News

Two German art historians claimed in a book published at the end of April 2009 that Vincent Van Gogh did not voluntarily cut his ear after a row with his friend Paul Gauguin in Arles on December 23rd 1888 but that in fact it was the latter who mutilated him with a sword.

Thus the legend of Van Gogh, a man cursed by bad luck deriving from his madness would appear to have been a lie nurtured during almost a century.

Van Gogh's madness was notably exploited during the 1930s when the French writers Georges Bataille and Antonin Artaud defined it as fundamental  in the history of Modern Art but according to Hans Kaufmann et Rita Wildegans, two art historians from Hamburg, the Dutch painter did not cut his ear on purpose.

In their 392 page book titled "Van Gogh's ear, Paul Gauguin and the pact of silence",these historians claimed that it was Gauguin who did cut Van Gogh's ear with a sword. Taken to hospital the next day, the latter preferred not to tell the truth in order to protect his friend thus choosing to be driven to a lunatic asylum.

According to this sensational  theory, Gauguin threw his sword in the Rhône river and returned hastily to Paris after being briefly questioned by police. Later in his memoirs titled "Before and After" Gauguin indicated that his row with Van Gogh had started about some differences of views regarding artistic matters, notably about a painting that the latter had executed on his suggestion on a piece of jute, which he had considered as a flop. The row dangerously reaching climax, Gauguin suddenly felt the best for him was to return to Paris, a decision which exasperated his friend whose dream to create a new group of painters in Arles, like the one which existed in Pont-Aven, was about to be shattered.

Being theatened with a knife, Gauguin decided to spend the night in a hotel thus leaving Van Gogh alone and minutes later, in a fit of fury, the Dutch painter went on to cut his ear with a razor blade before wrapping it in a piece of paper and giving it to a prostitute whom he had as neighbour. He then went to bed, according to what Gauguin wrote in his book. Now, the two German historians have challenged such version by stating that the row started  in fact about a woman  they both wanted to seduce and that Gauguin was later smitten with remorse for what he had done. Strangely enough, he painted one day a painting representing sunflowers on an armchair to pay homage to Van Gogh, a work much less anodyne that it meant to appear.

After sifting through the police report and documents relating to testimonies made by indirect witnesses, the two historians concluded that both men had lied about what had really happened. First of all, there had been no direct witness of that row and not even a thorough police investigation about such incident, a fact that tends to suggest that the two artist  both agreed to invent the version of a self mutilation on the part of Van Gogh.

The curators of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam have so far not accepted such theory, which has however been described as plausible by the organiser of an exhibition of landscapes painted by the Dutch artist now running in Basel, where the two historians will hold a conference on June 17th 2009.

Apparently, Van Gogh and Gauguin gave a distorted version of the incident while in fact the latter, fed up by his friend's recriminations, wanted to frighten him with his sword in grazing his head before he  unfortunately cut his ear.

One thing is for sure, when he lived in Arles Van Gogh went on to have a strange behaviour becoming at one time flabby and at another time much irritated by having sudden fits of anger, an attitude which could be explained by the fact that he had been poisoned by lead vapours contained in the tubes of colours he used. Following this dreaful row, Van Gogh, who was known to have much admired his friend, had thus decided not to say anything about what  had really happened. Thus, by avoiding to tell the truth he accepted to be detained in an asylum and helped Gauguin escape the risk of facing a prison sentence.

The course of history would have thus been much different. Gauguin might not have left France for Tahiti where he eventually led a miserable life and Van Gogh might have  been able to overcome his state of madness to the extent of trying to find ways to emerge as a recognised painter. Thus he might not have committed suicide later.

However, these German historians might on the other hand be suspected of having tried to rewrite history with the aim of causing sensation together with the hope of gaining  a great deal of money in that respect. Meanwhile, their theory has induced some obvious questioning. For instance, Van Gogh used to write regularly to to his brother Theo. Strangely enough, one would have expected  to find  in at least one of his letters some inuendo suggesting that he did not cut his ear voluntarily after his violent row with Gauguin. Nothing of the kind was found so far. In addition, when he was offered Dr Gachet's hospitality in Auvers, the latter probably did perhaps not fail to ask him about his ear since he was a doctor.  It seems doubtful that Van Gogh would have been determined to keep silent about the incident in Arles. Finally the theory suggested by these historians is prone to be strongly challenged by those who remain convinced that Van Gogh did himself cut his ear, a fact much more realistic seen as a gesture of despair on the part of a man already deranged who was utterly disappointed by Gauguin's decision not to meet his request.