upworthy

art

By Vincent van Gogh - Google Arts & Culture — mwF3N6F_RfJ4_w, Public Domain, LMI Group

The owner of a painting found at a garage sale is convinced it's a van Gogh.

Van Gogh...ever heard of him? Cut off his own ear, painted a self-portrait with a bandage wrapped around his head, one of the most well-known painting masters of all time. Ring a bell?

He was born and lived in the late 1800s. Starry Night, arguably his most famous work and one of the most famous paintings of all time, was completed in 1889, just one year before he died. And though Van Gogh was incredibly prolific, creating well over 1,000 known works, there's something tragic about his art being finite. There will never be another van Gogh, and he will never have the opportunity to put brush to canvas again and give us more of his incredible work to admire, discuss, and debate.

Or...will he?

A painting discovered at a Minnesota garage sale and purchased for less than $50, is dividing the art community. The new owners are convinced it's an original, long lost van Gogh.

 vincent van gogh, van gogh, art, artists, painting, fine art, starry night, master painters, art history, museums Are there still undiscovered van Goghs out there?  Giphy  

An undisclosed buyer snagged the painting from the garage sale—imagine that!—several years ago and found similarities to the styles of Vincent van Gogh. The painting appears to show a fisherman standing by the sea with the letters "ELIMAR" scrawled in the corner. This person submitted a claim with the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in 2019, considered the absolute authority on the artist, which was quickly denied.

But the story didn't end there. The original buyer sold the painting of the fisherman to a New York company called LMI Group, who were convinced they had an authentic van Gogh on their hands. They set out to prove it with no expense spared.

After years of meticulous research and scientific evaluation, LMI Group released a more-than-400-page report outlining all the findings. In the estimation of their experts, Elimar was without a doubt, painted by van Gogh. Here's why:

  • An egg-white finish was found on the painting, a technique van Gogh was known to use in order to preserve his works when rolling the canvasses.
  • They believe "Elimar" is the name of the painting, and handwriting analysis matches the lettering to other samples from Van Gogh. "A precise mathematical comparison of the letters 'E L I M A R' to the block and free-form letters found in other autograph works by van Gogh, yielded significant similarities in the letters’ characteristics, including stroke length, counter, angle, stroke width, and bounding size," the press release reads.
  • The framing and pose of the subject mirrors van Gogh's later self-portraits.
  • The materials used are confirmed to match the time period in which van Gogh was actively painting.
  • Perhaps most fascinatingly, embedded right there into the painting was a human hair. "Methodical DNA analysis verified that the hair belonged to a human male, with the investigating scientists observing that the hair appeared to be red in color," according to the report.

If Elimar were truly a van Gogh, it would make the piece potentially worth over $15 million.

 vincent van gogh, van gogh, art, artists, painting, fine art, starry night, master painters, art history, museums The painting, "Elimar", was found at a garage sale in Minnesota several years ago.LMI Group

For all the rigorous scientific evidence outlined in the report, the art community collectively disagrees: They say there's no way the Elimar piece was done by van Gogh.

The Van Gogh Museum even officially rejected the attribution recently, casting massive doubts on the attribution to the Dutch master.

But how can people be so dismissive of all the rigorous evidence, all the forensics, materials dating, and even DNA analysis of the hair?! Easy: Elimar just doesn't look or feel right.

Lindsey Bourret, director of Signature Art Authentication put it perfectly: “One of the defining features of van Gogh’s paintings is the precision within his expressive brushwork—his strokes may be bold, but they are purposeful, creating movement and depth that feel both instinctive and masterful. Elimar, by contrast, lacks that balance...While scientific analysis can date materials, it cannot account for an artist’s touch—and in this case, the stylistic weaknesses strongly suggest that this is not a van Gogh.”

There's also common sense at play. Van Gogh was not typically known to sign most of his paintings or write titles on them. So writing "ELIMAR" in the corner would be very out of character for him to do. Far more likely, experts say, is that the painting belongs to Danish painter Henning Elimar. When you see another example of Henning Elimar's work, well, the case is pretty damning.

 

I think there's a part of all of us that really wants Elimar to be a van Gogh. How amazing is it to think that we could still discover new work by one of the greatest artists of all time?

What if there were new inventions and drawings from Leonardo da Vinci still out there, waiting for us to find them? Or a previously unread play written by William Shakespeare?

Sadly, there's a lot of money at stake in potential discoveries like this. Van Gogh is one of the most frequently forged artists because, if you were to convince the world that you had a van Gogh, it would be worth millions of dollars. Though Elimar is not a case of outright forgery, it's certainly possible that the potential riches and excitement have made experts squint a little too hard to try to make the case.

That's not to say Elimar still doesn't have its believers. Susan Brantly, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, helped work on the LMI report and remains convinced. “The first time you look at it, you could say: ‘What? That’s not a Van Gogh. Everybody knows what a Van Gogh looks like,’” Brantly said. But deep research of van Gogh's letters, life, and artistic style convinced her otherwise.

Elimar aside, new works by van Gogh and other masters are out there. In 2013, a painting called Sunset at Montmajour was authenticated. Before that, a new one was added to the collection in 1928. These events are rare and should be highly appreciated. In the meantime, it's OK to continue holding out hope for the next big discovery.

via Public Domain

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.


 mona lisa, leonardo da vinci, classic paintings, famous smiles, art "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

 old photos, black and white photos, algerian immigrant, turban,  Algerian immigrant to the United States. Photographed on Ellis Island by Augustus F. Sherman.via William Williams/Wikimedia Commons

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

 drunks, classic painting, owls, malle babbe, paintings "Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain


In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Another reason why people didn't smile in old photos is that dental hygiene wasn't the same as it is today, and people may have been self-conscious about their teeth. “People had lousy teeth, if they had teeth at all, which militated against opening your mouth in social settings,” Angus Trumble, the director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia, and author of A Brief History of the Smile, said, according to Time.


 

 wedding party photo, wedding, old weddings, black and white, serious photos, no smiles Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons


Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

This article originally appeared last year.

Unsplash & bruncvik/reddit

Joseph, a dad from Dublin, Ireland says he started drawing and painting in the evenings about a year ago to help him unwind from work. It's a great idea, because adult coloring has been shown to have a ton of positive mental health effects. Plus, it's fun! But one unintended and adorable side effect of Joseph's coloring was that his young son, Philip, decided he wanted to emulate him.

Philip had always loved coloring but, Joseph says, "I had to get him some pastels, and he started trying on the same drawings as I did," Joseph says. "I found it absolutely adorable when he was seriously repeating the same movements as me: cleaning the tips of the pastels, blend the edges of colors, etc."

One thing quickly became apparent: Philip was much, much better than his old man.

"About a month ago, he made a painting that was so good I had to share it on Reddit. Within two days, it generated over 100,000 views and 3000 likes."

The overwhelming response? "Uh, 5-year-olds can't do that."

bruncvik/reddit

The first piece Philip shared is wildly impressive. Some commenters couldn't believe that a 5-year-old could have made it, but I think you can see it pretty clearly. It has just enough childlike crudeness, but the stylistic flair is just off the charts, from the whispy sky to the slightly foreboding trees. Redditors agreed that it was incredible.

"Thats better than I can do now at 25," one Reddit user wrote.

Others questioned whether the boy might be related to Bob Ross.

"I told [Philip] about it, and I guess that was his first big dopamine hit," Joseph says of going viral. "Since then, he is asking to draw more often, and there's often an intrinsic reward for him. One painting got submitted to a charity auction at his school ... I don't pressure him to draw; he's coming to me to ask whether he can use my pastels"

One critical part of the story is that Philip often follows along with YouTube videos that his dad finds for him. Lest you think this should diminish how impressive the painting is, quite the contrary. As someone with an almost-5-year-old of my own, I've seen the kind of stuff kids this age are capable of drawing — and it's not this! No matter how much instruction they have.

The structured YouTube videos were able to unlock Philip's natural talent and guide him in a way that his dad never could.

Here's the finished painting he was following along with. Honestly? I like Philip's better! It has a lot more personality.

She'z ART/YouTube

The response to Philip's first painting was so positive that his dad decided to post another piece.

You gotta give the people what they want!

I love this one, too. The youngster's talent is on display again, with an excellent color palette and aggressive strokes giving it life. Remember — the kid is five years old! Five! Usually they can barely muster a convincing stick figure.

bruncvik/reddit

And again, here's the model painting from YouTube. Joseph said his own versions of these paint-alongs come out looking a lot like the example, but that his son has an incredible way of making them his own.

She'z ART/YouTube

Philip's dad gives a lot of thought to the right way to nurture his son's talent without pushing too hard and snuffing it out.

"He attended an afterschool art club, where they experimented with different media, but he found it too restrictive. He is still bringing home new art at least twice per week, but it's something he does on his own," dad says, not sure if pushing his son into formal art instruction is the right thing to do.

Experts say that pushing too hard when your kid shows a flair for something, especially regarding longterm goals (like going to art school or becoming a professional artist one day), can backfire big time and make them feel overwhelmed and resentful.

Joseph finds other ways to encourage his son's interest.

"One thing I do with him, though, is to talk about painting when we are out and about. Last weekend, we went to watch the sunset, and I asked him what colors he'd use for the clouds. ... Philip is just as obsessed with different shades (his current favorite word is 'vermilion' and his favorite color is 'turquoise'), and how they mix."

Being the parent of a talented or gifted kid is no easy job. There are a lot of pitfalls and plenty of ways to bungle your attempts to nurture that talent. As impressive as Philip's artwork is, especially for his age, the thoughtful parenting on display in this story is just as awesome.

This article originally appeared in January.

Van Gogh's Starry Night, 1889.

Vincent van Gogh never got to enjoy his own historic success as an artist (even though we've been able to imagine what that moment might have looked like). Van Gogh died in 1890 at the age of 37 in Auvers-sur-Oise, France after shooting himself in the chest with a revolver. It was a tragic end to a turbulent life marked by mental instability and severe self-doubt.

According to the Van Gogh Museum, in a letter to his brother Theo in 1890, just a couple of weeks before his death, Van Gogh wrote, "...my life, is attacked at the very root, my step also is faltering." The man was struggling and exhausted. The high standards he had set for himself and his art were taking a toll. He was unsure about his future and, up to this point, had not received much recognition for his work and thought himself a failure "as a man and as an artist."

His most well-known work, Starry Night, was famously painted while Van Gogh was staying in an asylum in France 1889 after he mutilated his ear during a psychotic episode. According to the Van Gogh Museum, though, this may not be the full story. While it is widely agreed that Van Gogh did in fact cut off his own ear, the museum notes that it was because of a fight between Van Gogh and Paul Gaugin, the artist he had been working for in Aries, that led to the violent explosion that highlighted his deteriorating mental state.

Vincent Van Gogh, artist, 19th century, famous artist, Starry NightVincent Van Gogh's Self-Portrait, 1889Image via Canva.

As one of the best known and most studied artists of the 19th century, Van Gogh's madness and how it influenced his work is not new information. But it turns out that those of us who have appreciated his work have been missing out on some critical details for more than 100 years—revealed in the 2010s thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope.

A video at the bottom of the page will explain everything, but before we get there, let's do some backstory:

We known Van Gogh was an artist—and a genius artist at that—but, it turns out, he was also scientist. Kind of.

Whether intentionally or not, fresh eyes have found that Van Gogh's art—aside from being breathtaking—also captures one of science and nature's most elusive concepts: Turbulence.

The concept of turbulence is hard to understand with math, but it turns out art makes it fairly easy to comprehend through depiction. So, what is turbulence?

According to Britannica, turbulence, or turbulent flow, is a concept of fluid dynamics in which a type of fluid flow (liquid or gas like air or water or air) undergoes an irregular fluctuation or energy cascade. In other words, the air or water swirls and eddies as it moves: big eddies make smaller eddies, and those make even smaller ones, and so on. Common examples of turbulent flow include blood flow in arteries, lava flow, atmosphere and ocean currents, and the flow in boat wakes or surrounding the tips of aircraft wings.

It looks like this:

figures, flow, turbulence, turbulent flow, science, movementTurbulent flow illustrated and animated.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The thing is, scientists only started figuring this out pretty recently.

turbulence, turbulent flow, science, nature, researchAnimation of art referencing science.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

And yet, there was Mr. Vincent van Gogh, 100 years earlier in his asylum with a mutilated ear and able to accurately capture this turbulent flow in what would become his most famous work, Starry Night.

Starry Night, Van Gogh, turbulence, art, art captures scienceAnimated Starry NightAll Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

The folks who noticed Van Gogh's ability to capture turbulence checked to see whether other artists did the same. Most of the Impressionists achieved "luminance" with their art—a striking and lifelike depiction of light's effect on color. While impressive, they did not capture or depict turbulence the way Van Gogh did.

The Scream, Edvard Munch, art, popular art, history, painting An animated depiction of The Scream.All Van Gogh GIFs via TED-Ed.

Not even Edvard Munch's The Scream, with it's swirling color and movement, could recreate what Van Gogh had accomplished.

Even in his darkest time, Van Gogh was able to capture—with eerie accuracy—one of nature's most complex and confusing concepts 100 years before scientists had the technology to do so.

Who would have thought that the beauty Van Gogh captured was foreshadowing what scientists would observe in the real, natural world in a century's time? To learn even more, watch the TED-Ed video below:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

This article originally appeared twelve years ago. It has been updated.