If by “dry” you mean no hammy dramatizations and no unmotivated use of cookie cutter music? Then yes dry. It’s good exactly because it’s on point and no nonsense.
yes, yes. funny thing to end up here, eventually. what makes you have intrest in van Gogh now ?, where as you didn't have any intrest nearly 70 years ago. i have this experience, one day i got detention, made to go out of the class for being a little stubborn kid, in the class room designated for punishment, sitting out the hour until the next class starts. in the detention class room i couldn't take my eyes of this van Gogh painting (sunflowers), a poster of it in a frame, and i thought to myself, i will never be able to do something like this. not even realizing whom the painter that painted that painting made poster is. until i am now retrieving memories from long ago, some neuro regeneration thingie going on. having this memorie come back to me.
Fascinating! I find it terribly sad that people buy gorgeous masterpieces, then have to keep them out of sight in a vault. I'd rather have a known copy and hang it where I can see it all the time.
@Aintjack You have a pedestrian outlook on art if you think skill alone makes one painting or artist superior than the next. Vincent painted in styles and was exploring styles and what they brought to his work. If he wanted to he could paint realistic paintings with realistic styles. Art is not all about how real you can draw and paint, that's just one small aspect to a massively complex and often misunderstood subject.
This is a delightful look into the wealthy class society, as well as of the subject matter of fake art. Fascinating and very good watching documentary.
And my father was a painter and he painted one painting in several different variants so it can be all original if the laboratory analysis confirms the authenticity of the colors used during the painter's life a mixture of unique colors
The authenticity of colors is not as useful, since these were allegedly painted by contemporaries of Vincent who had access to the same materials and likely within 10-20 years of his death.. It’s the intensity of the pigment, not the type that is the only distinguishing feature in the materials.
@@kevinmorrice Communist countries like China and Russia have amazing artists who can draw and paint like old masters because they use every single ounce of their materials as if it were precious as gold. Art supplies aren't cheap. Learning to see before you start drawing, learning to draw before you start painting and learning to use color before you're allowed to call yourself an artist is all part of the plan. In the US a kid with a skateboard and video equipped helmet is called an 'artist' before he's 20 and nothing comes from him but more 'radical' moves than the last vid.
Vincent was known for doing more than one painting of the very same subject, so in the case of the 2 paintings they compare at the 39:20 mark could very well be both by Vincent.. the "low quality" one was the first one he painted, was not totally happy with it, and then painted the masterpiece. Or possibly the first "low quality" one was simply a test painting, to see if he wanted to do a "better" one.
Have a theory - *(The painting is authentic - he was testing elements of paint compounds* - *He never intended to release it - thus never signed the painting* - *Possibly did it 1st, liked the subject, but wasn't pleased with the paint clarity, once dry.)* I know absolutely nothing about this case - it merely is a mix of intuition, logic, and an understanding of the era Artitst's search for improvements of their tool products.
I had a similar theory, however, I think that the painting he calls fake, is actually the last in the series. The first on the left, has little or no shading, the second, on the right has some shading and you can almost see the beginning of the stem running through the leaf. The third, in the middle, has more depth, more outlining and more shading which is why it seems more apparent that the stem appears to run through the leaf.
elvis459 also the stem could break if he is painting the same flowers as they age. The differences in the flowers dying could account for changes in how he perceived and painted them.
I give tours at the Van Gogh Museum. I look at his paintings almost every day. The Sunflowers in Japan is such an obvious fake. I can't believe they have gotten away with this for so long. But the painting's buyer also paid for the special exhibitions building at the museum so I think they paid off some people to keep quiet about it. If I can see it's a fake, they know it too.
I hope you give your last tour today,as the vGogh museum published in their Journal in the 90s that it is an original;apparantly you are unaware,so disinterested and prone to make more mistakes.
crosskatt, modern review disputes that assertion. And modern forensics would def prove it’s a fake. But the owners will NEVER allow close scrutiny. If they did, expect several Insurance execs to commit Hari Kari!
Just by way of interest, the sunflowers in the famous paintings are a quite different species of sun flowers to the commercial field crop variety so happily displayed in the so very interesting programmes , does it matter, not really.
I learned art by copying paintings and drawings to learn their techniques. If I'd only known I was sitting on a gold mine, I could have auctioned mine off for millions and gone to Brazil before they realized. :)
I am a local artist and recently I sold eleven paintings to one person on Ebay. He is having the paintings framed and will sell them in his store. I've never sold a painting in my life and was pleasantly shocked when my paintings sold.
This is a movie of quality no doubt. And the plainness and eventuality of expertise are astonishing,-- how was it possible to gather all three on one screen!?
I had an interesting thought about the painting in question. Something to the effect of Van Gogh not painting when he wasn't well. I'm supposing, wondering if perhaps he attempted to paint when he wasn't well and this is one of the studies done when he wasn't well, but didn't like it enough to sign or write about.
It's possible, there is a misunderstanding that Vincent would paint while he was very unhappy. But he painted while he felt ok and lucid and could concentrate on his art. I'm the same as I can only paint when I'm content and somewhat happy, while I'm unhappy the artist in me simply is somewhere else.
Truly fascinating and well worth watching. What Tom Hoving, the ex-director of the MET, said truly made sense--that it's muddy and doesn't have the snap that Van Gogh's paintings have. And, when you look at the supposed faker's paintings--they're muddy, and don't have snap...
That is like those wine connoisers who wax on about how great this or that wine is, but remove the label and suddenly they can't tell them apart, lmao.
The easiest way to tell a Original Van Gogh is that he painted exactly as if he drew it but instead of pencils or charcoal he used paint. He mastered drawing at a very early age. Vincent used hashmarks and cross hashing very efficiently. Very analytical but when he added color, the freedom came naturally almost by accident but it was still analytical, efficient in the most beautiful way.
I suspect there was something about the Van Gogh painting destroyed in WW2 that the Japanese populace had developed such lore and attachment to Van Gogh the painter. The documentary said it was a bona fide original of five sunflowers. The fact that the Yasuda painting is predominantly yellow, a color associated with the emperor, must have something to do with it, I'd guess, as well as why so many Japanese make pilgrimages to Van Gogh's grave. Tremendously interesting documentary.
Something the narrator said brought to my mind a pathetic reality: some years ago I was alerted to the pitiful reality and scope of greed. A favorite work of mine was on exhibit in both London as well as in Los Angeles, and of course this was not possible. Easy enough to solve you would say. To be sure, sooner rather than later the copy would be exposed, some degree of integrity would raise their hand. That was a very long time ago, it remains still. If it is to be believed, neither museum was willing to submit their work for true authenticity. I thought this truly too incredible to be the truth. Both were afraid of possible exposure. If there is any moral here, it may be an ostensibly inverse relationship between truth and money.
Many artist's studios produced copies of paintings that were done initially by the artist. A studio copy may be finished and signed by the artist himself. Rubens, for example, left catalogues describing some of his works as entirely by his own hand, some as by students retouched by his own hand, and some as "by my best student", meaning Anthony van Dyck.
Yellow as a life giving color? Gee, as a watercolorist yellow takes my life away! I can't buy yellow tubes fast enough! My yet unanswered question to my mentors is "How can I use less yellow???" Great documentary, thanks for posting! >One Love< -A
I read all the comments... If you do not love art, if u don't feel it, why bother watching a video about it? As for Van Gogh, he wasn't painting the object in front of him: if u don't get that then, again, no sense in looking at videos about art... Of u don't like art, that's ok. Vincent wouldn't care...
He was painting the things in front of him. Do not take a 3rd partys opinion as scripture. Read what the source himself has to say about it not some wine drinker telling you they know the ins and outs of the artists mind when they are just a spectator on the side of the road
Van Gogh painted sunflowers out of his imagination? I doubt it. In Arles, France, Van Gogh painted every scene from actually setting up the still life scene, or going outside to paint. However, one painting, "Crows over the cornfield" might be the one exception: not sure if he was actually there. The painting, his last, is one which echoes Van Gogh's overwhelming despair. Yellow was Van Gogh's color of love. The Yellow House, Sunflowers, this color reflected Van Gogh's emotion of love. In the movie "Lust for Life" Kirk Douglas plays Van Gogh; it looks like the part of Paul Gauguin was played by Anthony Quinn. Quinn's resemblance to Gauguin isn't bad, but Douglas's aquiline features don't look anything like Van Gogh.
If I was in possession of a masterpiece I believed was authentic while others expressed doubts, I wouldn't hesitate to have it verified. The Japanese company's reluctance to subject the painting for verification seems to indicate they aren't as positive about the paintings origin as they would like to appear.
The yellow has faded, what a sad picture. The flowers were originally bright yellow. The highest price! But the picture isn't even really good. The yellow has faded terribly and van Gogh could be much better. And the background ... sigh. Could these buyers really not see for themselves? Gee I get emotional when I hear that it was Johanna, Theo's widow, who inherited all paintings and letters and transcribed them and created the fame of Vincent. Well done, widow!!! ❤
Beautifully made documentary. Some of the settings in France are gorgeous and gorgeously filmed. I think it is important (to art students and connoisseurs) to discuss these things and to know about them. It sharpens one's powers of discrimination and appreciation. I'm not interested in the business side of art, but I would be if I had something to sell, or buy.
Hiding a possible/probable fake puts into question every other work of art that company may have. It is not clever to hide the fake but could be accounting fraud if they count it as an asset on the books.
Painting is about mood, feelings, and all thats going on within someones mind. It can change day by day. One day maybe a master piece, the next day not so good not so bright, not so moving. Not a good day for getting it right.He was human like use all.
There is a documentary on here that discusses authentic paintings versus fakes. The professionals said there are so many fakes even they can't tell the real ones from the fake ones any more.
What I find it interesting is that after years pass by suddenly people in general come up and say that these paintings that they discovered belonged to some famous painters ... I don’t know if it’s real or fake to sell them , of course aside of the famous paintings
What I find *DISGRACEFUL* is we all know how poor Vincent struggled to make a living. He was mocked and teased. The *INSULT* to injury is the faking and capitalizing of 'The Sunflowers'. The incredible artist who painted 'Stary Night' was a brilliant, misunderstood soul. I'm so sorry Vincent...
This is the same tale of a lot of 'famous' artists. Back then they just waited until they died and then decided they had value so the original creator never got out of poverty. His artwork is ugly, nothing interesting about it, reminds me of a bad song that becomes popular just cause and pay billions for, people suck at being sophisticated in any sense wish vampires existed to laugh and mock our stupidity as creatures.
What if Van Gogh just painted the Yasuda painting as a Sketch, therefore he did not put the time and effort seen in the other 2 versions And you have 2 authentic sunflowers, so which one is the final one? A lot of artist paint a sketch before the final work, so this could might as well be a real Van Gogh for that reason. =)
Style and chemistry of the paintings should give a great deal of information but to say that small minor differences in the execution of the final paintings is not necessarily conclusive because Van Goth was making a casual copy, not an absolute duplication.
I have been to the van gogh museum in Amsterdam a few times the depth of the pictures are amazing -reminds me the difference between a madman and a genius - money that's all
A lot of the crass commercialism mentioned at the end in connection to the exploitation of Vincent's work is done by the Van Gogh family museum itself, where you can get mugs, ties, drinks coasters, jigsaw puzzles, and so on. But this is normal for museums these days
Isn't it interesting that the monetary value of a work is far more dependent on the name of the person who supposedly created it than on the quality of the work itself? A painting by Van Gogh of a pile of dung could be worth millions of dollars. Yet an almost identical or even aesthetically superior painting of a pile of dung by an unknown would be worth nothing. When it comes to collectors and investors, it isn't the quality that matters; it's the prestige associated with the name. Of course, poor Vincent was virtually penniless when alive because nobody thought his work was worth anything. It is an absolutely crazy world.
@@MY-ce2qt I suspect that the very rich often have no artistic sense and must therefore rely on someone to tell them what to buy and how much to pay. There are a ton of really great artists who paint after their mundane 9-5 jobs in their basements, garages, or spare rooms. And even many of the masters didn't paint all of their commissions; they had students doing it. M Y, I agree with you completely!
The most important things said in the entire documentary start at 48:05 with the statements of the last two people - and they really point to the absurdity of the art world.
The painting in dispute could have been a first study - which Vincent wasn't satisfied with, and so he didnt sign it. If it were a forgery, meant to fool unwary buyers, wouldn't the forger have signed it?
The examples of Schuffenecker 's work in the video seemed to be more skillfully done than the Yasuda Sunflower painting to me. Maybe the Yasuda sunflowers is a fake but Schuffenecker wasn't the artist?
Much has been said in the comments so I won't repeat...But I must point out the irony of these pictures.Worth nothing while he was alive,worth millions now.The only thing that has driven this man is his passion for painting.He will always be my favorite painter.One day I hope to visit his museum in Amsterdam.For me he will always be the best painter that walked this strange planet.
Well Janko, I hope you make it to the Museum soon. I went there in 2000, was blown away totally. And would love to return, now that (I think) I understand art a bit better. By the way, Van Gogh is one of my (four) favorite painters. Two were Italian and two Dutch - any guesses?
Great documentary. To me, the black heart of the art world is personified in the quote from Tom Hoving, ex-Director of the Met Museum, at 48:04 where he says "And since it's not ever going to be for re-sale, does it matter?" Or maybe not black heart--maybe green heart. The only thing that matters, seemingly, to the art world is the dollar value. Whereas Van Gogh's paintings, none of which he was even able to sell in his lifetime, were anti-materialist, about all the invisible things in life that are more valuable than money.
There was a new brilliant yellow pait that Von Gogh couldn't get enough of. Uranium based i think and it has decayed. It would have looked totally different yellow when Van Gogh painted it.
If it is "visually inferior" it's not surprising that Van Gogh wouldn't mention it. He painted a lot of things he didn't write about. Also it was recently found to be genuine. The "muddy" colors have to do with the chemical reactions of the paint to the jute material it was painted on. Van Gogh was not well off financially and frequently expiramented with mediums. Also the farther along in his life he went the darker the paintings became.
The painting you refer to (Wheat field with Crows) is not actually his last painting, or at least while it may have been painted late in his life there are other works that are suspected to have been painted after.
When he first started his paintings where very dark Grey's brown's and greens. He started to be more colourful as he went on, if anything his colour were more muted and or deeper, but I would not call them dark, that was his first paintings done in Belgium/Holland.
There's one point that to me seems to make it an obvious fake. It wasn't noted in his Johanna's inventory. We are talking about a lady who was extremely meticulous and yet we are to believe she made a mistake, one single mistake during inventory and it happened to be this painting? I highly doubt that. Then if you add on all the other evidence; crappy painting technique, a poor copy by anyone's standards, etc. It is highly probable that this is a fake. The evidence that it is authentic is very slim at best.
Have a theory - *(The painting is authentic - he was testing elements of paint compounds* - *He never intended to release it - thus never signed the painting* - *Possibly did it 1st, liked the subject, but wasn't pleased with the paint clarity, once dry.)* I know absolutely nothing about this case - it merely is a mix of intuition, logic, and an understanding of the era Artitst's search for improvements of their tool products.
I remember seeing the doc when it was first shown. Then and now, I'm not convinced. They talk of 5% of the painting that is 'odd' but what about the other 95%?
Having close relative & many friends who are bipolar schizoafektif, I tend to think one of the prettiest painting & the ugliest copy are the genuine one. The 2nd prettiest is the fake. Bipolar schizoafektif people are brilliant, happy & smart one moment (or days) then completely dulll the next. That may be the reason why Vincent van Gogh copied his own painting, to see the difference himself, for they tend to be more sane during the dull time.
If that's the case, why didn't his widow note it in inventory? You'd have to accept this is the one mistake she made during inventory. When you look at all the other factors (painting technique, lack of mention in letters etc.) that would be one heck of a coincidence.
They wouldn't resist authentication if it was real. However the drama around them make the fakes just as important in the Vincent saga. And in this lies their value.
29:36 lol filmed on a sunday early in the morning, because if the van gogh museum was open, their would be a line of people waiting to the corner of the street or longer!., you cant walk up like she did!, takes atleast 15-45 minutes to get in :P
The music reminds me of a cross between Charlie Brown & The Thomas Crown Affair remake. Enjoyable documentary though. The presentation style is clear and concise and serves its purpose in uniting the various clips.
I think Gauguin attempted the copy. He Did not sign it (probably ashamed at his lack of brilliance) and later gave it to his friend. Gauguin was not at all a good or nice guy. It makes sense to me that he spent a lot of time staring at those paintings in his bedroom.
Yes, but you overlook Gauguin's genius and originality that was all his own, and very different from the work of Van Gogh. Gauguin, lack of brilliance? I mean huh??? Gauguin's use of color in his Tahitian phase paintings, for example, is startling in its clarity and brilliance; that I would not deny.
@@daviddempster402 I have not seen it, but I'm not surprised. Van Gogh spent quite a bit of time in Arles, Southern France. Yes, the townspeople considered Van Gogh a curiosity because his personality certainly would not have fit the working class peasants who tilled and worked the fields there. Gauguin came to stay with Van Gogh and must have been there when the painting got done. Gauguin and Van Gogh did not always get along, and once Van Gogh threw a glass at Gauguin in a local drinking establishment in Arles. I think also Van Gogh was a little jealous of Gauguin's apparent popularity with the local ladies: he, Van Gogh mostly saw women in the form of prostitutes that he would visit in the local brothels. Still, Van Gogh's art reached it's zenith there in Arles, with his brush strokes imitating the movement of nature itself in the wheat fields, trees, houses and shrubbery around Arles. When I was in Southern France I wanted to make it a point to visit the Yellow House where Van Gogh had resided while he painted, but I never go t a chance to go there. (I passed through Aix-en-Provence). I did, however spend much time in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.
Excellent video. I enjoyed the subjective feelings as well as the objective evidence of what constitutes an original. A live musical performance cannot be faked. The experience of the music informs us of the composers intention. Perhaps forgeries could be considered variations of the original.The ultimate value of a work of art is its capacity to elevate the human spirit. A cell phone photo of a work of great art is also a forgery. And one that can uplift the soul and enhance the value of the original experience of seeing it. The feeling into what a sunflower really is doesn't require a certificate of authenticity. If the sunflowers could ‘fool’ Christies, then perhaps those of us with far lesser ability to spot counterfeits might be more concerned with what the artist was trying to communicate. Van Gogh’s original vision radiates from original to forgery to the billionth copy.
After seeing the Van Gogh And Nature exhibition at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, in Williamstown, MA.; it's pretty fair to say that I am now a great admirer of Van Gogh.
AT 1:42 TOM HOVING SAYS, "IT DOES'NT HAVE THAT SNAP" I HAVE A COPY ON CANVAS, AND I'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY OVER THE YEARS, AND MINE MAKES NO "SNAP", EITHER. IF I KNEW THAT WHEN I BOUGHT IT, I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT BACK TO THE DEALER,,,,,,OH WELL ! "SNAPLESS VAN GOGH DILEMMA"
This story was first told in a novel entitled A Visitor to A Paint Dealer, published in the July 2002 edition of the Chung Wai Literary Monthly. Please note the source.
Queen Bee Me neither, except I use AdBlock. I don't understand why people go on about the ads being a problem, when it's so easy to solve. It will be another matter if (or when) TH-cam decides to block AdBlock.
I'd believe skeptics with education more than anyone official. Skeptics have their reputation etc on the line when they come forward, official entities have their money etc on the line when the truth comes out.
...The most striking element in the movie, by far, is the assumption of everybody involved, that artists are consistent, equal to themselves at all times... therefore an inferior work cannot mean that the artist had a lousy day but that it must be a fake...." BY NO MEANS VINCENT COULD PAINT THIS" ... says one, emphatically... he knows. of course... Visit any contemporary artist's studio and you'll find innumerable items that artists are embarrassed to show (if they are honest, of course)...
''In 2002, the painting went on public exhibition alongside an undisputedly genuine version of Sunflowers, raising once again the questions so vividly posed in this film.''
I agree with the closing statement. I think Van Gogh would be appalled at the prices and crass commercialism attached to his work. Original pieces of art should belong to everyone - not kept in some vault or privately owned as some sort of investment and kept from the public, unless the artist did the work for a specific person. Then, after the death of that person, either the family should have the work or it should be publicly displayed. The millions upon millions of dollars spent on art is obscene.
There is no proof of the authenticity or the opposite... It is all just conjecture and personal opinion. Since Van Gogh was a very emotional unstable individual, changes in style are acceptable. As long as there is only opinion, but not proof, I consider the painting authentic! I wonder what the fascination of Van Gogh is for the Japanese!?
ONE of the tragedies. And actually, each generation leaves us only a few pieces of great art. If we lose them it is a great tragedy. People live and die and who cares? Most people are just ants. They live and create nothing, leave nothing. A truly great work of art is worth a million people or more.
@@MH-hj2jk - I don't think 'among,' or 'one' really matter. One in that context would mean one of many. Either way, it doesn't mean it is the main tragedy. I imagine most feel that loss of life is the main tragedy but of course, the loss of art, architecture, historical buildings are a part of the tragedy of war. After the war in Iraq, many historical artefacts were destroyed. In Afghanistan, they destroyed the ancient city of Aleppo. They are all tragedies.
Museums need paintings by famous artists. There aren't enough original paintings to go around. So the museums are happy to get a painting that they can say is an original even if they have to pay a high price and not ask too many questions about its 'provenance'. .
Original is sold,then sellers pay someone to say its a fake,then owner sell it back for lower price back to someone who is close to original sellers(without him knowing that),the new buyer has original paiting for lower price and his connection(first seller) got a precentige out of it.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
This is simultaneously the most interesting yet dry documentary I have ever seen.
If by “dry” you mean no hammy dramatizations and no unmotivated use of cookie cutter music? Then yes dry.
It’s good exactly because it’s on point and no nonsense.
Yes, museum people are terrible orators...
agree
You are an American Do not deny it I Know its true Everyone knows it is true so do not deny it
@@damiencallaghan9389 you're saying it like it's a sin... let the guy/girl have a personal opinion and move on.
Wonderful. The prices are unbelievable. Nearly 70 years ago my art teacher took our class to a film on Van Gogh. I was too young to appreciate it.
yes, yes. funny thing to end up here, eventually. what makes you have intrest in van Gogh now ?, where as you didn't have any intrest nearly 70 years ago. i have this experience, one day i got detention, made to go out of the class for being a little stubborn kid, in the class room designated for punishment, sitting out the hour until the next class starts. in the detention class room i couldn't take my eyes of this van Gogh painting (sunflowers), a poster of it in a frame, and i thought to myself, i will never be able to do something like this. not even realizing whom the painter that painted that painting made poster is. until i am now retrieving memories from long ago, some neuro regeneration thingie going on. having this memorie come back to me.
That's TH-cam. I started by watching how to make sushi and now I learned things about Vincent.
I was watching a few 'opening vintage army MRE's ' and ended up here. Van Gogh _is_ my favourite thou I'm not sure how youtube knew that
hahaha!
🤣🤣🤣
O M G I LOVE YA COMMENT. I KNOW THE FEELING.
When did Sushi live, and what prices do his paintings have today?
Fascinating! I find it terribly sad that people buy gorgeous masterpieces, then have to keep them out of sight in a vault. I'd rather have a known copy and hang it where I can see it all the time.
Deena Morgan I do think it’s a shame they don’t just loan it to a gallery. It would be safe there
@Aintjack If your taste is as good as your writing, you are spending your money wisely.
Anyone who spells impostor with an e does not deserve to be heard.
@Aintjack You have a pedestrian outlook on art if you think skill alone makes one painting or artist superior than the next. Vincent painted in styles and was exploring styles and what they brought to his work. If he wanted to he could paint realistic paintings with realistic styles. Art is not all about how real you can draw and paint, that's just one small aspect to a massively complex and often misunderstood subject.
@Aintjack yes but it don't mean you have it, thousands would disagree with you.
This is a delightful look into the wealthy class society, as well as of the subject matter of fake art. Fascinating and very good watching documentary.
And my father was a painter and he painted one painting in several different variants so it can be all original if the laboratory analysis confirms the authenticity of the colors used during the painter's life a mixture of unique colors
The authenticity of colors is not as useful, since these were allegedly painted by contemporaries of Vincent who had access to the same materials and likely within 10-20 years of his death.. It’s the intensity of the pigment, not the type that is the only distinguishing feature in the materials.
The best is to ask other forgers about it. They are well trained to spot stuff and also have big egos and would love to point the problematic parts.
just go to dafen city
No way, it'll turn out like ancient aliens show
@@kevinmorrice Communist countries like China and Russia have amazing artists who can draw and paint like old masters because they use every single ounce of their materials as if it were precious as gold.
Art supplies aren't cheap. Learning to see before you start drawing, learning to draw before you start painting and learning to use color before you're allowed to call yourself an artist is all part of the plan.
In the US a kid with a skateboard and video equipped helmet is called an 'artist' before he's 20 and nothing comes from him but more 'radical' moves than the last vid.
black bird
Lmfao. Nice pro-communist anti-American pr0paganda. 😂
I've been to the now expanded Van Gogh museum/gallery in Amsterdam, this is a fabulous documentary, I truly enjoyed it!
Vincent was known for doing more than one painting of the very same subject, so in the case of the 2 paintings they compare at the 39:20 mark could very well be both by Vincent.. the "low quality" one was the first one he painted, was not totally happy with it, and then painted the masterpiece. Or possibly the first "low quality" one was simply a test painting, to see if he wanted to do a "better" one.
I highly doubt it because the mistakes made in the stem and the leaf. He would not have made such an error on just one painting.
Thank you setting us straight 🙏
Eeeeh, no
what if this was the one he did for Gauguin mentioned in his letters to Theo and he made the error intentionally
Have a theory -
*(The painting is authentic - he was testing elements of paint compounds* - *He never intended to release it - thus never signed the painting* -
*Possibly did it 1st, liked the subject, but wasn't pleased with the paint clarity, once dry.)*
I know absolutely nothing about this case - it merely is a mix of intuition, logic, and an understanding of the era Artitst's search for improvements of their tool products.
I had a similar theory, however, I think that the painting he calls fake, is actually the last in the series. The first on the left, has little or no shading, the second, on the right has some shading and you can almost see the beginning of the stem running through the leaf. The third, in the middle, has more depth, more outlining and more shading which is why it seems more apparent that the stem appears to run through the leaf.
nonsense.
elvis459 also the stem could break if he is painting the same flowers as they age. The differences in the flowers dying could account for changes in how he perceived and painted them.
He only signed 1/6 of his 800+ paintings re VGM.
There's been many tests since, it was found it to be real
I give tours at the Van Gogh Museum. I look at his paintings almost every day. The Sunflowers in Japan is such an obvious fake. I can't believe they have gotten away with this for so long. But the painting's buyer also paid for the special exhibitions building at the museum so I think they paid off some people to keep quiet about it. If I can see it's a fake, they know it too.
I hope you give your last tour today,as the vGogh museum published in their Journal in the 90s that it is an original;apparantly you are unaware,so disinterested and prone to make more mistakes.
@@crosskatt yeah you should know stuff since you read an article
Lucky you. I love that museum. Seeing the grave sites at the end always moves me to tears, and that doesn't happen to me easily.
crosskatt, modern review disputes that assertion. And modern forensics would def prove it’s a fake. But the owners will NEVER allow close scrutiny. If they did, expect several Insurance execs to commit Hari Kari!
It is a dull and uninteresting painting. If this is Van Goch, it is an embarrassment to him, and I doubt that.
Just by way of interest, the sunflowers in the famous paintings are a quite different species of sun flowers to the commercial field crop variety so happily displayed in the so very interesting programmes , does it matter, not really.
Very good documentary...thank you for posting.
I learned art by copying paintings and drawings to learn their techniques. If I'd only known I was sitting on a gold mine, I could have auctioned mine off for millions and gone to Brazil before they realized. :)
Buy local art by starving artists..you never know if will become a masterpiece
Stephanie Marie local artists here are just trendy. If I ever spot something I really like I would get it though.
wolfgang?
I am a local artist and recently I sold eleven paintings to one person on Ebay. He is having the paintings framed and will sell them in his store. I've never sold a painting in my life and was pleasantly shocked when my paintings sold.
YEARS AGO A GUY WANTED TO SELL ME 25% INTEREST IN THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE, I DECINED I WONDER
WHAT IT WOULD BE WORTH TODAY
I'm an artist and we are always broke. We spend our money on paints.I can get cheap canvases from charity shops and paint over them.
This is a movie of quality no doubt. And the plainness and eventuality of expertise are astonishing,-- how was it possible to gather all three on one screen!?
I had an interesting thought about the painting in question. Something to the effect of Van Gogh not painting when he wasn't well. I'm supposing, wondering if perhaps he attempted to paint when he wasn't well and this is one of the studies done when he wasn't well, but didn't like it enough to sign or write about.
It's possible, there is a misunderstanding that Vincent would paint while he was very unhappy. But he painted while he felt ok and lucid and could concentrate on his art. I'm the same as I can only paint when I'm content and somewhat happy, while I'm unhappy the artist in me simply is somewhere else.
Fascinating documentary. Vincent's room is heartbreaking.
Truly fascinating and well worth watching. What Tom Hoving, the ex-director of the MET, said truly made sense--that it's muddy and doesn't have the snap that Van Gogh's paintings have. And, when you look at the supposed faker's paintings--they're muddy, and don't have snap...
That comment was so on point. We knew just what he meant, didn't we!
That is like those wine connoisers who wax on about how great this or that wine is, but remove the label and suddenly they can't tell them apart, lmao.
Wow. That dude called it with the way the stems were painted and everything... i think it's fake.
The painting has been authenticated. Van Gogh did a third painting after then flowrs had wilted - this was actually documented.
@@kenlieberman4215 Where? And "wilting" would not produce these effects in a plant. Wilting does not defy physics...
KEN LIEBERMAN
^obvious troll account.
@@kenlieberman4215 - You work for the Japanese do you. Actually it is a confirmed a fake now.
The easiest way to tell a Original Van Gogh is that he painted exactly as if he drew it but instead of pencils or charcoal he used paint. He mastered drawing at a very early age. Vincent used hashmarks and cross hashing very efficiently. Very analytical but when he added color, the freedom came naturally almost by accident but it was still analytical, efficient in the most beautiful way.
Gorgeous accent the lady has. I wish I could speak like that without being mocked.
I suspect there was something about the Van Gogh painting destroyed in WW2 that the Japanese populace had developed such lore and attachment to Van Gogh the painter. The documentary said it was a bona fide original of five sunflowers. The fact that the Yasuda painting is predominantly yellow, a color associated with the emperor, must have something to do with it, I'd guess, as well as why so many Japanese make pilgrimages to Van Gogh's grave. Tremendously interesting documentary.
yeah, its a china situation i believe which is "we say its real, agree or else"
Something the narrator said
brought to my mind a pathetic reality: some years ago I was alerted to the pitiful reality and scope of greed. A favorite work of mine was on exhibit in both London as well as in Los Angeles, and of course this was not possible. Easy enough to solve you would say. To be sure, sooner rather than later the copy would be exposed, some degree of integrity would raise their hand. That was a very long time ago, it remains still.
If it is to be believed, neither
museum was willing to submit their work for true authenticity. I thought this truly too incredible to be the truth. Both were afraid of possible exposure.
If there is any moral here,
it may be an ostensibly inverse relationship between truth and money.
Many artist's studios produced copies of paintings that were done initially by the artist. A studio copy may be finished and signed by the artist himself. Rubens, for example, left catalogues describing some of his works as entirely by his own hand, some as by students retouched by his own hand, and some as "by my best student", meaning Anthony van Dyck.
MandyJMaddison Thank You Mandy.
Yellow as a life giving color? Gee, as a watercolorist yellow takes my life away! I can't buy yellow tubes fast enough! My yet unanswered question to my mentors is "How can I use less yellow???"
Great documentary, thanks for posting!
>One Love<
-A
I read all the comments... If you do not love art, if u don't feel it, why bother watching a video about it?
As for Van Gogh, he wasn't painting the object in front of him: if u don't get that then, again, no sense in looking at videos about art... Of u don't like art, that's ok. Vincent wouldn't care...
He was painting the things in front of him. Do not take a 3rd partys opinion as scripture. Read what the source himself has to say about it not some wine drinker telling you they know the ins and outs of the artists mind when they are just a spectator on the side of the road
Very well said, 2manysecrets.
Van Gogh painted sunflowers out of his imagination? I doubt it. In Arles, France, Van Gogh painted every scene from actually setting up the still life scene, or going outside to paint. However, one painting, "Crows over the cornfield" might be the one exception: not sure if he was actually there. The painting, his last, is one which echoes Van Gogh's overwhelming despair. Yellow was Van Gogh's color of love. The Yellow House, Sunflowers, this color reflected Van Gogh's emotion of love. In the movie "Lust for Life" Kirk Douglas plays Van Gogh; it looks like the part of Paul Gauguin was played by Anthony Quinn. Quinn's resemblance to Gauguin isn't bad, but Douglas's aquiline features don't look anything like Van Gogh.
Then you would be in agreement with the Philistines who mocked his work during his lifetime.
midnightchannel I’m an abstract painter. And I don’t really care much about VG work.
If I was in possession of a masterpiece I believed was authentic while others expressed doubts, I wouldn't hesitate to have it verified. The Japanese company's reluctance to subject the painting for verification seems to indicate they aren't as positive about the paintings origin as they would like to appear.
what reluctance??? they did many years ago!!
Disagree. They like the painting. It’s the rest of the world that’s obsessed with money.
The yellow has faded, what a sad picture. The flowers were originally bright yellow.
The highest price! But the picture isn't even really good. The yellow has faded terribly and van Gogh could be much better. And the background ... sigh. Could these buyers really not see for themselves?
Gee I get emotional when I hear that it was Johanna, Theo's widow, who inherited all paintings and letters and transcribed them and created the fame of Vincent. Well done, widow!!! ❤
Beautifully made documentary. Some of the settings in France are gorgeous and gorgeously filmed. I think it is important (to art students and connoisseurs) to discuss these things and to know about them. It sharpens one's powers of discrimination and appreciation. I'm not interested in the business side of art, but I would be if I had something to sell, or buy.
Hiding a possible/probable fake puts into question every other work of art that company may have. It is not clever to hide the fake but could be accounting fraud if they count it as an asset on the books.
2:58: "As a journalist, fakes have always been my speciality." ...Awkward…
Very good doc., brisk, no BS pace and narration. Some of this youtube vids wander off...
The sunflower doesn't produce turpentine; it can be used as a thinner for paint- ie as a turpentine substitute.
I wondered about that.
Painting is about mood, feelings, and all thats going on within someones mind. It can change day by day. One day maybe a master piece, the next day not so good not so bright, not so moving. Not a good day for getting it right.He was human like use all.
The best fakes are never discovered.
There is a documentary on here that discusses authentic paintings versus fakes. The professionals said there are so many fakes even they can't tell the real ones from the fake ones any more.
What I find it interesting is that after years pass by suddenly people in general come up and say that these paintings that they discovered belonged to some famous painters ... I don’t know if it’s real or fake to sell them , of course aside of the famous paintings
What I find *DISGRACEFUL* is we all know how poor Vincent struggled to make a living. He was mocked and teased. The *INSULT* to injury is the faking and capitalizing of 'The Sunflowers'. The incredible artist who painted 'Stary Night' was a brilliant, misunderstood soul. I'm so sorry Vincent...
This is the same tale of a lot of 'famous' artists. Back then they just waited until they died and then decided they had value so the original creator never got out of poverty. His artwork is ugly, nothing interesting about it, reminds me of a bad song that becomes popular just cause and pay billions for, people suck at being sophisticated in any sense wish vampires existed to laugh and mock our stupidity as creatures.
What if Van Gogh just painted the Yasuda painting as a Sketch, therefore he did not put the time and effort seen in the other 2 versions And you have 2 authentic sunflowers, so which one is the final one? A lot of artist paint a sketch before the final work, so this could might as well be a real Van Gogh for that reason. =)
Christies apparently has some complicity in the fake scandal. They should have more rigorously investigated the provenance
Style and chemistry of the paintings should give a great deal of information but to say that small minor differences in the execution of the final paintings is not necessarily conclusive because Van Goth was making a casual copy, not an absolute duplication.
Thank you for this fascinating, thought provoking, and relentless documentary.
I have been to the van gogh museum in Amsterdam a few times the depth of the pictures are amazing -reminds me the difference between a madman and a genius - money that's all
Very interesting. There are some things that make you think for yourself. Thank you.
Since been found to be legitimate.
Even by Dutch experts. They confirmed the canvas was from the same roll as the others among other things.
Bravo! Excelente documental.
A lot of the crass commercialism mentioned at the end in connection to the exploitation of Vincent's work is done by the Van Gogh family museum itself, where you can get mugs, ties, drinks coasters, jigsaw puzzles, and so on. But this is normal for museums these days
Isn't it interesting that the monetary value of a work is far more dependent on the name of the person who supposedly created it than on the quality of the work itself? A painting by Van Gogh of a pile of dung could be worth millions of dollars. Yet an almost identical or even aesthetically superior painting of a pile of dung by an unknown would be worth nothing. When it comes to collectors and investors, it isn't the quality that matters; it's the prestige associated with the name. Of course, poor Vincent was virtually penniless when alive because nobody thought his work was worth anything. It is an absolutely crazy world.
That’s why my judgement of painting is not based on the artist but by the feelings the art work send me.
@@MY-ce2qt I suspect that the very rich often have no artistic sense and must therefore rely on someone to tell them what to buy and how much to pay. There are a ton of really great artists who paint after their mundane 9-5 jobs in their basements, garages, or spare rooms. And even many of the masters didn't paint all of their commissions; they had students doing it. M Y, I agree with you completely!
The most important things said in the entire documentary start at 48:05 with the statements of the last two people - and they really point to the absurdity of the art world.
The painting in dispute could have been a first study - which Vincent wasn't satisfied with, and so he didnt sign it. If it were a forgery, meant to fool unwary buyers, wouldn't the forger have signed it?
I agree. Unless it was never intended to be a forgery, just a copy.
The examples of Schuffenecker 's work in the video seemed to be more skillfully done than the Yasuda Sunflower painting to me. Maybe the Yasuda sunflowers is a fake but Schuffenecker wasn't the artist?
Much has been said in the comments so I won't repeat...But I must point out the irony of these pictures.Worth nothing while he was alive,worth millions now.The only thing that has driven this man is his passion for painting.He will always be my favorite painter.One day I hope to visit his museum in Amsterdam.For me he will always be the best painter that walked this strange planet.
Well Janko, I hope you make it to the Museum soon. I went there in 2000, was blown away totally. And would love to return, now that (I think) I understand art a bit better. By the way, Van Gogh is one of my (four) favorite painters. Two were Italian and two Dutch - any guesses?
Great documentary. To me, the black heart of the art world is personified in the quote from Tom Hoving, ex-Director of the Met Museum, at 48:04 where he says "And since it's not ever going to be for re-sale, does it matter?" Or maybe not black heart--maybe green heart. The only thing that matters, seemingly, to the art world is the dollar value. Whereas Van Gogh's paintings, none of which he was even able to sell in his lifetime, were anti-materialist, about all the invisible things in life that are more valuable than money.
There was a new brilliant yellow pait that Von Gogh couldn't get enough of. Uranium based i think and it has decayed. It would have looked totally different yellow when Van Gogh painted it.
Very good point.
The real question is why a pictures worth is determined by who painted it and not whether it's a good painting.
Excellent doc. Thank you for posting.
I had to click this, cause I just finished a Van gough painting for my wall.
*Gogh not 'gough'.
Gow
@@sandrajohnson2489 its actually pronounced van googhhhhhgogxasxzz*dies from choking
I hate to break it to you, but it's probably a fake.
If it is "visually inferior" it's not surprising that Van Gogh wouldn't mention it. He painted a lot of things he didn't write about. Also it was recently found to be genuine. The "muddy" colors have to do with the chemical reactions of the paint to the jute material it was painted on. Van Gogh was not well off financially and frequently expiramented with mediums. Also the farther along in his life he went the darker the paintings became.
The killer isn't the visual difference - it's the sister-in-law, who had all the paintings, never listed it. That is difficult to explain.
That's true, but the darkest painting I felt Van Gogh executed was his last, "Crows Over the Cornfield," created just before his suicide.
The painting you refer to (Wheat field with Crows) is not actually his last painting, or at least while it may have been painted late in his life there are other works that are suspected to have been painted after.
@@woodwanderer From the grave???
When he first started his paintings where very dark Grey's brown's and greens. He started to be more colourful as he went on, if anything his colour were more muted and or deeper, but I would not call them dark, that was his first paintings done in Belgium/Holland.
There's one point that to me seems to make it an obvious fake. It wasn't noted in his Johanna's inventory. We are talking about a lady who was extremely meticulous and yet we are to believe she made a mistake, one single mistake during inventory and it happened to be this painting? I highly doubt that. Then if you add on all the other evidence; crappy painting technique, a poor copy by anyone's standards, etc. It is highly probable that this is a fake. The evidence that it is authentic is very slim at best.
Have a theory -
*(The painting is authentic - he was testing elements of paint compounds* - *He never intended to release it - thus never signed the painting* -
*Possibly did it 1st, liked the subject, but wasn't pleased with the paint clarity, once dry.)*
I know absolutely nothing about this case - it merely is a mix of intuition, logic, and an understanding of the era Artitst's search for improvements of their tool products.
Beth Bartlett and the Japanese knew it!
Not convinced at all. He may simply have not signed it because he wasn,t satisfied with it. Doesn,t mean he didn,t paint it !
I remember seeing the doc when it was first shown. Then and now, I'm not convinced. They talk of 5% of the painting that is 'odd' but what about the other 95%?
Think you missed the entire part about the guy that copied it.
Having close relative & many friends who are bipolar schizoafektif, I tend to think one of the prettiest painting & the ugliest copy are the genuine one. The 2nd prettiest is the fake. Bipolar schizoafektif people are brilliant, happy & smart one moment (or days) then completely dulll the next. That may be the reason why Vincent van Gogh copied his own painting, to see the difference himself, for they tend to be more sane during the dull time.
If that's the case, why didn't his widow note it in inventory? You'd have to accept this is the one mistake she made during inventory. When you look at all the other factors (painting technique, lack of mention in letters etc.) that would be one heck of a coincidence.
Learn to spell
Hey Grifty Tamara, where exzctly zee schpelling mistake in dat reeply u mentshuned?
They wouldn't resist authentication if it was real. However the drama around them make the fakes just as important in the Vincent saga. And in this lies their value.
I love ❤️ Vincent, but his sunflower centre looks like a pimiento stuffed olive.
Doubt there were stuffed olives back then
Haha! You made me laugh! I like Van Gogh, too! I painted Starry Night...with yarn!
th-cam.com/video/PiiHvc3ezIg/w-d-xo.html
Not crazy about Sunflowers.
There is a very good reason to keep Vincent’s letters out of circulation but when revealed heads will spin some will role!
29:36 lol filmed on a sunday early in the morning, because if the van gogh museum was open, their would be a line of people waiting to the corner of the street or longer!., you cant walk up like she did!, takes atleast 15-45 minutes to get in :P
....if the museum WERE open, THERE would be...
The music reminds me of a cross between Charlie Brown & The Thomas Crown Affair remake. Enjoyable documentary though. The presentation style is clear and concise and serves its purpose in uniting the various clips.
I think Gauguin attempted the copy. He Did not sign it (probably ashamed at his lack of brilliance) and later gave it to his friend. Gauguin was not at all a good or nice guy. It makes sense to me that he spent a lot of time staring at those paintings in his bedroom.
I can't imagine Gauguin making a copy....
Gaugin lack of brilliance? LMAO.
Yes, but you overlook Gauguin's genius and originality that was all his own, and very different from the work of Van Gogh. Gauguin, lack of brilliance? I mean huh??? Gauguin's use of color in his Tahitian phase paintings, for example, is startling in its clarity and brilliance; that I would not deny.
@@thomasromano9321 The Gauguin painting of Van Gogh painting Sunflowers is AMAZING !
@@daviddempster402 I have not seen it, but I'm not surprised. Van Gogh spent quite a bit of time in Arles, Southern France. Yes, the townspeople considered Van Gogh a curiosity because his personality certainly would not have fit the working class peasants who tilled and worked the fields there. Gauguin came to stay with Van Gogh and must have been there when the painting got done. Gauguin and Van Gogh did not always get along, and once Van Gogh threw a glass at Gauguin in a local drinking establishment in Arles. I think also Van Gogh was a little jealous of Gauguin's apparent popularity with the local ladies: he, Van Gogh mostly saw women in the form of prostitutes that he would visit in the local brothels. Still, Van Gogh's art reached it's zenith there in Arles, with his brush strokes imitating the movement of nature itself in the wheat fields, trees, houses and shrubbery around Arles. When I was in Southern France I wanted to make it a point to visit the Yellow House where Van Gogh had resided while he painted, but I never go t a chance to go there. (I passed through Aix-en-Provence).
I did, however spend much time in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.
Maybe it's just a painting that he did when having a bad week and he couldn't get it bright, the more yellow he painted on top, the browner it got.
Excellent video. I enjoyed the subjective feelings as well as the objective evidence of what constitutes an original. A live musical performance cannot be faked. The experience of the music informs us of the composers intention. Perhaps forgeries could be considered variations of the original.The ultimate value of a work of art is its capacity to elevate the human spirit. A cell phone photo of a work of great art is also a forgery. And one that can uplift the soul and enhance the value of the original experience of seeing it. The feeling into what a sunflower really is doesn't require a certificate of authenticity. If the sunflowers could ‘fool’ Christies, then perhaps those of us with far lesser ability to spot counterfeits might be more concerned with what the artist was trying to communicate. Van Gogh’s original vision radiates from original to forgery to the billionth copy.
That, is a very, VERY interesting comment
A soothing documentary.
Paintings, tennis players and golfers are ridiculously out of the pricing norm
Occam's razor: If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a fake flower.
After seeing the Van Gogh And Nature exhibition at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, in Williamstown, MA.; it's pretty fair to say that I am now a great admirer of Van Gogh.
WTF is MA? Just write out the full name. The rest of the world is too busy to learn all your dumb state abbreviations.
@@dieSchreckschraube, "Williamstown, Massachusetts".
"MA." = the state of Massachusetts. Donkey! Here's one you (may) figure out: G.A.F.L.!
This channel constantly shows live at the top of my subscription list. Any way to disable live notification?
30 seconds in and I already learned something new
43.00 'One villager who devoted her life on local history....' Diplomatic introduction of the village gossip...;))
The Americans bombed the original painting in Japan.
AT 1:42 TOM HOVING SAYS, "IT DOES'NT HAVE THAT SNAP" I HAVE A COPY ON CANVAS, AND I'VE LISTENED
CAREFULLY OVER THE YEARS, AND MINE MAKES NO "SNAP", EITHER. IF I KNEW THAT WHEN I BOUGHT IT,
I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT BACK TO THE DEALER,,,,,,OH WELL ! "SNAPLESS VAN GOGH DILEMMA"
When I was in Arles, a local chastised me for pronouncing the town name like that!
I recall many years ago that Kansas made the sunflower the state flower, in Iowa they declared it a noxious weed. They often joke like this :)
It's "The Fake van Goghs" not "The Fake Van [sic] Gogh's [sic]". Plural nouns are not made with an apostrophe.
It's also 'van Gogh', with a lower case 'v'...
@@peezebeuponyou3774Thanks for the correction.
You have a sharp eye. No educated person would make such a mistake. I suspect this documentary is a fake.
This story was first told in a novel entitled A Visitor to A Paint Dealer, published in the July 2002 edition of the Chung Wai Literary Monthly. Please note the source.
What's with all the ads every 5 minutes
Yugo Boss Get You Tube Red-I haven’t seen an ad in two years.
Download Ad Blocker, it'll never be an issue again. And it's free
you need an extension called adblocker. i have not seen an ad in at least 8 years
Queen Bee Me neither, except I use AdBlock. I don't understand why people go on about the ads being a problem, when it's so easy to solve. It will be another matter if (or when) TH-cam decides to block AdBlock.
How have people not heard of Ad Blocker by now? It's so ridiculously simple to find and sort out.
That top movie with Kirk Douglas and Anthony Queen was biggest homage to Van Gogh ever
Why is it so important to spot the fakes: Because it shows the lie behind the art
I'd believe skeptics with education more than anyone official. Skeptics have their reputation etc on the line when they come forward, official entities have their money etc on the line when the truth comes out.
I have a facinating idea
Wait I have to wait for the commercials to play.
Never mind I lost my train of thought.
...The most striking element in the movie, by far, is the assumption of everybody involved, that artists are consistent, equal to themselves at all times... therefore an inferior work cannot mean that the artist had a lousy day but that it must be a fake...." BY NO MEANS VINCENT COULD PAINT THIS" ... says one, emphatically... he knows. of course...
Visit any contemporary artist's studio and you'll find innumerable items that artists are embarrassed to show (if they are honest, of course)...
A fascinating documentary thank you so much
stellar paintings and artworks regardless, almost achieving that timelessness of creation
Anyone want to talk about the guy using NETSCAPE at 8:36? When was this documentary made? lol
''In 2002, the painting went on public exhibition alongside an undisputedly genuine version of Sunflowers, raising once again the questions so vividly posed in this film.''
That wasn't the original Netscape it was a fake.
David Smock haven’t seen those trams in many many years in Amsterdam...
@@MrTruth111 even in 2002 netscape was considered outdated
How else can you view myspace properly?
I agree with the closing statement. I think Van Gogh would be appalled at the prices and crass commercialism attached to his work. Original pieces of art should belong to everyone - not kept in some vault or privately owned as some sort of investment and kept from the public, unless the artist did the work for a specific person. Then, after the death of that person, either the family should have the work or it should be publicly displayed. The millions upon millions of dollars spent on art is obscene.
There is no proof of the authenticity or the opposite... It is all just conjecture and personal opinion. Since Van Gogh was a very emotional unstable individual, changes in style are acceptable. As long as there is only opinion, but not proof, I consider the painting authentic!
I wonder what the fascination of Van Gogh is for the Japanese!?
I absolutely agree with you. This documentary is bad journalism, full of assumptions.
Perhaps the "FAKE ONE" is simply a study painting by Vincent. Lots of artists out there would understand this.
'One of the tragedies...' was the loss of a painting? There was a war going on lady. Lol.
Well said!!!👈
That's the " ALMOST MISSED"
JUMP-OUT LINE
🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️🏵️
ONE of the tragedies.
And actually, each generation leaves us only a few pieces of great art. If we lose them it is a great tragedy. People live and die and who cares? Most people are just ants. They live and create nothing, leave nothing. A truly great work of art is worth a million people or more.
She uses the word among the tragedies at the end of the second world war, not one of, your miss quote is ignorant.
@@MH-hj2jk - I don't think 'among,' or 'one' really matter. One in that context would mean one of many. Either way, it doesn't mean it is the main tragedy. I imagine most feel that loss of life is the main tragedy but of course, the loss of art, architecture, historical buildings are a part of the tragedy of war. After the war in Iraq, many historical artefacts were destroyed. In Afghanistan, they destroyed the ancient city of Aleppo. They are all tragedies.
@@MH-hj2jk semantics.
Museums need paintings by famous artists. There aren't enough original paintings to go around. So the museums are happy to get a painting that they can say is an original even if they have to pay a high price and not ask too many questions about its 'provenance'. .
The Fake Van Goghs, not The Fake Van Gogh's.
Van gocks
You capitalized the word "fake"? WRONG!!!
MichSignMan In a title/headline, it is correct.
The apostrophe denotes possession when used in the context of a noun. No apostrophe is required when used in the plural.
Why not accept an artwork at face value? If you love a painting, does it really matter who made it?
Great docu except for the sanctimonious moralistic words put into van Gogh's mouth at the very end.
Original is sold,then sellers pay someone to say its a fake,then owner sell it back for lower price back to someone who is close to original sellers(without him knowing that),the new buyer has original paiting for lower price and his connection(first seller) got a precentige out of it.