Objet: Answer to the Research department, Van Gogh Museum
Two brothers :
The presence of Jobbé-Duval gives important results :
— The picture is originated in an artistic circle in Paris
— The Legion d’honneur is by definition on the left part of a jacket, the picture is reversed
— Jobbé-Duval passed away on 2 April 1888, the picture is made before 2 April 1888.
“In general, the reasoning in the essay appears to be largely based on ‘confirmation bias’: everything is explained in such a way that it does not conflict with the theory that Gauguin, Bernard, Van Gogh, and Koning are portrayed together. ”
I cannot accept there is a “confirmation bias », as we made a very precise list of all what could be opposed to the proposed result. We decided to focus on the main hypothesis after and only after three significant confirmations:
— The material analysis of a rare vintage photographic process on a very unusual support: “carton photographique”
— The provenance: Ronald Davis.
— The location: courtyard of 96 rue Blanche, Paris.
“What strikes us in the end most is that no specialists of the life and works of Bernard and Gauguin seem to have been consulted for the identifications of the persona (we asked some of them). ”
The investigation was not secret and it was extremely important to consult experienced persons, to get their independent comments. We did it in three circles : Art historians, Photography collectors and Judicial experts, in both Paris and New York. More than 15 independent experienced specialists of various fields gave advices and critics on all the complete investigation. For example:
— all of them asked about the lower jaw and the outstanding ear,
— many of them stated Bernard seeming older than his age,
— several insisted about the identification of the staircase in 96 rue Blanche courtyard.
On June 4, we had a session with a whole Company of experts in photography and video from Cour d’Appel de Paris. I contacted several Gauguin and Bernard specialists but Mrs Françoise Cachin passed away. I contacted her daughter. The French law does not allow curators to help publicly private investigations and to be quoted.
“To stick to our main point: comparison of the supposed head of Vincent and two ‘real images’ of Vincent van Gogh simply makes it quite clear that they are those of two different gentlemen:
Vincent did in no way have such a broad lower jaw and the real Vincent’s right ear clearly sticks out, whereas the gentleman in the photograph has rather even facial characteristics with both ears close to the head. See the attached document: a juvenile photograph and a self-portrait of 1887 (the self-portrait from the Rijksmuseum is a frontal depiction that clearly reveals the outstanding ear, as does the juvenile photograph).”
The choice of “Juvenile photograph” and “Self-portrait of 1887 with outstanding ear” for comparison leads to curious result. For example, if we apply this comparison to “Self-portrait we the easel”, we can then also prove the same result : they are portraits of two different gentlemen.
In the long bibliography of published articles, we can understand those two portraits “Juvenile photograph” and “Self-portrait of 1887 with outstanding ear” have been questioned for almost a century. They are among the most questioned. Since Jacob Baart de la Faille (1886–1959) and Carl Nordenfalk (1907–92), several persons gave argument they were not real images of Vincent Van Gogh but of Theo Van Gogh. (Cf. Fuse Visual Arts: Where’s Theo? Is that Theo van Gogh in the picture?)
In the case after more discussion, people would agree that both “Juvenile photograph” and “Self-portrait of 1887 with outstanding ear », represent Theo Van Gogh, then the comparison gives a proof that the gentleman on the Carton is not Theo Van Gogh.
“Our museum was contacted over a year ago by the owners, and indirectly again earlier this year, who at first proposed that – amongst others – Emile Schuffenecker and Cor van Gogh were present.”
The owner was investigating the presence of Schuffenecker after finding a curious Bernard drawing titled “Le Synthétisme, un cauchemar”on a page from the “Gauguin album ».
It is a very curious drawing indeed with annotations in various hands and we tried to understand the story of the “Synthetism” project. Patient research in Musée d’Orsay documentation brought few indications. We also investigated Cor Van Gogh, Jules Antoine and several artists and art critics of the period. We may include in the publication a larger section about « witnesses and large circle », and comparisons.
“After our then expressed negative opinion – which is not mentioned in the essay – We were never officially asked again for our opinion. When the press started contacting us, we of course had to draw up a statement that we do not believe Vincent is portrayed in the photograph.”
The museum negative opinion was mentioned online in our blog with a complete article. The owner had provided me with your former opinion. In March I spoke with a curator from Rijksmuseum. On April 30th, I tried to contact you through Auberge Ravoux sending a mail to: janssens. I received no contacts, direct or indirect.
“Again, after having read your essay we see no reason to change our opinion.”
I will improve my essay before publishing it, ask you permission to include your various opinions, propose some answers to them and quote various reminiscences of Jo Bonger, Theo Van Gogh’s widow :
““Vincent returned from the South on May 17, 1890. First he was going to spend a few days with us in Paris…
I had expected a sick man, but here was a sturdy, broad-shouldered man, with a healthy colour, a smile on his face, and a very resolute appearance; of all the self-portraits, the one before the easel (painted winter 1887-1888) is most like him at that period. Apparently there had again come the sudden puzzling change in his condition that the Reverend Mr. Salles had already observed to his great surprise at Arles.
“He seems perfectly well; he looks much stronger than Theo,” was my first thought…”. (Johannah Van Gogh-Bonger, december 1913).
Thank you
Serge Plantureux
Heads :
Fuse Visual Arts: Where’s Theo? Is that Theo van Gogh in the picture? » The Arts Fuse.pdf
“A portrait of Vincent van Gogh’s brother, the art dealer Theo van Gogh, painted in Paris in 1887. The portrait was long thought to be a Vincent van Gogh self-portrait, but in June 2011 following a reassessment by the Van Gogh Museum‘s head researcher Louis van Tilborgh it was said to be of Theo van Gogh: see Museum uncovers Van Gogh painting of his brother. The Daily Telegraph (21 June 2011); Vincent van Gogh self-portrait revealed as his brother. BBC News (22 June 2011).
Head researcher Louis van Tilborgh compared two paintings from 1887 with similar-looking men in suits set against a blue background.
“They are two small, detailed portraits that when you see them you think: they belong together,” Van Tilborgh said in an interview with Dutch state broadcaster NOS.
The portrait of Theo shows he had rounder ears than Vincent did. The other portrait shows Vincent with long, angular ears, consistent with other artists’ paintings of Vincent. That’s before he famously self-mutilated one of his ears in December 1888.
In addition, Theo’s goatee is more yellow-brown than Vincent’s dark red beard, and Theo has shaven cheeks, consistent with photographs of him from the same period, while Vincent painted himself sporting mutton-chop sideburns.”