Lewton Thomas Jones
19th Century European Art
Lee Stewart
Graduate Paper May
22,2011
The Sower—From Millet to Van Gogh
Vincent
Van Gogh had a childlike respect for the work of Jean Francais Millet,
particularly the painting The Sower. Van
Gogh’s own poverty and Dutch religious background helped him identify with
farming subjects as in the metaphorical image of a sower. Specifically, he identified
with Millet’s striding boy intent on doing God’s harvesting in his painting, The Sower. The influence Millet had upon
Van Gogh that can’t be ignored. The great compassion Millet felt for peasants
working the soil is the main connection that Millet and Van Gogh shared. Both
painters came from religious working class backgrounds but their beliefs in
artistic expression were very different. Millet chose to paint in the style of
the Barbizon school while Van Gogh was largely self-taught with some training
in the Netherlands. It was in Paris where Van Gogh met the Impressionists who
influenced him to go beyond his Dutch background and his mimetic connection to
Millet. However, it is the radical transformation evidenced in Van Gogh’s version
of The Sower that clearly defines
their differences. Although Van Gogh copied Millet’s The Sower several times, it was in sunny Arles that Van Gogh’s
theories about color and expression truly manifested a shift in consciousness.
The
Biblical Sower in Matthew was an influence to both artists with its religious
identification with peasantry—by virtue of their position socially they appear
virtuous and godly in their connection to the fertility of the Earth. It is
here that they shared a commonality. The parable of the sower is a parable of
Jesus’ found in the Bible. In Matthew
13:1-23,Jesus tells of sowing the
earth: “Some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds devoured them, Some fell
on stony places, where they did not have much earth, But when the sun came up
they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some
fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on
good ground and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He
who has ears let them hear.” This is allegorically infusing the connection that
man has with God through the fertility of spiritual growth.
Millet celebrated the movement of raw life
visually transforming the fields into one moment of man communing with nature.
Millet gave nobility to the peasant. Van Gogh was fond of Millet mostly because
of his strong symbolism showing man in the midst of nature and his task of
bringing life to the soil. Millet is famous for saying, ”I was born a peasant
and shall die a peasant.” Van Gogh consistently identified with the peasant
class and similar to Millay ascribed to the notion that laborers and farmers
were noble and godly. In 1885 Van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo, “Millet is
father Millet, counselor and mentor in everything for young artists.” Van
Gogh’s real father was an evangelistic preacher who never supported Van Gogh’s
art and one of the catalysts for Van Gogh’s liberation of color, which can be
seen in his 1888 The Sower.
There is a mimetic message that both Millet
and Van Gogh adhered to, and though both were inspired, they painted the
parable very differently. Van Gogh loved Millet and copied The Sower and many other paintings by Millet. There was a primary
difference between them, which was Van Gogh’s radiant individualism, and his
break from the academic figurative rules, which, unlike Millet, he no longer continued
to follow. The symbolic focus on a
solitary figure without high social ranking was a driving force in both of the
paintings. Millet painted The Sower
in 1850 while Van Gogh painted his in 1888. Millet was a Realist painter whereas
Van Gogh was an Expressionist with a connection to Impressionism. Van Gogh used
Millet’s metaphor of The Sower as a
catalyst for a new vision in painting where color triumphs over form and
message). ”Ultimately, it was the
sun of Arles that for Van Gogh was a life-giving force. The Sower, a work executed in the blaze of the Arles summer,
reflects a quantum leap in artistic self-revelation. Its theme was a hallowed one in nineteenth-century
painting-- the cyclical motif of harvesting and reseeding the earth, and, the sower,
himself. It is a figure transformed by Van Gogh from copying one of his idols,
Millet.” (Rosenblum-Janson Pg.429)
Van
Gogh’s painting of The Sower depends entirely on colors/perspective. It was
painted in Provence, where he had gone in search of stronger light and more
vivid colors. He saw the south as an unspoiled paradise. The canvas is
dominated by two complimentary tints: the violet of the field and man and the
yellow of the sky and corn. The sower’s clothes have the same tones as the
nature that surrounds him. He is identifiable as nature without being separate
or as a counterpoint... It is all
God. The figure in Van Gogh is not centralized--instead, the sun is central, as
if the bright, yellow eye of God (yellow is the most visible of all colors, and the color of Van Gogh’s house in Arles).
The dazzling array of sunlight and the grass are the brushstrokes of a new
creator-Van Gogh, himself. “The sun is a symbol of beneficial life that
permeates everything the eye sees”. (Argan Pg. 94 ) In Arles, Van Gogh further
pursued his stated belief that “color expresses something in itself.” (Wallace,
Robert Pg. 102 ). Millet’s The Sower
is drab in contrast and was railed by the critics as being violent and brutal.
It is a vision of a proud, striding peasant in an arduous work pose. There is
no grand light or vegetation. It is as barren as the parable in the bible. It
is a story with a narrative of truth and little more. Van Gogh’s The Sower is, on the other hand, exuberant
in artistic revelation and transcends the figurative. The reason for this
departure from his traditional Dutch artistic sensibilities (He admired
Rembrandt’s portraits of the poor, and this may account for the darkness of his
Dutch years palette (i.e., The Potato
Eaters) began when Van Gogh went to Paris and began to socialize with
members of the art community such as Gauguin, Pissarro, Seurat and
Toulouse-Lautrec.
Van
Gogh’s The Sower was completed in
1888. Millet died in 1875, Van Gogh’s well-appreciated “art father figure” was
no longer there, and after over twenty copies of Millay’s work Vincent was now
his own man. Van Gogh’s electric and mise-en-scene vision of The Sower is different that Millet’s
rigid, striding hero placed in a natural
setting. Van Gogh’s The Sower is subsumed
in color radiating chromatically in an earth world engaging him. “The Sower pits the powerful violet of a
freshly plowed field against the bright yellows of standing wheat and a
sun-filled sky. The sower himself seems a bridge between these strong colors;
his body blends with the field while his eyes are at the level of the yellow
horizon. The short, almost harsh brush strokes heighten the tensions created by
the colors.” (Wallace PG. 102)
Van
Gogh’s intentions and ideas in painting a copy of Millet’s The Sower can be best understood and
interpreted in his revealing letters to his brother and confidante, Theo. The
difference in the two ‘Sowers’ is
very distinct. Although Van Gogh praises Millet as a basis for sound poetry; ”Ce
qui ne passe pas dans ce qui passé” (it exists) Van Gogh writes to Theo “And
what Michelangelo said in a splendid metaphor, I think Millet has said without
metaphor, and Millet can perhaps teach us to see, and get “a faith.” If I do
better work later on, I certainly shall not work differently than now, I mean
it will be the same apple, though riper.” (Roskill- pg.223 ) The Sower that Van Gogh painted is a
riper apple than Millet and it blossoms into an entire new direction for
painting. The catalyst for The Sower,
while biblical, is Van Gogh’s response to Millet and the random fractal
impulses that emerged from Van Gogh’s hand. In his letter to Theo Van Gogh
explains this seemingly randomness; I must warn you that everyone will think I
work too fast. Don’t you believe a word of it. Is it not emotion, the sincerity
one’s feeling for nature that drives us?” (Wallace Pg. 91 )
Van Gogh depicted
birds descending to feast on the seeds as The
Sower casts the new seeds that vibrate in dabs of blue and yellow. This
refers to the sower parable of Jesus—yet, Van Gogh’s burning sun dominates the
yellow sky, suggesting a warm pantheistic god. The vertical impasto strokes
draw the stalks of grain, as thickly brushed sunrays spear through the
background. In contrast, Millet’s The
Sower is kinetic in posture but static in its realism. Realism (often used to mean naturalism) implies a desire to
depict things accurately and objectively .Its
message could be interpreted as an academic response to academic rules. Van
Gogh was working outside of these rules. Peasants were much closer to how Van
Gogh saw himself, and how people responded to his somewhat motley presence.
Millet identified himself as a peasant, but in fact was financially comfortable
in his later life. Vincent was a peasant literally and figuratively-- with painting
his way of augmenting the nobility
of a simpler life. The active images in Van Gogh’s The Sower shows a painter parodying nature. This was the painter’s
decision to imitate reality or reject it all together.
Van
Gogh insisted he painted intrinsically what he saw and abstraction was not his
goal. His goal was to tell the truth about life’s energy. Van Gogh’s
perceptions were a true reflection of who he was, which was an
individual, an expressionist and an artist.
He wrote Theo stating; “If I have to *paint in the abstract I would
rather not paint at all”. (Roskill Pg.336) Van Gogh was a Dutch painter and
Millet was French, and the Dutch painted dark and the French lighter. Van
Gogh’s reaction to sunny Arles was to illuminate the very nature of his own
being and that, which was in front of him. Mllet sought to focus on only one
subject as a figurative composition. Van
Gogh’s The Sower was a daring
departure from Millet but also from Jules Bastien-Lepage .The peasantry Lepage
identified with was connected to his having been raised in a farming town, as
well. These same agricultural themes inspired Millet, which led to Van Gogh’s inspiration from both painters. Lepage, like Millet expressed the bleakness in
hard work even with all of its virtue and honesty. The man carrying sticks on
his back by Lepage is akin to the stylized model that Millet used is his
version of The Sower. Van Gogh, like Lepage and Millet, chose to lend compassion to the
pathetic, weary features of man as a beast of burden. These are just three of
the artists who were influenced by the biblical parable of the sower.
The Sower by Van
Gogh was executed in the blazing Arles sunshine, a life-giving force. This was
a quantum leap in artistic revelation. The previous cyclic harvesting theme has
miraculously become the emotional property of the artist. Vincent’s The Sower re-seeds the earth but is
absorbed in a color play that now transcends art that is beyond God and nature.
The artist is the total revealer of phenomena while the figurative academic rules
are swallowed up by the power of Futuristic-Expressionism right on the edge of
the Symbolist movement.
The yellow bountiful sun of Van
Gogh’s design is centralized like a religious altar-- glowing in a thick paint of artistic genesis. The conventions of perspectives are
further challenged with an impressionistic pigment of purple counterpointing
yellow. The moral and socialist image of Millet’s The Sower is absorbed into a new vision of painting-- one that is
psychological and compresses images into a continuous weave of paint intending to
collide courageously with the past. In a letter to Theo, “ And I should not be surprised if The
Impressionists soon find fault with my way of working, for it has been
fertilized by the eyes of Delacroix rather than by theirs. Because, instead of
trying to reproduce exactly what I have before my eyes, I use color more
arbitrarily so as to express myself forcibly.” (Roskill Pg.277)
In
Millet’s The Sower, the figure of the
sower is moving but he sky and the land are flat dull colors. It is a symbol of
an animated figure with the social responsibility to work. The private
collectors would regard the painting as “dark” and “ugly.”” Millet’s The Sower is an invented sower who is
burdened with the artist’s thoughts; but he is a creeping shadow on a ploughed field,
which is only a field of subjective memory. Clad in the costume of the
proletariat he casts the seeds on to an ambiguous dark hill with a soft, looming
sky suggesting hope. These are not his
seeds, nor his fields—but, probably
God’s sky (Millet unwittingly created a poster child for Socialism!). In
Vincent Van Gogh, A Biography, Julius
Meire Graefe observes,“ Another peasant ploughs near the horizon with his oxen,
or rather there is a silhouette plough with motionless animal silhouettes, in
front of a sky canvas in which birds cut out of paper attempt to flap their
immoveable wings.” (Graefe Pg 125) In Van Gogh’s’s The Sower a peasant strides across a field of kinetic soil and a yellow,
pulsating sky with a power of movement carrying the viewer. “Hundreds of Sowers
were embodied in one figure. He strides along, not for you, not for art, not
for Van Gogh, but for his work, with every nerve stretched to its purpose and
every limb and every rag on his body forming part of the action.” (Graefe Pg.25)
The field is all radiant and plowed in Van Gogh’s Sower and the seeds are
thrown symbolically unto life itself. The
Sower has become a historical everyman tilling in a linear cyclical ebb and
flow.
The
lines and colour in Van Gogh’s The Sower
have an ephemeral value created as solid structure. “Millet’s The Sower belongs to the other days, to
the days of Millet’s bourgeois symbolism. Van Gogh’s matter-of-factness and his
heroic simplicity are such that in a few centuries his copies will be regarded
as the originals, and Millet’s originals as weak imitations.” (Graefe Pg. 26).
Vincent would write to Theo;” The little house in which Millet lived, I have
never seen it, seen it, but I imagine that those four little human nests are of
the same kind.” (Roskill Pg. 230). The motif of the sowing countryman came
about early in Van Gogh’s Dutch period (Potato
Eaters) and was bolstered by Millet’s example. In Arles 1888 we can see how
Van Gogh was influenced by Gauguin and Japanese painting with its diagonal tree
similar to Gauguin’s Jacob Wrestling with
the Angel (1888)—however, the broken-off branch is typical of the trees Van
Gogh developed in Holland. (Hammacher Pg.99) The move to Arles brought a fresh perspective, as we have seen. The Sower contrasts loud violet tilled
soil counterpointed by warm yellow
wheat and sunburst. Van Gogh’s The Sower is at the right corner of the
painting-- unlike Millet’s which dominates the entire canvas. Millet’s The Sower seems like a socialist strut
compared to Van Gogh’s similarity to an eidetic phenomenological reduction as
described by the philosopher, Husserl 1859). Millet is mimetically inspired
while Van Gogh is an inventor of a new mimesis, while still maintaining the
original epistemology.
In Van Gogh’s painting, the body of the The Sower appears to be a connection
between the two complementary colors. The boy in Van Gogh’s painting blends into
the field, but his eyes are fixed into the horizontal sky. There is a tension
in Van Gogh’s painting that Millet might not have used. The tension for Millet
was the bourgeois response to his lionizing a peasant in a tense political
atmosphere of power protectionism. Van Gogh’s brush strokes do seem harsh and
quick. The cold French hill in which Millet placed his sower is very different
from the heated, flat heaven within Van Gogh’s sower strides. When Van Gogh
arrived from Paris to Arles in February, everything was blossoming. Gone were
the grays of The Netherlands.
Van Gogh wrote to Theo from Arles;” Those who
don’t believe in this sun are infidels.” (Rosskill August 1888). The excitement
of the countryside is expressed in as if the fields were alive with its growing
crops, cobalt skies and the land shimmering, glowing and vibrating. Van Gogh
celebrated and loved the drama of nature while Millet used it as a backdrop for
his narratives. Millet’s The Sower trods
a proud burden mandated by the inevitability of nature and the necessity of
work. “Vincent probably led a double existence in Arles. Perhaps everybody in
similar circumstances would have done the same. His painting was a sensuous
surrender to a strange form of nature, really a wild orgy. ”(Graefe Pg.66) Paris was a different mind-set
where art was its own subject with schools and salons Millet and Van Gogh were
privy to (as well as their colleagues). “In Arles there were Arlesian men and
women, mountains, the sky and colors—things that had to be accepted in silence.
In Arles everything was still shapeless and unpainted.” (Graefe Pg.66)
Although
it is true that Van Gogh was also a disciple of Rembrandt and Delacroix, his
drawings are organized and mechanical yet coaxed by creativity. His was a
responsibility of moral intrigue and the human condition. Unlike Millet, Van
Gogh’s color dominated his feelings and emotions. “His was the result of
profound self-intuition and experience, he was a naturalist of the first
water.” (Graefe Pg.68) The Sower was
in many ways Van Gogh himself projected onto the canvas-- guiltless and happy
as the paint around him. He once said he could live without God but not without
creativity. The biblical sower is a sublimated symbol of that statement and one
that consumed Van Gogh until his death. “He possessed a number of undeveloped
intellectual aspirations, which might have stood him in great stead, but he put
them on one side because he considered them unpure.” (Graefe Pg.68)
The
individual was Emile Zola’s claim to artistry, but one that Van Gogh
would personify past the Impressionist and Expressionist timeline. In a letter
to Theo Van Gogh wrote; “Zola says,” Moi artist, je veut vivre tout haut-veut
vivre” (I as an artist want to live as vigorously as possible-I want to live) without
mental reservation-naïve as a child. No, not as a child, as an artist-with good
will, however my life presents itself. Now look at all those studied little mannerisms,
all that convention, how exceedingly conceited it really is, how fundamentally
wrong is the man who doesn’t feel himself small, who does not realize he is but
an atom.” (Holt Pg.474) Van Gogh’s The Sower
is as vigorous as any peasant could be illustrated. He has taken the viewer
from a grain of sand into the infinite universe.
The Sower could very
well be an individual creation inspired by God, life, and art, or Van Gogh’s
creation alone. Van Gogh created a reality that sublimated his feeling of being
a failure at life. In 1880 after failing at teaching, gallery work and
preaching he had decided to channel his passion for humanity. He had already
studied and copied Rembrandt and the dark Dutch style. He needed the freedom to
personalize a painting like The Sower.
He no longer followed the Masters—instead he gravitated to a radical and
different way to paint. In Paris, he was influenced by Seurat’s pointillism/divisionism.
Before Paris, Japanese prints and its lines and colors influenced him. He had
dabbled in Impressionism but it wasn’t enough. He wanted the pure force of
emotion with powerful color and thick swirls.
Millet,
with his choice of muddy/earthy tones, portrayed the sower as a stocky,
well-built young man –implying a certain working-class nobility and this
characterization came to be associated with the Social Realist movement. This
nobility if viewed from the perspective of Social Realism creates even more
meaning. The peasant can be viewed as a sower of social justice or a voice for
the lower classes yearning for social mobility and expressing this is social
protest and descent. The bright sun of Millet’s The Sower could indicate that he has the forces of social justice
on his side.
Van
Gogh displayed a kinship of anger and ruthless reality that was different than
Millet’s. Van Gogh tried to be artistically obsequious by signing his name
Atelier Vincent, and even signed some of his drawings with the new name. He came
to the conclusion that there was not a market for pictures of peasants unless
he said,”they were--perfumed.” In another letter to Theo Van Gogh writes:
I can see that even Millet, just because he
was so serious, couldn’t help keeping good
courage.
That is something peculiar, not in all styles of painting. Those who seek real simplicity
are themselves so simple and their view of life is so full of willingness and courage, even in hard times. It must
be-“une revolution qui est, puisqu’il faut qu’elle soit.”
(Roskill 1888) Van Gogh further purified
the work of Millet-- taking it from a static painting to a living color field.
Millet
once wrote; ”Art began to decline from the moment that the artist did not learn
directly and naively upon the impressions made by nature. Cleverness naturally
and rapidly took the place of nature, and decadence then began…at the bottom of
it always comes this; a man must be moved himself in order to move others.”(Ruskinp124-129).
Van Gogh’s The Sower was his first
attempt to make an original contribution to Modern Art since his art studies in
Paris. What made it original and unlike Millet was the violent juxtaposition of
bold colors—which were yellow and violet. He was clearly moved by Millet’s
subject and the effect on its time. It was the message that drove him to
imitate but he was approaching it from a very apprehensive place. He wrote to
Theo in 1888, “The sketch keeps tormenting me…and I wonder whether I should
tackle it seriously and make a terrific painting of it. My God! How I should
like that.” (Roskill 1888)
The
solitary man in both paintings has new meaning in Van Gogh’s Sower he as taken epistemology
back to the cave paintings and then to the future. This work appears unimpeded,
without pretense and suddenly freed art from academic perspective and
appropriate color. It is a new language. Van Gogh had imagined the ultimate
masterpiece as speaking “a symbolic
language through colour alone”. And in this sense, it would truly be a modern
piece. He wrote in a letter to Theo in 1888, “ Could The Sower be painted in color, contrasting violet and yellow
together, for example—Yes or no? Yes, of course. Well do it then! Yes—that’s
what Pere’ Martin said, too: “Il faut faire le chef-d’ouevre”. (Roskill 1888)
Millet’s The
Sower has now been transformed into a fractal mirage of thick paint
animating textures and de-constructing the figurative. 1888 was a time of
change in the world. An inflorescence of new ideas and paradigms were constantly
being introduced. Darwin, Marx, the Industrial Revolution as well as the advent
of photography (which was supposedly
infinitely reproducible) changed the way people looked at the world and art. Van
Gogh was compelled to stay informed of these shifts, but was foremost a
painter. The world’s progress was not as important to him as his own artistic
progress. He saw cities as being unclean and superficial. He wrote to Theo; “It
is curious that my painted studies seem darker in town than in the country.” (Roskill,
Antwerp, end of Dec. 1885). In the country he could create using light itself
as a pallet. It was life giving and the light gave to him joy and inspiration
and so it was Arles that became his
muse. His world was a world of pure creativity and he had no peers that could
follow him.
In a letter to Theo he writes;” “Oh, my dear
boy, sometimes I know so well what I want. I can very well do without God both
in life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I am, do without something
which is greater than I, which is my life-the power to create.” (Roskill-Arles,
early September 1888). Van Gogh was seriously concerned how other artists
viewed and criticized his work-- and it must have hurt deeply when Cezanne told
him “you paint like a mad man.” It is good that Millet never saw Van Gogh’s version
of The Sower for he might have had a
hard time understanding the translucent energy of Van Gogh’s work as well.
*Van Gogh referred to his own
painting The Sower as “a failure and
a glorified study”. (Roskill June 24,1888) Although it is said that imitation
is the highest form of flattery, Van Gogh deconstructed Millet’s balanced
figurative statement into a radical experiment of color and emotional
intelligence whose departure from convention still resonates and documents a
quantum leap towards Modern Art (i.e., Symbolism. Cubism). The student has
become the master. Van Gogh however was unsure of his direction like most
visionaries and carried doubt with him always. In a letter to Theo, Van Gogh
asks; “Did Pissarro say anything about The
Sower? Afterwards, when I have gone further in these experiments, The Sower will still be the first attempt
in that style.” (Roskill 289-Arles, September 8, 1888). That style Van Gogh differentiated
him not only from Millet but the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. The
direction was his and his alone and one that created great quarrel with
Gauguin. He writes, “I have tried to
express the terrible passions of humanity by means of red and green. The room
is blood red and dark yellow with a billiard table in the middle there are four
lemon-yellow lamps with a glow of orange and green. Everywhere there is a clash
of the most alien reds and greens, in violet and blue”. (Roskill,Arles September 8, 1888) Van Gogh
changed the previous narratives of composition and nature into a language of
color theory.
Van
Gogh’s father was a minister and clashed with the young Van Gogh’s passionate
artistic temperament. He wrote Theo that his father’s righteousness turns everything
that is light into darkness. The Dutch influence was replaced at the end of his
life with a new art and a self-exiled determinism. “ He longed for the world of
men. Life without them was blank. Vincent demonstrated this theme in three of
four professions .He will appear in his relations to his parents, his brother, the
women he loved, his teacher and his friend. These relationships, apart from the
one to his brother, all alike ended in failure.” (Graefe Pg.1)
If
we psychoanalyze Van Gogh’s The Sower
we see a boy. He is planting seeds playfully absorbed in abstract color. This separation from the Bible is an
important difference in Millet’ The Sower
which was meant to be biblical. This can be observed in a letter to
Theo stating,” I have worked in the olive groves, because they have (Bernard
and Gauguin) maddened me with their Christs in the Garden, with nothing really
observed. Of course with me there is really no question of doing anything from
the Bible.” (Roskill Arles 1889) The boy
called Vincent is free at last. Free to express his soul as only he knows how
it experiences life.
In conclusion, The Sower by Van Gogh is not a copy of Millet but rather an
extension of purpose and therefore a transformation. The bold stance of
Millet’s The Sower was meant be held
up in the salons and exhibitions as the triumph of noble peasantry via biblical
imitation and association. Van Gogh’s The
Sower is a smile of light that resonates with the sun. It is a clarion call to freedom of expression. It is art for art’s
sake to the tenth power. It is free from the pin- point accuracy and approval
of his critics.
If being an artist is to be
representative and concise, Millet is the victor. If an artist is one who
sacrifices his soul for purpose it is Van Gogh. The laughing sun in Van Gogh’s The Sower is the laughter in Van Gogh’s
heart in which he could create a world where creativity exists for its own sake
and can therefore be the bread of life and the creator of new consciousness. Van
Gogh transformed the fertile seed of Millet’s ground and grew a new hybrid of
visual art in motion.
Unfortunately, Van Gogh did not
live to see his extraordinary contribution to art, but he intuitively
understood the consequences of originality. In his last letter to Theo he
writes;
“ Well, my own work, I am risking
my life for it and my reason has half-foundered owning to it—That’s all right,
but you are not among the dealers in men so far as I know, and you can choose
your side. I think, acting with true humanity, but what’s the use?”(Roskill Pg.340,July
1890)
…And now we are left to marvel at
the colors of his brave, exquisite and elegant humanity.
Je sais ou’ se tou’ve Paris-Dans le
coueur de Vincent.
Bibliography
Argan, Carlo, Art
Classics, Van Gogh Rizzoli, International
Public, Inc., 2004, New York City, NY
(Pg. 94)Print
Bolton, Roy A Brief
History of Painting Magpie Books, Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2006, London
Print
Graefe, Julius Meier, Vincent Van Gogh, A Biography, 1987,Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York City, London (Pg 1,25,26,66,68,125) Print
Hammacher, A.M., Vincent
Van Gogh, Genius and Disaster, 1968, Abradale Press/Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
New York, NY (Pg.99) Print
Janson, H.W., Rosenblum, Robert, 19th Century Art, 1984, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, NY and
Great Britain (Pg.429)
Holt, Elizabeth G., From
The Classicists to the Impressionists, Vol lll,
1966, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY (Pg. 474) Print
Roskill, Mark, The
Letters of Vincent Van Gogh 1927, Constable and Co., New York, NY (Pg.230,
277,289,340…others by date of letter) Print
Wallace, Robert, The
World of Van Gogh, 1969, Time-Life Books, Inc., Alexandria, VA
Pg 91, 102) Print
