Van Gogh: Suicide or Homicide?

It's long been held that Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890), died in the hay field he was painting by shooting himself. However, that wasn't really the end of the story of Van Gogh life.

After shooting himself in the chest, Van Gogh walked almost two kilometers from the field into town with the bullet wound. It is believed that the bullet had ricocheted off his ribs, missed all his internal organ and rested in his spine. He was attended by two doctors, but neither had the surgical skills to remove the bullet.

Van Gogh lingered for about 30 hours before he finally succumbed to an infection from untreated wound. This is the suicide version.

Now, the homicide version:

In their new book, "Van Gogh, The Life," authors Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith contend that Van Gogh was murdered. ( These authors have top credentials as previous Pulitzer prize winners who thoroughly researched their subject.) They drew their conclusion based on the following facts:

(1) No revolver was ever found,
(2) The entry of the bullet was not near the heart and was at a strange angle for a self-inflicted gunshot,
(3) Why weren't his painting supplies found in the hay field if he was painting as he claimed?
(4) Why was there rumor in town that he had been shot accidentally by two boys? (One boy, Rene Secretan,confessed in 1956 that he and his brother had known Van Gogh the summer of 1890 and had tormented him mercilessly. He also said they borrowed a gun from the owner of the tavern to play Wild West, but claimed Van Gogh took it from them.)

Now, comes the controversy. You see, dear Reader, at age 37 Van Gogh was lying on his death bed when he said,"Do not accuse anyone,it is I who wanted to kill myself". Naifeh and Smith claim that Van Gogh was depressed and tired of living and he didn't want to implicate the boys for cutting his life short. This proposal has raised much controversy among historians.

So what do you think suicide or homicide?

Van Gogh: In the Eyes of the Beholder

This last weekend on NPR, I listened to an interview of a Dutch musician and artist by the name of Van Eck. He was describing and promoting his album titled, "Van Gogh by Van Eck."

Personally, I have always felt that Van Gogh's painting "The Potato Eaters" was a sad comment on the daily lives of farm peasants in those days. The people in the painting are gathered around a single light, a plate of potatoes and what looks like a tea drink. The conversation between the subjects seems intense. The first time I saw this painting, I felt a sadness for what seemed like a harsh life.

Van Eck saw something quite different. In the interview, he stated that upon his examination of Van Gogh's life, he observed that Van Gogh had a difficult relationship with his father. Therefore, Van Eck felt that based on Van Gogh's family yearnings, the artist wanted to portray a poor family sharing a meal and the happenings of the day with the pleasure of being in the bosom of the family. That is the basis for an upbeat mood in Van Eck's musical piece titled, "One of the Family." (You can listen to a sampling by clicking here and scrolling down to song)

What do you feel when you look at " The Potato Eaters?" If you listened to the music sampling, did you find your opinion of the painting shift?

The Other Van Gogh...

Of all that is popularly known about Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890) , few know that his original job as a 20 year old was at Goupil et Cie, art dealers located in the Hague. In time, Vincent became disenchanted with the notion of art being treated as a commodity. Lucky for Vincent, his younger brother, Theo (1857-1891)(photo left) didn't agree with that notion and also worked at Goupil et Cie.

Theo would give all the money that he could to help Vincent in his career. The facts of Theo's efforts to help Vincent are legendary. Usually, the story of Theo ends there. However, Theo did a great deal to support all the impressionist painters.

To some degree, art is a commodity (sorry, Vincent)and like the stock market, a dealer needs to make a market for an artist. Theo was one of the art dealers who created popularity and a market for artists such as Degas and Monet. Can you imagine what that must have taken? (Degas painting above left-Monet directly right.)

At that time, the Academie de Beaux-Artes set the standard of art as being realistic and highly polished. The jury for exhibitions would refuse entry to "radical" impressionistic painters. Against all this, it must have been hard for Theo to sell art as a commodity that might not be an appreciating asset. Yet, he did. I can't help but think of Theo not only as a steadfast, loyal and patient brother but also a man with a futuristic eye.