Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
Self-Portrait-Vincent-van-Gogh-1889
All about Vincent van Gogh, Rembrandt van Rijn, & vanrijngo, 
Self-Portrait-Vincent-van-Gogh-1889
Most art fans have heard the story of Vincent van Gogh cutting off his own ear and giving it to his favourite prostitute. But does anyone know what really happened?
The story goes that the combination of van Gogh’s heavy drinking of absinthe, smoking, and possible poisoning from lead based oil paints led the artist to a madness which caused him to slash off his ear on December 23, 1888, and then commit suicide in 1890.
In their book “Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence”, Hamburg, Germany based art historians Hans Kaufman and Rita Wildegans present a different theory. The pair spent ten years reviewing French police investigations, witness accounts, and the artist’s personal letters. They believe that fellow artist and friend Paul Gauguin, who was known to have had a collection of weapons including fencing swords, cut off van Gogh’s ear in self-defense.
Gauguin stayed with van Gogh in Arles, France and the two worked together for about two months. The tension between the artists grew and they quarreled often. Van Gogh was vulnerable and hyper-sensitive, and a bullying and egocentric Gauguin often threatened to leave. This was too much for the unstable van Gogh who, in his state of despair, came after Gauguin with a cut-throat razor.
Until recently, it was thought that van Gogh turned his anxiety over Gauguin on himself and severed his own ear and Gauguin, upset by his friend’s state of mind, left Arles. However, Kaufman and Wildegans believe that Gauguin, fed up with van Gogh’s mental instability, decided to leave the house after van Gogh threw a glass at him during an argument. A crazed van Gogh followed him and things became violent. Gauguin, either in anger or self-defense, lopped off part of van Gogh’s left ear.
They believe that van Gogh was so devoted to his friend that he did not report the attack and the two continued to write letters to each other. This theory is based on a phrases that van Gogh wrote to Gauguin and his brother including: “You are quiet, I will be too” and “pact of silence”. As well, van Gogh’s letter to his brother Theo describes Gauguin’s aggressive character. He wrote it was lucky Gauguin didn’t have a machine gun or other firearms.
Whether the wound was self-inflicted or not, there is no doubt that Van Gogh, bleeding from his wound, staggered into a bordello and gave a prostitute friend named Rachel his severed ear, telling her to ‘keep this object carefully’. He returned to his house where he nearly died from loss of blood and for weeks he spent his time between the hospital and home, continually crying out for Gauguin.
In May 1890, van Gogh moved to Auvers sur Oise, under the care of doctor Paul Guichet but a few days later, he shot himself in the chest and died two days later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has any of you really looked at this portrait of Vincent with this large bandage on his head, and supposedly painted in 1889? How in the hell did the experts get the dating right on that one? That is one hell of a rapping job for the loss of just an ear lobe. Are they sure it wasn't from a bar fight when Vincent was drinking heavy? With a few stitches from the doctor and a little bandaging, you would think that would have sufficed in the care of a small problem like just losing an ear lobe or the little corner of your ear as they the experts say. This is a bandage job for the loss of a complete ear in this portrait,... wouldn't ya think?
Yep,... I'd say it was early in 1889 that this self-portrait was painted, and while that being the case my art loving friends,.... just take a good long look at his first portrait of himself yourselves, one that he had painted after the first removal of the bandages from his head, probably taken off by his doctors for a bandage change. This self-portrait painting of Vincent I believe was more than likely painted on the back of another earlier painting he had with him there at the hospital, and used because lack of medium to paint it on. I say this is about a 10 minute or less bathroom self-portrait done from looking in the mirror there before receiving his new bandage.
This dilemma of Vincent van Gogh Ear incident of the cutting off his little nibbler, or should I say, just the ear lobe like is said by most all van Gogh expertise does not seem to me to really help their supposed expertise all that much. Are the MFA experts going to be able to continue telling ones in this world what exactly they are looking at? Shouldn't the computers have a helping hand in this procedure? Wasn't it confirmed right from the beginning everyone in Arles, France new exactly what it was by just looking at it? Maybe these people in France could recognize an ear better rapped up in a piece of canvas rather than one painted on the side of ones head?
This seem to be the favorite story, of the different stories in which way Vincent van Gogh's supposedly cut off his own ear. If it is known he gave this ear rapped in a piece of canvas to his supposed favorite prostitute, a prostitute who had just opened the door a crack and took it from him and wouldn't let him in, must have really liked him tremendously. This in itself does have a tendencies to make one wonder a little bit about what really went down. What if anything do these MFA experts really known for sure about this artists life,... including his works of art?
This portrait of this prostitute gal in this painting presented by her screen name Nettel in the left-hand corner, and as some might be able to see, there is a customer behind her, possibly anxiously awaiting her and wanting to get started. This was painted and referred to with a empty glove looking hand ready to grab her by her neck. It is very irritating to me sometimes,.... that art people cannot see these things that make his art so important to art appreciators, and in helping in letting people know who the artist really is and was.
Did Vincent really have favorite Prostitutes? Did he happen to paint a portraits for you know what-tee from some of them? Did he also happen to paint ones window blind for another one,... the blind shade covering the window and letting her customers know when she is busy and will be with them more than likely in a few? You ask, does anyone know what really happened for sure? If someone did, and happened to tell you, would you even believe what they were telling you?
"My opinion is that the best thing would be to work on till art lovers feel drawn toward it of their own accord, instead of having to praise or to explain it."
Myself I would haft to weigh it all out, of what was really said by Vincent and Gauguin in their letters to Theo, who happened to be both their art dealer. Only then would I be able to come to my own conclusion of what was said and meant by all of their letters. I'd also be looking at anything that might be relevant as possible proof and evidence,.. say as from newly discovered paintings that lead to unanswered questions. These answers could provide a lot of new information associated with a few of these dilemmas that supposedly MFA expertise haven't as yet came up with the real truths for,.. say as for instance correct answers for some of these works not known to them,.... but written about, and others in their own collections.
I did happen to read in a letter where Gauguin said he turn around in the street when he had heard someone sneaking up behind him and seen something glittering in Vincent's hand caused by the gas light in the street. He then asked in his gruffest voice, "is that you Master Vincent"? Then is when Vincent turned and sleeked back to the yellow house and gut off his own ear in a fit of madness. Now if Gauguin would have had his sword with him, these MFA German experts logic could have had some merit to it. Butt,... Gauguin was caught by Vincent as the old saying goes with his pants down, and he almost received a second crack in his ass. I believe this was Vincent's full intention,... and was more than likely due to their violent art argument prior to Gauguin's departure when leaving the yellow house.
That fateful night of December 23rd, 1888 in the town of Arles, France is where Vincent himself did this damage to his own ear believe it or not. Then he delivered what he had cut off with the straight razor he had envisioned using on Gauguin ass to the prostitute opening the door just a crack, and instructed her to give it to Gauguin. Gauguin was already there and had warned them not to let Vincent in, for his sword was still at the yellow house and Vincent came after him he thought with a straight razor. After the canvas was opened and the discovery was made of what it was when they saw it, they notified the authorities immediately of the cut off ear that was rapped up and given to them by Vincent van Gogh the artist.
The rest is history my friends and I might add gives them plenty of fuel for the fires of the rest of the stories for ones to make up their own minds. The one I like best is when Vincent writes his brother that on one cold and rainy night after Vincent giving away all of his clothes at the Baronages wound up in a pile of fagots just to keep warm.
Cheers! vanrijngo 
Vincent's "Crows in the Wheatfield".
Post moved forward from 3/7/06
Painted I believe in the late summer of "1887" of the out-skirting farmland surrounding Paris France. The electrical power pole had just been set in the ground without any wires installed as of yet.
This painting is enhanced to give you a partial same vision of Vincent van Gogh, myself & Rembrandt. It is very referent and similar in hidden detail to the one of his final painting he painted in Auvers. Do you think possibly Vincent was trying to tell us all something in his final paintings? "I know I can paint,... but the blind and deaf MFA experts cannot see with their own eyes or hear with their own ears." This is my own saying,.... but I'm sure it was in Vincent van Gogh's vocabulary.
"The double-edged sword."
In the letters of Vincent van Gogh throughout his whole artistic career, they say he provided exact inventories of sketches, drawings, and paintings he was sending to his art dealing brother, Theo. Since this is a supposed known fact, these inventories can be confounding for scholars; not to mention the copyists and art forgers trying to make a buck,... mostly the ones involved in the high end elite art societies, for where else would the money be available for their tedious efforts; It is said sometimes he fails to mention works that scholars know are authentic. For example, there is no reference in his letters to his famous Wheatfield with Crows, of this painting, a work of undisputed authenticity.
At other times, Vincent refers to works that have not been found, (isn't that amazing) and sometimes he provides vague or contradictory information that is subject to various interpretations. Yes,... and we all know by whom. In terms of authentification, Welsh-Ovcharov calls the van Gogh letters a "double-edged sword." And why shouldn't they be? Most art experts of back then, including his brother Theo, said that Vincent didn't know how to paint and was a piss poor artist two boot.
In adding to van Gogh's stylistic inconsistencies,..I ask, are these variations in the quality of his works something that can be denied? While he was known to produced masterpieces, he was also mainly known to have painted quick studies and replicas of assumed middling qualities. This again is another situation, coupled with the inconsistencies in his correspondence which creates a lot of openings for forgers to copy some of his concidered masterpieces now in other collections. At the same time, doubts are cast upon some of his lesser efforts which at the present time are not concidered to be the works of his hand. Given the artist's high public profile and the high market value of his works of art, the MFA experts say you have the makings of a curatorial nightmare. "It is easy to say something is a fake; it is hard to prove it is not," says Anne Distel, chief curator at the Musée d'Orsay. "When the subject is van Gogh, it is even more complicated."
(vanrijngo) Says that it would not be all that difficult, if only a few of these people claiming to be MFA experts and professional in the art field,... if they would only pull their heads out of their asses and their colleagues groins. I say it is possible right now & able to be done in this world of new technology and computer science, digital enhancements, scanning technology, not to mention pixel power tools to tell exactly who the artists infact were. In using these qualities of available techniques, there should be no problem at all in telling who the true artist just might happen to be. Do not forget,... machines and computing equipment have not yet been taught to lie.
It is said it is neither fair nor accurate to identify every "faux van Gogh" as a fake while at the same time saying some works are indeed forgeries, works created with the intent to deceive. Some, however, are merely imitations, produced by van Gogh followers who were inspired by him and adopted his style or even copied his works, with the intent of paying homage to or learning from him, and most times signing their own names to the piece of art work. And then, there are these misattributions, works mistakenly thought to have been created by van Gogh and unintentionally absorbed into the body of his work, and at who's expense? Well,... I'll tell you all right up front, ... something's definitely has to be taken into consideration and done soon, or there will be a complete brake down in the communities of fine art. The buying of art by art speculators and art investors, just for the sheer evidence of the corruption that is a known fact which is destroying and tearing down the complete art market as a whole, and will eventually even reduced the attendances at our favorite art galleries and museums.
"Particularly problematic are several paintings found in Theo's Paris apartment and assumed to be original van Goghs." This is a weird statement,... and I'm assuming was made by Sjraar van Heugten himself. Are we to assume that his young widow, Johanna van Gogh–Bonger was the deceitful one along with her family members,... or was it Theo himself who had copies made of Vincent's works of art to replace the ones after he sold the originals. Now if this were true, we can only assume it was done for himself to live high on the hog buying his antiquities and to help in sending a little to his brother Vincent to keep the main supply coming in. Theo died six months after Vincent shot himself, leaving his young widow, Johanna van Gogh–Bonger, to deal with the nearly 400 oil paintings, 1,300 drawings, and hundreds of letters he had meticulously tied in bundles. Until recently, it was assumed that all the paintings in the apartment were by van Gogh, but five of those works, now in the Van Gogh Museum, have been identified as miss-attributions. "The work that is currently being done for the collection catalogue of van Gogh's paintings will shed more light on these—and possibly other—works that might have been painted by other artists," says Sjraar van Heugten, head of collections at the Van Gogh Museum.
Most all who study and love Vincent van Gogh's works of art do know and have different feelings about his oeuvre as a whole. There are the ones which draws you in and also the ones which pushes you away. Could it be that the ones that pushes you away are the actual fakes? I do personally know myself that the computer age that we are now living in,.... it could straighten this whole problem out with Vincent's oeuvre and all the rest of the masters that have been copied for fraudulent purposes which have been flooding the art market for years. Should I say for centuries, or mainly just this last century? Picasso knew what was happening, and I can only say in good faith,.. a lot more individuals involved in this world of fine art also knew and know this. It is now one big MFA cover-up!
vanrijngo 
Van Gogh letters shed light on hard-working artist
An exhibition at London's Royal Academy seeks to deepen our understanding of the post-Impressionist master Vincent Van Gogh by displaying not only his paintings and drawings, but many of his letters.
I'm sure myself (vanrijngo) that the Royal Academy along with the Vincent van Gogh Foundation is not all that excited about looking to deepening the publics understanding of his paintings and drawings, along with allowing of Vincent van Gogh mindset to be read for understanding as to what was on his mind and what he was thinking at the time these paintings were supposedly being created.
In displaying a few of his many letters up along-side his works of art, ones they believe he was referring to at the time just may not coincide all that much with the work of art shown. I personally I think that this is somewhat bullshit,... for I believe it is only because of the Vincent van Gogh art lovers personal and public requests as being the cause for them allowing the supposed full discloser of these letters next to the supposed works of art themselves.
The Dutch painter wrote hundreds of letters during a productive career as an artist, most of them to his brother Theo who was an art dealer who supported him.
No doubt these hundreds of letters had a great deal to do with helping this artist along his way through his short carreer including the small and most times lacking the full support which was agreed upon and provided by his Art dealer brother Theo. Vincent continually had to reminded his art dealing brother of their meeting at the old mill,... I assume where they made their original agreement by this hand shake he was always incerting at the bottom of most his letters. Theo failed Vincent terribly as his art dealer, and in promoting his works of art.
As to their original partnership agreement, Vincent sending him all his best works of art, just ask yourselves by reading these letters,..... "did Vincent recieve a fare shake from his art dealer and brother?". Vincent's popularity amongst the colleagues of Theo was not all that popular, as most know who have read their letters and of all these aquaintences of Vincent while he himself was blooming in this fine art business of his uncle Cent's.
All we can do is read their letters, as Theo was supposed to be promoting his brothers art as his art dealer, and only after Vincent's death did Theo make this attempt. Theo died 6 months later after Vincent had shot himself. This happening was only after his sponsoring art dealer had Left him high and dry without supplies or anymore support. After failing miserably at this task of being able to sell and promote his brothers works of art It was all left up to his wife Johanna van Gogh Bonger to continue with her husbands Theo's campaign in promoting Vincent's works of art.
"The Real Van Gogh: The Artist and his Letters", from January 23-April 18, follows a 15-year research project into Van Gogh's correspondence by the Van Gogh Museum and the Huygens Institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
As you can possibly see and read for yourselves these MFA people and supposed MFA experts are trying to reshape and mold this artist of doing whatever they themselves believe he had done and meant by these letters of his. In talking about these supposed works of art of Vincent's done at the time of these letters and done at the same time period which are in their possession, sometimes or should I say most times do not add up to what had been said in the letters as far as color and canvas sizes Gogh. Well my friends, I think these MFA experts will find these letters as double edge swords, which will at the same time be open many new cans of worms for them. This is good for the art public and van Gogh lovers while being not all that great for them, for a lot of the real van Gogh's referred to by his letters are still out there in this art world of ours yet to be discovered, while a lot of them written about are in my own collection.
On display at what is predicted to be a major blockbuster exhibition are over 35 original letters, rarely displayed in public due to their fragility but which provide context for many of the 65 or so paintings hanging alongside them.
This kind of a art display with the letters coinciding with the art work may become a thing of the past when these MFA experts find out what kind of turmoil they could be causing later on. We've all heard of fact similes and copies which are as easily read as the originals, that is if they say the same things and are translated to the right meanings as so many weren't, and are still not.... so what the hell is the big deal here? Is this something that had to come about sooner or later, like it or not, because they were created by the same genius as the works of art?
The letters which contain the mundane -- as in his description of a particular kind of pencil -- and the poetic -- as when he describes the waters of the Mediterranean as "like a mackerel" and "always changing" -- challenge the notion of Van Gogh as an erratic and tortured genius.
What more can one say?
"The popular view of him is that he was this kind of crazy, unreflective artist who just painted very quickly and very spontaneously," said curator Ann Dumas. "He did paint very quickly. But a great deal of thought and preparation had gone into his work even before he put paint on canvas," she told Reuters.
You notice how the MFA experts seem to always start their statements off in a inflammatory and prejudice way when making correct statement about Vincent, just to throw one off the beaten paths and what should actually be looked at more closely. Say like the fact that Vincent being a unreflective artist who just painted very quickly and very spontaneously, and what is said after is kinda inserting in peoples mindset that the preparation and thought took one hell of a lot more time for Vincent. This is basically to allow for only the few works of art for this artists known production style and techniques for that amount of time.
Although he cut off part of an ear, committed himself to an asylum and ended his own life aged 37, Van Gogh was engrossed in his art and prepared to work hard to master techniques of perspective, colour and painting the human form.
Here we go again, these MFA adding in all the thing that they want you to remember about this artist, rather than what should really be brought up and discussed,... say like who was really responsible for these unfortunate happening in Vincent's life as the artist that he was. We all know that Vincent mastered every technique of perspective, colour and painting of the human form, while using as little line as possible.
"Much as I love landscape, I love figures even more," he wrote. "Still, it's the hardest part."
When his "The Potato Eaters" was heavily criticized, he redoubled his efforts to portray humans effectively with studies of women digging potatoes and charcoal drawings of farm hands at harvest time.
Yes, this is a very tragic life story in itself coming out to the light of day, allowing Vincent van Gogh art lovers the full understanding of quite a few of Vincent's statements in his letters about this particular happening in his life. There were many statements made about this painting in many letters, and were made in reference to this family that Vincent was friends with, while using them as models for little pay, and while sharing their family table as in this painting. Accusation about their pregnant daughter did not disrupt their friendship. This only got Vincent thrown out of his studio by his landlord, the owner of his studio and of the Catholic Church where one of their own decans was the real culpret of Vincent's supposed ducelina.
His letters also reveal his struggle with perspective, which he wrote seemed to him like "downright witchcraft or coincidence". By dividing his canvas with wires pinned across it, he was able to draw and paint "at lightning speed".
Yep,... his struggles with perspectives really slowed him down, I guess with witchcraft and what ever else they come up with, but was still able to work in lightning speeds. The biggest problem he had with his massive productions was in the drying process of his works of art. He had a tendency to stack them before they were completely dried.
Even at the very end of his life his letters reveal a man apparently more preoccupied with his craft than his personal and mental demons. Days before his death, he wrote to Theo: "(I am) applying myself to my canvases with all my attention."
Now with this statement above about applying himself to his canvases does have a tendency to make me believe he was talking in parables to his brother,... especially since I myself know more about this artist than any of these supposed MFA experts. Please do not mistake what I say and put me in the same category as these MFA experts of the VvG foundation! So you see, that leaves according to these supposed MFA experts a lot of room to bring back these thoughts of his personal and mental demons for more discussion.
In the last 70 days of his life, according to the Royal Academy, the artist painted more than 70 canvases, many of them among his most assured works. And that was despite a fear that his art had not progressed as he would have wished.
Hey,... haven't we already been versed and rehearsed on Vincent's lightning speed,.... so,... what the F-n-Hell did he do with the rest of his day,... go find miss Gatchet,... or contemplate on who he would do tomorrow?
The unfinished letter which Van Gogh had on his person at the time of his suicide in 1890 is also on display with a note scrawled in pencil by Theo that said "the letter he had on him on July 27, that horrible day."
Now,... here comes the biggest laugh of all,.... what a lie this really is and was, to put this so-called pencil writing above this partial draft of a previous letter which was already sent to Theo a couple of weeks earlier, and not to exclude this thought of possibly that peasant gal Johanna vG Bonger, Theo's wife, for maybe of herself writing it there. This does make sence since she was the one incharge of deciphering and translating his letters from French to English. The real letter that was found in his vest pocket I would guess was read at his funeral and written down later in a book on Vincent's biography called "Vincent" by Jules Meier Graefe. It wasn't all that hard for me to figure out what he meant when being able to see as Vincent was able to, and by reading these writings after finding the original work of art that the supposed letter was referring to.
Here we go on this parable thing again, for Vincent thought and believed that he was just drawing or painting, something in the metamorphosis,... which he was, and was warning his brother Theo. This was supposed to be only for his eyes, just incase he was able to see what it was Vincent was saying to him in this last letter. Unfortunately, Theo, the art dealer, was not able to see in which one of his painting or works of art he was talking about. The painting that Vincent had just painted on paper understandably escaped what his last letter meant and said about it. TFB I'm going to make this letter mean something to everyone of you reading this, for I'm going to make it a little more understandable than what Vincent did for his brother Theo, and that is by showing you the painting he had just painted connecting to this letter last letter.
Click link below to read the last letter and see Vincent Last painting http://vanrijngo.bravejournal.com/entry/14908
Theo, my brother, my art dealer, my whole life,.... I would like to warn you for It would be good for you to know the truth before it's to late. Say I was just painting, a tree or a plant or something, but instead, I painted something jagged, something in the metamorphosis, something that hurt and stings you, something people find very irritating and what people stumble over. If by chance it was ever to be deciphered, more than likely the reverse,... it wouldn't be, just tell them it's a woman or something. It would be better not offending your colleagues and against the present art establishment, rather than helping artists in the dim and distant future. No doubt the future may be very great, but as we know, not one has been there yet.
Anyway Theo might have wanted to destroy this painting before it able to be deciphered, but that did not happen,.... if only he had known which one he was talking about. As most can imagine and some see that he did or his wife Johanna did try to confuse the art world about this supposed last letter that really hasn't been mentioned all that much in this MFA world and believe it or not,... it pretty much describes his last painting on paper glued down on cardboard to a tee.
British critics have praised the show, particularly for focusing on Van Gogh and his art rather than his mental illness, self-mutilation and violent death. "The genius of this show is that the artist himself tells us in his own words to look again and see what is really there, not what our imaginations have added to it," wrote the Daily Telegraph's Richard Dorment.
Who the hell are these Brit Crits trying to fool now? I'd say the writer of this article needs to meet someone who has a name close to his last name,... and gogh lay down,... if he thinks its all about praise instead of mental illness, self-mutilation and uncalled for death this time.
Cheer up my art loving friend, for it will all be pretty much over for the MFA experts in the near future, like the blink of an eye of the blind men, if you can catch the drift.
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/vangogh/exhibition/
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/vangogh/
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStoryPrinter=15515
Bob Miller---vanrijngo
non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights. This includes the right to live free from unnecessary suffering and exploitation. --------------------
The Rembrandt Research Project is supposedly an interdisciplinary collaboration by a group of Dutch art historians to produce a comprehensive catalog of Rembrandt’s supposed paintings. What a farce! Its initial aim was to supposedly free Rembrandt’s oeuvre of attributions they believed to be false, and what were their own thoughts as to what painted images have harmed the image of Rembrandt as a painter. The only harm that was ever done to Rembrandt was by these blind donkey ears Dutch experts and Historians with blinders on so they cannot see or read. I'd say just as Rembrandt had drew these Dutch MFA people who represented themselves as experts in this world of fine art in Amsterdam,... in this lovely little drawing.
Supposedly over all this time, these Dutch art Historian and MFA experts of this Research Project interdisciplinary committees aims had broadened. As it had became clear to them that other research, other than their own, was also being done by other experts in their own fields, to help protect other previous investments of prior investors and ones owning these Rembrandts. This action had actually sped up the projects determinations and decisions as they continued their march right on through Rembrandt's oeuvre. They continued with their condemning of his important works of art, and at the same time was bringing more insight to his real style and techniques by condemning a lot of known works thought for years to be Rembrandts. The Questioning by the art public and museum curators did not slow down these MFA experts which had supposedly used their knowledge and expertise of Rembrandt to make their own mark upon this art world of supposed fine art. This was not enough to curb this project teem and what they had set out to accomplish by taking away this artist's works of art as so many before them would like to have done.
This world of art professionals today would like to control how Rembrandts are looked at, while trying to convince all the viewers that his works of art had many different meanings and aspects meant for the viewers, and how each viewer is supposed to perceive different meanings when looking at them. Well, they are not far from the truth when talking about the MFA experts themselves,... how they all see things differently, and have such difficulties in determining who the true artists might have been,... nothing really gets authenticated, other than impeccable provenance ones with their big bold signatures. Who the hell were these MFA people, and what were their main influences concerning art that Rembrandt and Vincent had such a hard time getting along with and didn't really care all that much for what they thought?
It is said the first phase of this great art project, during which time their team members supposedly examined almost all the relevant paintings lasting from 1968 to 1973. In this amount of time, I'd guess not really all that much was determined about his real style and techniques, although in 1982, 1986, and 1989, three different volumes, one for each date of a projected five-volume publication were published. The number of paintings said to being accepted as authentic works by Rembrandt was supposedly far smaller than what Gerson had presumed were real in 1968 as 420. The whole oeuvre was seen as approximately 300 rather than 420, although the RRP team accepted some Gerson which had been rejected earlier by him. In volume 4 published in 2005, a number of years later on his self-portraits detailed analysis of style and quality of certain—long-doubted—self-portraits, said formerly attributed to Rembrandt, it is said they produced very strong evidence that a number of Rembrandt self-portraits were in fact produced by his art students.
The knowledge thus gained indirectly placed the quest for authenticity in a wider context and contributed to the development of more-objective criteria for or against the attribution of a painting to Rembrandt. It is very unlikely that further volumes of these kind will appear after taking this long to produce something which will be considered in the future so very unproductive by other so-called MFA experts and historians.
The primary aim in these 41 years of bulshit it has taken them is to address explicitly these utterly methodological questions which has been raised by the work in volumes 1 to 3. Now they want to try and address broader art-historical and technical questions that they failed to answer earlier which would have help to determine the true authenticity of Rembrandt's works of art. It is anticipated by myself that these supposed insights about supposed authenticity accrued through the work of the RRP that were not included in the volumes 1 to 3 & 4,.... will be published in an appendix to volume 5 when hell freezes over.
vanrijngo
bravenet.com