I was interested today to read Julian Bell’s review of the Van Gogh exhibition at the Tate Gallery, in the current London Review of Books. (This is especially the case in view of our visit earlier in the year to Amsterdam, and the exhibitions of his work there.) Bell makes a number of interesting points that have really made me sit up and reflect not only on how I might think about Vincent, but how I ought to approach the history of art more generally. Bell places him very squarely in the context of his own reading and experience.
Because we often concentrate our attention on his work, and especially his later work, it is possible to overlook the fact that Van Gogh spent his earlier life in pursuit of two alternative occupations, as an evangelist and as an art dealer. In this period he actually lived for some time in England, and evidently must have spoken English fluently. It appears that he was very fond of the work of George Eliot and of Charles Dickens, and of the romantic poets. Also, in the realm of painting, he had an admiration for the work of several of his British contemporaries whose work has now disappeared from view …. Bell cites William Small, Frank Holl and George Boughton, none of whom secures a mention in my art reference books. Although Puvis de Chavannes still secures a mention in the histories of art he doesn’t attract the respect accorded to him by Van Gogh. The case being argued here is that if we hope to understand his painting we really ought to look at at through the lens afforded by his own artistic context.
This approach is, of course, in sharp contrast with the approach implied in the exhibition I visited in Amsterdam, which, by drawing attention to the similarities in the concerns and values of Van Gogh and David Hockney, depicts them as engaged in some kind of shared artistic endeavour that transcends the local and temporal context of either of them. They are, in effect, viewed as if they were contemporaries. Contextual consideration would seem to be irrelevant to an understanding of their common endeavour, or an appreciation of their achievements.
I got a great deal out of the Amsterdam visit, as regular readers of the blog will have realised. Nevertheless, I welcome the corrective reminder that any painter works within a specific context, and it can be immensely valuable to consider that in approaching the work. Failing to do this can result in a very one-sided appreciation of that person’s artistic project and its significance.