This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/arts/design/new-van-gogh-painting-discovered-in-amsterdam.html
The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 7 | Version 8 |
|---|---|
| Museum Identifies New Van Gogh Painting in Amsterdam | Museum Identifies New Van Gogh Painting in Amsterdam |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| AMSTERDAM — The Van Gogh Museum here announced Monday that it has identified a major new painting by Vincent Van Gogh. The work, entitled “Sunset at Montmajour,” was painted in Arles in 1888, a period that is considered to be the height of the painter’s career. | |
| “For the first time in the history of the museum, that is in the past 40 years, a substantial capital new work of van Gogh has been discovered that was completely unknown in the literature,” said the museum’s director, Axel Rüger, in an interview. “We always think we’ve seen everything and we know everything, and now we’re able to add a significant new work to his oeuvre.” He added, “It is a work from the most important period of his life, when he created his substantial masterpieces, like ‘The Sunflowers,’ ‘The Yellow House’ and ‘The Bedroom.'” | “For the first time in the history of the museum, that is in the past 40 years, a substantial capital new work of van Gogh has been discovered that was completely unknown in the literature,” said the museum’s director, Axel Rüger, in an interview. “We always think we’ve seen everything and we know everything, and now we’re able to add a significant new work to his oeuvre.” He added, “It is a work from the most important period of his life, when he created his substantial masterpieces, like ‘The Sunflowers,’ ‘The Yellow House’ and ‘The Bedroom.'” |
| The painting depicts dusk in the hilly landscape of Montmajour, in Provence, with wheat fields and the ruins of a Benedictine Abbey in the background. The area around Montmajour was a subject that van Gogh explored repeatedly during his time in Arles. | The painting depicts dusk in the hilly landscape of Montmajour, in Provence, with wheat fields and the ruins of a Benedictine Abbey in the background. The area around Montmajour was a subject that van Gogh explored repeatedly during his time in Arles. |
| The Van Gogh Museum said that a major discovery of a painting of this size hasn’t happened since 1928. | The Van Gogh Museum said that a major discovery of a painting of this size hasn’t happened since 1928. |
| “One or two early van Goghs do sometimes come out of the woodwork now and again, but from the mature period it’s very rare,” said James Roundell, an art dealer and the director of modern pictures for the Dickinson Galleries in London and New York, one of the world’s leading Impressionist and modern galleries. “It’s an incredibly exciting moment and very exciting for the van Gogh to have something presented to it that turns out to be a missing van Gogh,” he added. | “One or two early van Goghs do sometimes come out of the woodwork now and again, but from the mature period it’s very rare,” said James Roundell, an art dealer and the director of modern pictures for the Dickinson Galleries in London and New York, one of the world’s leading Impressionist and modern galleries. “It’s an incredibly exciting moment and very exciting for the van Gogh to have something presented to it that turns out to be a missing van Gogh,” he added. |
| Mr. Roundell, who deals in museum-quality artworks from the 19th century, said it would be hard to predict precisely how much this work would fetch on the market. “You’re going to be talking in the upper ranges, in the tens of millions and quite a few of them,” he said. “It’s not the iconic status of something like the ‘Sunflowers’ or the ‘Portrait of Dr. Gachet,' ” which sold at auction for $82.5 million in 1990. “This is an interesting landscape by van Gogh and landscapes do come up so you’re probably starting at $10 million and working up to 30, 40, or 50 million, but where this lies in that register it’ll be hard to say.” | |
| Fred Leeman, a former chief curator of the Van Gogh Museum and now an independent art historian and Van Gogh scholar based in Amsterdam, said he believed the work is “100 percent genuine.” | |
| He added, “There are, in hindsight, many pointers in his letters and entries in catalogues of the 1900s that have been linked to other paintings or misidentified.” Mr. Leeman said, “Here, we see a painting that fits those descriptions exactly. And what also contributes to the proof is the advances in research that have been done with the pigments, and the new evidence is completely in harmony with what we expect from this painting.” | |
| Mr. Leeman said the work also contributes to an alternative to our understanding of the artist. “We have the impression of van Gogh as a very modern painter, but here he’s working in the tradition of 19th century landscape painting,” he said. | Mr. Leeman said the work also contributes to an alternative to our understanding of the artist. “We have the impression of van Gogh as a very modern painter, but here he’s working in the tradition of 19th century landscape painting,” he said. |
| The painting has been in the private collection of a family for several years and Mr. Rüger said that because of privacy concerns, he couldn’t release any more information about the owners. | The painting has been in the private collection of a family for several years and Mr. Rüger said that because of privacy concerns, he couldn’t release any more information about the owners. |
| Until 1901, it was in the family collection once owned by Vincent’s brother, Theo, said Marije Vellekoop, the head of collections, research and presentation for the museum. His widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger managed that collection, and sold it to a Paris art dealer. In 1908, the art dealer sold it to a Norwegian collector, Ms. Vellekoop said. Shortly after that, Ms. Vellekoop added, “it was declared a fake, or not an original” and the Norwegian collector banished it to his attic, where it stayed until the current owners purchased it from him. Ms. Vellekoop declined to give any more information about the date of purchase or the owners. | Until 1901, it was in the family collection once owned by Vincent’s brother, Theo, said Marije Vellekoop, the head of collections, research and presentation for the museum. His widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger managed that collection, and sold it to a Paris art dealer. In 1908, the art dealer sold it to a Norwegian collector, Ms. Vellekoop said. Shortly after that, Ms. Vellekoop added, “it was declared a fake, or not an original” and the Norwegian collector banished it to his attic, where it stayed until the current owners purchased it from him. Ms. Vellekoop declined to give any more information about the date of purchase or the owners. |
| Two years ago, the current owner brought it to the Van Gogh Museum to seek authentication, and researchers from the museum have been examining it ever since, said Mr. Rüger. The museum recently concluded that the work was a genuine van Gogh painting because the pigments correspond with those of van Gogh’s palette from Arles. | Two years ago, the current owner brought it to the Van Gogh Museum to seek authentication, and researchers from the museum have been examining it ever since, said Mr. Rüger. The museum recently concluded that the work was a genuine van Gogh painting because the pigments correspond with those of van Gogh’s palette from Arles. |
| Louis van Tilborgh, the Van Gogh Museum’s senior researcher, who worked on the painting for the last two years, said that since 1991 the museum has developed a number of new techniques for identifying and authenticating works of art. He said that all those methods were put to use when they had the chance to look at this painting again. | Louis van Tilborgh, the Van Gogh Museum’s senior researcher, who worked on the painting for the last two years, said that since 1991 the museum has developed a number of new techniques for identifying and authenticating works of art. He said that all those methods were put to use when they had the chance to look at this painting again. |
| According to Mr. van Tilborgh, it was painted on the same type of canvas, with the same type of underpainting van Gogh used for at least one other painting, “The Rocks” (owned by the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston) of the same area at the same time. The work was also listed as part of Theo van Gogh’s collection in 1890, with the number “180” on the back, which corresponds to the number in the collection inventory. | According to Mr. van Tilborgh, it was painted on the same type of canvas, with the same type of underpainting van Gogh used for at least one other painting, “The Rocks” (owned by the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston) of the same area at the same time. The work was also listed as part of Theo van Gogh’s collection in 1890, with the number “180” on the back, which corresponds to the number in the collection inventory. |
| “We were able to reconstruct everything you can find out about it,” said Mr. van Tilborgh. “We know what it depicts, we know the history, we have a full quote in the letter about it. And the research and technical investigation shows that it’s on a canvas that he painted a week after the letter.” | “We were able to reconstruct everything you can find out about it,” said Mr. van Tilborgh. “We know what it depicts, we know the history, we have a full quote in the letter about it. And the research and technical investigation shows that it’s on a canvas that he painted a week after the letter.” |
| The date of the painting has been identified as July 4, 1888. A letter van Gogh wrote the next day says, “Yesterday, at sunset, I was on a stony heath where very small, twisted oaks grow, in the background a ruin on the hill, and wheat fields in the valley. It was romantic, it couldn’t be more so, à la Monticello, the sun was pouring its very yellow rays over the bushes and the ground, absolutely a shower of gold. And all the lines were beautiful; the whole scene had charming nobility.” | The date of the painting has been identified as July 4, 1888. A letter van Gogh wrote the next day says, “Yesterday, at sunset, I was on a stony heath where very small, twisted oaks grow, in the background a ruin on the hill, and wheat fields in the valley. It was romantic, it couldn’t be more so, à la Monticello, the sun was pouring its very yellow rays over the bushes and the ground, absolutely a shower of gold. And all the lines were beautiful; the whole scene had charming nobility.” |
| “Sunset at Montmajour” is comparable in size to van Gogh’s “Sunflower” painting of the same year. His “Sunflowers,” painted in the same year, sold for $39.9 million in 1987 at an auction at Christie’s London. | “Sunset at Montmajour” is comparable in size to van Gogh’s “Sunflower” painting of the same year. His “Sunflowers,” painted in the same year, sold for $39.9 million in 1987 at an auction at Christie’s London. |
| The owners brought it to the museum once before in 1991, said Mr. Rüger, but at the time no one recognized it as a van Gogh. “This time, we have topographical information plus a number of other factors that have helped us to establish authenticity. Research is so much more advanced now, so we could come to a very different conclusion.” | The owners brought it to the museum once before in 1991, said Mr. Rüger, but at the time no one recognized it as a van Gogh. “This time, we have topographical information plus a number of other factors that have helped us to establish authenticity. Research is so much more advanced now, so we could come to a very different conclusion.” |
| Van Gogh moved to Arles in February 1888 and spent time exploring the landscapes in Provence, and doing work “en plein air,” or in nature. He was particularly fascinated by the flat landscape around the hill of Montmajour with its rocky outcroppings and hay-colored fields and made several drawings of the ruins of the monastery, the olive trees and the rocks jutting out of the hills. In a letter dated July 1888, he said that he’d been to Montmajour at least 50 times “to see the view over the plain.” | Van Gogh moved to Arles in February 1888 and spent time exploring the landscapes in Provence, and doing work “en plein air,” or in nature. He was particularly fascinated by the flat landscape around the hill of Montmajour with its rocky outcroppings and hay-colored fields and made several drawings of the ruins of the monastery, the olive trees and the rocks jutting out of the hills. In a letter dated July 1888, he said that he’d been to Montmajour at least 50 times “to see the view over the plain.” |
| Describing the area to his friend, fellow artist Émile Bernard, he wrote: “It’s an enormous stretch of flat country, a bird’s eye view of it seen from the top of a hill – vineyards and fields of newly reaped wheat. All this multiplied in endless repetition, stretching away towards the horizon like the surface of a sea, bordered by the little hills of the Crau.” Another known painting of the landscape is “Harvest at La Crau – with Montmajour in the Background,” also of 1888. | Describing the area to his friend, fellow artist Émile Bernard, he wrote: “It’s an enormous stretch of flat country, a bird’s eye view of it seen from the top of a hill – vineyards and fields of newly reaped wheat. All this multiplied in endless repetition, stretching away towards the horizon like the surface of a sea, bordered by the little hills of the Crau.” Another known painting of the landscape is “Harvest at La Crau – with Montmajour in the Background,” also of 1888. |
| The painting will be on view in Amsterdam starting on Sept. 24, as part of the current exhibition, “Van Gogh at Work,” which focuses on other new discoveries about the painter’s artistic development. | The painting will be on view in Amsterdam starting on Sept. 24, as part of the current exhibition, “Van Gogh at Work,” which focuses on other new discoveries about the painter’s artistic development. |