Interesting Snippets about Vincent van Gogh:
- Vincent was a poor man living on the charity of his brother, Theo, and the generosity of his paint supplier. Because he could not often afford to pay models to sit for him he painted over 30 self portraits – to sell, and to develop his skill.
- Vincent wrote over 800 letters to his family. He wrote about all aspects of his life; his art, his health, his feelings. You can read his preserved letters by topic at Van Gogh’s Letters.
- In his early life, he was a preacher in Belgium. He was dismissed from his post for trying to live among the poor miners as they did (which were poor conditions indeed!), and his actions were considered far below the dignity of a minister.
- He had lots of nightmares.
- Starry Nights, his most famous painting, was created while he was in hospital.
- He created over 2000 art works, but only sold one in his lifetime.
- He died violently, at the age of 37.
Teaching resources can be found at the National Gallery of Art website, for different age students.
The Van Gogh Museum website has colouring pages to print, and instructions for making your own diorama.
Enchanted Learning has a printable “Starry Nights” colouring page.
A project to try while enjoying “Starry Nights” with your children, is to give each a large piece of black construction paper (thin card) and a bucket of colourful chalks, and have them draw their own “Starry Nights”, or copy Vincent’s. You will need to give it a light spray with a sealer, or aerosol hairspray to set the chalk and prevent it from smudging.
For the wee folk, there is a page of lesson plan ideas on Vincent’s sunflower paintings.
You might like to try creating a shadow box bedroom after viewing “The Bedroom”.
I hope you enjoy exploring the life and work of Vincent van Gogh!
June 16, 2009 at 12:04 pm
It’s sad when a man’s genius is not recognized during his own lifetime, tragedy, really. Perhaps it is a loss that he did not paint more portraits, though it’s an interesting character study to look at his self-portraits. They always reveal so much more than a photograph.
June 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Todaysnewsart, I find it hard to imagine what sort of drive you would have to complete so many works despite them being so resounding passed over in your life time.
Thanks for taking the time to comment : )
June 16, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Sad too when you say he did self portraits in part to sell – and yet only sold one. Many creative geniuses are just driven to do what they love.. so they tell me!
June 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Vincent is one of my favourite inspirations. His work is so rough and edgy. It is a shame he was never successful in life but we could look at it like this. Maybe if he was rich and successful we might not have this wealth of art history due to the lack of motivation to produce.
June 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I am not an art buff by any means and really only know of some famous works of art. But, I found it funny that the most famous work Vincent did, I had not heard of until this post of yours Mrs BB! I have seen the vase of Sunflowers many times and, only in recent years, the bedroom painting above, but never the Starry night one!
Just a little bit of trivial info about my apparent existance under a rock
June 16, 2009 at 7:43 pm
this is great. I asked my husband to pick up a book on DaVinci from the library when he was in town today, and he came home with a book on Van Gogh.
I’m taking your post as a sign to do a little study on Vincent instead
June 17, 2009 at 1:14 am
I didn’t know he died so young. He was a bit of a tortured soul wasn’t he – the poor love! Amazing artist – I love Starry Nights. Do you think any modern-day Artists will become as recognised as the da Vincis and Van Gogh’s in 100 years time??
Thanks for the art history lessons Mrs BB. Always good to learn new things!
Fee x
June 17, 2009 at 8:16 am
Ruby, it’s one of the few reasons I can be pleased I am no creative genius. They don’t seem to have overly happy/easy lives, and I am quite ordinary enough to enjoy happy and easy
Severnyproductions, I read that he developed that style of painting in order to be able to finish a work quickly, between bouts of mental illness. But yes, if he had been rich and successful, perhaps he would have been distracted somewhat by it.
Amanda, lol! I love the starry nights one, the sunflowers..not so much. Until I started my mini art history series, I had seen the starry nights but wouldn’t have been able to identify the artist. I’ve been learning a bit myself
Christine, that’s funny
van Gogh is very interesting, though I thought after da Vinci that whoever I did next would be a bit of a disappointment, because I enjoyed learning about Leonardo so much. Not so! I admired the brilliance of da Vinci, and was fascinated by his mind boggling talent, but van Gogh as a person caught my imagination! When he, despite failing two theological college courses, became a missionary to the poorest of the poor, he was determined to share their pain and discomforts. How sad that they dismissed him for “over zealousness”! Even when he was working in a bookstore, he would spend his time translating passages of the Bible into English, French and German. Throw in his passion for art and his mental illness, and he is a person I would really have liked to have understood. I hope you enjoy learning about him as much as I did!
Fee, I don’t know why, but I always am surprised when remarkably talented people die young. Silly, I know. Robert Louis Stevenson died at 44 and I could selfishly wish he lived longer to write more!
I don’t know about modern artists. Once, there were rules about art, just as there were rules about music. I’m not saying that we should have stayed within the narrow confines of those definitions, but… still. What passes for art and music in some circles is not, by my definition, art or music. Just because something receives wide acclaim, doesn’t justify it’s merits. (lots of people read Mills and Boon, but that doesn’t make it fine literature!) Though, I ‘m not saying there will be no van Gogh’s of today, but that a lot of what is lauded as great art is…. not something I expect will pass the test of time.
Thanks, everyone, for your conversation
June 17, 2009 at 11:03 am
To me, van Gogh’s artwork is almost childlike. Take the bedroom one. I don’t see much talent in it at all. I wonder if it is other factors that make certain people, ie artists, famous? Like their lives. Would we have gotten excited over van Gogh’s work today if he was in this generation producing the same work? Would it be as valuable?
I think it is the fact that their name has endured throughout history, and their lives have become famous in the mix.
I have noticed that death makes a lot of notable people even more famous, sort after and ‘popular’.
Just some of my ponderings, lol. Like I said previously, I am very unlearned in the area of art.
June 17, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I love Starry Night even though Van Gogh\’s isn\’t my favourite Impressionist artist!
Manet or Monet would be my preference!
Did you know that Don McLean, singer of American Pie fame wrote a beautiful song entitled Starry Night??…inspired from VG\’s artwork…beautiful song too!
The Impressionist era is my favourite art period!
June 17, 2009 at 8:41 pm
That\’s an interesting thought. I find the story of the man makes me look at his work differently, so, on a personal level I would say yes, I would probably react differently if it was a modern artist producing the same work. I feel the same about da Vinci: the man fascinated me. How can someone be that brilliant at so many things? Yet, the Mona Lisa, clever and groundbreaking for it\’s time as it may have been, is not a picture I get excited about viewing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, my lovely friend, and making me think!
Homemeadow! I missed you while I was writing. I did read about the song while writing up my snippets. Here it is for those who can’t place it…
June 17, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This is off the subject but I wanted to thank you for the visit to my blog and for the advice. I\’m the kid in class flapping her hand about asking for help, I believe one should never be offended by advice or constructive criticism. Your pointers were much appreciated and I hope I\’ve now fixed things.
June 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Oh! I see you have indeed. Much easier when I feel like a little moth diversion…
June 17, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I\’m with Homemeadow – I actually prefer Monet\’s work – but I\’ve always been fascinated by Van Gogh. Maybe it\’s the whole cut off your own ear/lobe thing?? You\’d have to be a little odd to do that wouldn\’t you? I seem to recall he was a lover of absinthe – which would explain a lot!
I\’m not sure about \”rules\” in art Mrs BB. It seems to me that the painters from this era we\’re talking about here actually broke a lot of the \”rules\” from previous artistsm and yet that\’s exactly why people love their work?
Did you watch any of the series on ABC a year or two back with Rolf Harris where they had 3 different painters paint the same subject? I loved that – seeing how three very different artists could portray the same person. My boys and I had many great discussions about why we liked some works more than others (and often all three of us liked a different painting each). That\’s the beauty of art I guess?
Sorry … rambling.
I\’m enjoying your art history lessons and ensuing comments greatly.
Fee x
June 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Mmm. Fee, the rules thing – yes, you’re right. Both Leonardo and the impressionists were ground breaking in their day and I have no issue with that. But what I was thinking was more that the definition of art has changed from being a representation of something of beauty and value, to an expression of anything that can evoke a reaction.
I know I am wandering into controversial waters here, but I view art (and literature and music) through the same filter I view the rest of the world – the Word. So I consider for it to be great art, or great literature, or music, it must be pure, honest, just, lovely, of good report, praise worthy….
To that end, I see a lot of “art” today that is ….not those things above. That’s not just today, of course, as I know a lot of the ecclesiastical paintings of the past were of nudes (may as well go right out on a limb here) and I consider neither are they art so much as they are really, really expensive and well executed porn.
I know that was social suicide to admit to such a position, but… eh! I’m hoping you all love me enough to accept my weirds.
June 17, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Mrs BB you have just articulated (wonderfully) what I was thinking also. Art becomes the license for porn, and even pedaphilia is creeping in. I remember recently one such case of a very young girl being photographed sensually or something to that effect… and the photographic artist presenting it as an art-form, defending his right to do so. (sleeze more like it).
June 17, 2009 at 11:02 pm
He he, never thought about the nudes in that way before – and yes we do still love you AND your weirds!
Okay, I understand now where you’re coming from with art rules and I agree about a lot of modern art. Especially the stuff that looks like my 5 year old could do it (or even I could do it – and THAT’S saying something!).
Or how about what the elephant does at the zoo??!!
Right, back to work for me. I’m procrastinating (again!). Anything to get out of a bit of transcription….
Fee x
June 18, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Thank you, ladies. I always have one of those hold my breath moments after being unfashionably honest about things.
June 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm
WOW! 800 letters! Imagine if he had been a blogger! Hahahah!
June 20, 2009 at 9:45 pm
lol! Holly, I admit I hadn’t thought of Vincent’s potential as a blogger
Thanks for your visit
July 15, 2009 at 10:02 am
BB, Thanks for your post. Quite interesting. I enjoyed the object of the post, the song to accompany it, and the comments it generated, also.
July 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Dandelionsmith, what a privilege to have you visit
I am pleased you found something of interest, and thank you for taking the time to comment.