An interesting article in today’s Guardian on a new book that re examines his rather dubious reputation…

…driven by all the new material that began appearing in 2019, which coincided with the reopening of the debate about Gauguin’s troubling reputation. It seemed important to re-examine his life: not to condemn, not to excuse, but simply to shed new light on the man and the myth.

edit- fixed link

  • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee
    5·
    18 days ago

    Somewhat in parallel, I read a fairly compelling theory last year that his ‘frenemy’ Van Gogh likely did not actually shoot himself, but was likely done in by a reckless young man that was a known presence in the area, and had threatened others before at gunpoint IIRC.

    Still, kind of surprising that one doesn’t seem to have gotten much traction until… semi-recently, I guess.

    • quinacridone@lemmy.mlOP
      3·
      17 days ago

      That would be an interesting revision for the (art) history books if it was actually manslaughter/murder rather than suicide, I found this article with a quick search Vanity Fair

      No one knew where he would have gotten a gun; no one admitted to finding the gun afterward, or any of the other items he had taken with him (canvas, easel, paints, etc.). His deathbed doctors, an obstetrician and a homeopathist, could make no sense of his wounds.

      I’m finding these reexaminations, not just of art and artists, but also black history/colonialism, sexual politics etc really interesting

      • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee
        3·
        17 days ago

        Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith offered a far more plausible scenario—that Van Gogh was killed—only to find themselves under attack

        Geez, that’s become so modern and depressing.

        Monied interests, and all that, I don’t know…