h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes. I've just watched the latest Doctor Who. No spoilers here because it's been heavily trailed all week - this episode concerns the painter Vincent van Gough. Now apart from one Huge Glaring Error that I spotted* what really interests me is the opinion that van Gough was/is the greatest painter who ever lived.

Now, I think he's an impressionist? And the only thing that I really rate them for is their portrayal of light - I'm much more keen on abstract, cubist and surrrealist art (it just appeals to me, a child of the age of the photograph). In fact, in my old(er) age I'm coming round to an appreciation of the Dutch Masters (Vermeer in particular) that would surprise the 17 year old me who hurtled round the Hermitage (I think the lagest collection of Rembrandts in the world) to get to the Monets...

So, what do we think? Van Gough: merely good with colour (I will give him that) and bad on perspective. Or the most brilliant painter ever. Full stop.

*When he kissed Amy and the someone else goodbye, he only kissed them once on each cheek whereas we all know that in Holland there are 3 kisses

No. Picasso. Obviously.

And anyway...Vincent van Gough wasn't a patch on Vincent van Goch.

Why *do* British people pronounce him 'Van Goff' anyway? To Americans, he's 'Van Go'...which is at least what they'd have called him in Arles.

Good - yes. The greatest ever - not so sure.

Personally I really rate John Miller and others in the St. Ives school. It's the light.

And then there's Chris Foss

t.

Gah! I previewed about 60 times.

Where I leave, well about 15kms that way -> they would say something resembling Cough and really make it sound as though you were clearing your throat. But then, that's south Limburg for you.

And it's not "obvious" to me about Picasso - much as his work moves me to great feelings. (I'm more of a Miro girly myself)

But is there nobody out there in hootoo land who can tell me why people pay as much for a not terribly brilliant picture of sunflowers as they do for a hospital wing?
(thank you - Del Amitri)

Has anyone been to the Van Goch Museum in Amsterdam? They have copies he did of Japanese ukiyo-e prints of branches of cherry blossom and the like that got everyone excited when they arrived as wrappings for porcelain. Frankly...they're shite.

I don't want to diss Van Goch entirely. I saw a major exhibition of him at The Burrell, mumblemumble years ago. His brushwork is extraordinary, and in his self portraits it makes it look like he's painting schizophrenia. But in an adjacent room they showed some of his Dutch contemporaries who, in terms of innovation, were streets ahead. Oh - and if you want expressive brushwork...Bacon. (Francis Bacon once leered at me. Long story).

But the exceptional artistic genius of all time? Picasso. Obviously.

Oh, Christ! I once saw Del Amitri live, in a field. Their repertoire was so limited that they had to play that song three times.

The thing with Picasso...

It's like Paul Morley said about The Smiths 'They took absolutely everything that had gone before and made something new out of it.'

The man reinvented painting (and sculpture) several times over.

Well, of the Dutch painters I'll go for Vermeer every time based only on the one painting featuring an old lady frying eggs. It gives me goosebumps.

I don't like the Van Gogh museum, pretty much in the same way that I didn't like the huge collection of Rembrandts in the Hermitage. I prefer to see my art scattered around so that each piece is something on its own. (but am well aware that I'm pretty much alone there)

Travelling collections of works that I wouldn't normally get to see give me a bit of a dilemma, but I usually give in and go along. The best one that I've seen over the last 5 years was the Mondrian jobbie in Cologne.

But still... What draws people to van Gogh where they are not, for example, drawn to someone like... Rembrandt? Or are we all blinded by the impressionists?

(Excepting Ed who lurves Picasso...)

>>Or are we all blinded by the impressionists?

My most disastrous chat up line ever was delivered in the National Museum of Art, £Washington DC.

'I always find Seurat a little pointless. Oh wait...I mean pointiliste.'

I didn't see the Doctor Who episode, if that's necessary to answer your question - but I haven't heard the opinion that he's "the best" all that much.
I've heard it said of Picasso, or Michelangelo, and yes, Rembrandt, for instance, as much if not more.

So if 'they' do all say so, I don't know why - but I haven't noticed that they do, to be honest.

In the episode, the Doctor mentioned very much preferring Gainsborough (I think), on the basis that he was more photo-realistic. By that token, I gather that Holbein is something to see.

It's a very narrow minded view of art, but. By that token, the average teenager's Facebook profile pic is better art than Gainsborough.

Van Gogh is one among many great artists.There is no greatest artist ever..there cannot be as we do knot know whom is just around the corner.

However...I will, out of sheer perversity and partisanship, continue to make the case for Picasso. It's the breadth of his artistic reference and his repeated innovation.

But, yes, 'Best' is an unhelpful concept. A far more rewarding approach is 'This is brilliant...and so's this...and have you seen this?...'

"Best" is a *really* unhelpful concept, yes. For one thing, it implies that artists are all trying to do the same thing, some doing it better than others.

It's a bit like saying, "Who's better? AC Milan or the Boston Red Sox?"

All we can say for sure is that Jack Vetriano really *is* shite.

I think Monet and van Gogh are similar- technically, anyway- however there is so much passion in van Gogh's work, there is a vibrancy that isn't always apparent in other artists work.

I've been fortunate enough to see his work at the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.

To think that he didn't spend a long time on each painting, yet still captured so much in them. He was prolific in his output, and many of his best works were created when he was suffering great mental torment. To work under those conditions, to see the beauty around him when he was tortured by inner demons is an extraordinary talent.

To me, he is certainly one of the greatest artists in his medium.

>>All we can say for sure is that Jack Vettriano really *is* shite.

As an artist, or a painter?

Semantic content - art. No semantic content - decoration.