"Starry Night" - A Thanksgiving Note to Van Gogh

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I had an evening class the day before Thanksgiving day. One 10 year-old girl was painting acrylic, another three younger ones (about 7 year-old) were doing collages by using construction paper. One boy got tired of collage, so I just let him do whatever he felt like. He said without thinking: "I am going to draw 'Starry Night'". He looked at me.
"'Starry Night?'"
"Yes." He said.
"Yes, " another girl Rachel Liu immediately responded, "I love that picture!"
"Are you guys talking about Van Gogh's painting?"
"YES!" 3 of them "yelled" at me at the same time. Then they told me they had school projects that were based on this painting and they all enjoyed them very much.
I was "amused" by how they liked such a "profound" masterpiece, considering how many adults don't even "understand" it. So I asked Rachel: "Do you really like that picture?"
"Yes, I like it!" She answered without hesitation.
"Why?"
"???... eh..." She thought a little moment, "I don't know." She said with a little shyness.
"But you do like it. I mean, you LOVE it, right?"
"Yes." She looked at me, nodded her little head determinedly.
The boy was anxiously waiting for the conversation to end. He asked me: "I want to drawing 'Starry Night', do you have it?"
I immediately checked my Van Gogh books but found it was not there. So I rushed to my computer and printed it from online. When I brought the picture to classroom, they all cheered up loudly: "That's the one!"

The boy's recreating "Starry Night" did not succeed, because there was not enough time. Before he left class, I asked him if he wanted the print of "Starry Night", he looked at me surprisingly: "really? I can have it?"
"Yes, of course!"
He grabbed the print with great joy and thanked me.

That night, the night before thanksgiving, I found myself keeping thinking of Van Gogh. I realized, despite the fact that Van Gogh was not accepted at his time, and he was still not "understood" by millions adults now and then, he nonetheless touched these children's hearts. And from these children's eyes, I know it was joy they received from his painting.

Thanks Vincent! How I wish there's a way to let you know about this.

Van Gogh's Contribution

Image via WikipediaI love Van Gogh's works from the first time I saw them, but for long time I did not consider him as the "greatest" among "greatests", because I always put "traditional realistic skills" in my art criterion, even though I knew from beginning that technique was just part of art process. However, very recently I changed my mind. I finally freed myself from such conventional standard of art, and be able to look at Van Gogh from a fresh view. And from this view, I found he is simply the greatest ever.

The importance of Van Gogh's art, addition to its artistic value, I believe, also lies in its (art) historical value: it revealed a long buried truth - art can be created without traditional (realistic) techniques.

For many people the evaluation of a painting is all about technique, or the "likeness", or the "philosophy", but all of these were not Van Gogh's concern. In Van Gogh's painting, we do not see the so-called "profound thoughts" or "concepts", we do not see the passive simulation of nature, rather, we see strong colors, impulsive brush strokes, and the imaginations created by such elements. And these elements, by my opinion, are essence of art.

Once in his life Van Gogh tried to learn realistic skill, but he could not stand the boring process of training, so very soon he quit. He was then considered by his teacher Mauve (also his cousin) as having no potential in art. However Van Gogh did not give up art. He told his brother Theo in his letters that he clearly knew what he was doing and what he wanted, and did not need that much "techniques". What he did proved what he said - within 10 years, a very short period of time, he created massive amount of works with distinguished style, which we had never seen before.

There were several Van Gogh's contemporary artists (such as Gauguin and Rousseau) also reached high achievement without strong academic art training, but in my opinions, their realistic skills were all better than Van Gogh. I believe upon that time (late 19th century), Van Gogh was the only person who made such high level of creative art with the LEAST realistic art training.

This is Van Gogh's contribution - he simply destroyed academic tradition of art. He reached the "heart of art" without all those rational "rubbish". Face to face, heart to heart, Van Gogh made love with art by his "naked" communication with the nature. Starting from him, art gradually came back to its original form: emotional expressive, playful and intuitive, other than rational, thoughtful and technical, which had dominated western art tradition for thousands years. Of course, I should not say this change happened by Van Gogh's effort alone, but he certainly made the "loudest" impact on this crucial turn in art history.

Dear Theo - letters of Van Gogh

Image via WikipediaI finished reading Irvine Stone's Lust for Life within one day like finishing a page turner, but I finished reading Dear Theo - letters of Van Gogh after a long time reading - each time I turned the page, I heard myself saying: slow down, take time, and digest every word slowly, as if the sooner I finished reading, the quicker the joy of being with him would vanish.

Van Gogh struck the world with his paintings, he also touched my heart with his words. If we take language as a vehicle of thoughts, Van Gogh deserved to be remembered as a great thinker. Through his words, I saw a man with deep contemplation, a soul that had a close connection with nature by every visible detail: trees, mountains, sky, even every inch of crop field.

If Van Gogh instilled his passion in all his art works, he recorded his thoughts in his words. We see frenzy colors in his paintings, but we will meet a lucid mind in his writings. He was not crazy, like many his contemporaries believed, he was just a special being with some simple needs which the world failed to satisfy. In other words, the world was/is sick, not Van Gogh. Yet he offered to the world a tremendous amount of treasure. The world gave him grief, but he returned with the brilliance of Sunshine.

It has been over 25 years when I read this book. Dear Theo was one of my precious collection, and it shaped my view on art and life: an artist has to be true to him/herself before to be "great". By my opinion, Van Gogh may not be the most "skillful" (from traditional view) artist in history, but he was the most talented, and the first one who depicted himself without any "decoration" - such as techniques or concepts. He was completely “naked” in his works.

And I believe, the world would be different if we were all “naked” like he was.