Would Beethoven have loved Van Gogh...

[Preston]

I feel that they are two peas in one pod, in a sense. I think that Beethoven would have loved Van Gogh's art and would have even written music to it.

What do y'all think about this?

Kind Regards,
Preston

[Chaszz]

I feel that they are two peas in one pod, in a sense. I think that Beethoven would have loved Van Gogh's art and would have even written music to it.

What do y'all think about this?

Kind Regards,
Preston

Had he been able to see it with OUR eyes, which are accustomed to modern art, he might have loved it. But with his early 19th century tastes, he probably would have found it too extreme to understand.

Even one of Van Gogh's contemporaries, the other great post-Impressionist painter Cezanne, who was certainly accustomed to the advanced art of the time, told Van Gogh, "Monsieur, you paint like a madman!"

(This comment probably did not help Van Gogh with his mental illness.)

Elsewhere on this forum, some months ago, I pointed out that among all the great German and Austrian composers (Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms) none has left a quote expressing any interest in visual art, except for an enthusiastic comment by Wagner on a Holbein he had seen. This is so even though quotes from these composers are fairly plentiful, as we all know. (I believe Peter countered with a quote from Mendellsohn, whom I don't put in the first rank.)

[Preston]

he probably would have found it too extreme to understand...

I highly doubt that Beethoven would have found it to extreme. For Beethoven himself is considered extreme by many. I feel that if anyone were to fully understand Van Gogh that it would be Beethoven, believe it or not. I thought this after I understood both of their on personal problems and issues.

I imagine that Beethoven's genius was smart enough to understand most things (concerning art) from the start, rather than later.

I don't consider Van Gogh to be modern, anything but. I feel that he was a very talented and simple painter, as he has said in his letters to Theo. What do you mean by modern? I feel that he had an equal love for nature as Beethoven. I mean Van Gogh's love for nature is unimaginable.

Thank You for Your Reply Chaszz, Truly,
Preston

[Peter]

I highly doubt that Beethoven would have found it to extreme. For Beethoven himself is considered extreme by many. I feel that if anyone were to fully understand Van Gogh that it would be Beethoven, believe it or not. I thought this after I understood both of their on personal problems and issues.

I imagine that Beethoven's genius was smart enough to understand most things (concerning art) from the start, rather than later.

I don't consider Van Gogh to be modern, anything but. I feel that he was a very talented and simple painter, as he has said in his letters to Theo. What do you mean by modern? I feel that he had an equal love for nature as Beethoven. I mean Van Gogh's love for nature is unimaginable.

Thank You for Your Reply Chaszz, Truly,
Preston

I think Chaszz is certainly correct that Beethoven expressed little interest in painting or sculpture - in contrast, his admiration for literature and especially poets is well documented. So I'm not sure that Van Gogh would have meant a great deal to him, though I understand why you make the comparison. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment of Van Gogh 'not being modern' - you have to look at it from the context of the late 19th century (not today) and in this regard I think he was amongst the avant-garde of his time.

[Preston]

I think Chaszz is certainly correct that Beethoven expressed little interest in painting or sculpture...

Thank you Peter. I am aware that Beethoven expressed little interest in painting and sculpture, because you told me in another post, . That is why I mentioned Van Gogh. I feel for certain that Van Gogh would have deeply touched Beethoven's heart.

Would someone explain what they mean by Van Gogh being modern, I just don't see this, in past and present? I couldn't imagine a more down to earth artist.

[Chaszz]

Preston, please don't think I'm putting down Van Gogh at all. He's one of my favorite artists. (In developing my own approach of making flat painting more three-dimensional physically, I was partly inspired by his heavy build-up of paint and texture.)

But, as Peter says, try to see painting as it was seen in the 19th Century. The ideal was a highly realistic photographic approach, trying to show nature as it appeared to the average eye, not as it was felt in the artist's heart, which is Van Gogh's approach. Here is a typical painting by a great artist of Beethoven's time, J.L. David:

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david52.html

And here is one from Van Gogh's time, a half century or more later, by Bourgereau, a very popular painter at the time, who today is considered a medicore sentimental academic:

http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/bouguereau/p-bouguereau17.htm

Against these, even the Impressionism of Monet, which today seems tame and lovely to us, was a shocking departure and was attacked vociferously in the press. This (Monet) is the real beginning of modern art, and scandalized the public. Van Gogh's swirling forms and intense colors were a further departure and further shocked the critics and public.

As I said, were Beethoven to have also seen and perhaps understood something of Picasso, Matisse and the further developments of medern painting out of Impressionism and post-Impressionism, he could have perhaps appreciated Van Gogh. Or even possibly had he just seen Impressionism. But with his limited appreciation of visual art, and his probable reliance on traditional values when seeking to judge a painting, he probably would have been puzzled and repelled. But in the most important sense, you are right: they ARE soul-brothers. Only wearing different glasses.

[Preston]

Preston, please don't think I'm putting down Van Gogh at all. He's one of my favorite artists. (In developing my own approach of making flat painting more three-dimensional physically, I was partly inspired by his heavy build-up of paint and texture.)

But, as Peter says, try to see painting as it was seen in the 19th Century. The ideal was a highly realistic photographic approach, trying to show nature as it appeared to the average eye, not as it was felt in the artist's heart, which is Van Gogh's approach. Here is a typical painting by a great artist of Beethoven's time, J.L. David:

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david52.html

And here is one from Van Gogh's time, a half century or more later, by Bourgereau, a very popular painter at the time, who today is considered a medicore sentimental academic:

http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/bouguereau/p-bouguereau17.htm

Against these, even the Impressionism of Monet, which today seems tame and lovely to us, was a shocking departure and was attacked vociferously in the press. This (Monet) is the real beginning of modern art, and scandalized the public. Van Gogh's swirling forms and intense colors were a further departure and further shocked the critics and public.

As I said, were Beethoven to have also seen and perhaps understood something of Picasso, Matisse and the further developments of medern painting out of Impressionism and post-Impressionism, he could have perhaps appreciated Van Gogh. Or even possibly had he just seen Impressionism. But with his limited appreciation of visual art, and his probable reliance on traditional values when seeking to judge a painting, he probably would have been puzzled and repelled. But in the most important sense, you are right: they ARE soul-brothers. Only wearing different glasses.

Thank you Chaszz, very much, for your kind and patient reply. I do believe that I see what you are saying by modern, because then it was so new and such a different approach to painting.

Do you have a painting you could show me of modern art at present?

Is calling Van Gogh, modern art, controversial?

Have you ever tried working with computer graphics?

[Chaszz]

Thank you Chaszz, very much, for your kind and patient reply. I do believe that I see what you are saying by modern, because then it was so new and such a different approach to painting.

Do you have a painting you could show me of modern art at present?

Is calling Van Gogh, modern art, controversial?

Have you ever tried working with computer graphics?

The current popular movement is Conceptual Art, with which I personally am almost completely out of sympathy. It involves showing people, animals, objects or symbols with some gimmicky kind of twisted irony, any handy gimmick which will provide irony or strangeness. Its practitioners are very numerous. If you go to this link, then scroll down and browse through the galleries, you'll see plenty of it:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=3

Van Gogh is considered part of modern art, which began somewhat earlier than him, with the Impressionists, of whom Monet is the most famous.

I've only worked with Photoshop to help build my website.

If interested in modern art, I suggest you buy or borrow from the library a good general history of art and start reading near the end with Neoclassical Art, then continue to the end. This will start you in Beethoven's time and bring you through the Impressionist revolution and then through later art down to today. Three good ones are History of Art (Janson), Art Through the Ages (Gardner) and The Story of Art (Gombrich). Each has been updated by other scholars since the original authors' deaths but each retains the original writer's name as author.

And thanks to the moderators for permitting this post, which has become quite off-topic.

[Preston]

The current popular movement is Conceptual Art, with which I personally am almost completely out of sympathy. It involves showing people, animals, objects or symbols with some gimmicky kind of twisted irony, any handy gimmick which will provide irony or strangeness. Its practitioners are very numerous. If you go to this link, then scroll down and browse through the galleries, you'll see plenty of it:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=3

Van Gogh is considered part of modern art, which began somewhat earlier than him, with the Impressionists, of whom Monet is the most famous.

I've only worked with Photoshop to help build my website.

If interested in modern art, I suggest you buy or borrow from the library a good general history of art and start reading near the end with Neoclassical Art, then continue to the end. This will start you in Beethoven's time and bring you through the Impressionist revolution and then through later art down to today. Three good ones are History of Art (Janson), Art Through the Ages (Gardner) and The Story of Art (Gombrich). Each has been updated by other scholars since the original authors' deaths but each retains the original writer's name as author.

And thanks to the moderators for permitting this post, which has become quite off-topic.

I agree, that the post has gone off-topic. Although I want to mention this to you, there is an exceptional free program called Blender for rendering computer graphics. Also, to get started is a program called Xara. They are both free and work with Windows.

[Maurice Colgan]

I believe the Impressionists were influenced by the 'Sketch' of John Constable's famous "Haywain".

Van Gogh and his contempories were trying out pointilism etc and came to their own style by trial and error.

Van Gogh's 'wild' work to me appears quite studied judging by the amount of outlining.

I think Beethoven..a genius, would have instantly seen where Van Gogh was coming from.

Beauty has a way of asserting itself. I have not mentioned publicly that I admire Picasso................. especially his early work. :-)

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

[Peter]

It strikes me that the contemporary artist with similarities to Beethoven was Turner - both were eccentric characters whose art developed into a spritiual almost mystical phase.

Continuing this line of interartistic comparisons there are two books by Robert K. Wallace (neither of which I have read but would be interested to hear about if any members have)- Jane Austen and Mozart: Classical Equilibrium in Fiction and Music, and Emily Bronte and Beethoven: Romantic Equilibrium in Fiction and Music.

[Michael]

It strikes me that the contemporary artist with similarities to Beethoven was Turner - both were eccentric characters whose art developed into a spritiual almost mystical phase.

Continuing this line of interartistic comparisons there are two books by Robert K. Wallace (neither of which I have read but would be interested to hear about if any members have)- Jane Austen and Mozart: Classical Equilibrium in Fiction and Music, and Emily Bronte and Beethoven: Romantic Equilibrium in Fiction and Music.

I was watching a documentary on Turner last year, and I came to the same conclusions, Peter. One of his last paintings, with its deliberate roughness reminded me of the Grosse Fuge. Having said that, I must add that I am totally ignorant about painting and don't like Turner but am willing to learn.
If my first experience of Beethoven had been the last movement of the Hammerklavier instead of the Pastoral Symphony, who knows what I would be listening to today.
Those two books you mention sound fascinating. I have always regarded Jane Austen as the Mozart of literature but I would pair Beethoven with Shakespeare or Tolstoy. Still, "Pride and Prejudice" and "Wuthering Heights" would be very good examples of classical and romantic fiction.

Just went to R K Wallace's website and I notice he has also written a book called "Melville and Turner"!

[Chaszz]

These last two or three posts bring Beethoven very close to embodying a Romantic disposition. Peter, you're not going to claim Turner is a Classical artist, are you?

Chaszz

[Peter]

These last two or three posts bring Beethoven very close to embodying a Romantic disposition. Peter, you're not going to claim Turner is a Classical artist, are you?

Chaszz

Indeed not Chaszz and I admit a slight concern over the title of that book I referred to! I think you accept the musical arguments for Beethoven's classical status so well explained by Rosen. I think the terms classical and Romantic are anyhow misleading but they are the best we have and I think we have to stick to musical definitions rather than the wider context if they are to have any meaning at all. Two other interesting artistic pairings I remember being taught to think of were Mozart with Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci with Beethoven - I think I'm on safer ground with a touch of Renaissance!

[Chaszz]

Indeed not Chaszz and I admit a slight concern over the title of that book I referred to! I think you accept the musical arguments for Beethoven's classical status so well explained by Rosen. I think the terms classical and Romantic are anyhow misleading but they are the best we have and I think we have to stick to musical definitions rather than the wider context if they are to have any meaning at all. Two other interesting artistic pairings I remember being taught to think of were Mozart with Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci with Beethoven - I think I'm on safer ground with a touch of Renaissance!

I think my opinion after several years of back and forth on this is that in a technical sense Beethoven is doubtless classical, in Prof. Rosen's sense, but still that in a wider cultural sense he strongly embodied the romantic tendencies of his time. That is why he "pairs" better with artists like Turner and Van Gogh. It would not be as accurate, I believe, to "pair" him with a painter like J. L. David, who is a classicist and a close contemporary of his. The spiritual and emotional connection would not be there as it is in Turner and Van Gogh.