I find the whole issue of the photographs taken of Vincent van Gogh himself to be quite interesting. I'd like to open this up for a discussion.

In my own mind, I break up the photographs of Vincent into three categories:

• accepted
• unimportant
• open to debate

I'll now explore each of these categories . . . . .

Accepted

1 Vincent van Gogh Age 13

2 Vincent van Gogh Age 18

The above two photographs are the two best portraits of Vincent van Gogh available. There is absolutely no question as to their authenticity.

Unimportant

3 Vincent van Gogh c. 1877 This rare photograph was discovered in 1990, the centenary of Vincent's death. Vincent is seen in top hat.

4 Vincent van Gogh c. 1886 Vincent, seen from the back, is shown here with painter Émile Bernard in Paris.

I'm probably too harsh in calling these photographs "unimportant", but that's just my own humble opinion (and that's what these forum pages are all about--to express different opinions). The first photograph of Vincent in top hat is interesting, but there are some who question if it's really, in fact, Vincent van Gogh. Personally, the photo leaves me a bit cold. Vincent in a top hat and tails? I'm sure that there were times he may have dressed in such a manner, but my Vincent is more believable in a straw hat and paint spattered clothing.

The second photo, while definitely authentic, is the least interesting of these first four. Vincent is just a dark outline, a rough shape in this photograph. Again, in my own opinion, this photograph teaches us nothing.

Open to Debate

5 Vincent van Gogh As suggested by Bernard Denvir in his book Vincent: A Complete Portrait (p. 6).

6 Cornelis van Gogh Age 18 As confirmed in one of the definitive Van Gogh biographies Vincent Van Gogh by Marc Edo Tralbaut (p. 24). Photograph in the collection of Pastor J.P. Scholte-van Houten, Lochem.

In his book Vincent: A Complete Portrait Bernard Denvir claims that photo #5 is the "most recently discovered portrait photograph of Vincent van Gogh, found in the collection of his cousin, Anton Mauve. Research suggests it was taken when Vincent was working in Goupil's in The Hague, so he would have been between sixteen and twenty years of age."

Mr. Denvir raises an interesting issue with this "recently discovered" photograph of Vincent. At the same time, I feel him to be completely mistaken. I base my opinion on two fronts:

• Compare photograph #5 with photograph #2 shown above. The subject of both photographs is around the same age, approximately 17-20 years old. Yet do they appear to be the same person? No--the features are distinctly different.

• Having established this, now compare photographs #5 and #6. Clearly this is the same person. Marc Edo Tralbaut identifies the subject of photograph #6 as Vincent's brother, Cor. One could, of course, argue that it's just Denvir's word against Tralbaut's, but there are two points in Tralbaut's favour--one: he's the more respected and established Van Gogh scholar; and two: Tralbaut's book includes a preface by the late Vincent Willem van Gogh--Vincent's nephew and long time President of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation. Wouldn't this Vincent van Gogh be one of the best authorities as to the authenticity of a photograph of his own Uncle Cor?

  In addition, the Tralbaut biography isn't the only reference to identify the subject of photograph #6 as Cor. The Sweetman biography and a number of others do as well.

It's clear that the subject shown in photographs #5 and 6 is a member of the Van Gogh family. Compare this photo to those taken of Theo and you'll note the same distinctive Van Gogh eyes and ears. But, no, the person in photo #5 is without question, Cornelis van Gogh, and not Vincent.

Update: January, 2000: I've decided to leave the commentary above regarding photographs #5 and #6 to illustrate the ongoing theories about these two photographs. In a recent book devoted to Theo van Gogh, the Van Gogh Museum has declared that photo #6 is actually of Theo and not Cor. In comparing other photographs of Cor, I have to say that I concur with their conclusions. Photo #5 is clearly the same person and is also, therefore, Theo.

7 Vincent van Gogh Age 13 or 14

Even as I dismiss Bernard Denvir's "research" in the case of photograph #5 above, I now call attention to photograph #7 which Denvir also includes in his book (p. 17). Denvir describes the photo: "Vincent in a class phtograph age thirteen or fourteen, at school in Tilburg in 1867 (courtesy of the King Willem II School, Tilburg)".

In all of my studies on Vincent van Gogh, I had never seen this photograph before. And just as photo #4 above, while probably authentic, leaves me cold, there's something about the final photograph shown here that I find intriguing. The features are clearly similar to those of Vincent shown in photo #1. But there's also something about the posture of the subject that has a ring of truth to it (compare to Lucien Pissarro's drawing Vincent in Conversation with Félix Fénéon). Beyond Denvir's word, I have no other confirmation one way or the other as to the authenticity of this photograph, but I feel that there's a strong likelihood that this recent discovery is, in fact, genuine.

I would very much welcome anyone with an opinion to drop me an e-mail. Do you disagree with me or have some additional insights to share? I welcome any and all submissions.

Return to Van Gogh Online Forum page

Return to main Van Gogh Gallery page