres, one of the mainstays of the academic

Y g ^ Y

theor he utterly detested. He also added a social and olitY Y -p

ical dimension to his criticism, commenting derisively that

g Y

`rich landowners should simply invite the artist to decoratepY

the extensive halls of their castles with hunting scenes.' 31s.' 31g

Champfleury desired a role for artists in society and rep Y Y -

fused them aersonal art. The private significance of these

personal p g

for Courbet becomes apparent in the later variapaintingspp -

tion fi . painted in Switzerland, where he was exiled fol-^ g 7)p

lowinghe downfall of the Paris Commune. Courbet dedi-g

cated theaintin to his fellow exile, General Gustave-PaulP g

Cluseret. Human suffering and the suffering of the animalg g

seem here to have been set on aar. Courbet wrote of hisp

friend and com atriot thepoet Max Buchon - who hadp , p

been forced to flee to Switzerland much earlier, after the

coup d'état of 1851- that `he was hunted like a wildp

st.' 32 Courbet also painted himself wounded at the footbea p

of a tree in L'homme blessé (Paris, Musée d'Orsay) - a ro-Y

manticselfortralt as a'gasping, d In man.' 33 Having ma-

p dying g

noeuvred themselves into theosition of victimes de la so-p

ciété Courbet and his fellow republicans had identifiedP

their lot with that of wildre .p Y

93

28 Champfleury, Grandes figures d'hier et d'aujourd'hui,

Paris 1861, p. 259: 'Le Chevreuil, dont la fortune a été

grande au Salon et à ('exposition particulière du boulevard

des Italiens, a ramené les esprits timides qui, ne voyant

u'un animal mort dans un paysage, n'étant plus effrayésq p

ar la re presentation de I'homme, ont cherché à pousserp P

('artiste dans une vole de second ordre.'

29 Correspondence, cit. (note 1), p. 178, letter from

Courbet to hisarents, Paris, late June 1861: 'J'ai vendup

en arrivant à Paris, le tableau du Chevreuil pendu (de

pI'ex osition de Besancon) à ('exposition des boulevards

2500 francs.'

30 Champfleury, o . cit. (note 28), p. 259: 'Un grandP p

artiste donne valeur a tout ce que touche son pinceau;

mais l'homme est plus intéressant que ('animal, et ceux

qui se sont voués exclusivement à la representation des

poules et des brébis sont des artistes inférieurs.'

31 (bid: 'Qu'un riche propriétaire invite le peintre pour

décorer les vastes salles de son chateau de peintures de

chasse.'

32 Correspondence, cit (note 1), p. 318, letter to

Casta nar , Salins, 16 December 1869: 'II fut traquég Y

comme une bête fauve.' See also Herding, op. cit. (note

2), p. 87.

33 Correspondence, cit. (note 1), p. 114, letter to AlfredP

Bruyas, Ornans, 3 May 1854.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

Giuseppe de Nittis, The Victoria Embankment, London,

94

1875, USA, private collection

19TH-CENTURY STUDIES

Spatial engineer and social recorder: Giuseppe de Nittis and

the development of 19th-century cityscape imagery

Caroline Irag

The recent sale of Giuseppe de Nittis's Victoria Embankment,PP

London fi . 1), 1 a work that bears a striking resemblance to

( g ), g

Monet's Houses of Parliament (London, National Gallery), hasY

awakened interest in the influence this lesser-known Italian

artist might have had on the evolution of cityscape ima er ingimagery

i th-centur France. Despite the fact that de Nittis produced9 Y P P

numerous cityscapes durin his 17-year tenure in Paris, makduring -7Y -

in him one of the most prolific artists in this genre, his roleg P g

in its development has generally been underestimated. Still,

P g Y

the combination of striking spatial constructions and contemg -sP

orar subject matter in his works, all dating from the 18P Y subject ^ g os7

and early i 88os compel consideration of his part in the reY ^ -P A

vival of theainted cityscape.P

The development of spacep p

De Nittis entered the Parisian art world at the Salon

of 1872, with the exhibition of a small, unobtrusive painting P g

entitled The road from Brindisi to Barletta (fig. 2). This im-

age of a horse-drawn wagon accompanied by two workersg g P Y

on a lonely country road in southern Italy might have beenY Y Y g

overlooked due to its modest subject. Instead the artist'sluse of a strong, expressive, spatially-aggressive st le to de

g ^ P ^-styl

the quiet country scene captured the attention of many q Y P Y

critics.'

Victor Cherbuliez wrote: `This carriage, this horse,g

P '3 and he forecastthese strollers are master feces, great

things for the Italian artist - `a veryyoung man about whomg YY g

one canredict without risk of being mistaken, that if heP ^ g

will far.'4 Writing in the Gazette desdecides to do so he wil go gg

Beaux-Arts, Paul Mantz stated that his name was one that

erremembbeb'should '5 and The road was later consid-remembered, '

to have secured his reputation: `Ever ear sinceP 'Every

[1872], M. de Nittis has attracted and held the attention of

k n.' 6the critics, so powerfully awo e

P Y

Beyond bringing the Italian instant recognition inY g g g

Parisian artistic circles, The roadfrom Brindisi to Barlettaf

came tola a role in the development of avant-garde landtoplay -P g

sca e painting. While still conforming to traditional aes-P P g g a

thetic (demonstrated by the acclaim it received at the offi-Y

cial Salon),the image bore witness to an inventive stylisticg Y

exexploration on the artist's part that would be of enormousP P

Interest to modernist Frenchamters in laterr years? DeP Y

Nittis formulated his composition using a rapidly receding g p Y g

ers ective that draws the viewer into the picture at an alA -P P

most alarming rate, reaching the two figures only after tun

g ^ g g Y -

nellin through a broad, empty foreground. The construcg g ^ pY -g

tion is so strong that these figures, and indeed the land-

g g

sca e details themselves, seem almost incidental.P

95

1 New York (Christie's), 5 May 1998, lot 38.

2 De Nittis's work actually premiered at the Salon of

1868 with the exhibition of a work in the costume-piece-

à-la-dix-huitième-siècle genre made popular by fashion-

able artists such as Géróme and Meissonnier.

3 Victor Cherbuliez, 'Salon 1872,' Revue des Deux

Mondes (1872), cited in Vittorio Pica, Giuseppe de

Nittis, Milan 1914, p. 86.

4 Victor Cherbuliez, 'Lettres sur le salon,' Le Temps

(16 June 1872).

5 Paul Mantz, 'Salon de 1872,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts

6 (July 1872), p. 48.

6 Jules Claretie, L'art et les artistes francais contempo-

rains, Paris 1876,. 406: 'Chaque année, dès fors [1872],p

M. de Nittis allait attirer et retenir ('attention, si puisse-

ment éveillée, de la critique.' See also Louis Gonse, 'Salonq

de 1874,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts 10 (July 1874), p. 41.

Italian critics, too, considered this work 'il punto di parten-

za della fama del de Nittis'; see Jacopo Caponi, La vita a

Pari i di Folchetto, 2 vols., Milan 1886, vol. 1, p. 150.g

7 De Nittis's ability to explore new territory while simul-Y P

taneousl remaining respectful of a more traditional aes-Y g P

thetic was frequently commented upon in the Frenchq Y P

ppress: see Ary Renan, 'Joseph de Nittis,' Gazette des

Beaux-Arts 30 (November 1884),. 395-406 and Paulpp

Mantz, Exposition J. de Nittis, Paris (Galerie Berheim-

Jeune) 1886.

De Nittis's early spatial investigations (manifest in aYP g

number of other works from the late 186os soon influ-

enced both his Italian compatriots and fellow FrenchP

artists. Their impact on Gustave Caillebotte, for example,

P ^ P,

can be seen in his Route to Naples (fig. painted while

p (g3)P

workin side by side with de Nittis in southern Italy. Inworking Y Y

Caillebotte'saintin an abandoned horse and buggy areP g ggY

placed along a quiet road (opposite in orientation from thatP g q PP

of the de Nittis), which moves backwards into space. TheP

ace of the recession is so fast that the picture's central obP -sP

jects seem almost plastered against the mountain behind.1 P g

Althou h obviously meant to be in the far distance, the mo-Although Y

tion assigned to the road prevents them from occupying

P PY g

correctro ortional scale.P P

Kirk Varnedoe has suggested that artists likegg

Caillebotte and de Nittis were naturally attracted to suchY

spatial constructions in their search for new ways of putting Y P g

our three-dimensional world onto a two-dimensional can-

vas: `In the 18705, when deep space began progressively to

7 P P g P g Y

be annulled inaintin , and a way beyond naturalism was

P g Y Y

sou ht it is understandable that a new detachment fromg^

standarders ective ... would have led to similar ex lo

P P -P

ration of theeri heral abnormal possibilities of spatial

P P ^ P P

construction.' $ The altered space of Caillebotte's laterpaint-

P P

ins including the famous Paris street: rainy day (The Artg ^ g y y

Institute of Chicago) and The Pont de l'Europe (Geneva,

g ^

Musée de Petit Palais demonstrate that the research con-

ducted alongside de Nittis early in his career continued to af-g Y

fect his mature work.9

Caillebotte was not the only artist to be inspired bY P by

de Nittis. In 1875, while working for Goupil & Cie., Vincentworking P

van Gogh was exposed to several of the artist's pictures. 1 °

g P P

Van spaceGogh's fascination with de Nittis's use of s is evi-

g P

denced in the corner of a letter to his brother Theo: a

thumbnail sketch g 4)fi . q of the Italian's Victoria Embank-sketch(fig

. . While the older artist indicates diminishing ) g

via a line of trees marching back into space atperspectiveg P

measured intervals, Van Gogh exaggerates and hastens the

g gg

recession by arranging his small, vertical marks at evenY g g

in ry 1 11closerto .a s

Van Gogh's interest in de Nittis's use of perspective

g P P

also appears in his later works. In his 1887 Parisian

PP 7

cityscape The Boulevard de Clichy (Amsterdam, Van Goghy g

Museum Van Gogh gives us a wide, sweeping central areag g ^ P g

with a tree-lined boulevard branching off to the left. Theg

fig. 2

Giuseppe de Nittis, The road from Bridisi to Barletta,

c. 1872, Italy, private collection

fig. 3

Gustave Caillebotte, Route to Naples, c. 1872, Paris,

private collection

recession of the street is accelerated by the rhythm of theY Y

-spindly, leafless trees, the light standards, and the verticalg

1 -thrusting fa ades of the surrounding buildin s.12Y g ^ g buildings. 1

and Parisian monuments

De Nittis's influence on landscape painting alP P g -was

read noted at the time by Paul Mantz. He considered TheY Y

road from Brindisi to Barletta to have been extremely im

Y -

ortant for the independent artists just then in the processP P just P

of creating their own stylistic idiom, writing that it'had

greatly served impressionism, becoming for many seekersg Y P ^ g Y se

i continue X13the point of departure for studies which cot ue today.' 13 P Y

De Nittis's role in the development of contemporary art was

P P Y

still further compounded, however, by his interest in theP Y

Parisian cityscape. Significantly, his entr into this fieldentry

96

^ 0 .t.1^^sP

kr:Ditrurs :Jusvriultltrsi'RANÇAIS;L'!$ k ETR..,

Rus CHAP TAL , 9, PARIS.

SiGCClir3al`s 1 In Hmr,Iondres,iierlin, New l'ak.

ES

JOURNAL 1999

dates to that briefperiod when French avant-garde artistsP g

were also exploring this genre. De Nittis's specific urbanP g g P

iconographyworked a on his contemporaries in various P P

ways.

De Nittis's cityscapes can be divided almost equallyq Y

between those depicting Paris's major monuments and thoseP g majo

the social playgrounds of its inhabitants -arks,illustrating P Yg parks

and the fashionable boulevards. Those in the

first category include such distinguished structures as the

g Y g

Palais des Tuileries, the Institut de France, the Ecole Mili-

taire, the Invalides the Opéra and the Arc de Triomphe. The

P P

slsignificance of these monuments and public buildings in theg P g

Second Empire was emphasised by their placement within

P P Y P

theh sical reorganisation of the city carried out by BaronPY g Y Y

Haussmann and Napoleon III in the 18505 and 605. 14 In thisP

lan monuments were set apart in order to accentuate theirP ^ P

function as memorials to the nation'sreatness - either his-g

torical military,cultural or artistic. Removed from shadowy

sites and arranged as centrepieces within large, open circles,g P g P

the became embodiments of the 'glories of the French pastthey g P

in ' 15 overwhelming and impressinggand her modern lest g pY

both foreigner and native alike.g

In accordance with Haussmann and Napoleon III'sP

designs, many of de Nittis's cityscapes dramatically isolate ag YY

specific structure from its surroundings. In The Pont des ArtsP g

fi . for example, the Institut's `monumental' character is(g 5) á

underlined not only by its central placement and dominating P g

size, but also by the space in which it is situated. It is viewedY P

from areat distance, set back from the foreground, andg ^ g

strikin 1 preceded by a long path (the bridge itself). Thisstrikingly Y gP g

/,). 1z//7ulh

//7a. e jte o,t e7 t c^at c7Lcxv e^ec^t 72 K2e e7,. te ' ee7z Sc/L c'

^e7z ^ e4 ^

''

^, . (ha7t U^le ^llittts 7 2t72 CfELtc/u- tr lG`7Z^Ut^í!/ 07, evc

J

Zecq c7tc76cxU, IttSlmtri-Srlez X'zitit ^ ^ li,e icruJe c,/^ r

^ r.^. 1 r %/ÍuYZ CVL772Ct^r. J-^ C77 e[JCe7't 7rtUZ p e7t dCk2l-(r77t^

^ereez 1LteJ/nzi ez66z1ta e^ toecl ,AAt, olcx/ e t u7./

`^

c112í uC' Cle .ZC7t vccltfez /ea (x61-ev ^.

/he /ZUZtJe oPaticrx77,e,7/ Jzoe hel^J 77zot e 7zJ tnve is , J ` ttri77/e^.^ ,7ze^ J72eetttu

^ ^

7tlSl. _

' J c h ru ,C ot. c^ L^v^e ^vl e ^ lt /i o e r; Jt u-cti rt.a^/^ 119c^ti

^^^, ^

IX(h2ote7t lzvtcr).^---lc c/, oi elvo'7 ilL hel 'vei.)otrvz 77tij ij clt <^t vrxzv

g

cLGtrX72 UtTt . _ ^L^ l7'2 Ot7t1< EU,0'Lb ILtU LZUCCY(1^,•.•

,&alt^l ' ^zixcxz r^lc7r,ole7z a,ocl c^elvv, ClZ zeke2^ ^r^12(2f.-

fig. 4

n van Gogh, sketch in a letter to Theo van Gogh,Vincent g, g.

24 Jul 1875 [39/32], Amsterdam, Van Gogh MuseumY

(Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

path, which connects the fore- and backgrounds planes, nar-p g P

rows sharply as it recedes, resulting in a thrusting erspec

PY ^ g g -P

tive reminiscent of The road from Brindisi to Barletta.

This manipulation of perspective, in the form ofP P P

elongation and extension, pulls the viewer's eye into depthg ^P Y P

at a stunning speed, accentuating the sense of relief and ex-g P ^ g

8 Kirk Varnedoe, exhib. cat. Gustave Caillebotte: a ret-

rosective exhibition, Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)P

1976, p. 24.

9 For further discussion of the parallels between these

two artists see Kirk Varnedoe, Caillebotte, New Haven

1987, pp. 188-89.

10 De Nittis was under contract to Goupil at this date,

see Caroline Goldberg [Igral, Giuseppe de Nittis: an

Italianers ective on the Parisian cityscape (diss., NewP P

York University, 1995), p. 52.

11 J.G. Van Gelder, 'Vincent van Gogh and de Nittis,'

Vincent 3 (1974), no. 3,. 7. Leo Jansen has suggestedp

(correspondence of 23 December 1998) that Van GelderP

was mistaken in his assertion that Van Gogh is here refer-

ringo de Nittis's Veduta di Londra. He suggests that theg

clearly different orientation of the river in Van Gogh'sY

sketch indicates the influence of a different de Nittis

aintin . In fact, de Nittis did execute a series of works inp gthe area of the Thames with the same wide-open per-

spective sketched by Van Gogh. Nevertheless, the inclu-

sion of the line of trees along the banks, so determining

in both artists' pex lorations of space, and the clear evi-

dence that Veduta di Londra was then in Goupil's pos-

session, strongly suggests that it must have been at leastg Y gg

artiall responsible for Van Gogh's rendering. Jansen'sp Y P

comments, however, raise the possibility that Van

Gogh's sketch was based on a composite understandingg P

of several of de Nittis's views.

12 Van Gogh might also have been influenced byg g

Meindert Hobbema's The alley at Middelharnis (1689),

already in the collection of the National Gallery inY

London by the early 1870s. This work certainly inspiredY Y

Monet and Pissarro; the latter's Avenue de Syndeham

(London, National Gallery) of 1871 explicitly refers to the

perspective construction found in Hobbema's work.P p

13 Cited in Sophia Monneret, L'impressionisme et sonp

époque, 2 vols., Paris 1978, vol. 1, p. 175: ' [...] a beau-

coupervi ('impressionisme en étant devenue pourp

uel ues chercheurs le point de départ dune étude qui

q q p

dure encore.'

14 Theart played by the city's statues, buildings andp p Y Y

other structures in establishing Paris's reputation was al-

read commented on by Alphonse Esquinos in the 1840s.

Y Y p

He insisted that rather than being revealed through its

museums and academic institutions, it was these physical

monuments thatointed 'to the history of the nation andp

beyond that to the progress of the world'; see Andrew

Y Pg

Lees, Citieserceived: urban society in European andP

American thought, 1820-1940, New York 1985, p. 79.g

15 Sylvie Gache-Patin, 'The urban landscape,' in RichardY p

Brettell (ed.), exhib. cat. A day in the country, Los

Angeles (Los Angeles Country Museum) 1984, p. 110.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 5

fig. 6

Giuseppe de Nittis, The Pont des Arts, c. 1875, Crema, Giuseppe de Nittis, Place des Pyramides, 1876, Paris,

P. Stramezzi collection

Musée d'Orsay

citement at finally reaching the monument. A city-Y g great -Y

sca e aimed at merely documenting the building's appear-p Y g g PPear

ance and setting might have depicted it from closer b di-

g g A Y^

minishing the area in front. De Nittis's emphasis on theP

fore round demonstrates his intention to move well beyond

g Y

mere -topography. The over dramatisation of the path leadP

in up to it suggests his genuine admiration for the ma ni-

g p gg g g

tude of the structure and furthermore, his faith in its s m

and, -Y

bolic significance.g

The same sentiments are evident in de Nittis's

focus on a monument ofreat importance to thepost-

g p P

Communeeriod seen in his Place des Pyramides of 18 6P ^ y 7

(fig. 6 : the Tuileries Palace, burned by the Communards

( g ) ^ Y

in 1871. De Nittis's decision to include both a pavilion

7 P

of thealace - covered in scaffolding to indicateP g -recon

struction - and a statue of Joan of Arc - asymbol of tri-Y

um hant France - has obvious political implications.

P P P

With this single painting, Italian expatriate expressedg P g^ P P

his supreme confidence in the rehabilitation of the nationP

under the Third Republic. 16P

De Nittis's images of Parisian monuments stand ing

stark contrast to the work of the French avant-garde, whog

enerall shunned such obvious subjects and almost always Y ssubjects Y

excluded identifiable structures. In Monet's View o thef

Tuileriesardens (Paris, Musée Marmottan), example,

g P,

the artist managed to paint a very central area of the city P Y Y

while still confining its strongest element - the burned outg g

Tuileries Palace - to a slim border at the very edge of theY g

canvas. This is not to suggest, however that his works hadgg >

no effect on the impressionists. Indeed, although the avant-A ^ g

arde usually turned its back on monumental Paris - seeking Y g

to capture the city in its essence rather than its particularsP Y -P

there are -urexamples in which identifiable locations werep P

osefull chosen in order to concretise an impressionistic Y ressionisticP

rendering. One of these is De gas's Place de la Concorde of

g g

18 (St Petersburg, e Museum). Here the French1875 g^ Hermitag

focuses on a location mucho ulated by the ParisianPP Y

bourgeoisie. The site echos that of de Nittis's own Place de lag

Concorde after the rain Istanbul Governor's Palace),exhib-

ited earlier thatear at the Salon. 17 Al h Degas's ou h De as s workY g g

98

JOURNAL 1999

concentrates on the local inhabitants - a fundamental differ-c

ence in approach- the French artist verbally acknowledgedpp Y g

de Nittis's influential role: `What is certain ... is theart hep

played as an inventor in the world of those painters who dep -Y p

l.' 18scribe the streets and Paris in general.' 18

the Parisian populaceImagesofte si ppDe Nittis's interest in depicting the Parisian public,p g p

like his fascination with the city's topography,originatedY

not onl from a genuine artistic inclination but also fromY g

an intense desire to assimilate into French society.1919Y

Accordingly,his personal and professional moves were p p

careful) calculated to achieve this goal.2°Y g

Earl in his Parisian career, de Nittis realised thatEarly

no matter how well he situated himself and his family

within Parisian society, best chance of winning its af-Y^ g

fection would be to make it the centrepiece of his oeuvre.p

For the mostart abandoning his earlier interest in leinp g -p

airaintin and monumental cityscapes, b the late-187osp g by 7

de Nittis began to focus on scenes of the Parisiang -oppu

lace engaged in its most typical bourgeois activities.Yp g

In an effort to understand the tastes and habits of

theeriod de Nittis devoted much of his time to wander-p

in through the city's fashionable areas, such as theg g Y

Champs-Elysées. This avenue had been the most popularpp

arade ground for the city's socially prominent since theP g Y YP

,21 De Nittis's awareness of its importance Em ire ortancepEmpire. 2

Parisian daily life is clearly indicated in his diary:Y Y Y

in along the Champs-Elysées I have further proof of'Passing gpg

the cheerful bonhomie that is sotypical of the French.'22YP

Both natives and foreigners understood the si nifi-g g

cance of this avenue as a symbol rather than as a mere thor-Y

hfare 23 and it is therefore not surprising to find it feaoug p g -

tured in several of de Nittis's works. In The Avenue du Bois

with the Arc de g 7) áTriomphe (fig. for example, group pa row of eo-

Pp

p (

le are depicted clustered under the chestnut trees at a side-

walk café just down from the monumental arch. Henry Y

Houssaye was particularly impressed with the way thispaint-

Y p Y p Y p

in seemed to capture a real moment in everyday Parisiang p Y Y

life: `Here in aaintin entitled Under the chestnut trees, theA g

circle at the Arc de Triomphe is seen in the light of a beauti-p g

ful summer's day. On the chairs along the sidewalk we seeY g

women showing off their bright outfits, which sparkle in theg g ^ p

sun • the carriages file past along the road in front of Rude'sg P g

bas-relief. It is a reminiscence of the via appia, is with a sensa-

tion of luminous light penetrating and warming you: 24Xg p g gY

16 See Caroline gIgra, 'Images of destruction and recon-

struction: Giuseppe de Nittis's forthright approach topp

ost-Commune Paris,' Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 67 (1998),P

157-73. For an in de th discussion of the role of thePP P

nationalisticatriotism of the years following the Franco-P

Prussian War and Paris Commune and de Nittis's treat-

ment of Parisian monuments see Caroline Igra, 'Monu-

ments torior glory: the foreign perspective on post-e

Commune Paris,' Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 62

(1999), pp. 512-26.

17 See Jean Boggs, Portraits by Degas, Berkeley 1962,

p. 93, fn. 16.

18 Letter from Degas to Mme de Nittis, 21 May 1877;

quoted in Piero Dini and Giuseppe Luigi Marini, De

Nittis, 2 vols., Turin 1990, vol. 1,. 326: 'Ce qu'il y a dep

net [...] c'est ('attitudeu'il a prise d'inventeur dans leq P

monde deeintres qui font des rues et du Paris en

P q

éneral.' Degas is here writing in reference to de Nittis'sg g

Paris seen from the Pont Royal (present location un-

known), exhibited in 1877.

19 De Nittis's desire for assimilation is explored in the

author's article 'Italian artists in Paris in the late 19th

century: the establishment of the Polenta,' StoriaY

dell'Arte, forthcoming 2000.

20 In this context we may again recall the Italian artist's

relationship with Gustave Caillebotte. The connection be-p

tween theseainters in the public eye – based on theirp P

common interest in hurdling spatial constructions and thegp

Parisian cityscape – dates to the early 1870s. Significantly,

Leon de Lora mentioned de Nittis in his criticism of Caille-

botte's work at the impressionist exhibition of 1877;p

see Leon de Lora,'L'exposition des impressionistes,' Le

Gaulois (10 April 1877). However, the affinities betweenp

the two went beyond their work. They became closeY

friends soon after de Nittis's arrival in Paris, and Caille-

botte was a frequent guest at de Nittis's homes in Naplesq g

and Barletta, even becoming godfather to Giuseppe's son

qJac ues in 1872. The close and continuous contact be-

tween them is revealed in the anecdotes recorded in the

Taccuino; see Giuseppe de Nittis, Taccuino, 1870-1884,

Bari 1964,.138.Of further significance, both men werep

members of the upper class who, through the practice of

P p g p

art, delved into 'Bohemian' territory. Although acquaintedY

with a number of artists who had chosen to branch off in-

dependently, de Nittis sought to solidify ties only withg

those from a more aristocratic background. Caillebotte fitg

thisrofile: he was a perfect example of how one couldP P p

exhibit and associate with the g'frin e' while still maintain-

in one's bourgeois social standing; see Goldberg [Igra],g

op. cit. (note 10), p. 78.

21 An 1878 issue of L'Univers Illustré noted the great

o ularit of Tuileries, la place de la Concorde, lespopularity p

Champs-Elysées, I'avenue du Bois de Boulogne et le Bois

lui-même,' which had rapidly increased over the past twop

decades; see 'Courrier de Paris,' L'Univers Illustré (6 July

1878).

22 De Nittis, op. cit. (note 20), p. 145: 'Passando perip P

pCham s-Elysées ho un'altra prova di quell'allegra bono-

mia che è tipica dei francesi.'

23 As de Moncan and Mahout write, the Champs-

EI sées'n'estlus alors une romenade, c'est un symbole.Y p p

La democratie coule àJeins bords, et toute cette fouleplein

qui marche d'un pas égal semble s'avancer vers un avenir

inconnu'; see Patrice de Moncan and Christian Mahout,

Le Paris du Baron Haussmann, Paris 1991, p. 94.

24 Henry Houssaye, 'L'art en dehors du Salon,' L'ArtisteY Y

(Ma 1880), p. 381: 'Voilà bien, dans le tableau qui a pour(May p

titre Sous les marronniers, ce rond-point de l'Arc dep

Triom he vu dans ('éclat dune belle 'ournée d i ke. Sur lesTriomphe J

chaises des contre-allées, les femmes étalent leurs Claires

toilettes,ue fait miroiter le soleil; les equipages défilentq

en bon ordre sur la chaussée, devant le bas-relief de Rude.

Une reminiscence de la via PPa ia, une sensation de luxe

lumineux vousénetre et vous réchauffe.'p

fig. 7

Giuseppe de Nittis, The Avenue du Bois with the Arc du

Triomphe, 1880, Milan, private collection

The accuracy of de Nittis's depiction of ParisiansY P

actin out their own mini-dramas under the distant shad-acting

ow of the Arc de -Triomphe makes it an almost literal ictoA P

realisation of the social commentaries written by foreignY g

visitors of the time. It closely echos the observations ofY

Augustus Hare, who wrote: `To a foreigner, half an hourg g

sent on the boulevards ... has the effect of an infinitely Y

diverting theatrical performance.' 25g P

It is not surprising to note that Jean Béraud, anoth-A g

er Parisian artist interested inaintin modern genreP g g

scenes, also chose the Champs-Elysées as a focus of his

work. In The Avenue des Champs-Elysées USA private col(USA, -P

lection we find a similar interest in directing our atten-g

tion to the life of the French gbour eoisie in their charac-

teristic social milieu. Here, the central subject - `la femme

Parisienne' - completely fills the left half of the canvas,P Y

while the avenue behind(herla round' awaits her ar-P Yg

rival.26

Of course, the Champs-Elysées was not the onlyY

stylish neighbourhood in Paris. Following the expansion ofY g g A

the city's limits under Haussmann, districts formerly ^ Y -con

sidered somewhat remote came to assume a moreromi-P

nentlace in Parisian daily life. 27 One 0 e such location wasY

the Bois de Boulogne. Between 18 2 and 18 8 the Bois was

g 5 5

transformed into aublic park, offering an assortment ofP P ^ g

enticing recreational activities intended to attract theg

flourishing middle classes. 28 Bent on depicting de ctln ParisiansP g

in their `natural environment,' de Nittis understandably

turned to the excellent material on offer here. His oeuvre

includes manypromenading well several fo

YA g -

scenes, as as s

cusin on the popular activity of horseracing. 29

g PP Y g

Horseracin had burgeoned under the Secondg g

Em ire. Longchamp and Auteuil became centres of fash-

P g P

ion, where crowds ofeo le gathered to see and be seen -A P g

and sometimes to actually watch the race . 30 De Nittis'ss e Nittls s

profound understanding of the major role of theA g -orl race

course in Parisian social life can be seen in his large trip-

g P

t ch The racecourse at Auteuil, exhibited in 1881 at theY

Cercle de l'Union Artistique (fig. 8). In the left-hand panelq ( g ) A

we find a woman standing on a chair in order to better seeg

100

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 8

Giuseppe de Nittis, The racecourse at Auteuil, 1881,pp

Rome, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna

what is happening on the turf; she is accompanied by aPP g ^ P Y

manazin in the same direction. In the central panel, ag g P

smallrou of people has gathered around a wooden stoveg P P P g

filled with hot coals; they are completely immersed inY P Y

their own conversations and in trying to get warm, and areY g g

totall oblivious to the nearby race. Finally, the right-Y Y Y^ g

handanel we get a glimpse of the track itself, seen fromP g g P

the spectator's viewing box. The woman with binocularsP g

serves to remind us of the ostensible reason for this basi-

call social gathering.Y g g

Like any other form of entertainment, these racesY

were as much distractions as attractions, and social con-

vention did not demand constant attention to the main

event. Accordingly,the attendees are depicted as engaged P

in their own spectacles, sometimes entirely ignorant of theP ^ Yg

official activity taking place before their eyes. Considering gP Y g

25 Augustus J. C. Hare, Paris, London 1887, p. 5, citedg

in Donald J. Olsen, The city as a work of art, New Haven

1986,. 217. For similar sentiments see Anthony NorthP

Peat, Gossip from Paris during the Second Empire:

correspondence, 1864-1869, London 1903, p. 79.

26 De Nittis's cityscapes were extremely significant to

modernenre artists, particularly those with a foreigng p

back round. Examples include Jean Béraud and Albertg p

Benois from St Petersburg; Luigi Loir from Austria; deg

Molins from Switzerland; and Boldini, Marchetti and

gSi norelli from Italy. See exhib. cat. The Belle Epoque:

fashionable life in Paris, London and New York, 1870-

1914, New York (Stair Gallery) 1981, p. 3. Boldini is par-

ticular) notable as he worked in Paris at the very sameY

time as de Nittis, and briefly dabbled in cityscape. His

Place de Clichy (Valdagno, Marzatto Collection) offersy g

further indication of de Nittis's influence; both its theme –

a well-known Parisian neighbourhood – and style – incor-

oratin an altered type of perspective almost panoramicp g

in nature – strongly recall the latter's work. The works ofgY

many of these immigrants highlight the city's buildingsY

and streets, using a scrupulous technique. Another in-g p

stance is Béraud's The boulevard: evening in front of the

Théátre des variétès (Paris, Musée Carnavalet), in which

the artist not only chose a well-known and popular loca-

tion, but also enlivened it with depictions of the kind ofp

Parisians Ypt ically found there. The result is a striking il-

lustration of contemporary life: a genre scene par excel-

lence. It is not psu rising that this type of picture was at-

tractive to foreign artists like de Nittis, particularly wheng

one considers itsreat appeal to art collectors and deal-g pP

ers; see below.

27 The renovation of these areas and the establishment

of social activities within them wasart of the Frenchwaspar

overall effort to overcome the horrors ofg

1870-71; see Robert L. Herbert, Impressionism, New

Haven 1988, p. 305.

28 Severaleriodicals, such as Le Monde Illustré, docu-p

mented the activities at the Bois, and most contempo-

raries confirmed both its essential role in city life and the

'elevated' status of those who used it. Alfred Delvau, for

pexam le, noted that the Bois was 'The privileged prome-

nade of aood half of Paris, the richest half, of course';g

see his Plaisirs de Paris, Paris 1867, p. 31. Zola also de-

scribed the Bois'sart in (upper) middle-class social lifep pp

and the way one's presence there was interpreted as a re-Y p

flection of one's social standing; see Herbert, op. cit.

(note 27), p. 146.

29 See Mark Girouard, Cities and people, New Haven

1985, p. 291.

30 See Theodore Reff, Manet and modern Paris, Chicago

1982. 129. The importance of the racecourse in hautep p

bourgeois leisure life is demonstrated by its prominentg

ppplace in contemporary literature and art. One artistic ex-

ample is provided by Manet's inclusion of Longchamp inp p

his suite ofaintings devoted to civic themes in contempo-p

rar Paris, planned for the Hotel de Ville.Y p

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

hisrofessed devotion to depicting the Parisian populace,P P g PP

it is not surprising that de Nittis's interest in the observersP g

superseded that in the horses and races themselves. 31P

Arecedent for this particular focus on the spectatorsP P P

as well as the races isrovided by the series Manet devotedP Y

to the subject in the 18605. 32 In works such racecourse s suc a s The acecourse

at Lon cham (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University ArtLongchamp g^ Y

Museums) we are shown both the action along the sidelinesg

and that of the contest itself. Manet, however, does not force

our involvement with the crowd, while de Nittis doesre-P

cisel that. First, he provides a far more energised and vitalY P g

icture of what is going on in the stands, delineating g g ^ g details

of both incident and description. Next, he physically inserts

P ^ P Y Y

the viewer into the crowd of onlookers by positioning himYP g

beside theartici ants in the drama. For example, standing P P^ g

next to the leftanel, the viewer is confronted with a mirrorP

image of himself, depicted almost life size. By situating theg P Y g

viewer among the attendees in this way, artist alsog Y^ -as

serts his ownresence and position in the crowd, among P ^ g

those who defined Parisian society.Y

The reception of this triptych, as well as of the otherP

works de Nittisroduced on this theme, demonstrates theP

degree to which they were considered accurate portrayals ofg Y P Y

the daily life of the Parisian bourgeoisie. The critic for LaY g

Petite Republique Fran aise wrote: `Paris! Never has an artistFrançais

therand city with a more loving brush. No oneg Y g

has better understood the arisienne than this Italian. Atp

Bernheim's, several of de Nittis's canvases show us the races

from a variety ofpoints of view. What movement! WhatY P

teeming life! That's what it's really like!' 33 In eager ag Y -ree

g g

ment, Mantz remarked that in these works de Nittis had cap-P

tured Parisian society better than any other artist: `Never hasY Y

theictures ue grace of thereat city and thephysiognomyP q g g Y

of itseo le been so well written, so finely re un .'34p p co tedY

The art market and French society

The way in which these cityscape enre scenes aY-genre P

eared to accuratelyportray the middle classes going aboutP YP Y g g

'socially-correct' activities made them extraordinarily oY Y -uP P

lar in the art market. The buying public was eager for imY g -erP g

a es in which they could see themselves, and their grandg Y ^ g

lifest le reflected. To meet the growing demand, a largeY^ g g ^ g

bod of work depicting members of the fashionable eliteY P g

amusing themselves on Paris's stylish byways emer d. 35g Yemerged. 3

Nittis was not alone in his attentiveness to this au-

dience. Indeed many avant-garde artists catered to it asY g

well, indicating the determining role financial pressureg g P

on artistic choice. Renoir's Morning ride in the Bois deplays ^

Boulogne (Hamburger Kunsthalle), example, is theg g ^ P^

artist's conscious attempt to adopt a more 'pleasing' st le.P P style

well-heeled individuals, outfitted in full riding gear, aregg

shown enjoyinga morning jaunt along the neat bridle paths

g ] g P

of the Bois. Robert Herbert saw this image - so different fromg

Renoir's other works at the time - as an effort to capitalise onP

therowin market for this type ofpicture, and as evidenceg g YP

of his desire to achievereater social act n ,36g epta ce

By the 188os de Nittis, now accepted as an indeY ^ -enP P

dent and accomplished artist, could begin to concentrate

P ^ -exg

clusivel on producing those records of French society thatY P g Y

would enable him to rub elbows with the Parisian elite.

Sometime later, writing on a series ofpastels the artist hadg P

executed for the Album de la Société des Aquafortistes, Julesq

Claretie commented: `He is the vibrant and elegant painterg P

of modern existence, of all that is feverish, troubled, refined,

102

31 De Nittis's lack of interest in the 'main attraction' is

indicated in his memoirs. In aassage concerning Derby g Y

Day in London in 1876, he reflects primarily on the pretty

women in attendance, and shows ambivalence toward

the races themselves, off-handedly gcommentin : 'Non

star6 a descriversi il Derby, perché son tutti eguali, è il

giorno the vede in festa tutta l'Inghilterra'; see de Nittis,

op. cit. (note 20), p. 124.

32 See Jean Harris, 'Manet's racetrack paintings,' Art

Bulletin 48 (March 1966), p. 79.

33 See 'Bonvin-Nittis,' La Petite Republique Frangaise

(12 May 1886): 'Paris! Jamais un artiste n'a décrit la

grande ville d'un pinceau plus amoureux. Personne n'a

mieux compris la Parisienne que cet Italien. Chez

Bernheim, plusieurs toiler de Nittis nous montrent les

courses sous leurs divers aspects. Quel mouvement!

quelle vie grouillante! Comme c'est ca!'

34 Mantz, Exposition, cit. (note 7), p. 11: 'Jamais la

grace pittoresque de la grand ville et la physiognomie des

gens qui s'y condoient n'ont été aussi bien écrites, aussi

finement racontées.' The success of these images as doc-

uments was also pointed out in the obituary that ap-

peared in L'Univers Illustré, in which the author claimed

that, like de Nittis's other imagery, 'ses pastels de coursesY p

[... ] resteront un des plus curieux documents de notre

époque'; see 'M. de Nittis,' L'Univers Illustré (30 August

1884).

35 For the extensive literature concerning the artistic

JOURNAL 1999

ofoetr flirted with and ignored, of the daily seductions inofpoetry g ^ Y

our life .... Painters like de Nittis who are uniquely inq Y-

spired by truth and their time are, in effect, bound to last:P Y >

they give those who come after a testament to the life of theYg

entire epoch, the life of today, life, and which tomorp ^ Y> > -

n history.' 37row will be nothing but memory and yg Y

De Nittis's appreciation of what the city offered himPpY

personally was integral to his ability to capture it as 'exp-p Y g Y p P

enced fact,' asaint on canvas. As early as 18 Claretie hadp Y 75^

insisted on the

-importance of De Nittis's particular fascinap p

tion with his subject matter: `We speak ... of the paintersJ p p

who understand the sentiments of modern life, [who depictp

the] simple and charming scenes which Paris offers us daily.p g Y

This special feeling, one possesses it to a greater degreep g^ P g g

than M. de Nittis. With his sunlitaintin s come all the se-P ^

ductions of Parisian 'high life' the elegance of the Bois, theg , g

circuit of the Lac, the outfits - warm in winter light dresses,g

in summer. He is taken with our life, as a Parisian would be

taken with a street in Constantinople or a lane in Naples.'38p p

Throw h his cityscapes documenting the changing

Throughg g g

face of the city as it recovered from the Franco-Prussian WarY

and the Commune in the 18 os and his depictions of the ac7 ^ -p

tivities along the boulevards and gentrified parks, Giuseppeg g P ^ pp

de Nittis became the unofficial interpreter of Third Republic

p p

Paris. Already in 1874 Mantz had remarked: `these smallY 74^

b M. de Nittis will become precious one day! Theypaintingsby p Y Y

'39 and some years laterwill be documents for our history yY

heroclaimed the painter `the spiritual historian of modernp p p

manners and the chronicler of st lishness. X40Y

Examination of the formal and iconographic aspectsp

of de Nittis's oeuvre galon side those of his artistic contempo-

raries suggests the significant role he played in the develop- -g p Y p

ment of French cityscape painting. Whether as inspirationp g P

for the mainstream or for the avant-garde, the Italian's workg

reveals the modern city through its inhabitants both for- --g

ei n and native - and equally,the wa the artists' im resg and, way -p

sions were determined by their personal agendas.Y p g

treatment of these subjects see Brettell, op. cit. (note 15);

B. Grad and T. Riggs Worcester (eds.), exhib. cat. Visions

of city and country, Worcester (Worcester Art Museum)

1982; and Reff, op. cit. (note 30), p. 24.

36 Herbert similarly suggests that Renoir painted LesY gg

rands boulevards (Philadelphia Museum of Art) in orderg p

'To find a client capable of buying the more elegant andp Yg

permanent record of a famous street which an easelp

aintin rovides', Herbert, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 15-16.P gP

Like many independent painters, Renoir was never satisi-

fied with hisosition outside of the official art world.p

Having achieved little success through his participation ing

the impressionist shows, he was one of the first to returnp

to the Salon, and by 1880 he was exhibiting at both 'offi-Y

cial' and 'unofficial' venues; see ibid., p. 149.

37 Claretie, Po . cit. (note 6), p. 416: 'II est le peintre vi-

vant et elegant de I'existence moderne de tout ce qu'il yg

a de fiévreux, de trouble, de raffiné, de poesie coudoyée

et ignorée, de séductions dans notre vie de tous les joursg

[,.,] leseintres ui s'inspirent uniquement de la vérité etp q p

de leur temps, comme de Nittis, sont certains, en effet,p

de durer: it lèguent a ceux ui viendront le testament de

g qu

vie de toute une époque ui est la vie d'aujourd'hui, laqu

moderne, etui sera demain le souvenir et l'histoire.'q

38 Ibid.,. 327: 'Nous parlons tout à ('heure des pein-p p

tresui ont le sentiment de la vie moderne, des scènesq

toutes simples et toutes charmantes aussi que nous offrep

qquotidiennement Paris. Le sentiment spèciel, nul ne le

possède a un degré supérieur a M. J. de Nittis. Après ses

tableaux ensoleillés toutes les séductions du high life

pgparisien, les élégances du Bois, du tour de Lac, des toi-

lettes, frileuses en hiver, des robes légères de l'été. II a

été frappe par notre vie à nous, comme un Parisien lepp p

seraitar une rue de Constantinople ou un vicolo dep p

Naples.' See also his comments on p. 402.

39 Paul Mantz, 'Le Salon,' Le Temps (10 June 1874):

'Combien sesetites peintures de M. de Nittis devien-p P

drontjrécieuses un jour! Ce seront des documents pourp

notre histoire [...] ('historien es irituel des moeurs mod-

ernes et le chroniqueur des étégances.'

40 Mantz, Exposition, cit. (note 7), p. 5.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

H.W. Mesdag, Breakers in the North Sea, 1869-70,

104

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

19TH-CENTURY STUDIES

Hendrik Willem Mesdag's Breakers in the North Sea

(1869-70)

Fred Leeman

Aenerous gift from Johan Poort now enables the Vang g

Go h Museum to present to the public a painting that notGogh P P P g

only signified the beginning of H.W. Mesdag's career as aY g g g g

seasca e painter, but was also one of the first masterworksP P

of the Hague School. To the surprise of many, ing P Y^

the North Sea fi . won Mesdag a gold medal at the Salon

( g ) g g

of 1870. The following will sketch the painting's origins and7 g P g

examine its-osition within Mesdag's oeuvre. What haP g P

ened to the painting after its disappearance will only P g PP Y be

examined in brief, as this has been extensively writtenY

about by others.Y

Mesdag first mentioned a large seascape he was working g P g

on in a letter to his Belgian friend, Alfred Verwée: `Im resg ^ -P

sed by one of those bad days, I have painted over that largeY Y^ P g

h improved.' 1 Thismarine painting you saw. It is now much pP gY

letter dated 1 November 186 was written from The5 9,

Ha ue where Mesda had moved from Brussels earlierg , g

thatear. He had spent the summer of 1868 on the GermanY P

Frisian island of Norderne where he had discovered hisY,

calling as a seascape painter. The various studies madeg P P

there bear witness to his fascination with the sea. In one of

these fi . 2) he sought to capture the constantly changing( g ) g P Y g g

shape of the waves, exhibiting a touching confidence in theP ^ g g

realist capacities of his art; this study may even allow us aP art; Y Y

of what the Breakers may have looked like in theirglimpseY

earliest state. However, he was well aware that in some re-

s ects his work was still rather amateurish and, with t iP YP-

cal zeal, he set about improving himself. To properly depictP g P P Y P

the sea he had to study it day and night, and under differentY Y g

fig. 2

H.W. Mesdag, Study of waves, 1868, The Netherlands,g

private collection

conditions. Mesdag described this period in a later inter-g P

view: ` ... at home I had spent an entire winter fumbling atP g

a work; it was a coastline, but very naively painted. Then I> Y YP

said to myself: `You have to have the sea in front of you,Y Y

everyday,to live with it otherwise all this will come to>

nothing.' And then we went to The Hague.' 2g g

Mesda did not think his 1868 seascapes were ready P Y

forublic display. At the exhibition of the Brussels SociétéP

Libre des Beaux-Arts of January86 , however, he surY -9

prised the critics by exhibiting a number of hyper-realistP Y g YP

street scenes and landscapes. His submissions to the ParisP

Salon that spring – two paintings which had probably alP g P g P Y-

105

I would like to express my gratitude to Johan Poort, who

put the rich holdings of his Mesdag Documentation

Centre entirely at my disposal.

1 Quoted in Johan Poort, Hendrik Willem Mesdag (1831

-1915): Oeuvrecatalogus, Wassenaar 1989, p. 511, letter

to Verwée, The Hague, 15 November 1869: 'J'ai repeint

sous pI'im ression d'un de ces mauvais jours la grande ma-

rineue vous connaisez. Le tableau a beaucoup gagné.'q

2 J. D. 'Een Zeerob,' De Nieuwste Courant (9 March

1901): '[...] thuis had ik een heelen winter aan een werk-

stuk zitten scharrelen; 't was een kust, maar zo naïef

geschildered. Toen zei ik: je moet de zee voor je zien,

eiken dag, er mee leven, anders wordt het niets. En toen

gingen we naar Den Haag.'

^xYs^k^.^......

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 3

Gustave Courbet, 'La Méditerranée': view of the

Mediterranean at Maguelone, near Montpellier, 1858,

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museurn

ready been shown in Brussels - were rejected, and he felt itY l

unwise to take the same risk with the Brussels Salon in

July. Both his cousin, Alma-Tadema, and his colleagueY g

Verwée advised him againstparticipating, feelin his workg feeling

`was notet sufficiently resolved.' 3 In the end, though,Y Y ^ g,

Mesdag decided to hazard La saison des eaux, à file deg

Norderney (present location unknown). Four paintings by P P g by

Gustave Courbet, the hero of the Brussels realists, were al-

so on view at this event. 4 One of these was a seasca e LesP^

rochers noirs à Trouville resent location unknown),con-e

frontingMesdag directly with a great model of marineg g Y g

aintinpainting.g

Having settled in The Hague, Mesdag immediately g g Y

began to work on studies of the sea and landscape. Theg P

bad weather did nothing to deter him: `Nature is so beauti-g

ful here, but the weather has been awful so far.' 5 He also

immediately involved himself in The Hague art scene,Y g

showin at the Tentoonstelling van Levende Meesters.showing g

The titles of theictures on display - What will become ofP P Y

106

3 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 509, letter to Verwée, The

Hague, 20 June 1869: '[...] selon lui [Alma-Tadema] ces

tableaux n'étaient pas assez complêts pour ma réputa-

tion à Bruxelles.'

4 Catalogue de l'Exposition Général des Beaux-Arts de

Bruxelles de 1869, Brussels 1869, nos. 252-255: 252 - La

source (Paris, Musée d'Orsay); no. 253 - La dormeuse

(see Fernier, Courbet, 2 vols., Paris 1977-78, no. 534 or

536; this picture was later bought by Mesdag); no. 254 -

Les rochel noires de Trouville (ibid., no. 511); no. 255

-Paysage. The identification of all the works was made

possible through the descriptions and cartoons in Castor

and Pollux, Salon de Bruxelles 1869. Revue illustré,

Brussels 1889, pp. 8, 28 and 35.

5 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 509, letter to Verwée, The

Hague, 20 June 1869: 'La nature est ici si belle, mais le

temps a été jusque ici si mauvais.'

6 C. Vosmaer, 'H. W. Mesdag,' Kunstkronijk 16 (1875),

PP . 81-83.

7 See Saskia de Bodt, Halverwege Parijs: Willem Roelofs

en de Nederlandse schilderskolonie in Brussel, 1840-

1890, Ghent 1995, p. 79.

JOURNAL 1999

them? resent location unknown) and A pastime: a viewp p

rom the dunes on Norderney (present location unknown) -

from y p

indicate that he was immersed inaintin marines. Thisp g

lasticture was described by the well-known writer and

p Y

critic Carel Vosmaer in a way that suggests Mesdag's soberY gg g

realism seemed odd to his cultivated eye: `a piece of beach

Y P

and sea, vertical and strangely cropped.' He ironically re-g Y pP Y

named the other work - `a sea with a small boat with ship-p

wreckedeo le floating about' - `What will become of

p p g

him?,' ala on the young artist's uncertain reputation.P Y Y g p

The titles also demonstrate that Mesdag was not averse tog

including anecdote or narrative in his paintings. Tog p g

Vosmaer, his entires were `an entirely unconditional con, Y -

fession of his faith in realism,' which attested to `an ex-

tremel independent, audacious way of seeing.' However,Y P ^ Y

in order to become true art `this unshakeableursuit' hadp

to avoid 'asperity' and be `tamed and controlled by one or Y

rmore of the Graces.'6

This was the image Dutch art critics had of Mesdag g

from the very beginning,and one can certainly say that his

Y Y Y

brand of realism was relatively new to them. In BrusselsY

he had moved in the circle of the Société Libre des Beaux-

Arts, where the tenets of realism were dominant. Its he-

roes were Baudelaire andarticularl Courbet, who hadp Y

r. 7 He had exhibited hisbeen made an honorary member. 7

notorious Stonebreakers (destroyed)at the Brussels SalonY

as early as 18 1. His work had been shown there regularlyY 5 g Y

also .8ever since and he als paid frequent visits to the citp q Y

Verwée was even among his friends. It is hard to imagineg g

Mesda 's development in Brussels and later in The Hagueg p g

had he not been familiar with Courbet's ideas or never

seen hisaintin s.p g

Unlike the seascapes Mesdag exhibited in The Hague inP g g

186 there are no anecdotal figures or any other kind of

9^ g Y

gstaffa e in Courbet's seascapes (fig. 3). Whenever humanp (g3)

fifigures do appear, their minuscule presence merely servesg Pp ^ p Y

to emphasise the immensity of the space. Having seen onep Y P g

of Courbet's seascapes at the Brussels Salon, Mesdag decido p , g -

ed to repaint the 'large marine painting,' which he had bep g p g^ -

un at Norderney. His inspiration was the North Sea coastg Y p

hevenin en which, being close to The Hague, he couldat Scheveningen g g ,g

stud to his heart's content. He rented a room in the VillaY

the sea. 9 The reworking of this canvasElba with a view of t g

must have beenuite radical, and was likely carried outq , Y

during the last few months of 186 .On 24 January 18 0,g 9 4 Y 7

however, he told Verwée that he hadet to finish thisY

`rande marine,' ' the work that was to become the Breakersg

in the North Sea. `You wouldn't recognise it,' he wrote to hisg

friend who had seen the painting in its previous state on afriend, p g p

visit to The Hague at the end of August.1°10g g

We know that in November 1869 Mesdag had still

9 g

not decided whether he was going to submit anything at allo g g Y g

to the Paris Salon. His hesitation was understandable; after

all, he had been turned down on hisrevious attempt. It

p P

was only in March 18 o that he made up his mind to exhibitY 7 P

two paintings, of which was to be `la grande marine't sp g^ -g

rovided of course that they were not rejected `like the lastprovided Y ected]

'11 He sent his entries to the French capital viatime p

Brussels where Verwée saw them at the art dealer

Mommen's. He was notarticularl impressed by thep Y p Y

Journée d'hiver à Schéveningue, but thought the largeg ^ g g

seasca e was `très bien,' much to Mesdag's satisfaction.p ^ g

The artist, however, was unwilling to accept his> g p

friend's critique of the winter scene, and his defence of the

painting says much about his methods and aims. Mesdag g Y g

questioned whether Verwée had seen the painting `in aq p g

frame andro erl lit.' He then went on to explain the mop p Y -p

of in detail insistin that ever thin was true to life: `I have, g Y g

studied andainted this subject from nature and have triedp subjec

render the subject simply and naively, without attempt

subject PY -Y

in to turn it into a painting of dramatic gestures.' Theg p g g

main effect he hoed to achieve was that of `a large spacep

li ht.' 12filled withg

`Unerande espace pleine de lumière' was certain-g p p

1 also what he strove for in the `rande marine.' In theY g

8 The Frenchainter visited Brussels in 1857, and hep

stayed there for a few months in 1858; he returned againY

in 1861. In 1860 and 1864 he exhibited at the Brussels

Salon and in 1868 he tookart in the Ghent Salon;p

finally, four works were exhibited in Brussels in 1869Y

(see note 4).

9 See Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 33.

107 10 Poo rt , op. cit. (note 1), pp. 511 and 513, letters to

Verwée, The Hague, 19 March 1870 and 13 September 1869.

11 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 513, letter to Verwée, The

Hague, 5 March 1870.

12 Ibid., letter to Verwée, The Hague, 19 March 1870:

'J'ai étudié eteint ce sujet directement d'après nature etp

Yj'ai essayé de rendre ce motif simplement et avec naïveté

sansenser den faire un tableau avec beaucoup d'éclat.p

[...] unerande espace pleine de lumière.'g

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

firstlace he used a wide canvas, complyingwith theP

standardro ortions for marine paintings – twice as wide

P P P g

as high – thus creating a panoramic effect. 13 The same g p sa e for-

mat reappears a number of times in Mesdag's oeuvre, forP p g

exam le in A winter's day at Scheveningen (fig. 4). ThisP ^ g ( g 4)

painting corresponds to the description of Journée d'hiverP g P P

à Schéveningue in the letter to Verwée, and it seems highly

g ^ g Y

probable that it was the other Salon entry of 18 theP Y o7^ -enP

dent to Breakers in the North Sea. Another work of the

same size is a View of Brussels painted in 1868 (fig. 5). ItP (g 5)

reproduces a sweeping view from Mesdag's studio, createdP P g g

b first tracing onto transparent tacked to the winY g -paper PPer

dow. 14 The broad Mesdag's shape also emphasises Mesda s hyper-P P g YP

realist intentions: these works were not carefully consid-Y

ered P representationscompositions but rather re resentations of the unhin-

dered field of vision as such. There is no support for thePP

ed es of the painting, the cropping on the left andg P g^ PP g

right seems arbitrary. While still in Brussels Willemg Y

Roelofs had taught him that a landscape should to beg P

crocropped in this way so that `the viewer does not notice itPP Y,

has been cut off, so that it continues in his mind.'15

In Breakers in the North Sea Mesdag has subtly -g Y or

anised the infinite and elusive seascape within thisg P

broad format. Theoint of view is low, and the horizon isP

located slightly below centre, leaving the breakers to

g Y ^ g

dominate the sea almost completely. The painting thusP g

represents the sea as seen by someone standing on theP Y g

beach. The beach itself is invisible, but the drift in the

surf indicates itsresence at the viewer's feet. Mesdag deP g -

icts the waves crashing over each other, first in layers g ^ ersY

and then in long,diagonal folds. A little further in the dis-g ^ g

tance, as they begin to break, their crests are blown away g Y

by the wind. At the centre, where two waves meet, theY >

foam is depicted in the brightest white of the wholepaint-

P g P

ing. Above, in a swirling, grey, sky, area of lightg ^ g^ g Y^ stormy Y^ g

answers to the foaming water below. It is what Jamesg

-Joyce would have called `a snot-coloured sea': in its reY grey-

ness it leaves everypicturesque convention behind. And

YP q

et there are two traces of a human presence: driftwoodY P

from a shipwreck in the foam, and a ship clearly in diffi-P ^ P Y

culties on the horizon. While spatial points of referenceP P

are largely absent, these elements provoke reflection ong Y ^ P

the destructive force of the sea.

Mesdag was probably aware that his choice of mo-

g P Y

of brought him into direct competition with his illustriousg P

model, Gustave Courbet. Anna Croiset van der Kop statesP

in her 1891 biographyof Mesda that ` he had already g Y

heard about ít.' 16 Courbet had ad decided to submit a marine

painting to the Salon in September 186 when he was atP g P 9^17Étretat on the Normandy coast. In his own words, bothY

Courbet's entries, The stormy sea (Paris, Musée d'Orsay) ^ Y

and The cliff at Étretat (Paris, Musée d'Orsay) were 'tinY

succès monstrueux.' 18 The reviews were favourable,

though partly originatingfrom the artist's own claque. His

g P Y q

friend Jules Castagnary,for example, saw a 'perfect a P ^ -cP

cord between idea and execution' in theseictures. 19 The e

more moderate Georges Lafenestre spoke of vigorous

g P g

brushwork arandness of aspect and a breadth of style. 2 °

g P Y

The conservative Wolff, however, suggested that thesegg

were merely studies and were unripe as works of art. 21y p t

In contrast the reviews of Mesdag's Breakers in theg

North Sea were lukewarm. Camille Lemmonier thoughtg

that the 'overwhelming' sea in Courbet's Stormy seag y

looked as if it had been 'sculpted in glorious black marble, g ,

shot through with carmine red interwoven with threads ofg

luminescent emeraldreen.' Mesdag's waves, on the other

g g

hand, `lacked substance, and break limply; although they g Y

do spew beautiful tufts of foam.'22P

Accordin to his 18 1 biography,Mesda felt thatAccording 9 Mesdag

Courbet'saintin s at the Salon of 18 o were `clever' andP g 7

13 The canvas is not, however a standard marine size; a

Toile de 120, marine is 97 x 195 cm; the Breakers in the

North Sea measures 90 x 180 cm.

14 See Fred Leeman, 'Mesdag's passion for the bound-

less,' in Yvonne van Eekelen (ed.), The anoramagical -g P

ma. The Mesdag Panorama: an experience in space andP

time, Zwolle & The Hague 1996, pp. 46-49.

15 H.F.W. Jeltes, Willem Roelofs: Bijzonderheden be-

treffende zijn leven en werk, Amsterdam 1911,. 84.p

16 A. Croiset van der Kop, 'Hendrik Willem Mesdag,'

108 Elsevier's Geillustreerd Maandschrift 1 (1891),. 437.p

17 See Correspondence de Courbet, ed. Petra ten

Doesschate-Chu, Paris 1996,. 312, letter from Courbetp

to hisarents, Étretat, September (? 1869.p ^ p (?)

18 Ibid., p. 329, letter to his sister Juliette, [Paris], 29

Aril 1870. He sold the Cliff at Étretat to the art dealerp

Hector Brame; see ibid., p. 333, letter to Gustave Poret,

Paris, 3 June 1870.

19 Jules-Antoine Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879),

2 vols., Paris 1892, vol. 2, p. 396.

20 Georges Lafenestre, Le Moniteur Universel (7 May

1870).

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 4

H.W. Mesdag, A winter's day at Scheveningen, 1870,

The Hague, Panorama Mesdag

'powerfully expressed ... ' but that they were insufficient-P Y P ^ Y

1 `based on nature.' This, too, seems to indicate thaty >

Mesdag was both already familiar with Courbet's marineg Y

work and that in 187o he was purposefully competing with7 P P Y P g

the Frenchainter.P

--Despite its unenthusiastic reception and much to everyA P

one's astonishment - Mesdag's Breakers in the North Seag

was awarded aold medal. Before it went to press, theg P

Kunstkroni'k made space available for a 'very important1 A Y P

announcement ' namely, H.W. Mesdag had won `the

Y^ g

great gold medal.' The misconception that Mesdag hadg g P g.23 However, the gold medal has persisted ever since ,g P

the Livret of the Salon of 1872 states that he was only one7 Y

of4o artists to have received this particular accolade.4 P

The honour nevertheless came as areat sur rise, notgreat P

least because the members of the artists' society PulchriY

Studio in The gHa ue - if we are to believe Johan Gram -

had objected to Mesdag becoming even a 'working memobjected g g g -

' year before.24 Mesdag's own bewildermentber only the e gY Y

109

21 Albert Wolff, Le Figa ro (10 May 1870).

22 Camille Lemonnier, Salon de Paris 1870, Paris 1870,

208, 211-12: 'La mer ourageuse est sculptée dans unpp

admirable marbre noir veiné de filets carminés auxquelles

s'entrelacent en trainees lumineuses des verts d'émé-

raudes'; ibid.g. 214: 'La vague de M. Mesdag manquep

de solidité et déferle avec mollesse: en retour, elle

s'écrête de bons bouillons d'écume.'

23 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 41. Poort has claimed thatp

Mesdag was awarded this gold medal at the expense ofg g

Courbet (see idem, 'Les brisants de la Mer du Nord,'

Tableau [November 1991],. 74), but this was certainlyp

not the case. Because he had won a second-class medal

in 1849, and again in 1857 and 1861, he did not qualifyg

for a medal in 1870; see Explication des ouvrages deP

einture, scut ture, architecture, gravure et lithographieP p

des artists vivants exposés au Palais des Champs-Elyséesp

le 5 mai 1870,. ci. As an artist selected to serve on thep

jury (although he never got further than third on the re-y g g

serve list) hennualified for a Legion d'hoeur; he re-q g

fused this award, however, after the outbreak of war

with Prussia; see Correspondence, cit. (note 17), pp. 323

and 326-29. See also Leeman, op. cit. (note 14), p. 48.

24 Johan Gram, Onze schilders in Pulchri Studio,

Rotterdam 1880, p. 55.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 5

H.W. Mesdag, View of Brussels, 1868, The Hague,

Panorama Mesdag

is apparent from a letter to Verwée in which he thankedPP

his friend for hisood wishes: `You must certainlybe asg

amazed as I am.'25

Mesdag was keenly interested in the Salon reviews

g y

and asked Verwée to keep him closely informed of whatP y

was being written. 26 He could hardly wait to hold theg y

medal in his hands and viewed the outbreak of the

Franco-Prussian war as an irritating inconvenience, -g ^ per-

fectl timed to obstruct the sending of his decoration.y g

Finally, more than a year after it had been awarded him,y yMesda came up with the idea that a painter friend of hisMesdag P P

could bring it with him from Paris; whether or not thisg

plan was carried out is not known. Since the medal is now

in the Museum Mesdag (among all the many honours theg g y

painter received during his lifetime), it clearly g ^ however, y

made its way to him somehow. Mesdag repeatedly spoke

Y g P y P

of his award in his letters and insisted on being men-g

tioned by dealers as a medal winner when he showed atY

xhi i 'theire b dons27.

The artist would have been renouncing his mercan-g

tile origins if he had not immediately understood the con-y o

sequences this award would have for his career and theq

price of his paintings. He considered it an opportuneP P g PP -mo

ment to adjust the values, and even his dealers acceptedadjust ^ P

that the figures would rise as a result of his success.g

Mesda sold the winning Breakers in the North Sea to `unMesdag g

amateur' for 2,500 francs. The buyer the genre and^5 y g

ortrait painter Charles Chaplin, a member of the 18P P P ^ o7

jury. Mesdag expected . Mesda ex ected the sale to add extra shine to his

medal in the eyes of the Dutch. 28 He was extremely proudy yP

of the brief announcement of hisrize signed by the faP g y -

mousainter Jean-Fran ois Millet. He had it framed, andP ^

it hung in his studio from that day on. 29 Mesdag also rg y g so -e

ceived congratulations from Félix Ziem, another memberg

of the jury. 3 °l y

We do not know how or when theaintin finally leftP g y

Charles Chaplin's collection. It was no longer among hisP g g

ossessions b the time the artist's studio was auctioned inP y

1891. 31 The only trace the heirs turned out to have was ay32hoto ra h. It was not until 1 1 that the researches ofP g P 99

Johan Poort and his collaborator Robbert Ruigrok finally y

bore fruit. Twoaintin s, which appeared to be of the seaP g PP

but to which a number of boats had been clumsily added,yturned out to be the reworkedarts of the original aintin .Ppainting.

The left half, moreover, had been given a false signature.> g g

110

JOURNAL 1999

The detailed examination of the materials thatreceded theP

rejoining of the two halves confirmed that both had indeedg

beenrimed in the same way and therefore incontestablyp Y,

belonged together. Furthermore, the various stages of theg g ^ g

aintin could be seen, and these matched perfectly g ^ p Y with

' 33 The carefulMesdag's descriptions in his letters to Verwée. 33 A

observer can still see a slightly darker stripe slightly to the

g Y P g Y

right of centre that witness to the mutilation of the painting p g

by posterity.Y pY

25 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 513, letter to Verwée, 30 See H. W. Mesdag, cit. (note 27), p. 65, letter to

The Hague, 28 May 1870. Goupil & Cie. (Paris), The Hague, 27 August 1871.

26 Ibid., p. 514, letter to Verwée, The Hague, 9 June 31 See Venfe après décès de Charles Chaplin,

1870. Paris (Haro), 28-29 April 1891.

27 See H.W. Mesdag: de Copieboeken of De Wordingg p

van de Haagse School, ed. J. Poort, pp. 28-30.

28 Poort, op. cit. (note 1), p. 514, letter to Verwée,

The Hague, 2 July 1870.

32 Reproduced in exhib. cat. The Hague School: DutchP

masters of the 19th century, The Hague (Gemeente-

museum), Paris (Grand Palais) & London (Royal

Academy) 1983, p. 81.

33 An extensive account of the history of the restoration

29 Croiset van der Kop, o . cit. (note 16), p. 437. can be found in Poort, op. cit. (note 23), passim.p P p111

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 1

Gustave Caillebotte, Déjeuner, 1876, Paris,

private collection

112

19TH-CENTURY STUDIES

'Such absurdity can never deserve the name of Art':

impressionism in the Netherlands

Benno Tempelp

Museum Mesdag in The Hague paintings from theIn the Mus g g p g

Barbizon School and the Dutch Hague School hang Ba g g in

fashion side by side. When Hendrik Willem Mesdag fash y g

.d his collection to the State of the Netherlands indonate

the most up-to-date assemblage of its1903,it wasce y p g

in the country. It was praised not only for its modernity,kind y p Y

for the quality of its contents: `Millet in all his manibut also fo t y -contentsq

Rousseau and Daubigny are the householdfestations, g y gods;g

art displayed both here and in Mesdag's museum isall theg

almost entirely a paean of praise to the new movement, aY p P

1 for impressionism, for a broad and powerful concepplea p -p

'^ today are still struck by the wealth of the col-tion. Visitors y y

l ction but are scarcely likely to describe the paintings ase ^ Y y p

rimpressionist. From the earliest days of its use in theimp e y

rlands in the last quarter of the 1 th century the termNetherlands q 9 Y

'impressionism' elicited remarkable reactions. This article,

the art criticism of the period, will examine whatbased on t p ,

m.2 It hasprecisely was understood by this controversial term. 2 Y Y

)read been argued that there were no Dutch impression-already -g p

3 it has been stated that the movement left nofists. Indeed,

Countries.4 Thus, before examining at all on the Low Count g

itself, I shall first consider the reception given herethe term is p g

n h painters who allied themselves with this style.to the French lec p Y

The French impressionists and their exhibitions:pDutch reactions

In 1874 a group of French artists joined together to74^ g p joined g

re themselves to the public under the name `Sociétépresent themsele p

es artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc.'anon me des p p ^ gY

ns for combining forces were partly dissatisfacTheir reasons g p Y -

annual Paris Salon. However, it was not only with the ^ y a

desire to exhibit that prompted their action; theygeneral d p p Y

-dimoreaseestowanted balanced selection of work salso a

d together with a more spacious method of hanging.played, g p gp Y-rewas later to become known as the first impression-In what p

n o artists showed a total of 1 6 paintings. Infist exhibition, 3 5 p g

pcom arison that same year there were 3,657 entries ony 3 57

the Salon. Unfortunately the new group failed toview at y g P

sell many of their works - which had been a major reasonY

show in the first place - and the Sociétéfor organising the pg g

disbanded. Nonetheless, its founders re-grouped,was soon disb

followed. 5 From 1877 onand seven more exhibitions fo 77 on, those

referred to themselves as 'impressionistes,' ataking part pgp

coined by the critic Louis Leroy in an articlename co y y -ubp

lished in Le Charivari on 25 April 1874, after seeing p g

's Impression: soleil levant 18 2 Paris, MuséeMonet p 7

Marmottan.6

113

1 Johan Gram, 'Het Museum Mesdag,' Haagsche

Stemmen 39 (1889),. 477-78; cited in Saskia de Bodt,pp

'If unfinishedaintin s become commonplace,' in Fredp g p

Leeman and Hanna Pennock, Museum Mesdag: catalogue

ofaintin s and drawings, Amsterdam 1996, pp. 51-52:P g g

'Millet in al jzine uitingen, Rousseau en Daubigny zijn deg

huis oden: de kunst, die zoo hier als in Mesdag's museumhuisgoden

bijna opprijkt, is bina uitsluitend eene lofrede o de nieuwe rich-

tin g, een pleidooi voor het impressionisme, voor eeng p

breede, krachtige opvatting.'

2 There is a very large body of criticism which discussesY g Y

impressionism, but I shall restrict myself here to examplesp Y

that illustrate how the term was used. It is not my inten-

tion toresent an exhaustive study of the subject of im-top resen

in Dutch art criticism.p

3 See Ronald de Leeuw, 'Introduction,' exhib. cat. The

Hague School: Dutch masters of the 19th Century, Parisg

Grand Palais), London (Royal Academy of Arts) & The(Grand Y

HaHague (Haas Gemeentemuseum) 1983, p. 35.g g

4 John Sillevis, 'Post-impressionisme,' exhib. cat. Eenp

feest van kleur:ost-im ressionisten uit particulier bezit,p P

's-Herto enbosch (Noordbrabants Museum) 1990, p. 13.g

5 For the impressionist exhibitions see exhib. cat. Thep

newaintin : impressionism 1874-1886, Washington

p g p

(National Gallery of Art) & San Francisco (The Fine ArtsY

Museums of San Francisco) 1986.

6 On the history of the term 'impressionism' in France

see pSte hen F. Eisenman, 'The intransigent artist or how

the impressionists got their name,' in ibid., pp. 51-60.p g

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Beginning in the 18 os, a number of reviews ag g -7 p

eared in the Netherlands dealing with the impressionistp g p

exhibitions. Paris was the cultural capital of Europe, andp p^

both artists and critics sought inspiration there. ? However, p ever,

a closer examination of the criticism reveals that Dutch

writers often failed to do justice to the movement.l

One of the earliest references to the impressionistP

exhibitions was made by Marcellus Emants, a Dutch liter-Y

ar figure who occasionally reviewed exhibitions in theY g Y

18 os. When discussing the new artistic approaches of the7 g pp

HaHague School he was moderately liberal, but when itg Y

came to -reimpressionism his conservative attitudesP p

vailed. Emants wrote about the second exhibition18 67

and he was far from enthusiastic. `I would find it hard to

give a name to what I saw hanging there. Most of theg g

things are certainly not paintings, unless one chooses tog Y p g^

call a few splodges of colour a painting. And they -P g Y are cer

tainl not drawings, one thing it is harder disY sg ^ g -even ar to

cern aro er line in them than in the channels dug bp p g by

children in the sand on a Dutch beach after the waves

have washed over them [...]' 8 The critic pcom ared

Caillebotte's Dé'euner (fig. to `Chinese' principles of

1 (g ) p pperspective, an interesting - if mistaken - comparison. Weg p

may assume he was actually referring to Japanese prints,Y g p p

which as is well known, had areat influence on the im-g

pressionists.

Many characteristic aspects of impressionism areY p p

examined in this short article, entitled `De "Salon des

Refusés" to Parijs.' As well as perspective, the critic disParijs.' p p , -

cusses the way in which shapes have been made indistinct,pthe representation of contingent impressions, and the useP g P ,

of strong complementary colour. In reference to the latterg p Y

he wrote: `Mr Monetaints fiery red and sky-blue shipsp Y Y P

with brilliantellow masts, trees that are blue-green, el-

Y ^ g ^Y

low houses and chrome-coloured duckweed on ultrama-

rine water.' 9 This bothered Emants because, as he saw it, it

was a travesty of reality: `If perspective does not stand on

Y Y p p

its head, if trees are notiven a blue green or mauve washg ,g

if our descendants ... do notaint and whitewash all nat-pural objects, then we may assuredly predict that such abJ ^ Y Y -P

surdit can never deserve the name of Art.' 10 Emants ants

clinched his arguments with a popular cliché: `It is the

g pp

work of madmen; for even children would not invent such

insanity.' In conclusion he outlined en passant the artists'Y p

intentions: `The have unbounded admiration for im

'They -an

prom to impressions ... but merely reproducing these imp P Y P g -s

pressions of nature faithfully on canvas does not mean they y

have made works of art.' 11 Although Emants's

g mants s tobjections

resemble those of the conservative French critics, he based

his -opinions on his own observations. In this he was excep p

tional among Dutch art critics.g

Two reports on the impressionist exhibitions of

p p18 6 and 1877 reveal much about the Dutch understand-? 77

in of the subject. They were published in the Neder-g subject. Y p

landsche Kunstbode, an art magazine, and their tone wasg

decided) negative. It is worth noting that the anonymous

Y g g Y

reporter in 1876 refers to a `new sect which has developed

7 p

in the art world and which is known as leroupe des im-g

pressionistes'; in fact, the artists themselves only beganY g

usin this name a year later. The critic was particularly Y p Y

scathing when it came to the unfinished appearance ofg pP

the works on view at the art dealer Durand-Ruel's: `It

strikes me that theseentlemen expect a great deal fromg p g

the viewer, for it is very difficult to detect whether theY

114

7 See Saskia de Bodt, Halverwege Parijs: Willem

Roelofs en de Nederlandse schilderskolonie in Brussel,

1840-1890, Ghent 1995.23.p

8 Marcellus Emants, 'De "Salon des Refusés" te Parijs,'1

Nederlandsche Kunstbode (25 May 1876),. 75: 'Watp

eigenlijk de naam der dingen is die hier bijeenhangen,

1 g

weet ik niet te zeggen; jschilderien zijn 't voor 't meeren-zij

in 't geheel niet, wanneer men ten minste eenigeg

kladden verf niet aanstonds tot een schilderstuk wil ver-

heffen. Teekeningen zijn 't evenmin; want de ps oren van

juiste lijnen zijn er moeilijker in te ontdekken dan de

kanalen, door de jeugd in 't gSchevenin sche strand

gegraven, wanneer er een flinke golf over heen is

gespoeld.' This article is based on a letter to the editor of

Het Vaderland, published on 22 PA ril 1876, written in re-

sponse to an anonymous correspondent from the French

capital published in the samea er on 11 April. Onpp p

Emants's ideas about art ineneral, see Nop Maas,g p

Marcellus Emants' opvattingen over kunst en leven in de

periode 1869-1877 (diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,

1988).

9 Emants, op. cit. (note 8), p. 75: 'Mijnheer Monet

schildert vuurroode en hemelsblauwe schepen met

hooggele masten, blauwgroene boomenele huizen eng

chromaatkleurig kroost op ultramarijn-water.'p ultramarijn-water.

Ibid., p. 76: '[...] indien deers ectief niet op haarP p p

kop gaat staan, indien de boomen niet met een blauw,

groen of paarsch sop overgoten worden, indien onzep g

nakomelingen niet à l'instar onzer voorvaderen de

CATALOGUE

lION DE5°AkJJ3TESOE SAINT- 4kYOR^

Pa,natg.wuz. Riziato

II..tÁtdMi^ (^Zr^^^^^^^^^

JOURNAL 1999

painter wishes to represent animals, trees,people, orp p P P

whatever. Indeed that is not their intention; they wish toY

offer the opportunity to fantasise, to embellish, to create

pp Y

one will.' `Not surprisingly,of course this will findwhat o course,

appreciative audience,' he wrote, `for it is an easy app Y life

ou are not required to know very much or to bewhenyou q y

lld.' 12particularly skilled.'12p Y

Such articles were clearly based on information inY

French press, as was freely admitted in the review ofthe p y

the 1877 exhibition, which the writer in question had nott 77 ^ q

actuall seen. `Nature ... seems to fill these impressionistsY p

with melancholynd - if we are to believe what we hearY,

and read on the subject - it must be amusing, rather asubject g^ -p

thetic to see theart-products of this so-called art,' the review-p1 . 13 As for the aims of the impression-erremarked cutting -rey p

ists little more was said than that they wanted to give anY g

im ression somethin `all artists want to do.'p , g

Although it is somewhat hard to understand, it is notg

ll surprising that critics formed their opinions withoutat all p g p

ever having seen the works in question. Obviously, it is

g q Y

well nigh impossible to avoid blunders under such circum-g P

stances. How surrealistic these misconceptions couldp

Imes be can be seen in an article by J. Zurcher, whosometimes y

at a fairly early date had made positive remarks in theY Y p

ch daily Nieuws van den Dag about the Hague School,Dutch y g g

thus defining himself as a more progressive voice within

g P g

Dutch art criticism. He reviewed the 1882 imp

show. The major artists represented were, he said,l p`Caillebotte Gauguin, Guillaumin Pastels [sic], Monet,g >

Mme Morisot, Pissarro, Sisley, Vi non.' We must as> Y> -Vignon.

Zurcher did not actually see the exhibition andsume y

constructed his review from reports and the catalogue,

p g

fig. 2

Page from Catalogue de la 2ème exposition des Artistesg g

Indépendants, Paris 1882

which explains why he mistook the pastels by Guillauminp Y p Y

for an artist's name-fi . 2 . He seems to have been articu( g ) p

larl impressed by stories about how the pictures wereY p Y p

hun for he recounts: `Their works are usually shown ing ^ Y

white frames.' Although Zurcher classified both theg

Barbizon Schoolainters whom he admired, and thep

Hague School artists as im ressionists for him the Frenchg , p

p`indé endants' were a diseased excrescence. He was espe-

ill incensed by the fact that they used pure, unmixedca y y y p

colour.14

115

geheele natuur gaan verven en witten, dan is 't met zeker-g g

heid te voorspellen, dat deze dwaasheid nimmer den naamp

van kunst zal kunnen verdienen.'

11 Ibid.: '[...] een gonbe rensde vereering van plotse-

lin e indrukken L..] maar als men dergelijke impressiesg

van de natuurgetrouw op een doek neerkladt, worden 'tg p

daarom nog geen kunstwerken.'gg

12 Anon., 'Uit Parijs,' Nederlandsche Kunstbode (101

June 1876)j. 81: 'Het komt mij evenwel voor, dat dezep

heeren wel wat veel veren van dien toeschouwer; wantg

het is bijkans niet te zien, of de schilder beesten, boomen,J

menschen, of wat dan ook, heeft willen voorstellen. Dit

gverlan en ze echter ook niet; ze willen de gelegenheid

geven er bij te droomen, op te brodeeren, er van te mak-g bij p

en, wat men verlangt. Natuurlijk zal deze manier veel

g 1

gaanhangers vinden, want het is zeer gemakkelijk, wan-

neer men niet behoeft te weten en weinig te kunnen.'

13 Anon., 'Impressionisten,' Nederlandsche Kunstbodep

(10 Ma 1877), p. 71: 'De natuur schijnt echter opY p

die impressionisten een ongelukkigen indruk te maken,p

daar naar 'teen men daarvan hoort en leest, hetg

gallerkoddi st of liever bedroevend moet zijn, de voort-

bren selen van die zoogenaamde kunst te zien.'g

14 J. Zurcher, 'Impressionisten – Artistes Indé endants,'p P

De Amsterdammer (1 April 1883).

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

The few eye-witness accounts of the Paris art worldY

that appeared in the Dutch press were chiefly written by forPpp Y

was

Y

oc-

-

eei n correspondents. A passage about artistic eventsg p p g

casionall slotted between items of a political nature.Y p

Needless to say, journalists could not be expected to

Y^ journalists p

roduce professional judgments on art. 15produce p l g

In 1879 an article in the Dutch daily Al emeen

79 Y g

Handelsblad refers to the fourth exhibition: `Aood 1 yearsg 5Y

ago a collection of bright lads, convinced of the fact that ag g

cleverly presented paradox could measure up to solid studYP p P -

ies, conceived the idea of creating a mini-revolution in theg

world ofaintin . The studio closed its doors, the model wasp g

dismissed, and in the nearest coffee house the famous theo-

ries were developed between two glasses of beer - among g g

them impressionism, which sprang fully armed and ready forl ^ p g Y Y

battle, like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter.' It seems thatp

here the anonymous correspondent mistook the 1863 Salon

Y P 3

des Refusés as the dawn of impressionism. He continued hisp

ironic commentary: `The buyers immediately rebelledY Y Y

against these new whims. Even though it was explained tog g p

them that all theainters of history - from Raphael top Y P

Rembrandt and from Velazquez to Mr Ingres - were no moreq g

than a club of naughty schoolboys; and that only a realisticg Y ^ ^ Y

painting has the inestimable advanta e that one can hang g g g it

up any which way, it making the slightest differencep Y Y^ g g

to one's appreciation of the subject. Nevertheless, the bourpp -subject

folk, as they are slightingly termed could not beg ^ Y -ton

verted to this new way of thinking. The impressionistpaint-Y g p p

ins remained unsold, and the shopkeepers dealin in paintg ^dealing P

and picture frames began to refuse credit. So, in order to im-

prove the state of affairs, thisear our painters changed theirY P g

MINTRES INDËPENDANTS, PAR Di=tANER.

fig. 3

'Chet MM. les peintres indépendantsar Draner,' fromp

Le Charivari (23 April 1879)

name to indépendants. Independent of whom? Independent^ p p

of what? I don't know; certainly not independent of the publicY p p

because they present their work to be assessed;presumably ^p Y

independent of each other.' 16p

116

15 These writers should not be confused with the real

critics, who mainly dealt with topics related to art, al-

though they, too, generally wrote on a variety of disci-Y Y

plines. The critic J.J. van Santen Kolff, for example, wrotep

about art, music and literature, while A.C. Loffelt re-

viewed not only exhibitions but also theatreroductions.P

16 Anon., 'Frankrijk: Het leven te Parijs,' Algemeeng

Handelsblad (21 April 1879): 'Weldra 15 jaren geledenjaren g

vatte een bent snuggere jongens, vast overtuigd, datg g

een handig uiteengezette paradox zich met degelijkeg l

studie kan meten, het plan op, een omwenteling in deg

schilderkunst teweeg te brengen. De werkplaats werdp

verlaten, het model weggezonden, jterwil men in het

koffiehuis, tusschen tweeglazen bier, de befaamde

theorieën ontwierp, waaruit het Impressionisme,

geheel gewapend en gereed tot den krijg, te voorschijnl g voorschij

als Minerva uit het brein van Jupiter. L.] DeP

koopers kwamen aanstonds tegen den grillen op.p

Ofschoon hen werd uitgelegd, dat van Raphael totP

Rembrandt, van Velasquez tot den heer In gres, alleq g

schilders van alle tijden en alle landen, slechts een

hoop kwajongens zijn; schoon een realistisch schilder-

stuk bovendien het onschatbare voordeel heeft op allep

wijzen te kunnen worden opgehangen, zonder dat dit

voor het beoordeelen van ghet een het werk moet

voorstellen eenig verschil geeft; zijn de "bourgeois,"

zijn g

zooals men hen minachtend noemt, nog niet tot betereg

gevoelens bekeerd. De impressionnistische schilderijp schilderij

blijft in handen van de schilders, jterwil de handelaars

in verf en inlijsten krediet beginnen te weigeren. Zekerg g

om den slechten indruk weg te nemen, zijn onzeg zij

dan ook dit jaar van naam veranderd en in-

dependants geworden. Onafhankelijk van wie? on-

afhankelijk waarvan? – Ik weet het niet; niet on-

afhankelijk van hetubliek, omdat zij hun werken aanp zij

JOURNAL 1999

The correspondent went on to say more about thep Y

exhibition: `It is impossible to find anything more absurd,p Y g

extraordinary or outrageous,' he wrote. He painted a horriY -P

f y in picture for the reader. As he saw it, visiting the show

Y gp , g

was like being let loose in a lunatic asylum. This feeling Y g

wasenerated by the `restlessness ... of that hovering

g Y

paintbrush, of the inappropriate colours the absence ofp ,

shape.' And indeed, the description he gives of Caillebotte'sp , p g

Une vache et une chèvre resent location unknown) sug-p

ests it resembled apickled foetus: `calves whose snoutsg p

measure 8o centimetres, which would draw the gaping

, gp

crowds at a Dutch fair' (fig. 3).

In 1879 there also appeared a brief e ewitness ac

79 pp -eye-witness

count in the Dutch daily Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant.Y

Although the article was also generally negative, the author

g g Y g

did try to clarify the aims of the artists to some extent: `The

Y Y

theory of the impressionists, as far as this may be called a

Y p , Y

theory, quite simply that they attempt to represent obY^ q p Y Y -p p

jects and people in a non-idealised manner, as they are inJ p P Y

reality. This theory may or may not be valid from an aes

Y Y Y Y -

theticoint of view, yet it need not prevent an impression

P ^ -Y p

ist fromroducin a beautiful and great work.

P g g

Unfortunate) the high priests of this new religion are not

Y, g p g

amon the most gifted of contemporary painters, and the

among g p Yp

majority of works on view at this year's exhibition could) Y Y

m .' 17 In particular the journalistbetter have stayed at ho e )Y p

criticised the handling of paint, stating that the colour wasg p , g

'flung' onto the canvas in a `violent uncontrolled and slap-

g 'violent, -p

dash' manner. The indefinite esha es which resulted creat-

ed confusion in the viewer's mind - it was no loner clearg

whether theicture represented a `woman or a rose bush.'

p p

However, a few works were 'undeniably worth looking at' -Y g

inarticular The garden (St Petersburg, Hermitagep g g

Museum and the two beach scenes by Monet; a landscapeY

by Rouart; and a coastal view by Tillot (present locationsy , Y p

unknown .

Overall, the impressionist exhibitions in France at-

h press. 18 The reports little attention in the Dutch portsp

pp Frenchwhich appeared were often based on Frenc articles 19 or

were sent from Paris by general correspondents. There

Y gp

were very few Dutch who had actually seen the works in

Y Y

question, and those who had were often confused b y them.q y them

This is demonstrated by the letters Andries Bonger wroteY g

home in the early 188os. In a letter to his parents he report-y -p p

ed in detail on the outcry among the public and critics

Y g p

caused by the impressionist painters. He then went on to

Y p A

discuss the exhibitions. Theoun man's first reaction wasY g

fairlypositive,particularly with regard to Pissarro's land

Y pp Y -g

sca es. But he did not report seeing anything with realp P g Y g

backbone. His remarks about theictures by Raffaëlli and

p Y

on Eugène Vidal's portrait of George Sand reveal that he

g p g

chlefl felt attracted to the more anecdotal tableaux . 20 ItY

scarcely comes as a surprise, then, that Bonger failed to a

Y p , ^ g -p

reciate the paintings shown the following year 1881: `Ip p g gY

had scarcely seen one or two paintings before I began toY g

feel so unwell that I hurried home asuickl as possible.q Y p

... Theainters [have become ridiculous, crazy even. The

p ^ Y

most indescribable hues of blue andreen are used, whichg

or .' 21 Interestingly,Bonercannot be fitted into any categ y Bonger,Y

a friend of Theo van Gogh's, was later to collect a large

g , g

number of works by modern French artists such asY

Cézanne, Redon, Bernard and Vincent van Gogh.

, , g

jzijn oordeel onderwerpen, waarschijnlijk onafhankelijkp

van elkander.'

17 Anon., 'Frankrijk,' Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant

(11 April 1879): 'De theorie der impressionisten, voor

zoover men het theorie noemen kan, is eenvoudig deze,

dat zijzi de dingen en de personen trachten weer te geven,g

nieteïdealiseerd, maar werkelijk zooals zij ze zien. Dezeg

theorie moge uit een aesthetisch oogpunt juist of valschg p

jzijn, zij zou niet behoeven te beletten, dat een impres-zij

sionist een schoon en groot kunstwerk voortbracht.

Ongelukkig behooren echter de priesters van het nieuweg g

geloof niet onder de eersten der hedendaagscheg

schilders, zoodat het meerendeel der stukken, die de in-

deendenten dit jaar te zien geven, beter thuis warep

gebleven.'

18 In newspapers such as the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche

Courant, Het Vaderland and Algemeen Handelsblad we

find no mention of them, apart from those examined be-

low. The same holds true for periodicals such as

Nederlandsche Kunstbode, De Nederlandsche Spectator,

De Gids, De Nieuwe Gids, De Konstkronijk, Dietsche

Warande and De Portefeuille.

19 In the ppnews a er column 'Pluksel' in De Nederlandsche

Spectator (10 May 1879) an announcement appeared un-P Y

der the title 'New name forrou of artists,' taken from Leg p

Charivari of 23 April 1878. In connection with the openingp

of the 'so-called "salon des refusés,"' it noted, the French

reproducednewspaper had re roduced 'a series of caricatures [zinco-

ra hs b Daumier] of some of these paintings by theg p Y

" eintres inde endants," as they like to call themselves L.].P p

At the centre is a fantastic head pre resenting one such "in-

dependent painter" and beneath it the caption reads "ex-p p

refusé, ci-devant réaliste, antérieurement impressioniste, in-

tentioniste, luministe, actuellement nihiliste." The latter ap-

pellationellation is the most appropriate because many of these

new-fan led idiocies and eccentricities end up as nothing.'new-fangle

See Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van

Gogh Foundation, family correspondence, Andries

Bonger to his parents, Paris, 23 April 1880, letterg p

b 1604/1970. From 2003 the Bonger Collection will form

part of the Van Gogh Museum.

21 Ibid., Andries Bonger to Hermina Bonger, Paris,

25 pA ril 1881, letter b 1647/1970: 'ternauwernood had

ik eenaar schilderijen aangezien of ik werd zoo on-p schilderije

dat ik me zoo spoedig mogelijk naar huis begaf.plezierig,p g g

[...] de schilders [vervallen] in het belachelijke, zelfs in

het gonzinni e. Er komen dan onbeschrijfelijke groenen en

blauwe tinten te voorschijn, waaraan men geen mouw

passen kan.'

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Impressionism comes to the Netherlandsp

It was mainly due to Dutch art dealers that the im-Y

ressionists remained virtuall unknown in thep Y

Netherlands 22 Pdes ite the efforts fo s o Vincent and Theo van

Go h who tried to introduce their work. Once he had movedg^

to France, Vincent cherished the dream of makingm s

g -repsionism known in Holland. Initially, was full of hope, asY^

appears from a letter to Theo of 26-28 February 1888. Theo,pp Y

he believed, ought to be able to sell about o paintings tog 5p g

H.G. Terstee the branch manager of Boussod Valadon &g, g

Cie. in The Hague, particularly `in view of the low prices ing p Y p

relation to the importance of these works ... and after all, >

he will have to have some in stock, because ifeo le arep ptalking about these paintings in Antwerp and Brussels then itg p g p

won't be long before they're being discussed in The Hagueg Y g g

and Amsterdam'81/ 6 . These '5o paintings' turned out5 45 5 p g

to be the famous shipment of ten that sat in Holland from 6P

Aril to t o June of that year, before being returnedApril Y ^ g -as un

saleable fi . .23 The batch contained(g 4, tc co .arced work by Monet,Y

Sisley, Gauguin and Van Gogh (fig. 5).Y g g ( g 5)

The failure of this transaction was not only due to aY

lack of enthusiasm among Dutch collectors. Tersteeg himg g -

self had no notion of impressionism and agreed to have thep g

works sent only because Theo p ersuaded him. However,Y persuade

theaintin s arrived, he was far from appreciative.p g ^ pp

In reference to a landscape by Sisley he supposedlyp Y Y-re

marked: `The artist whoainted that was a little tipsy. /24P

But Dutchainters too, reacted unenthusiastically, ap Y^ -pears from Vincent's letter: he wished that `Mestla and theP ^

others [would] stop making the impressionists look ridicu-A g P

lous'81/ 6 . In a letter of circa 2 2 June he complained to5 45 p

his sister Wil: `Theo has sent Mr Tersteeg a shipment of im-g p

pressionist paintings, including one by me. But the only g Y Y -re

sult seems to have been that neither Tersteeg nor theg

artists - according to Theo - have got anything out of it.g g Y g

That'suite easy to understand, because it's always theq Y Y

same:eo le have heard of the impressionists, they havep p p ^ Y

fig. 4

List of works on view at Boussod, Valadon & Cie. in

1888, The Hague, Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorisch

Documentatie (RKD)

great expectations but ... when they see the work for theg p Y

first time they feel deeply disappointed and find the icY p Y pp -ptures shoddy,badl painted, badly drawn, bad use ofY^ Yp ^ Y

colour - everything poorly done and poorly finished. ThatY g P Y P Y

was my impression, too, when I first arrived in Paris withY p

m head full of the ideas of Mauve and Israëls'[633/W41. 25Y

Even an artist like Willem Maris often compared with thepimimpressionists because of his bright palette, was not takenA g p

with these `luminists,' whose work he described as `faded

stain s.' 26postagestamp s.' 2

Hague adventure was, in short, a disaster.g

Years later, however, after Theo's death, the influential

but reticent critic A.C. Loffelt recalled the impact thesepworks had made on him: `If I seeieces by Sisley or Monet,p Y Y

118

22 In 1865 Monet had submitted two pre-impressionist

works to the Tentoonstelling van Levende Meesters in

The Hague, but they attracted no attention. More than a

hundred years later the Van Gogh Museum managed to

acquire one of them; see Ronald de Leeuw, 'Inleiding,'

exhib. cat. Langs velden en wegen: De verbeelding van

het landschap in de 18de en 19de eeuw, Amsterdam

(Rijksmuseum) 1998, p. 34 and 'Catalogue of acquisi-

tions: paintings and drawings, July 1994 - December

1996,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1996), p. 202.

23 The Hague, Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische

Documentatie (RKD), Archief Maison Goupil, inv.

no. 40/30-40/47 (Tableaux 186-1917).

24 Quoted in John Rewald, 'Theo Van Gogh, Goupilp

and the impressionists (première partie),' Gazette des

Beaux-Arts 81 (January 1973), pp. 28-29.

25 At around the same time, 29 May, Vincent also

wrote to the Dutch artist A.H. Koning, who was living in

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 5

Vincent van Gogh, The Seine with the Pont de Clichy,

1887 (F 303 1H 1323), Paris, Dr Fausto Capella and

New York, William Gelender

I am always reminded of poor Theo van Gogh, who aboutY p g

sixears ago showed me an exhibition of their work atY g

Gou il's - the old Pissarro and several moderns. I was notGoupil'

of how much he admired this art, and when he

asked me what I thought of it, I replied without thinking ^ P g

twice: `I suppose Sisley's is the least awful, but I'm veryP p Y

lad that for me nature doesn't appear so monotonous as itglad Pp

does to the others.' He answered meuite crossly in -q Y an of

fended tone: `Well I am, I'm very glad, that I see nature> Yg

like that.'27

Meanwhile it had become clear to Vincent and Theo

that the Dutch were uninformed about what was happeningp P g

in France. In a letter to Theo of circaJune 1888 Vincent5

wrote: `Doou see now what audacity those idiots in DorY Y -

drecht have? ... They are quite happy to busy themselvesY q ppY Y

with Degas & Pissarro, whose work incidentally they'veg ^ Y Y

never seen - just as they've never seen any of the others'J Y Y

[623/50o]. B `those idiots in Dordrecht' Vincent meant theBy

artist Jan Veth, one of the organisers of the Nederlandscheg

Etsclub (Dutch Etching Society), his friends. The energ Y^ -

etic artists-cum-critics associated with the periodical Deg p

Nieuwe Gids - Jan Veth, Willem Witsen and Maurits van der

Valk- defended theainters of the Hague School and theirP g

oun er offspringactive in Amsterdam. These men wereY g

much talked of at the time, not least because of their virulent.

attacks on other critics who, in their opinion, were un uali-

fi d and ignorant. 28 The old Joseph Alberdingk Thijm wase g P g Thij

slated in the 188os the period when these mavparticularly ^ -A

erick writers were striving for a renewal in Dutch art. Thijmg Thij

beenrofessor of Aesthetics at the AmsterdamseA

Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten (Amsterdam National1

Academ of Visual Arts) since 18 and he detested suchAcademy 79^

things as the blurring of shapes and supposedly banal subjectg g P Pp Y subjec

of the Hague and Amsterdam Schools.g

Amon other things, accused Thijm of not beAmong gs^ -1

in aware of what was actually taking place in the artg Y gp

world. In addition, the Catholic Thijm felt that a painting p g

shouldresent an uplifting scene or idea, and Veth susP P g -

ected that he valued this at the cost of technical aspects.p P

However it seems that the artist-critics of De Nieuwe Gids

were themselves unfamiliar with French artists such as

Degas, Monet and Renoir. Since Thijm supposedly drewg ^ l PP Y

conclusions without knowing the facts, G.H.C. Stemmingg

i.e. Jan Veth) advised him to read YHu smans's L'art mod-

erne or the `little brochure' by Felix Fénéon. But it appearsY PA

that Veth himself had done no more than assimilate the

two Frenchmen 29 as is demonstrated bywritingsof these

France: 'I assume you've seen the impressionists at

Durand-Ruel's? You'll have a lot to tell the folk back in

Holland about what you've seen in Paris' [621/498a].

26 See C. Harms Tiepen, Willem Maris' herinneringen,

The Hague 1910, p. 249.

27 E.G.O.1= A.C. Loffelt], 'Kunst- en Letternieuws

Haagsche Kunstkring,' Het Vaderland (16 Octoberg g

1893): 'Als ik werk van Sisley en Monet zie, denk ik altijd

nog aan den rampzaligen Theo Van Gogh, die mij eeng

jaar of zes geleden bij Goupil een tentoonstelling vang

hen, den ouden Pissarro en nog eenige modernen liet

zien. Ik kende zijn ingenomenheid met die kunst niet en

toen hijhi me vroeg, hoe ik die nieuwe kunst vond, ant-

woordde ik zonder erg: Sisley bevalt mij nog het best,

maar ik ben blij, dat ik de natuur niet zoo eentonig zie

als die anderen. Meer of minder boos en opgewonden

antwoordde hij: "Nu, ik dan wel, ik ben blij, dat ik de

natuur zoo zie."'

28 On the art reviews in De Nieuwe Gids see Carel

PBlotkam , 'Kunstenaars als critici: Kunstkritiek in

Nederland 1880-1895,' exhib. cat. De schilders van

Tachtig: Nederlandse schilderkunst 1880-1895,

Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 1991, pp. 75-88.

29 G.H.C. Stemming [= Jan Veth], 'Prof. Thijm en zijng

"exkluzivisma,"' De Nieuwe Gids 2 (1887), part 2, p.

195.

fig. 6

George William Thornely after Edgar Degas, Dancers,

c. 1889, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

the way the Etsclub's second exhibition was organised. 3 °Y g

The society's second annual exhibition, which tookY

lace in 1 888 included pieces b y Degas (a chalk drawing of aA ^ p y g g

dancer, and four lithographs b Thornley after his works),by Y

Pissarro and Forain fi . 6 . There were also etchings b

( g ) g by

artists such as Raffaëlli, who although he took part in their

g A

exhibitions cannot truly be classified as an impressionist.

Y P

Ironicall now that the Dutch public had the opportunity of

Y^ P AP Y

seeing impressionist work, this was in the form of graphicg A ^ g P

art, where the typical characteristics of the style are less aYA -Y P

parent. In addition, this show was much less carefully ^ y -de

vised than has often been suggested, for the organisers agg ^ -g A

arentl did not know exactly what they wanted to disp Y Y Y put -on

In a letter to Theo van Gogh Veth wrote: `Couldn'tyouplay.g , Y

help out your young compatriots, who always appear to beA Y Y g p ^ Y AA

sittin in an obscure corner? You seem to be right at the heartsitting g

of thins there in France. I read in the May number of theg Y

Revue Indépendante that you are showing four lithographs b

p Y gby

Thornley after Degas. Now that would be something for us.y g g

... Maybe there's more of this type e of thing. Didn't DegasY 5A g g

make some etchings? We don't know the proper channels forg P P

finding out such things here. Didn't Raffaëlli ever make any g y

etchings? ... What about etchings by Pissarro or Brown? ...g etchings Y

Of course, our main concern isn't with the very latest andy

newest. What we'd like to see is whatou consider the best ofY

this type of work.' 31YP

InsInspired by the exhibition, Veth was to write a osi-

A Y ^ A

tive review of Pissarro's work later the sameear, based onY

120

30 On the Nederlandsche Etsclub see Jeroen Giltay, 'De

Nederlandsche Etsclub (1885-1896),' Nederlands

Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 27 (1976), pp. 91-125.

31 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, letter to Theo van

Gogh, Dordrecht, 15 May 1888, inv. no. 3573: 'zou u uw

jonge landgenooten die toch altijd een jbeete in een

achterhoek zitten niet een beetje kunnen helen? Voorp

de jonge Fransche kunst zit u geheel aan de bron. Zoo

zag ik in de Revue Indépendante van Mei dat u exposeertp

vier lithografien van Thornley naar Degas. Dat zou bvg

iets voor ons zijn. [...] In dien geest is er misschien meer.

Heeft Degas niet geëtst? Wij weten natuurlijk ganschelijkJ g1

den weg niet voor zulke zaken. Heeft bv ook Rafaëlli zelf

nooit geëtst [...] Heeft u ook soms etsen van Pissaro of

van Brown [...] Natuurlijk zijn we niet zoozeer belust op

wat nu het 't allernieuwste is. We hadden graag iets vang

't beste der richting die u met zooveel oordeel voorstaat.'

In letters 613/489 and 615/490 Vincent refers to an ex-

hibition in Dordrecht in which drawings b Bernard,g Y

Gauguin and Van Gogh himself were to be shown. We

may assume that there is some confusion here on the

artist's part. In his letterhead, Veth gave Dordrecht as his

place of residence; this explains why Vincent (androba-p

bly Theo, too) assumed the exhibition would be held

there. In fact, the second exhibition of the Nederland-

sche Etsclub was held in the building of the society Arti etg Y

Amicitiae in Amsterdam; it opened on 1 June 1888.

32 See J. Staphorst [= Jan Veth], 'Impressies,' De

Nieuwe Gids 3 (1888), part 2, pp. 437-39.

33 Alb. Thijm [= J.A. Alberdingk Thijm], 'Ten-toon-stellin-

gen in Noord- en Zuid-Holland,' De Amsterdammer (17

June 1888): '[...] de vreeselijke, schoolkinderachtige

krabbelingen van Edgar Degas, de gjonmo elike van J.L.

Forain, de kermisprenten van Lucien Pissarro, de

spookachtige van Odilon Redon, de met den vinger gedaneg g

van Georges Seurat (krijtdommeling), [...] brengen meer

walging aan, dan wordt opgewogen door het genot dat deg

JOURNAL 1999

the smalluantit of post-impressionist pieces that hada Y P P P

w (fig. . 32 The conservative critic Alberdingkbeen on view (g 7) g

Thijm was, however, far less jubilant. Referring to the

show he wrote: `the appalling,childish scribbles of Edgar g

De as the impossible J.L. Forain, the cheapnd printsDegas, p ^ Pggaud

Lucien Pissarro, the ghostly work by Odilon Redon, theby ^ g Y Y

chalk daubs done with the finger by Georges Seurat [...] fillg Y g

the viewer with such disgust it hardly weighs against theg Y g g

Pp seeingpleasure experienced from seem the work of now-de-

ceased artists such as Corot, Millet and Lancon.' 33 Another

Dutch critic of the same ilk, David van der Kellen, was

damning in his opinion of the entries by Pissarro, Forain,g p Y

Raffaëlli and Degas: `Rather no art than this kind of thing,g g

he remarked mourof llu y,34

After the pim ressionist exhibitions in France were

over and the artists had eachone their own way,g Y^

Dutch criticsraduall became more aware of what theg Y

movement was all about. 35 In one of the earliest reviews of

the work of Vincent van Gogh to appear in the Netherlands,g Ap

the writer Frederik van Eeden made some remarks about

impressionism. Van Eeden was one of the first Dutchmen1'

to admire Van Gogh; unlike Jan Veth, he had no problemsg, P

' in in . 36 Despite this, he hesitated when itwith Vincent's pa t g p ,

came to the artist's Pcontem oraries: `But in France Van

Gogh trained in the school of the independents, where theg P

reatest French artists of the moment are to be found,g

Degaz[sic],Pissarro, Raffaëlli, Monet. It seems that Van

Gogh's work most resembles that of Monet – of whom Ig

fig. 7

Camille Pissarro, The Place de la République in Rouen,

1883, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zup

Berlin - PreuBischer Kulturbesitz

never saw anything important. But I must admit that what IY g A

saw by Pissarro De az [sic] and Raffaëlli never gave meY , g

the impression of being beautiful. Sometimes I can under-P g

stand the superior quality of the work without really aP q Y Y Pp -re

ciatin what was meant, and sometimes I do not even seeg

that. I would assume it to be the work of children, althoughg

I hear onood authority from those who are better able tog Y,

werken van de overledenen als Corot, Millet en Lancon ons

bieden.' Other than this, before 1900, works by impres-

sionist artists appeared only sporadically on the Dutch exhi-pp p

bition circuit. The following overview provides a clear pic-

ture. Haagsche Kunstkring, 8 October - 6 November 1893:g

Alfred Sisley - Port Marty; Canal du Loing; Bords de laY

Tamise; Claude Monet - Falaises de St Adresse; Bocal de

pêches; Vue de Hollande; Argenteuil (effet de neige);

Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Paysage; Tête d'enfant; Femme aug

cha eau; Camille Pissarro - Palais de Justice a Pontoise;chapeau

de I'étan ; Femmes au pied d'un noyer; Effet de neigeg

a Montfoucault. Exhibition at the gallery of E.J. van

gWisselin h, Amsterdam, 29 January -15 February 1897:

Claude Monet - Rivière. E.J. van Wisselingh exhibition at

the Rotterdamse Kunstkring, circa 1898: Edgar Degas - In

het atelier. Arti et Amicitiae, Amsterdam, exhibition of

b the modern French School, 1901: Claudepaintingsby

Monet - Les coteaux d'orgemont; La Seine a Vernon; Vue

d'Amsterdam; Camille Pissarro - Bazíncourt; Paysannes

près d'un noyer; Cricket match, Bedford Park; Pierre-

Auguste Renoir - Chalet à Pourville; Jeune fille regardantg

desravures; Tête de femme; Alfred Sisley - Le chemin desg

fontaines; Le canal de Loing. E.J. van Wisselingh exhibition

at Pulchri Studio, The Hague, 1905: Claude Monet - Le

printemps; La falaisse de Saint Adresse. Post-impressionist

work by Signac, Seurat and others was exhibited at theY g

Haagsche Kunstkring as early as 1892.

34 D.v.d.K. [= D. van de Keller], 'Tentoonstelling van

Etsen en Teekeningen op de Kunstzaal der Maatschappijg p

"Arti et Amicitiae,"' Het Nieuws van den Dag (18 June

1888).

35 Just as in the world of art criticism, it was not until

the end of the 19th century that impressionist art reallyY p

became interesting to Dutch collectors. Around 1900 theg

collector Cornelis Hoogendijk bought several impression-

ist works from Ambroise Vollard in Paris; see Herbert

Henkels, 'Cézanne en Van Gogh in het Rijksmuseum voor

Moderne Kunst in Amsterdam: de collectie van Cornelis

Hoogendijk (1866-1911),' Bulletin van het Rijksmuseumg 1

41 (1993), no. 3-4. 155-295. Mesdag, who waspp

chairman of the artists' society Pulchri Studio, the bastion

of the gHa ue School, was keen to exhibit part of the col-

lection following a visit to Hoogendijk's home on theg

Bezuidenhoutseweg (ibid., . 167). The board of Pulchrig p

Studio, however, only made a selection from his DutchY

Old Masters (ibid.,. 167-70). According to Henkels,pp

this was because Hoogendijk himself did not yet wish tog 1

exhibit any modern French work. This seems highly un-Y

like) since in February 1899 – just one month after theY Y j

Pulchri exhibition – there was a show at the Haagsche

Kunstkring that included French art from his collectiong

(ibid..170). It looks very much as if Pulchri Studio'sp Y

lack of interest in contemporary work from the collectionp

was due solely to Mesdag's own aversion to impression-

ism.

36 See Carel Blotkamp, 'Art criticism in De Nieuwe

Gids,' Simiolus (1971), no. 5, p. 144.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

judge, that it is of high artistic merit.' 37 It is not clear] g , g c ea how

Van Eedenof to see paintings by the impressionists - og p g Y -sp psibl in Paris or perhaps at Tersteeg's. However it cameY p p g

about, his disapproval is patent.pp P

Amon Dutch artists and critics, the arrival of im-Among

pressionist work in the Netherlands in 1888ave rise tog

chiefly negative comments. But on the whole there wereY g

mostl variations on the theme of silence, quite unlike theY ^q

u roar the movement had caused in Paris. In an articleuproa

in De Nieuwe Gids in 18 o Veth did express hispublished 9^ p

admiration for De as 38 but he restrictedg t cted himself mainly toY

raisin the artist as an etcher. He also described the workP g

of Monet, who he said `was chiefly concerned with the ef-yfect of light in the landscape,renderin it by of setg rendering Y -means

tin bright invigorating colours beside each other.' 39g g g g

Otherwise he had littleositive to say. It is worth noting Y g

that Veth never wrote extensively about the impressionistsY p

for the magazine De Kroniek to which he contributed fromg

the i 8 os on with the exception of some brief remarks in9 , P

the so-called `notes' section; these were a kind of newsflash

item and were frequently taken from other (foreign) maq Y g -ag

zines or news a ers. 4°pp

The artist and critic J.J. Isaacson who lived in Paris

from 1887 to 18 o wrote in apositive tone about Monet,7 9^ P

Degas and, to a lesser extent, Pissarro in the Dutch eriodig ^ -pcal De Portefeuille. He was also the first to mention Van

Go h. 41 In a series of articles,Ig Isaacson described the ne-o

impressionists, among whom he included Monet. Apartp g p

from Monet and Pissarro, however, he was unimpressedpwith this art. It was only worthwhile analysing because oneY Y g

of their number - Monet - was a 'superior artist' in whosep`visions the most delicate gbri htness of the sun is made vis-

ible in a dramatic and understated manner.' 42 He delin-

eates what can only be described as a mixture of imt -respsionist andointillist ideas, including the theory of coin leP ^ g Y -pmentary colours, noting that in the paintings by theseg p g Y

artists a `shadow is never black but blue.' 43 He also referrede ed

to their technique as 'stippelen' or painting with small dots,q pA p g

which made theirictures resemble `coloured fields ofpsmalleas.' Isaacson distinguishes two revolutionary g Y

of painters: the neo-impressionists - includinggroupsP P g

Monet, Camille and Lucien Pissarro, Luce, Gausson,

Seurat, gSi nac and Dubois-Pillet; and the `emotional im-

ressionists,' among them Degas, Bernard, Gauguin, Dep g g

Lothrijk, Van Gogh, Guillaumin, Cézanne and Redon, asg >

well as the `inevitable camp-followers Schuffenecker andpZandomene hi.'44g

As Isaacson's articles demonstrate, already in theY

early 1 8 os critics were able to provide a reasonably 9 p Y -accu

rateicture of neo-impressionism; their opinion of thep P ^ p

imimpressionists, on the other hand, had hardly changed. Ap ^ Y g

ood example is provided by Loffelt's 18 1 review of thegood p p Y 9

Salon of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts. Althoughg

by then he knew the names of a few of the impressionists,Y p

he here classifies them asointillists. In the same piecep phe also refers to earlieraintin s by Monet and Sisley, g Y Y,

which suggests that he even knew their work, probably ^ P Y

through the show in The Hague in 1888. And, although hisg g ^ g

judjudgment was to become thoroughly negative in 1 8J g g Y g 93, he

here appears to at least show some appreciation for thepp pp

122

37 Frederik van Eeden, 'Vincent van Gogh,' De Nieuwe

Gids 6 (1891), part 1, p. 264: 'Maar in Frankrijk ging Van

Gogh zich vormen in den school der independanten,

waaronder thans de grootste Franschen artisten be-

hooren, Degaz, Pissaro, Raffaëlli, Monet. Van Monet, op

wiens werk dat van Van Gogh het meest moet gelijken,

zag ik nimmer iets belangrijks. Maar ik beken, dat wat ik

van Pissaro, Degaz en Raffaëlli zag, mij nimmer den in-

druk van mooi heeft kunnen geven. Soms zie ik het su-

perieure van het werk, zonder iets van de bedoeling te

apprecieeren, soms zie ik ook dat niet, - zoodat ik voor

kinderwerk zou houden, wat ik op gezag van anderen diep

beter kunnen oordeelen, als hoog-artistiek moet aan-

nemen.' For Van Eeden on Vincent van Gogh see

Blotkamp, op. cit. (note 28), p. 82.

38 Jan Veth, 'Fransche Schilderkunst van deze Eeuw,'

De Nieuwe Gids 5 (1890), part 2, pp. 326-27. In 1888

Willem Witsen had also made some pPa reciative remarks

about Degas, although at the same time emphasising the

'ugly' aspects of his art: 'Degas is a keen observer [...] a

ballet dancer [...] is striking in her huge realism, an ugly

woman with an ugly shape and ugly proportions; that's

how it is, that's it'; see Verberchem [= W. Witsen],

'Tweede jaarlijksche tentoonstelling van de Nederlandsche

Etsclub,' De Nieuwe Gids 3 (1888)art 2, .431.p p

39 Veth, op. cit. (note 38), p. 327.

40 See e.g. JV [= Jan Veth], 'Notes,' De Kroniek 1 (27

October 1895), no. 44, p. 347. Here he mentions Monet's

paintings of the cathedral at Rouen.

41 J. Hulsker, 'Zijn naam, Vincent, is voor het nageslacht,'

in idem, Van Gogh in close-up, Amsterdam 1993, pp. 11-12.

42 J.J.I. [= J.J. Isaacson], 'De revolutionaire schilders-

groep in Frankrijk I,' De Portefeuille (10 May 1890), p. 75.

JOURNAL 1999

early Sisley: `It would be alright to see one Sisley, , or aY Y g Y

Monet but the monotony, superficiality of the genreY^ p Y g

whenou see a quantity of them together (Sisley has enY q Y -g

tered severalaintin s which are hung side by side) isp g g Y

to bear: you have the impression of looking at factory you p g Y

work, like Japanese mother-of-pearl objects. Previously p p ^ Y

1 sought to express himself in a range of yellow andSisley g p g Y

tones full of variety and maturity, perfectlygrey tones, Y Y^ p Y

- riverscapes.'45rendered the sunny French city-, and riverscapY Y^

Naturally, exhibition no longer showed impressionismy, g P

in its original form and indeed, the critic paid most atten

^-P

tion to the neo-impressionist on display.p

m eiDutchD impressionism: a confusing termgP

DesDespite the summary references to the revolutionp Y -

developments in painting in France and the general rearY p p g -g

n of this art, from 1877 on the word'impressionism''echo 77 p1

may be regularly encountered in Dutch criticism. But thereY g Y

was little understanding of what this term implied.g p

Ironically,it was those very Dutch artists who detested y

Monet and others whom the Dutch critics classified as im-

pressionists.ressionists.

Thero ressive critic J.J. van Santen Kolff is knownp g

primarily in Dutch art history as the man who gave thep Y Y g

46 Indeed, not only was Kolff the firstHague School its name yg

to use this appellation, he was also the first to describe app

i nist. 47 In i 8 this honour wasDutch painter as an impress o 77p

bestowed on the now-almost-forgotten F.J. Rossum dug

Chattel whom he described as 'indisputably a thorough-go-p Y

and completely sound impressionist, as this branch of soing P Y -p

called realists is now being called in Franc e.' 48 At firstg

this passage may not seem strange, but when we readglance p g y g ,

Kolff s articles it becomes clear that he had no idea what was

actually meant by the term impressionism, and that hea Y Y p

i wholly with the Hague School. In connection withequated it y gq

review of a watercolour by the Dutch painter Jozefa y p

Neuhu s in i8 8 for example, he cites a passage from an arY 7^ P^ -ep g

by Victor Cherbuliez published in the Revue des Deuxtide pY

Mondes - itself drawn from Théodore Duret's Les peintres

impressionnistes [sic](1878). S eakin of the `so-calledA Speaking

` r s naturalistes' or 'impressionnistes de notre temps'pent e p p

Kolff-uoted: 'Nous leur devons l'étude du plein air, la sensaq p

tion vraie non-seulement des couleurs, mais des moindres

nuances des couleurs, les tons, et encore la recherche des

rapports entre l'état de l'atmosphère qui éclaire le tableau etpp p q

' s'y ints.'49la tonalité générale des objets, qui s y trouvent peg 1 q

This link between impressionism and tonalpaint-p p

whereby the weather or an outdoor `mood' is rendered,ing, Y

does indeed seem to relate better to the work of Anton

Mauve, Jacob Maris or Jozef Israëls than to that of Monet,

or Pissarro (fig. 8 . In fact, the citation used by KolffRenoir o (g ) Y

bears a striking resemblance to his own description of thebe g p

f the Hague School. But even if he did not know Duret'sarto t g

reatise in its entirety, article by Cherbuliez shouldtreatise y, y

have sounded a warning bell. In fact, the passage Kolffha g p g

quotes is preceded by a sentence referring to `lapeintureq P Y g p

claire, définitivement débrassée de la litharge, du bitume,g

hocolat du 'us de chique, du graillon et du gratin.' Anddu c 1 q g g

lthou h he himself would never have described the worka g

of the Hague School as `dirt chocolate,' he was certainly g 'dirty ^ Y

123

43 Ibid., p. 76.

44 J.J.I. [= J.J. Isaacson], 'De revolutionaire schilders-

roe in Frankrijk II,' De Portefeuille (17 May 1890), p. 89.g p

45 E.G.O. [= A.C. Loffelt], 'De beide schilderijen-ten-

toonstellingen te Parijs IV,' Het Vaderland (18 July

g J

1891): 'Een Sisley, éen Monet te zien zou nog gaan,

maar het geentoni e en sommaire van het genre, als men

er eenige naast elkaar beschouwt (Sisley heeft meerdereg

stukken ingezonden, die naast elkaar hangen), doetg

onzen smaak gonaan enaam aan: men meent fabrieks-

werk voor zich te zien, Japansche paarlmoerwerkjesp p

bivoorbeeld. Sisley heeft vroeger in een gamma vanbijvoorbeeld

en rize tinten zijn kracht gezocht, vol afwisselingg gj zijn

en rijpheid, die de zonnige Fransche stads-, dorps- enJp

riviergezichten uitmuntend karakteriseerden.'g

46 On Van Santen Kolff see Benno Tempel, 'Un cheva-

lier sanseur: De kunstkritieken van J.J. van Santen Kolffp

1875-1893,' unpublished paper, Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam, 1996 and idem, 'De kunst van het re-

censeren: De kunstkritieken van J.J. van Santen Kolff,'

Jong Holland 14 (1998), no. 1, pp. 32-40.

47 See Slotkamp, op. cit. (note 36), p. 122, fn. 34.

48 J.K. [= J.J. van Santen Kolff], 'Een nationale

ggvereeni in ter bevordering der waterverfteekenkunst II,'g

De Banier 3 (1877), no. 3.463: 'Hier is du Chattel on-p

te enze eiijk een volbloed en uiterst gezond impres-g gg 1

sionist, zooals tegenwoordig in Frankrijk een secte derg g

zoo genaamde "réalisten" wordt genoemd.'g

49 Victor Cherbuliez, 'La peinture à ('exposition univer-

selle I,' Revue des Deux Mondes 48 (1878), p. 634; cited

in J.J. van Santen Kolff, 'In der zaal der teekenacademie,'

De Nederlandsche Spectator (1878), no. 35, p. 276.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

fig. 8

Anton Mauve, The marsh, 1885, Amsterdam,

Rijksmuseum

aware that some critics considered it just that. He shouldJ

therefore have concluded that `laeinture claire' - i.e. im-P

pressionism - was the very opposite of the Dutch style.Y PP Y

However, he hadrobabl never actually seen any of theP Y Y Y

exhibitions in Paris, and was basing his remarks on foreign

g g

articles; moreover, he wished toresent the Hague School

P g

as an important international movement. He thus reachedP

the wrong conclusion about the term and the 'impression-

g -reP

ist'rou as a whole.g P

The Hague School set out to modernise Dutch art, ing

therocess causing quite a lot of controversy. The criticsP gq Y

accused theseainters of neglecting technique; their worksP g g q

were considered sketchy and unfinished. The movementY

developed in the 1 S os - precisely the same moment that

P 7 P Y

witnessed the birth of impressionism in France. This art,P

too, was associated with sketchiness, loose brushwork, a

lack of-comofprecise detail and indistinct shapes. From the

p A

ments in the Frenchress Dutch critics thus concluded thatP

124

50 Francesco, 'De kunst op de Haagsche tentoonstelling

II,' De Amsterdammer (15 June 1890): 'Hoe stijgt dan de

artisticiteit van den oud-Hollandschen schilder tegenoverg

den moderne, die zoo in alle opzich-ten behoort tot de

richting, welke Albert Wolff I'école des pim otents, de

school der onmachtigen gedoopt heeft. "De impres-

sionisten c.s." zoo heeft hij ongeveer gezegd, "zij die

het eigenlijke schilderen niet verstaan, maar die zich

met schilderkunst bezig houden, zonder smaak te

hebben voor het voltooien (I'achevé), voor den vorm en

voor de lijn enz. maken gezamenlijk de school der on-

machtigen uit."'

51 E.G.O. [= A.C. Loffeit], 'De aquarellen in de Gothische

Zaal,' Het Vaderland (17 August 1882).

52 Alb. Thijm [= J.A. Alberdingk Thijm], 'Kunst-tent-toon-

stelling Ill,' De Amsterdammer (17 October 1886): 'Intusschen

zijn er vele artiesten en ook praters en schrijvers, die ons willen

doen geloven, dat de moderne theorie enraktijk zich ken-p J

merken door de (toevallige) eigenaardigheden, die wijwi in vele

schilderijen der impressionisten opmerken: als bijv. het vlot-

p v1

tende der omtrekken, het afzijn van uitvoerigheid in

afzijn g de be-w

erking, het onoordeelkundige, of, wil men, ar loze der keuzeargloz

het uit de natuur genomene.'

JOURNAL 1999

there were certain similarities between the two styles, andY

it is therefore not altogether surprising that the word `im-

g p g

ressionist' quickly became associated with the work of thep q Y

Hague School. The Dutch critics tended to focus on theseg

susupposedly identical technical aspects, thereby ignoring ispp Y p Y -g

sues such as the choice of subject matter and use of colour.)

This pp byappears in a review b a certain Francesco writ-

ten in 189, based on articles b the French critic Albert

9^ Y

Wolff: `How muchreater then is the artistry of the oldg Y

Dutch masters compared with the painters of today, whom

p p Y

one may place in the group Albert Wolff scathingly called

Y pg p gY

the School of Im otents l'école des impotents. "The im resp ^

- p

sionists and their ilk," is more or less what he says, "have noY

understandin of painting; they occupy themselves with itunderstanding p g^ Y AY

without appreciating finish (l'achevé), shape, line and so

pp g ^

forth these are the people who compose the School offorth"; p p p

ents.' 50 Loffelt, too, refers to the Hague painters asIm of g pp

`the so-called impressionist school, which most people unp ^-P p

derstand to be artists who lack the skill to make a completep

work.' 51 The conservative critic Thijm also letand finishedo )

his voice be heard: `There are meanwhile many artists andY

alsorattlers and writers who would like us to believe thatp

modern theory and practice are characterised by the coin

Y P Y -

cidental qualities that we observe in manypaintings by the

q Yp g Y

impressionists, for example, the blurred outlines, the abp ^ p >

-

sence of finished detail, the lack of judgment, Y Por, if you re-

rfer, an unconsidered choice of subject taken from nature.'52

Another contributing factor to this misuse of theg

term 'impressionism' was the frequent appearance of the

p q Pp

word 'im ressie ' used from the 1 8 os on by Dutch art crit

p , 7 Y -

ics in connection with the -Hague School. 'Impressie' img p

lies the rendering of a personal impression, a description g p p ^ tionp

which seemserfectl suited to the all-prevailing sense of

p Y p g

mood found in the work of these artists, which was gener-

all seen as the result of a reproduction of specific types ofy p P Yp

weather as seen through the artist's eyes. It is therefore notg Y

sursurprising that in the Netherlands the French term `impres-p g

sionism' soon became confused with the word 'impressie.'p

Thus we find Alberdingk Thijm writing in 1886: `At theg ) g

heart of thins ... the impressionists are right. Their start- -P g

in point (even though they don't say it openly) is that art isgp g Y Y p Y

t.'53 During plus the state of mend of the artist.'53 g thep

188os the term 'impressionism' cropped up right, left andp pp p g

centre in Dutch art criticism, but it rarely referred to theY

French art movement. It soon acquired a general meaning.q g

The tonal, atmospheric effects - impressions of cer-p p

tain kinds of weather - sorevalent in the work of thep

Hague and Amsterdam School painters resulted in a disso-g p

lution of form and the sketchy character that was so oftenY

seen as characteristic of impressionist work. Problemsp

arose however, because, in fact, all painters seek to render

`an impression.' Loffelt, for example, described the colourp ^ p^ -

ful work of J.H. Weissenbruch and J.J. van de Sande

Bakhuijzen, with their well-defined shapes as follows: `TheP

blue of the sky in Van de Sande Bakhuijzen's Landscape inY Bakhuijzen's ^

Overijssel could have more tone and thereby be deeper,Overijssel] Y p

butersonall I prefer to see a mistake like this, which isp Y P

caused by the striving after perfection, than the character-Y g p

less vague shapes and sketchy effects of the so-called im-g p Y

ressionists. These artists wish to give an "impression" ofp g p

nature but isn't that exactly what Weissenbruch and Van

de Sande Bakhuijzen do in their work? The only differenceY

is that they aim for -a powerful statement, an active renderY p

in of a mood, while the others seem to prefer a hazy,g p Y

vavague, passive state. If people ask me who has best mang ^ -p p P

aged to convey this "impression" in a plastic form, then Ig Y p p

would say that Weissenbruch and Bakhuijzen -zen are the winY )

ners.' 54 In a satirical report in the weekly Amsterdammer ap Y

certain Fred J. jVerheist wrote, `But we have entered a new

age. We are overwhelmed by an inexhaustible urge forg Y

colour harmony. Tones and yet more tones - that is whatY Y

we covet. And if these tones flow here and there over the

edges of the objects being represented ... why we won'tg objects g p ^ Y

bother too much. Impressions of nature are renewed andp

125

53 Ibid.: 'In deL..]rond der zaak ..] hebben de impres-g

sionistenjelik [...]. Hun beginsel is (al spreken zij 't nietg

uit), dat de kunst is de natuurlus het gemoed van dep

kunstenaar.'

54 E.G.O. [= A.C. Loffelt], 'De Haagsche "Salon,"' Het

Vaderland (13 June 1887): 'Het blauw der lucht kon

toni er en daardoor dieper, maar ik voor mij verkies zulkg p

een fout veroorzaakt door een streven naar volmaaktheid

boven de karakterlooze weifelingen en schetsmatigheid

van zoo genaamde impressionnisten. Willen zoogenoem-g p

den een "indruk", een "impressie" van de natuur geven;p

welnu,even Weissenbruch en Van de Sande Bakhuizeng

dien niet in hun werk? Het eenige verschil is, dat zij naar

een krachtigen indruk zoeken, een actieve natuurstem-

ming, terwijl de anderen zich meer aangetrokken voeleng terwij

een druilige, wazige, passieve stemming. Vraagt

men mij, wie er het best in geslaagd zijn hun "impres-

sionnisme" weer te geven in een plastischen kunstvorm,

dan zijn volgens mijn waarnemingsvermogen,

Weissenbruch en Bakhuijzen de baas.'

fig. 9

Jacobus van Looy, Luxurious summer, 1893,

Private collection

such things as objective accuracy in representation becomeg objective Y A

utterly . -

. we con.unimportant. But have acted without sidP

erin the Nemesis of neatness and precision. Recently talg P Y -a

ented impressionist, not lacking in genius, made a realA ^ g

mess of his landscape.' 55p

-cerasynonymousImpressionism thus became s non withP Y Y

tain way of painting: it was swift, shapes were indistinct,Y P g ^ P

the brushstroke was loose and rough. Essential aspectsg p

such as the use of complementary colour tones and novel

A Y

means ofpresentation - type of frame background colourP YP ^ g

of the walls, absence of the final varnish Yla er - all so elab-

oratel debated and applied by French artists, were neverY AP y

mentioned. Even in the --nes189os, when Jan Toorop's

9 P

ressionist work ensured a reasonable picture of this style, leP Y,

55 Fred. J. Verheijst,'Kunst-tent-toon-stellingen: Utrecht,

Amsterdam, 's-Gravenhage,' De Amsterdammer (25 May

1884): 'Maar wij zijn een ander tijdperk ingetreden. Een

onmetelijke behoefte aan kleurenharmonie heeft zich van

ons meester gemaakt. Toon en nog eens toon, - ziedaar

wat wij begeeren. Of die tonen, hier en daar, over deren-g

zen der voorgestelde zaken heenvloeyen, of er links en

rechts geëmpiëteerd wordt, trekken wij ons minder aan.

Natuurimpressies vernieuwen zich bij ons en de objektieve

lijnen-juistheid wordt volkomen veronachtzaamheid. [...]

Maar men rekent buiten de Nemesis der netheid en

naauwkeurigheid. Pas heeft een talentvol pim ressionist niet

zonder genialiteit zijn landschap [...] afgeflodderd.'

Academie II,' Het Vaderland (27 August 1891):

'Mevrouw Mesdag is er in geslaagd haar techniek, hoe

breed ook, niet te doen ontaarden in onsmaakvolle

ruwheid, gelijk men te dikwijls ziet bij hen, die het in-

drukwekkende trachten te vertolken. De techniek der im-

pressionistische kunst is niet zelden zoo grof en onbe-

holpen, dat ik slechts éen naam voor zulke gkunstuitin en

ken: lelijk.'

57 See e.g. Albert Plasschaert, Het Impressionisme,

Ooltgenplaat 1911, p. 13.

58 Robert Jensen, Marketing modernism in fin-de-siè-

cle Europe, Princeton, NJ 1994.

126 56 E.G.O. [= A.C. Loffelt], 'De aquarellen in de

JOURNAL 1999

fig. 10

Louis Marie Lemaire, Matinée de juin, from Explication

des ouvrages de peinture, sculpture, architecture,

gravure et lithographie des artistes vivants exposés au

Palais des Champs-Elysées, Paris 1893

critics continued to think that impressionism only meantp Y

ill-defined shapes: `Mrs Mesdag has succeeded in mainp g -

tainin a certain form, and although her technique is fairly ^ g q Y

free, she has not been reduced to tasteless shapelessness,p

which one all too often sees in the work of those who -at-

tempt to render an impression. The technique of the imp p q

ressionists is frequently so crude and unskilful that I canp q Y

forfind only one word o tY ugly.' 5

-equation of looseness of technique and im resq q P

sionism was deeply pervasive, 1 rooted and ervasive, and led to sweep-

in and absurd conclusions; soon even Frans Hals andg

Rembrandt were included among the happy band of im

g ppY -

ressionists. 57 In fact, however, when we consider thep >

method ofaintin the use of colour and the choice of sub-p g^

'ect matter, the Dutch art that came to be termed 1'im pres-

sionist' has very little in common with that of its FrenchY

predecessors.

International impressionism:pa modernist discovery

From the 188os on, more and more often critics in

many European countries began to refer to much contem-

p Y A

Y p

orar art as 'impressionist,' even when the works had lit-

tle or nothing to do with the French movement. By this timeg Y

the name was de rigueur for modern paintings, or thoseg p g

that wished to be seen as such. For the critics the -s ontanep

it and individuality of the works began to play a greaterY Y g p Y g

role and more value waslaced on expression and on i-p P g

nalit . As Robert Jensen has observed, however, this is noY

reason why one should speak of these pictures in terms ofY p p

`im ressionism.' 58 Yet the tendency has been so compelling

P Y p g

that even today, the close of the loth century, it is hard toY^ Y

eradicate.59

Scholars have repeatedly linked the Hague andp Y g

Amsterdam Schools with the French pim ressionists. 60 The

confusion that triumphed at the end of the i th century, 9 Y

when Dutch artists who despised the work of Frenchpainters such as Monet Degas or Renoir were themselvesp ^ g

labelled impressionists, has only increased with the continp ^ Y -

uin misuse of the term. Thus, in the i 1 introduction to

g ^ 99

the exhibition catalogue The age of Van Gogh: Dutchpaint-g g g ^

in 1880-18 a parallel was drawn between the subjectg 9^ ^ p subject

of George Hendrik Breitner, Marius Bauer, Isaacg

Israëls and Willem de Zwart and that of their Parisian con-

127

59 See also De Leeuw, op. cit. (note 3), p. 35. De

Leeuw cites a very telling remark by Bernard Dorival:

'This movement [impressionism] is even so highly re-

gardedarded that its label is stuck on to artists who do not

actually have much to do with it [...].' More recently, in

Norma Broude (ed.), World impressionism: the inter-

national movement, 1860-1920 (New York 1990),

Brooks Adams treated the Hague School as a the fore-

runner of the modernist work of Van Gogh and Piet

Mondrian. Mesdag's Panorama in The Hague and

P.J.C. Gabriel's In the month of July (Amsterdam,

Rijksmuseum) are cited as the foremost examples of

Dutch pim ressionism. The Panorama is most definitely

not a good example of impressionist work, but rather

of the most precise realism. Within the Hague School,

Gabriel was something of a fish out of water, and his

art is certainly not typical of the style; furthermore,

however, his method of painting – placing mixed

colours on the canvas, and then varnishing the work –

is a world away from the technique of the French im-

pressionists;ressionists; see: exhib. cat. Paul Joseph Constantin

Gabriël 1828-1903: Colorist van de Haagse School,

Dordrecht (Dordrechts Museum) & Cleves (B.C.

Koekkoek Haus) 1998-99.

60 The important book by A.M. Hammacher, Amster-

damsch impressionisten en hun kring, Amsterdam 1946,

contributed to a pwides read familiarity with the term in

this century.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

temporaries. Although only Manet is actually mentioned b

P g Y Y by

name, the suggestion is made that there were close tiesgg

with other artists as well, for example Degas - after all,p g

Breitner Bauer and De Zwart alsoainted ballet dancers. 61P

Furthermore, Dutch and French artists apparently shared a

PP Y

love for depicting cafes, theatres and life on the city streets.

A g Y

From this the assumption arose that French impressionismP P

had arofound influence on the Amsterdam School.P

Comparisons based solely on subject matter are a

P Y subjec

business. For one thing, it was not only im reg Y -sA

sionists whoainted these kinds of scenes. The DutchP

artists could just as easily have been inspired by a neo-im-Y P Y

ressionist like Seurat. 62 Far more telling, is aP

g> however,

comparison with those Salon artists who so often renderedP

the sophisticated urban life of Paris. Generally speaking,P Y

when Dutch artists visited the French capital they made

A Y

sure not to miss the annual Salons. Jacobus van Loo 'sY

Luxurious summer fi . 9), for example, can be better( g 9) P

likened to Louis Marie Lemaire''s Matinée dejuin (fig. io

I (g )

than - as is so often the case - to work by Manet or Monet. 63Y

Even if Van Looy did not see Matinée de juin at the 18Y 1 1893

Salon he may still have known the work from the re roduc

Y -A

in the Salon catalogue. 64 m e Sa o cata o ue 64g

It is commonractice to draw a comparison betweenP P

the work of Breitner, Isaac Israëls and Degas, particularly A Y

of their method of cropping figures. 65 However,

because o t e et od o Pp g g

De as was certainly not the first to introduce spectacular cut

Degas Y P

-edges. The famous An to-Dutch painter Lawrence Almag g P

Tadema used a similar technique, and his fellow countyq ^ -Y

men would certainly have known his work better than thatY

of Degas. 66 The argument that when Dutch artists visited

g g

France they went not only to the Salons, the Louvre and the

Y Y

Luxembourg, but also visited 'impressionist' dealers such as

g P

Durand-Ruel is equally unconvincin . 67 In these artists' sur-q Y unconvincing . 6

documents we find no mention of the French im

g -resP

fig. 11

Giuseppe de Nittis, La parfumerie Violet, n.d., Paris,

Musée Carnavalet (photograph courtesy of the

Photothèque des Musées de la Ville de Paris)

sionists. On the other hand, there is muchraise for theA

painters of the Barbizon School. Veth and Willem Witsen vis-

ited Paris in 1885. Isaac Israëls was also a frequent visitor,5 q

on one occasion in 1889 accompanyingthe writer Frans9

Erens. That sameear they met both Huysmans andY Y Y

Mallarmé, through whom they were introduced to Bertheg Y

Morisot, Manet's sister-in-law. At her home they saw and ad-Y

mired the artist's work. They also visited Theo van Gogh's

Y g

alle y .68 When writing of their visit they mention Manet,g Y g Y

128

61 Richard Bionda and Carel Slotkamp, 'Introduction,,

exhib. cat. The age of Van Gogh: Dutch painting 1880-

1895, Glasgow (The Burrell Collection) & Amsterdam

(Van Gogh Museum) 1990-91, p. 15.

62 Compare, for example, the composition and placing

of the figures in Isaac Israëls's Café chantant in a popular

quarter in Amsterdam (c. 1893, Otterlo, Krbller-Muller

Museum) and Seurat's Parade (1887-88, New York, The

Metropolitan Museum of Art), which was on view at the

Les Vingt exhibition in Brussels in 1892. We know that

Isaac Israëls attended the exhibition in 1884, when paint-

ings by his father were being shown.

63 The age of Van Gogh, cit. (note 61), no. 58. See also

exhib. cat. Jacobus van Looy, 1855-1930: Niets is zoo

mooi als zien..., Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum) &

Helmond (Gemeentemuseum Helmond) 1998-99, no. 24

and Langs velden en wegen, cit. (note 22), no. 98.

64 Chris Will has demonstrated that Van Looy often

used Salon pictures as models; see Chris Will,

'Negentiende-eeuwse hispanisten en de flamencodans,'

Jong Holland 14 (1998), no. 4, pp. 38-39. Equally, it is

not immediately apparent that Breitner's nudes were in-

fluenced by the work of Manet or Degas; both the paint-

ing technique and the compositions are more reminiscent

fig. 12

Isaac Israëls, Mars's millinery on the Nieuwendijk,

Amsterdam, 1893, Groningen, Groninger Museum

seum for modern art in the country. Despite the fact that itY P

contained no work by the French impressionists, the col-t P

lection was both fresh and experimental. This was largelyP g Y

due to the extemporaneous works of the Barbizon andP

it cont ined. 70 During the loth century,Hague Schoolst a ,gg

however, ideas about museumresentation began toP g

chap e. Seeking to modernise the image of the museum,g g g

the interiors were adapted during the 1 os and 6os to con-

form to these new

g 95

r th n w concepts. 71 Similar modernist attitudesP

contributed to the notion that The Hague and Amsterdamg

Schoolainters were impressionists. For only the 1 thcenP p Y --9

tur art that could be considered a forerunner of the 2othY -

centuryvant garde - such as the work of Vincent van GoghY g g

or Paul Cézanne - was believed to be of interest.

Although the artists of the Barbizon School are nowg

no longer termed impressionists, those of both the Hagueg P ^ ^

and Amsterdam Schools often are. This amalgamation doesg

the Dutch art noood. Indeed, because of this comparison

g P

it has been -uimpossible to gain an assessment without rejA g P l

dices or tags -articular) from abroad. However, by mix^ particularly Y -

in different international schools in museum sentag -reP

tions as at the Museum gMesda , it becomes clear that mod-

ern Dutch artists were far more interested in the Barbizon

School than in their impressionist contemporaries.P A

the Barbizon School, Jean-Fran ois Raffaëlli and Giuseppe^ PP

de Nittis, but say not a word about any of the impressionists.

Y Y P

In her monograph on Isaac Israëls Anna Wagner has statedg

uite rightlythat his works have little in common with thoseq

ofthe impressionist rou . 69 In fact, they bear a far moret p g P ^ Y

striking resemblance to the popular street scenes of de Nittis

g PP

fi s. i 1 and 12).

When it wasresented to the State of thewaspresente

in o1 the Museum Mesdag the first mu93 g -was

of nudes exhibited at the annual Salon, for example

Jacquesson de la Chevreuse's Étude (present locationq prese n u

known), on view in 1885. For a comparison between the

nudes of Breitner and Degas see exhib. cat. De schilders

van Tachtig, cit. (note 28), no. 16.

65 The age of Van Gogh, cit. (note 61), no. 12.

66 See Julian Treuherz, 'Introduction to Alma-Tadema,'

exhib. cat. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Amsterdam (Van

Gogh Museum) & Liverpool (Walker Art Gallery) 1996-

97, p. 12.

67 Cf. Bionda and Slotkamp, op. cit. (note 61), p. 17.

68 See Anna Wagner, Isaac Israëls, Rotterdam 1967,

p. 27.

69 Ibid., p. 42.

70 De Bodt, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 43-53.

71 See Ronald de Leeuw, 'The Museum Mesdag: a short

history,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1996), pp. 17-40.

129

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

130

DOCUMENTATION

Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings, drawings and sculpture

August 1998—July 1999

This catalogue contains all paintings, drawings and

sculpture acquired by the Van Gogh Museum froml

;August 1998 to July 1999. Each work has an inven-

tory number made up as follows: the first letter

stands for the technique (s = painting, d = drawing,

v = sculpture); this is followed by a reference num-

ber and then by a capital letter (B = loan, N = State

of the Netherlands, S = Van Gogh Museum [after 1

July q , V = Vincent van Gogh Foundation) and

. ^9 1

the year of acquisition.

Paintings

Bócklin, Arnold

Swiss, 1827-1901

Sleeping nymph spied on by two fauns

1884

Oil on panel, 70 x 90 cm

Signed at lower right: AB

s 491 S/1999

The Swiss artist Arnold Bócklin is known for his

mystically-tinged work. Besides doom-laden paint-

in s, he also created mythological scenes; ofteng

lighter in tone and less symbolically charged, theseg

sometimes even express a certain humour.

In the second half of the 19th century, Bucklin

gained a prominent position in artistic circles, es-

peciallyecially in the German-speaking countries. His

work appealed to many of his contemporaries, andpp

also inspired painters of later generations. He wasp

a leading exemplar, especially to the symbolists.g

His themes are drawn from the Dionysian world of

Nietzsche, and tend towards the Teutonic grandilo-

quence of Richard Wagner. The painter was con-

cerned less with a reiteration of the stories of an-

ti uit than with such human fundamentals as soli-q Y

tude, erotic desire, happiness, angst and longing. It

is not the Olympian gods who populate his paint-

ings, but natural forces personified as nymphs,

fauns, centaurs and naiads. At times bizarre and

fantastical, his pictures can seem somewhat con-

trived. However, although characteristic, the

Sleeping nymph, does not stray into the excesses

and exaggerations of some of his other works.

Following a long period in Rome, Bócklin livedg

in Florence from 1874 to 1885. It was not unusual

for Germanainters to reside in Italy, where theyp

sought inspiration in the country's mythology, past,g

and unspoiled landscape. Bucklin was the most im-

ortant of these so-called `Deutsch-Romer,' whosep

exponents included Anselm Feuerbach, Hans vonp

Marées, Franz von Lenbach and Adolf von Hilde-

brand. The international significance of these

artists has recently become apparent: numerous

symbolists, expressionists and surrealists were in-

fluenced by their work. We know from a passage in

the diary of Bócklin's student and biographer

Rudolf Schick that the canvas was painted in

Florence in 1884. Schick also made a sketch after

the work which on many occasions has been attrib-

uted to the master himself.

The painting depicts a sleeping water nymph

being spied on by two fauns. Although it bears con-

siderable resemblance to Bbcklin's Sleeping Diana

ps ied on by two fauns of 1877 (Dusseldorf, Kunst-

museum), the Van Gogh Museum's painting has far

greater charm. Besides the Sleeping Diana, no oth-

er work in Biicklin's oeuvre is so clearly associated

with this picture.

The canvas shows Bucklin at his best.

Deliberately wide-ranging, the variety of style

brings his artistic qualities to the fore. The hairy

bodies of the fauns, the vegetation and the silvery

tints of the water all provided the painter with an

opportunity to revel in the rendering of texture.pp

Depth is created by the detailed rocks and mossesp

in the foreground, and the sketchy plant cover in

the background. The pale skin of the nymph and

the brownish hides of the fauns - a fine contrast -

contribute to the scene's spatiality.

Although the work is humorous, a certain em-

path is created by the fauns' somewhat stupid fa-Y

cial expressions and their very goat-like limbs.

Bucklin is said to have incorporated the features of

the artist Franz von Lenbach, his former close

friend, into one of the faces. Lenbach's meddling

and backbiting had led to strains in the relation-

ship, culminating in a break in August 1877.

The endearing scene also has a lightly ironic

undertone. A not-so-subtle sexual allusion can be

discerned in theourd pointing towards the vesselg

from which the spring flows. But something

gstrap e is afoot: while fauns are traditionally

known for their licentiousness, here their lust is

very restrained. Although the nymph lies asleep - aY

condition ideally suited to being overpowered -Y

they seem to be resigned to passive staring.

Bócklin's figures fill almost the whole canvas,

creating an intimate mood which is only enhanced

131

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Arnold Bócklin

132 Sleeping nymph spied on by two fauns 1884

JOURNAL 1999

by the chiaroscuro. Little is visible of the naturalY

surroundings; nothing in the painting is reminis-

cent of the kind of classical Italian landscape that

played such a pronounced role in the artist's other

works. Tree species characteristic of Medi-

terranean regions, such as cypresses, are absent.

Like his contemporaries Edouard Manet,

Edgar Degas and Paul Cézanne, Bócklin frequently

based his work on that of Old Masters. Paintings of

spied-on nymphs, or of Susanna and the elders, can

be traced back to Titian, Rubens and Poussin in

particular.

Provenance Baron von Heyking, Peking (given on permanent loan

to the Nationalgalerie, Berlin, c. 1900); Kunsthandel Eduard

Schulte, Berlin (1905); Kunsthandel J.P. Schneider Jr, Frankfurt am

Main (1905); Kojiro Matsukata; private collection, Osaka (1960);

Fujikawa Gallery, Tokyo (1972); Iwami Furusawa, Tokyo (1973);

Jeffrey Deitch, New York; purchased by the Van Gogh Museum

with support from the Vereniging Rembrandt, with the help of the

Prins Bernard Fonds (1999).

Literature Exhib. cat. A. Bócklin 1827-1901: Ausstellung zum

150. Geburtstag veranstaltet vom Magistrat der Stadt

Darmstadt, Darmstadt (Mathildenhóhe) 1977, pp. 168-69; Rolf

Andree, Arnold Bócklin: Die Gemalde, Basel & Munich 1977,

p. 456; exhib. cat. Arnold Bócklin, Giorgio de Chirico, Max

Ernst: Eine Reise ins Ungewisse, Zurich (Kunsthaus Zürich)

Munchen (Haus der Kunst München) & Berlin (Nationalgalerie)

1998, pp. 180, 438.

Bonheur, Rosa

French, 1822-1899

La mare aux fées c. 1870

Oil on canvas, 31 x 38 cm

Signed at lower right (not by the artist): Rosa

Bonheur

s 492 S/1999

Rosa Bonheur is best known for her realistic ani-

mal pieces, which were often painted in a large

format. Intimate studies of nature, such as La mare

aux fées, are fairly rare in her oeuvre. This study of

a tree was painted in the forest of Fontainebleau,

where the artist had withdrawn in 186o. She often

drew or painted the trees and clearings she en-

countered on her many long walks through the

woods. The site shown in this painting is known as

`la mare aux fées,' i.e. `the fairies' pool.'

The artist Henri Cain once wrote that it was

impossible to persuade Rosa Bonheur to come to

Paris if she was working on such a study. `I can't

leave now,' she would say, `the forest is too beauti-

ful at the moment, flaming with magnificent fo-

liage which is so soon to fade.'

Although the study features a number of trees,

only one, that at the centre, has been finished inY

any detail. Bonheur devoted considerable attention

to thelay of light falling through the branches andp

illuminating the trunk.

Provenance Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox, London; purchased by the

Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature Exhib. cat. Nineteenth and early twentieth century

drawings and oil sketches, London (Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox) 1998.

Desboutin, Marcellin-Gilbert

French, 1823-1902

Self-portraitP

Oil on canvas, 40.3 x 32.4 cm

gSi ned lower right: M. Desboutin

s 490 S/1999

Desboutin was the scion of an aristocratic family.

After completing his studies in law, he decided in

18 to take lessons at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. He45

left the academy already in 1847, due to the unin-

s irin teaching of his academic master, Louis-Julesp g g

Etex. Between 1847 and 1849 Desboutin worked in

the studio of Thomas Couture, another of whose stu-

dents in the same period was Edouard Hanel.

133

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Kees van Dongen

The blue dress 1911

134

JOURNAL 1999

As a wealthy young man, Desboutin could de-

vote himself to his passions: writing poetry and

plays, and collecting art for his Florentine villa.

Onl y after exhausting his fortune did he return to

Paris in 1872, now ready to address the question of

seriously applying himself to a career as a painter

and engraver.

As someone who moved in impressionist cir-

cles, Desboutin posed twice for Degas. He made his

name as a portraitist: Degas, Manet and Zola are

numbered among his sitters. As well as painting a

glar g e number his contemporaries, known and un-

known, he executed several self-portraits.

This work was probably painted when he was in

his early 205 and working with Couture. The mon-

otonealette is characteristic of his style. BecauseP

of the complete absence of artistic accoutrements,

there is no indication of his profession as a painter.

The spectator's attention is drawn primarily to theP

y oun g man's face and his abundant head of hair.youn

Gaston Lévy; Private collection, USA; Galerie Partick

Derom, Paris (1999); purchased by the Van Gogh Museum

(1999).

Van Dongen, Kees

Dutch, 1877-1968

The blue dress 1911

Oil on canvas, 146 x 114 cm

Signed at lower right: Van Dongen

s 493 5/1999

Composed in simple, vividly-coloured planes, thisP

portrait shows Van Dongen's wife, Augusta

Preitinger 1878-1946). The couple had met at theg ^

art academy in Rotterdam in the 188os, and had

married in 1901. Head raised, hand on hip, Guus -

as she was known - is shown in a challenging and

self-assured pose. She wears a blue dress with a

black openwork vest and has a red ornament

(probably a peony) in her hair. Van Dongen had(A Y p )

herose in the bright light of an arc lamp and thisp

accounts for the elliptical shadow in the back-

g round. He used strong colours: a glowing crimsong

for the background, a dark purplish red for theg

shadow, and deep cobalt blue for the dress.

According to Van Dongen's daughter Dolly, theg

ortrait was painted in the artist's studio on theP p

Rue Saulnier, near the Folies-Bergère music hall. It

probably dates from 1911. Van Dongen exhibitedp .

the work in December of that year at the Parisian

art dealer's Bernheim Jeune, where it bore the title

La robe bleue. In Interior with a yellow door, which

wasainted in 1912 (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmansp

Van Beuningen)) the work - albeit in a somewhat

rudimentary form - is seen hanging over a dresser

in his apartment; from this we can conclude that

the artist gave it a prominent position in his own

home.

In 1912, Roger Fry selected this imposing por-

trait for his second exhibition of post-impression-

ists at the Grafton Galleries in London, where a

critic described it as `daring in its contrasted

shades ofpurples and crimson.' As at the exhibi-p

tion held in Paris a year earlier, the work was not

for sale. At a later date, the portrait passed to Dolly

van Dongen. The supposition that she inherited itg

u on the artist's death, however, is incorrect: itupo

already in her possession before Van Dongen

died in 1968. The absence of further details means9

that we can only speculate on the provenance ofYp

the work. If Dolly did not inherit the canvas from

her father, she may have received it from her

mother. Augusta and Van Dongen were divorcedg

after the First World War; it probably passed to the

former when the property was divided in the early

192os.

Provenance Kees van Dongen, Paris (1911 - c. 1920?); Augusta

Preitinger (c. 1920-1946)?; Dolly van Dongen, Paris (1946?-

1987); Francois Roussel, Paris (1987-1989); New York (Habs-

burg/Feldman), 8 May 1989, lot 29; Mr and Mrs Jeffrey J. Steiner,

London; Kunsthandel Ivo Bouwman, The Hague; purchased by

the Van Gogh Museum, with the support of the Great Sponsor

Lottery (1999).

Literature Jean Melas Kyriazi, Van Dongen et le Fauvisme,

Lausanne & Paris [1971], pp. 113, 116; exhib. cat. Van Dongen,

Paris (Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris) & Rotterdam

(Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen) 1967-68, no. 63; Anita

Hopmans, 'Kees van Dongen. De blauwe japon,' Van Gogh

Museum Bulletin 14 (1999), no. 3, pp. 14-17.

Mesdag, Hendrik Willem

Dutch, 1831-1915

Breakers in the North Sea 1870

Oil on canvas, 90 x 180 cm

Signed at lower right: HW Mesdag 1870

s 494 5/1999

In just o, just four years after he had set out to be-7

come aainter, and two after he bad decided to de-p

vote himself to marine subjects, H.W. Mesdag won

aold medal at the Paris Salon with Breakers in theg

North Sea. Not only did this establish his reputation

as an artist, it also helped him make his name as a

painter of seascapes.

The source of his inspiration for this canvas

was the coast of the North Sea at Scheveningen,

which Mesdag was able to contemplate to his

heart's content after settling nearby in The Hague

in 186. To carry out his studies, he rented a room9

with a sea view at the Villa Elba in Scheveningen.

The genesis of the work, however, is quite

complex. After visiting the German island ofp

Norderne in the summer of 1868, where he dis-Norderney

covered his vocation as a marine painter, Mesdag

embarked on a monumental seascape. Then, in

Brussels, he saw a seascape by Courbet, and decid-

ed that the work he had begun in Norderney need-

ed to beainted again. This decision was probablyp g

taken in late 1869, as one of Mesdag's friends, the

135

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Belgian artist Verwée, had seen the earlier version

of the work at the end of August. In a letter dated

15 November 1869, Mesdag indicated that he had

modified its subject. On 24 January 187o, he wrote

to Verwée that he still had to complete his marine,

but that he would have it finished by March in timeY

to submit to the Salon.

The painting was bought at the exhibition by

the genre and portrait painter Charles Chaplin,

who had been a member of the jury. It is not known

when it left his collection; it certainly did not fea-

ture in the auction of his studio in 1891. It was only

in the 198os that the work was finally traced by the

Mesdag Documentatie Centrum. It was discovered

that the picture had been cut in two and partially

painted in with ships. These additions have been

removed and the two parts reunited; for the first

time in many decades, it is now possible to show

the painting in its original state. (See also the arti-

cle by Fred Leeman in this volume of the Van Goghg

Museum Journal.)

Provenance Charles Chaplin, Paris; Art Agencies International,

The Hague; Ir Joh. Poort, Wassenaar; donated to the Van Gogh

Museum (1999).

Literature Exhib. cat. The Hague School: Dutch masters of the

19th century, The Hague (Gemeentemuseum), Paris (Grand

Palais) & London (Royal Academy) 1983, p. 81; Johan Poort,

Hendrik Willem Mesdag (1831-1915): Oeuvrecatalogus,

Wassenaar 1989, pp. 41-43, no. 1870.12; idem, 'Les brisants de

la Mer du Nord,' Tableau (November 1991), pp. 74-77.

Portrait of Jozef Israëls 1872

Oil on canvas, 60.5 x 50.8 cm

Signed at lower right: H.W. Mesdag 1872

s 499 S/1999

Although it has been suggested that this work is a

counterpart to the portrait Israëls painted of

Mesdag, now also in the Museum Mesdag in The

Hague, this is by no means certain. The two paint-

ings are certainly different with regard to size.

However, it is possible that Israëls's work, which

was created several years after that by Mesdag,

was painted in response to the latter.

Israëls was about 48 years of age when the por-

trait was painted, and already a celebrated painter

both at home and abroad. While often portrayed in

the literature as a simple and sensitive man guided

by his intuition, he was in fact both very widely

read and a lover of music. By giving his well-

groomed and bespectacled sitter the aura of an in-

tellectual, it is the second, truer, image Mesdag

chose to reflect. And while most portraits of Israëls

stress his diminutive stature, this is not the case

here. Mesdag thus appears to pay homage to the

doyen of the Hague School.

Provenance Private collection, Scheveningen; Ir Joh. Poort,

Wassenaar; donated to the Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature Johan Poort, Hendrik Willem Mesdag (1831-1915):

Oeuvrecatalogus, Wassenaar 1989, p. 133, no. 1872.02.

Drawingsg

Denis, Maurice

French, 1870-1943

Study for the programme of MauriceMaeterlinck's L'intruse 1890-91

Black chalk, 19 x 13 cm

Signed at lower right (vertically): MAUD

d 1092 S/1999

This small drawing is a study for the theatre pro-

gramme of Maurice Maeterlinck's play L'intruse.

The final work appeared as a lithographexecuted(

by Paul Fort) in the programme for the première of

the play at the Théátre d'Art on 20 May 1891.

Shown here is the scene in which the three

daughters, their father and an uncle meet at the

house of the blind grandfather. The grief that is es-

pecially legible in the dejected mien of the three

sisters is brought about by the uncertainty sur-

rounding the condition of their mother, who lies in

136

JOURNAL 1999

Hawkins, Louis Welden

French, 1849-1910

Self-portrait c. 1885

Black chalk and black ink, 16 x 17.5 cm

Signed at lower centre: X L. WELDEN HAWKINS. X

d 1088 S/1998

In this small work, just as in the painted self-por-

trait that has been in the Van Gogh Museum since

1993, Hawkins portrays himself as a gentleman. He993

wears a smart suit and a bow tie. Another feature

this drawing shares with the painting is the pres-

ence of art in the background: behind the artist at

the right, the drawing shows part of an artwork ing

an ornamental frame. It depicts a mythical crea-

ture, although we do not know if it is a work by

Hawkins himself.

Hawkins first drew this self-portrait in black

chalk, then used more black to lend extra emphasis

to the shading of the face and the outlines of the

shoulders, bow tie, collar and lapels. After round-

ing off the upper corners of the paper, he laid the

work on cardboard, around which he placed a bor-

der before adding his signature.

Provenance Kunsthandel Schlichte Bergen, Amsterdam; purchased

by the Van Gogh Museum (1998).

childbed. Only the blind greybeard seems to under-

stand that his daughter has died only shortly be-

fore. A striking feature of the work is its decorative

character, which is due in part to the flowing pat-

tern of arabesques.

Despite its different appearance, this drawing

is closely related to Denis's painting The two sisters

from 18gi and now also in the collection of the Van

Gogh Museum. While the drawing shows the com-

plete scene from the play, the painting depicts only

two of the sisters. Denis had originally made the

painting after the work developed for the theatre

programme, but he was dissatisfied with the result

and cut the canvas into different pieces, transform-

in the fragment into a work in its own right.g

Provenance Henri M. Petiet; Paris (Jean-Louis Picard), 4 July

1995, lot 55; private collection; donated to the Van Gogh

Museum in memory of Peter Gottmer (1999).

Literature Van Gogh Museum Aanwinsten/Acquisitions

1986-1991, Zwolle & Amsterdam 1991, pp. 54-55; exhib. cat.

Die Nabis: Propheten der Moderne, Zürich (Kunsthaus Zürich)

1993, p. 152; Paris (Jean-Louis Picard), 4 July 1995, lot 55.

137

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Eugene Isabey

138 A shipwreck 1838

JOURNAL 1999

Isabey, Eugène

French, 1803-1886

A shipwreck 1838

Gouache and charcoal on paper of irregular dimen-

sions, 29.5 cm (left edge) 29.1 cm (right edge) x

40.4 cm (top edge) 40.3 cm (bottom edge)

Signed at lower right: E.Isabey 1838

d 1089 S/1999

The son of a miniaturist, Isabey was a successful

painter of marines and historical pictures. He exhib-

ited regularly at the Salon and was one of the leadingg

courtainters to Louis-Philippe under the Julyp

Monarch y . His romantic vision was influenced by his

contacts with Delacroix and Huet, and by his discov-

ery of contemporary British painting (he travelled toP

gEn land in 1821 and 1825). He spent much of his ca-

reer on the Normandy coast, where he helped popu-

larise many of the sites later favoured by Boudin,

Monet and Jongkind (who became his pupil).

This recently acquired gouache is a fine exam-

plele of the kind of theatrical composition that helped

establish Isabey's reputation. Although his marine

paintings ranged from battle pictures to elaboratep g

naval ceremonies, he became best known for his

terrifying scenes of storms and shipwrecks. Here he

. g

has pde icted the last dramatic moments of a strick-

en ship. All hope seems lost for the few survivorsp

NA' ho cling to the bowsprit of the dismasted hulk as itg

is forced against the rocks. The dark sky streakedg

With a livid yellow in the distance and the hostile

coastline reenforce the melodramatic mood.

Isabey attracted much attention for his free

and rapid style of painting. Here, his virtuoso tech-

ni ue brilliantly evokes the wind driving throughq Y

the shrouds, the water pouring off the side of the

wreck, and the pounding waves . The massive

Ps ray behind the hull is actually unpainted paper

with onl y a few touches of charcoal. Elsewhere heY

uses fluid, loaded touches of gouache to add high-

li g hts of colour and to draw attention to details

such as the figures or the broken mast looming out

of the water in the foreground.

yIsabe produced a great many oil paintings of

Isabey g

comparable themes, but it is not known whetherp

thisouache has any direct relation with anotherg

picture. In spite of its modest size, it seems most

Ylikel y to have been produced as an independent

work of art rather than a study. A lithograph by

Isabey T depicting a very similar ship in the after-

p g

math of a storm was published in 1836 and may

have served as the basis for this composition.

Provenance Private collection; Kunsthandel Schlichte Bergen,

Amsterdam (1999); purchased by the Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature The work is not recorded in the Isabey literature but its

authenticity has been confirmed by Pierre Miguel, author of the

major monograph on the artist. On Isabey as a marine painter see

P. Miguel, Eugene Isabey et la marine au XIXe siècle, 1803-1886,

2 vols., Maurs-la-Jolie, 1980. For the related lithograph see

A. Curtis, Catalogue de l'oeuvre lithographiée d'Eugène Isabey,

Paris 1939, no. 84: Brick échoué, 11.8 x 19.7 cm.

Latouche, Gaston de

French, 1854-1913

Portrait of Joseph-Auguste FélixBracquemondaPastel, brush and ink, 77.5 x 55.8 cm

Signed at lower right: Gaston Ia Touche; and belowg g

a horizontal line: GD

d 1090 5/1999

Gaston de Latouche received his first art lessons

from Manet. At that time he was working in a natu-

ralistic style; later, he specialised in fêtes galantesY

in the manner of Watteau, which brought him a

number of commissions for a variety of decorative

ro'ects. Latouche also painted portraits of familyp 1

members and artists, such as Rodin and Puvis de

Chavannes.

This pastel shows his other master, the en-

graverraver and designer Felix Bracquemond

i8 -i . Holding a book, probably a bible or( 33 9 4)

prayer book, the artist poses under a gothic arch,p Y

in front of a sculptural group depicting a Madonna

and Child flanked by two saints. It is not certain

whether theortrait is set at an altar, or in a chapelp

or church. The artist's use of yellow pastel to sug-

est a olden glow seems to indicate that the arch,g g

the horizontal plinth under the statues, and the

sculptures themselves, were partially gilded.p

Bracquemond's attitude suggests that he is deep inq

thought.

Both in his own time and today, Bracquemond's

celebrity rests almost entirely on his work as an

engraver. He was involved in the development ofg

new techniques, and was often consulted by suchq

contemporaries as Degas, Manet, Gauguin andp

Rodin. Hisosition at the huh of the artistic life ofp

his time is suggested by his role as one of the

founders of not only the impressionist exhibitions,

but also of the Société des Aquafortistes and the

Société des Peintres-Graveurs. The Van Gogh

Museum owns seven of his prints.

Provenance Sotheby's (New York), 5 May 1999, lot 377; pur-

chased by the Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature Sotheby's (New York), 5 May 1999, lot 377.

139

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Léon Augustin Lhermitte

140 The harvesters

^\^^Sls \ ^ ó^r^8 \l

JOURNAL 1999

Lhermitte, Léon Augustin

French, 1844-1925

The harvestersPastel, 22.5 x 30.5 cm

Signed at lower right: L Lhermitte

d 1091 S/1999

`For me, that man is Millet II in the full sense of the

word; I am as enraptured by his work as I am by

that of Millet himself. I find his genius equal to that

of Millet I' 529/R57]. The man of whom Van Gogh

speaks in this passage is none other than Léon

Augustin Lhermitte. Like Millet, this artist focused

oneasant life in general, and work on the land inp

particular - themes that were also close to Van

Gogh's heart. Vincent knew Lhermitte's work

mainly from the reproductions he collected so

avidly.

The original collection of the Van Gogh

Museum contained nothing by this realist painter;

in the last few years, however, this situation has

changed. The museum already owns one painting

and four drawings; these are now joined by this

fine pastel. The work shows a field in summertime,

with two men and a woman haymaking. In the

background at the right, a fourth figure can be

seen, although it is uncertain whether he, too, is a

haymaker. The haystack which fills the canvas at

the lower left serves as a repoussoir device, draw-

ing the spectator's gaze past the three workers and

into the scene. Visible to the left of the two right-

hand figures are outlines in pencil and chalk; these

no doubt testify to an earlier idea on the part of the

artist. The whole sheet is built up with energetical-

ly-applied dashes of colour.

Provenance Private collection, England; Sotheby's (London),

9 September 1998, lot 54; Thomas Williams Fine Art Ltd.,

London; purchased by the Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature Exhib. cat. Old Master drawings, London (Thomas

Williams Fine Art Ltd.) 1999, no. 40.

Voerman, Jan

Dutch, 1857-1941

Landscape with cows on the River IJssel

near Hattem c. 1895-1900

Watercolour, 32.5 x 56.6 cm

Signed at lower left: JV

d 1093 5/1999

Jan Voerman grew up in a farming family in

Kampen. From 1876 to 1883 he studied at the

Rijksacademie in Amsterdam. During his years in

the Dutch capital, where he lived until 1889, he

was in close contact with the so-called Tachtigers

and with the artists of the Amsterdam School. After

his marriage to Anna Verkade, sister of the artist

Jan Verkade, he settled in Hattem in 1889, where

he was to remain for the rest of his life. At the same

time, he distanced himself from `impressionism,'

seeking instead to express the greatest possible pu-

rity of feeling in his work. He called this his `theo-

retical period.' This change in manner was due, at

least in part, to Jan Verkade, who had close links

with French artists of the Nabis group. This lent his

watercolours, in which he used both transparent

and non-transparent paints, a drier, more pastel

quality. He altered his style of composition as well

as his technique, building up his work in flat

planes. The result was often a static image with

which Voerman sought to express the calm of na-

ture. In the mid-189os he introduced more colour

into his work and slightly relaxed the rigid plan-

ning of his compositions.

The watercolour Landscape with cows on the

RiverIJssel - donated to the Van Gogh Museum by

Henk van Ulsen, connoisseur and collector par ex-

cellence of Voerman's work - is undated. But the

coloration and the somewhat freer composition

suggest it was executed in the years between t 895

and 1900. It is painted entirely in opaque water-

colour. Using a very fine brush, Voerman drew the

outlines of the cows and of the houses of Hattem in

the background.

Provenance Frans Buffs & Zonen, Amsterdam; E.J. van Wisselingh

& Co., Amsterdam; H. Stork, Bergentheim; H. van Ulsen, Amster-

dam; donated to the Van Gogh Museum by Mr H. van Ulsen

(1999).

Sculpture

141

Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste

French, 1827-1875

Bust of Anna Foucart 'Anna Foucart aux

roses') 1872/73

Plaster, H 63.5 cm

Signed on the base: J Bte Carpeaux

v 168 S/1999

Anna Foucart, the daughter of Carpeaux's old

friend from Valenciennes, the lawyer Jean-Baptiste

Foucart, posed several times for portraits but also

for other works by the sculptor.

This bust was unknown until its recent publi-

cation by Daniel Katz in London. It is an original

plaster, as indicated by the metal compass-points

that would have served as guides for reproductions

in other media. The bust is an excellent and espe-

cially lively example of Carpeaux's portraiture.

The movement of the head and the delicate render-

ing of the textures of skin, hair and dress reveal the

neo-baroque influences on the artist's style. The

expressive gaze and the delicacy of the execution

bear witness to the personal relationship between

model and sculptor. Typical for Carpeaux is the

smile that reveals the sitter's teeth, a modern

(re)invention which adds a degree of realism to the

portrait which would have been unthinkable in the

classical tradition of only a few decades earlier.

Since Daniel Katz found the work in England,

he has suggested that it was left there by the artist,

which would also explain why there are no ver-

sions in other media. Like many of his fellow-

artists, Carpeaux had fled the Commune for

Britain, where he stayed from 1872 to 1873.

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Provenance Private collection, England; Norman Adams (1962);

Bernard Black, Monte Carlo; Daniel Katz Ltd., London; purchased

by the Van Gogh Museum (1999).

Literature Exhib. cat. European sculpture, New York (Daniel Katz

Ltd at The Newhouse Galleries) 1999, no. 21.

142

JOURNAL 1999

143

DOCUMENTATION

Works on loan to the Van Gogh Museum

1997-99

The following is a list of paintings, drawings and sculp-

tures lent to the Van Gogh Museum between 1997

and 1999. Each work has an inventory number made

up as follows: the first letter stands for the technique

(s = painting, d = drawing, v = sculpture); this is fol-

lowed by a reference number and then by a capital

letter (B = loan) and the year of the loan. Also included

here is a list of works which have been returned to their

owners since the last loan list was published (see

Van Gogh Museum Journal 1996, pp. 253-59).

Paintings Corot, Jean-Baptiste-CamilleFrench, 1796-1875

Allebé, AugustDutch, 1838-1927 Algérienneg

Oil on canvas, 41 x 60 cmA museum visit 1870 Signed at lower left: CorotOil on panel, 62 x 53 cm s 181 B/1999Signed at lower right: Allebé 1870 Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdams 200 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Bonnard, PierreFrench, 1867-1947

L`Estérel 1917

Oil on canvas, 56 x 73 cm

Signed at lower right: Bonnard

s 198 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Calame, AlexandreSwiss, 1810-1864

Mountain stream in the Alps (Reichenbach)pOil on canvas, 70 x 95 cm

Signed at lower left: A. Calame

s 177 B/1999

Loan from the Amsterdams Historisch Museum (Fodor

Collection)

Cézanne, PaulFrench, 1839-1906

Still life with applesOil on canvas, 50 x 52 cm

s 193 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Landscape with poplars c. 1883-85

Oil on canvas, 71 x 58 cm

s 202 B/1999

Loan from the National Gallery, London

Courbet, GustaveFrench, 1819-1877

Landscape with rocky cliffs and a waterfall1878

Oil on canvas, 61 x 73 cm

Signed and dated at lower left: G. Courbet 78

s 179 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Winter landscapepCanvas on panel, 35 x 45 cm

Signed at lower right: G.C.

s 180 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Daubigny,Charles-Fran ois ^French, 1817-1878

Landscape on the Oise 1872

Oil on panel, 35 x 58.5 cm

Signed at dated at lower left: Daubigny 1872

s 182 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

OctoberOil on canvas, 87.5 x 160.5 cm

Marked on the verso in red with a rubber stamp: Vente

Daubigny

s 183 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

144

JOURNAL 1999

Jawlensky, Alexei von Toorop, Jan Theodoor

Russian, 1864-1941 Dutch, 1858-1928Diaz de la Pena, Virgilio-NarcissoFrench, 1798-1863

The forest of Fontainebleau 1871

Oil on canvas, 50.5 x 63.5 cm

Signed and dated at lower left: N. Diaz 71

s 184 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

After the bathOil on panel, 24.5 x 18.5 cm

s 185 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Still life with white and red rosesOil on panel, 27.5 x 22 cm

Signed at lower left: N. Diaz

s 186 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Fantin-Latour, HenriFrench, 1836-1904

Reclining nude 1874gOil on canvas, 22.5 x 29 cm

Signed and dated at lower right: Fantin 74

s 187 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Young woman under a tree at sunsetg('Autumn')Oil on canvas, 38 x 25 cm

Signed at lower left: Fantin

s 188 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Hommage a BerliozgOil on canvas, 28 x 29 cm

Traces of a signature (?)

s 189 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Gogh, Vincent vanDutch, 1853-1890

'La berceuse' (Portrait of Madame Roulin)1889

Oil on canvas, 91 x 71.5 cm

F 507 JH 1672

s 168 B/1997

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Landscape 1914POil on canvas, 54 x 50 cm

s 196 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Kandinsky, WassilyRussian, 1866-1944

Bride in Kochel am See 1902gOil on canvas, 30 x 45 cm

Signed at lower left: Kandinsky

s 195 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Manet, EdouardFrench, 1832-1883

Study for the 'Bar at the Folies-Bergère' 1881

Oil on canvas, 47 x 56 cm

s 201 B/1999

Loan from a private collection

Millet, Jean-FrancoisFrench, 1814-1875

La cardeuse 1856

Oil on canvas, 89 x 56 cm

Signed at lower right: J.F. Millet

s 197 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Monet, ClaudeFrench, 1840-1926

The cornice, near Monaco 1884

Oil on canvas, 75 x 94 cm

Signed and dated at lower right: Claude Monet 84

s 190 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Ribot, ThéoduleFrench, 1863-1891

Still life with fish and a lobsterOil on canvas, 60 x 74 cm

Signed at lower right: t. Ribot

s 191 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Old oaks at SurreyOil on canvas, 63 x 76 cm

s 194 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Vollon, AntoineFrench, 1833-1900

Flowers in a red earthenwareofpOil on canvas, 79.5 x 60 cm

Signed at lower right: A. Vollon

s 178 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Vuillard, EdouardFrench, 1868-1940

for'Mme J. Trarieuxe and herSketchdaughters'gOil on cardboard, 80 x 76 cm

Signed at lower right: E. Vuillard

s 199 B/1999

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Whistler, James Abbott MacNeillAmerican, 1834-1903

in yellow andEffie Deans:'Arrangement Yre 'gY

Oil on canvas, 194 x 93 cm

gSi ned with a butterfly; inscribed: She sunk her head up-

on her hand, and remained seemingly, unconscious as a

statue - Walter Scott - The heart of Mid Lothian

s 192 B/1999

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

145

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Loans from the Foundation

P and N. de Boer

Paintings

Gogh, Vincent vanDutch, 1853-1890

View of the Singel 1885

Oil on panel, 19 x 25.5 cm

F 113 J H 944

s 174 B/1999

Trees in a field on a sunny day 1887

Oil on canvas, 37.5 x 46 cm

F 291 1H 1314

s 175 B/1999

Wheat field 1888

Oil on canvas, 50 x 61 cm

F 564 1H 1475

s 176 B/1999

Drawings

Digger 1881

Chalk, 31 x 23 cm

Signed at lower right: Vincent

F 860 JH 38

d 170 B/1999

Worn out 1881

Pen, 23.4 x 31.2 cm

lnsribed and signed at lower left: Worn out Vincent

F 863 JH 34

d 171 B/1999

Young Scheveningen woman 1881g gWatercolour, 48 x 35 cm

Signed at lower left: Vincent

F 869 JH 83

d 172 B/1999

Sower 1882

Pencil, 613 x 39.8 cm

F 852 JH 275

d 169 B/1999

Windmill on Montmartre 1886

Chalk, 31 x 23.5 cm

F1397JH 1173

d 173 B/1999

Loans returned

Paintings

Aarts, Johan Joseph, Le raccard

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Angrand, Charles, View of the Seine, St Ouen 1886

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Bernard, Emile, Bathers with waterlilies c. 1889

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Boch, Anna, Female figure in a landscape 1890-92

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Bonheur, Auguste, Animals drinking

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Bonvin, Francois, Still life with oysters 1858

Loan from the Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Caillebotte, Gustave, Paris in the sun 1880

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Carrière, Eugène, Grief c. 1900

Loan from the Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Corot, Jean-Baptiste-Camille, Woman playing a man-

dolin (Berthe Goldschmidt) 1850-60

Loan from the Stedelojk Museum, Amsterdam

Courbet, Gustave, View of the forest of

Fontainebleau 1855

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Cross, Henri-Edmond, Fishermen on the

Mediterranean (Var)

Loan from the Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Diaz de la Pena, Virgilio-Narcisso, Nymph with

cupids 1851

Loan from the Amsterdams Historisch Museum

Duran, Emile-Auguste-Carolus, The footman 1861

Loan from the Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

The housekeeper 1861

Loan from the Kroller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Forain, Jean-Louis, The defence c. 1900

Loan from the Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Gestel, Leo, Girl playing the piano 1909

Loan from the Króller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Hayet, Louis, Blue hills c. 1888

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Jongkind, Johan Barthold, River landscape at Rouen

c. 1852

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Mellery, Xavier, Wintry day

Loan from the Któller-Muller Museum, Otterlo

Mancini, Antonio, The poor child

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Pissarro, Lucien, Prairie at Thierceville 1886

Loan from the Josefowitz Collection

Rijsselberghe, Theo van, Seascape 1899

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Sluijters, Jan, Woman in yellow

Loan from a private collection

Stengelin, Alphonse, Landscape in Drenthe

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Vogels, Guillaume, The Grote Zavel in Brussels

Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Weissenbruch, Johannes Hendrik, Storm on the

Zeeland coast 1900

Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

Drawings

Fantin-Latour, Henri, Cupid disarmed by Venus

Loan from a private collection

Gogh, Vincent van, Corner of the enclosure behind

St Paul's hospital 1889

Loan from a private collection

Redon, Odilon, Twisting spider c. 1881

Loan from a private collection

Sculpture

Rodin, Auguste, St John the Baptist preaching

(bust) 1878/1985

Loan from the Gerald B. Cantor Collection

Compiled by Monique Hageman

146

DOCUMENTATION

Exhibitions in the Van Gogh Museum

1999

Theo van Gogh(1857-1891)g

Art dealer, collector and brother of Vincent

24 June - 5 September

g(Or anised in conjunction with the Musée d'Orsay, Paris)

exhib. cat. Theo van Goh (1857-1891): Art dealer, collector and brotherg

of Vincent, Zwolle 1999

(ISBN 90 400 9363 6)

Kisho Kurokawa, architect: retrospectivep

24 June - 14 November

exhib. cat. Dennis Sharp (ed.), Kisho Kurokawa: from the machine age top

the age of life, London 1998

(ISBN 0 947 648 22 6)

Cézanne to Van Goh: the collection of Doctor Gachetg

24 September - 5 December

j(Organised in conjunction with the Musée d'Orsay, Paris, and Theg

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)p

exhib. cat. Anne Distel and Susan Alyson Stein, Cézanne to Van Gogh:

the collection of Doctor Gachet, New York 1999

(ISBN 0 87099 903 6)

Jean-Fran ois Millet: drawings, pastels, watercolours,^ g P

Ppaintings

22 October - 9 January 2000

(Organised by the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown,g Y g

MA, in association with the Frick Art & Historical Center, Pittsburgh, PA)

exhib. cat. Alexandra R. Murphy et al., Jean-Francois Millet: drawn intop

the light, New Haven & London 1999

(ISBN 0 300 07925 7)

Prague 'goo: poetry & ecstasy 9 p Y Y

17 December - 25 March 2000

(The exhibition will travel to the Museum fiár Angewandte Kunst, Frankfurt

am Main)

exhib. cat. Edwin Becker, Roman Prahl, Petr Wittlich (eds.), Prague 1900:

poetry & ecstasy, Zwolle 1999

(ISBN 90 400 9391 1)

Compiled by Andreas eluhm

147

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

148

The Van Gogh Museum staff

from January 1999

SUPERVISORY BOARD THE VAN GOGH MUSEUM STAFF

VAN GOGH MUSEUM FOUNDATION

Hans Luitenl

Wouter van der Veen

Director

Special ProjectResearchersChairman John Leighton ^,

^^ Chris StolwijkUr Pieter lnsemlus

Deputy Director Aukje Ver eestp y l Vergees

ice-Chairman Ton Boxma

Mrs Truze Lodder Conservators

r ar to the Director René BoitelleSec et y

Members Fien Willems Ella Hendriks

Mrs Anne d'Harnoncourt

r to the Deputy Director Conservation AssistantMrMaxKoker Secretary p y

Ingeborg Wissing, 1 May 1 Alex Nikkená,1r 1tillleln van Schendel g g g^ Y 999

Marije Wissink, from 1 June 1999 Frans Stive999

Hon. Secretary

Mr Andries Mulder, until 1 July 1Y 999

BOARD OF THE VINCENT VAN GOGH

Reception Research and Documentation

Dzjamilja Maigua-Bijl Monique HagemanDzjamilja g l q g

Brigitte van der Meulen Fieke Pabstg

FOUNDATION Collections Librarian

Anita Vriend

Chairman Head of Collectionshr fGa

EExhibitions and Display Gogh Sjraar van Heugten, from 1 June 1999 x p yMr Vincent Willem van G ) gg

Head o Exhibitions and Display f lay^MembersS y

Mrs Mathilde Cramer van Gogh Esther Hoofwijk Andreas Bluhm

Mrs Josien gHelin -van Gogh

Mr Bob Lodder Curators Secretaries

Louis van Tilborgh Saskia Beukers(on behalf o the Minister of gí ff

Gogh paintings) S ara Verboven, until 1 SeptemberCulture and Science) (Curator Van G ) pEducation Cul ( b ^ g)

Marije Vellekoop 1999

(prints and drawings)Secretary í g

Veenenbos CuratorMrs Han^eenenbos

uatCr orial Assistant Edwin Becker

Benno Tempelp

Editors Van Goh Letters Projectg

Leo Janssen

Registrarg

Al NoordermeerY

149

VAN GOGH MUSEUM

Assistant Registrars Museum Shop Museumplein Internal Affairsg p ^

Martine Kilburn

Sara Verboven, from 1 September Shop Manager Head of Internal AffairsP ^ f ffg

1999 Christa Bakker Andries Mulder, until 1 July 1999 ^ Y 1999

Biddy MesschaertY

Communication and Education Personnel Officerff

Caroline Breunesse Staff Henk Ammerlaanff

Melanie Verhoeven Tineke van AlphenP

Marijke Blankman Administrative AssistantlHead of Press and Public Relations Nita Chan Nico BasjesJ

Rianne Norbart Mariëlle Gerritsen

Jasper Hillegers FacilitiesA g

Public Relations Marten de Jong

Marjelle van Hoorn, until 1 September Natascha Mansvel t Head of Facilitiesl

fA

1999 Jan Samuelsz

Reproduction Rightsp gPress Officer Assistant

Heidi Vandamme Head of Reproduction Heleen van Es

Melchert Zwetsman

Information Desk Technical Staff

Joke Broekmans Assistant Joost van Aalderen

Judith Goes Josette van Gernert Hans Beets

Yvonne Kuhfus René Cairo

Yvonne JKui' er Warehouse Assistant Antonio PesareA

Hanneke Norbruis Henk de Rover Sere Taalg

Sija Speelman Ruud Voorhaar, from 1 August 1 8 Johan Worell1 P ^ g 99

Fehti Zammouri

Commercial Affairs Finance

Canteen

Head of Commercial Affairs

Cor Krelekamp

Head of Finance

Marion de Vries

Bep Pirovano-Mesp

Assistant

Ernst Verduin, until 1 July 1Y 999

Administrative Assistant

Karim Verkui' 1

Cloakroom

Administrative Assistants Domenico Casillo

Renée Butterlin Remon OlijlYvonne de Jong-Knolg

Amien Salarbux Security

Cashiers Head of Securityy

Secretaries Bart de Graaf Ton HoofwijkJ

Sanne Bokkers Marja Guina-Vos

Greet van Geem Andrea Kammerstetter Chief Warders

Truus Rouet-Borers Wim Jaketg

Marja Sandbergen-Tervoort Fred den Oudeng

Paula Timmer-de Jong

150

JOURNAL 1999

Sta Museum Mesdag Museum Tours (Acoustiguide) Staff g uideg

Kees Posthuma Martin Heijligerslg

Tonke Drat Coordinatorg

Security Edgar van Eyck Marja DammanSe^urlt Staff g y Marj

mond Adhin Greet Grundeler-KuijperRaymond lp

M useum Shop (Lanthuys BVMike Aramake Bert Lammers p y

Rina Baak Henk Zuidam

Abdel Ben Salah Director

GoghWorks Council Mathilde Cramer-van GoKemleth Blinker g

Cornelis Blonk

Natascha de Boer Chairman gMana er

n Martine Kilburn, until June 1999 Frans de HaasEdwin Boeren ^ 3 999

Mohammed Bouanan

Secretary Museum Restaurant (Verhaaf Groep)Victoria Bras Pintoy P

Henk Buma Greet van Geem

Gerard Chin-A-Joe Director

Eli Choukroun Members Hans Verhaaf

Yvonne Dobelman Sjraar van gHeu ten

Theo Doesburg Antonio Pesareg

Ruud de Haas Marije Vellekoop P

Jan de Jong

Marion Knee keusP

Wils van der Made

Saeed Osman

Mischa van PoppelAp

Anneke de Ridder

Corina Roode

Dan Rosculet

Mara Thijmg

Sylvia TielmanY

Arnold Veen

Ko Vierbereng

Frank Vos

Fred de Vries

Theo Wallenburg

Peter Zeldenrust

Ans van Zoeren

Ron van der Zwaan

Dennis Zwemmer

151

ISBN go q,00 941 o 1

NUGI 921/911

© Copyright 1 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam.1999 g

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

g A P Y -re

produced or transmitted in any form or any means, elep Y by Y -means c

tronic or mechanical, includingphotography, recordin orgrecording

any other information storage and retrieval system, with- -g Y

outrior permission in writing from the publisher.

P p g A