Just a brief note to encourage everyone to visit the Van Gogh Museum's channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atVanGoghMuseum
The VGM has been putting out videos focusing on specific paintings. I've found these videos to be very enjoyable, informative and entertaining. Be sure to check them out!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
InSites Page for Watercolour
I've just added a new InSites page for:
- Tree Roots in a Sandy Ground ("Les Racines")
I'd welcome any other suggestions for additional InSites pages.
- Tree Roots in a Sandy Ground ("Les Racines")
I'd welcome any other suggestions for additional InSites pages.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Two New InSites Pages
Just a reminder to keep checking the InSites section for ongoing updates. In the last week I've added:
- Thatched Cottages at Cordeville
- Entrance Gate to a Farm with Haystacks
- Thatched Cottages at Cordeville
- Entrance Gate to a Farm with Haystacks
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Two Van Gogh Paintings Rejected in Germany
This month the Von der Heydt-Museum in Wuppertal, Germany rejected two of the four Van Gogh paintings in their collection:
Still Life with Beer Mug and Fruit (F 1a, JH 82)
Vase with Flowers, Coffeepot and Fruit (F 287, JH 1231)
I always think it's commendable when a museum undertakes research on a work's authenticity and comes to the difficult conclusion that the work in their collection can no longer be considered genuine. Other museums are guilty of the opposite. Both the Legion of Honor Museum in San Francisco and the Albright-Knox Museum in Buffalo claim to own Van Gogh works (a painting and two drawings respectively) when these works have been categorically rejected by everyone else.
On another note, it’s always a bit of a challenge for me when a Van Gogh art work is rejected. For each rejected work, the following is required:
- Build a new record in my Van Gogh database's rejected table. Reconstruct all data from accepted works table (a field by field copy and paste because both tables are structured differently). Reconstruct rejected work's provenance records. Reconstruct rejected work's exhibition history records. Move image to rejected folder. Deleted original record from the accepted works table.
- In the website: remove image, remove webpage, change chronological listing page (and change number of total paintings at the top of the page), change thumbnail page, change painting A-Z page, change "next painting" and "previous painting" link on relevant webpages, remove work from World Map section (if applicable) and change total number of paintings on main page.
All just for one rejected painting!
Still Life with Beer Mug and Fruit (F 1a, JH 82)
Vase with Flowers, Coffeepot and Fruit (F 287, JH 1231)
I always think it's commendable when a museum undertakes research on a work's authenticity and comes to the difficult conclusion that the work in their collection can no longer be considered genuine. Other museums are guilty of the opposite. Both the Legion of Honor Museum in San Francisco and the Albright-Knox Museum in Buffalo claim to own Van Gogh works (a painting and two drawings respectively) when these works have been categorically rejected by everyone else.
On another note, it’s always a bit of a challenge for me when a Van Gogh art work is rejected. For each rejected work, the following is required:
- Build a new record in my Van Gogh database's rejected table. Reconstruct all data from accepted works table (a field by field copy and paste because both tables are structured differently). Reconstruct rejected work's provenance records. Reconstruct rejected work's exhibition history records. Move image to rejected folder. Deleted original record from the accepted works table.
- In the website: remove image, remove webpage, change chronological listing page (and change number of total paintings at the top of the page), change thumbnail page, change painting A-Z page, change "next painting" and "previous painting" link on relevant webpages, remove work from World Map section (if applicable) and change total number of paintings on main page.
All just for one rejected painting!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Irresponsible Journalism
Irresponsible Journalism
Several news services have reported that a man has been arrested in Vermont after stealing a Van Gogh drawing from a private home in 2009. The art work is a drawn version of Van Gogh’s famous Night Café painting.
The problem with the story is that Van Gogh never produced such a drawing. It's not a genuine Van Gogh. And yet reputable news sources such as Associated Press and BBC News have reported that the drawing is attributed to Van Gogh. With absolutely no investigation into the authenticity of the work.
I've seen this happen a number of other times over the course of the last year. A couple in the U.S. claims that their precious Van Gogh drawing (a different drawing than the Night Café work) was stolen. Again, their drawing was a fake. A professor in the U.S. claims to have two Van Gogh drawings along with dozens of other valuable art works. His Van Gogh drawings are also fake. And yet more than a dozen news services reported on both of these stories claiming that the Van Gogh drawings in question were genuine.
A credible news service should do more than just take such claims as statements of fact. Ten minutes of diligent research would make a world of difference.
Several news services have reported that a man has been arrested in Vermont after stealing a Van Gogh drawing from a private home in 2009. The art work is a drawn version of Van Gogh’s famous Night Café painting.
The problem with the story is that Van Gogh never produced such a drawing. It's not a genuine Van Gogh. And yet reputable news sources such as Associated Press and BBC News have reported that the drawing is attributed to Van Gogh. With absolutely no investigation into the authenticity of the work.
I've seen this happen a number of other times over the course of the last year. A couple in the U.S. claims that their precious Van Gogh drawing (a different drawing than the Night Café work) was stolen. Again, their drawing was a fake. A professor in the U.S. claims to have two Van Gogh drawings along with dozens of other valuable art works. His Van Gogh drawings are also fake. And yet more than a dozen news services reported on both of these stories claiming that the Van Gogh drawings in question were genuine.
A credible news service should do more than just take such claims as statements of fact. Ten minutes of diligent research would make a world of difference.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Random VG #2
Television show: Mission Impossible
Episode: Encore (Season 6)
Air date: 25 September 1971
Time: 00:33
In a crime witness's hospital room a print of Van Gogh's Sunflowers can be seen hanging on the wall.
Episode: Encore (Season 6)
Air date: 25 September 1971
Time: 00:33
In a crime witness's hospital room a print of Van Gogh's Sunflowers can be seen hanging on the wall.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thousands of hours of work . . . . . and for what?
One question I receive now and then is "What is the difference between your website, www.vggallery.com and www.vangoghgallery.com?" It’s a long story.
About thirteen or fourteen years ago my Van Gogh website was still in its infancy. I was using a small, local internet provider and, the bigger the site got and the more visitors it received, the more bandwidth I had to pay for (over my monthly limit). It reached the point where the website was costing me nearly $100 a month. This couldn't continue so I put a message on the site saying "This Van Gogh website will shut down. Can you help?" I eventually received an e-mail from an art print company called Barewalls who offered to secure a new URL for me where I could keep maintain my site for free. It sounded like a good deal (at the time).
So over the many years to follow my Van Gogh website, at the URL I came up with: www.vangoghgallery.com, did well. Thousands of hours of work went into the site, from scanning, to helping with the complete letters, to webpage creation. It took a number of years, but eventually the site included the complete art works and letters of Van Gogh and, as a result of all my hard work, ranked #1 for "Van Gogh" on search engines.
Eventually I realized that "leasing" the URL from Barewalls probably wasn't in my best interest, given how much time and effort I had invested. I made an offer to buy the URL from them. The owner of Barewalls put me off for a full year and a half before finally refusing to even consider selling me the URL that I had helped make #1. Eventually Barewalls sold all of its assets (including www.vangoghgallery.com) to another company. Which in turn later sold it to yet another company.
So I had no choice but to secure a URL in my own name (www.vggallery.com) and move all of my content over. I kept an eye on www.vangoghgallery.com over the course of a year or so. With all of my material removed there was almost no content and that was fine with me. Strangely www.vangoghgallery.com retained its #1 search engine ranking even without my content, whereas my new URL, www.vggallery.com, did fairly poorly in the rankings. But such is life.
Eventually however all of my material magically rematerialized on the www.vangoghgallery.com URL. All of the thousands of scans that took me so much time and trouble to put together—-there they were. I contacted the new owners of www.vangoghgallery.com and told them about the situation. They told me that when they bought the assets of Barewalls the www.vangoghgallery.com URL was included in the sale and that all of my material was as well. I assured them that this wasn't the case and even received confirmation of this from the former owner of Barewalls. Still, the new owner of www.vangoghgallery.com wouldn't relent. In the end, they had a legal department at their disposal and I had nothing. Once again all of the material I worked so hard on was stolen and once again there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.
The whole situation is hugely disappointing to me. To see everything I worked on for years vacuumed up and republished by someone else. I rarely visit www.vangoghgallery.com because I find what happened so maddening, but I had a quick look recently and was especially mortified to see that they had posted a prominent thank you along the lines of "Thanks to all of you for making us the #1 Van Gogh site on the internet!" This was especially galling in that it was, in fact, me that made www.vangoghgallery.com the #1 Van Gogh site on the internet. The new owners of www.vangoghgallery.com simply benefited from the endless labours of my hard work. For which I received absolutely nothing in return.
My own Van Gogh website, www.vggallery.com, doesn't rank well on the search engines despite the fact that it's comprised of the same material that allowed me to make www.vangoghgallery.com #1 all those years ago. I've looked at every possible solution to no avail.
In the end, I suppose it's my own fault for allowing someone else to own the URL to a site that I committed thousands of hours to. What can I say? I was young and foolish. But it's still immensely disappointing to me to see others profit from years of my hard work and I remain, not only uncredited, but absolutely powerless in remedying the situation.
So there's your answer.
About thirteen or fourteen years ago my Van Gogh website was still in its infancy. I was using a small, local internet provider and, the bigger the site got and the more visitors it received, the more bandwidth I had to pay for (over my monthly limit). It reached the point where the website was costing me nearly $100 a month. This couldn't continue so I put a message on the site saying "This Van Gogh website will shut down. Can you help?" I eventually received an e-mail from an art print company called Barewalls who offered to secure a new URL for me where I could keep maintain my site for free. It sounded like a good deal (at the time).
So over the many years to follow my Van Gogh website, at the URL I came up with: www.vangoghgallery.com, did well. Thousands of hours of work went into the site, from scanning, to helping with the complete letters, to webpage creation. It took a number of years, but eventually the site included the complete art works and letters of Van Gogh and, as a result of all my hard work, ranked #1 for "Van Gogh" on search engines.
Eventually I realized that "leasing" the URL from Barewalls probably wasn't in my best interest, given how much time and effort I had invested. I made an offer to buy the URL from them. The owner of Barewalls put me off for a full year and a half before finally refusing to even consider selling me the URL that I had helped make #1. Eventually Barewalls sold all of its assets (including www.vangoghgallery.com) to another company. Which in turn later sold it to yet another company.
So I had no choice but to secure a URL in my own name (www.vggallery.com) and move all of my content over. I kept an eye on www.vangoghgallery.com over the course of a year or so. With all of my material removed there was almost no content and that was fine with me. Strangely www.vangoghgallery.com retained its #1 search engine ranking even without my content, whereas my new URL, www.vggallery.com, did fairly poorly in the rankings. But such is life.
Eventually however all of my material magically rematerialized on the www.vangoghgallery.com URL. All of the thousands of scans that took me so much time and trouble to put together—-there they were. I contacted the new owners of www.vangoghgallery.com and told them about the situation. They told me that when they bought the assets of Barewalls the www.vangoghgallery.com URL was included in the sale and that all of my material was as well. I assured them that this wasn't the case and even received confirmation of this from the former owner of Barewalls. Still, the new owner of www.vangoghgallery.com wouldn't relent. In the end, they had a legal department at their disposal and I had nothing. Once again all of the material I worked so hard on was stolen and once again there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.
The whole situation is hugely disappointing to me. To see everything I worked on for years vacuumed up and republished by someone else. I rarely visit www.vangoghgallery.com because I find what happened so maddening, but I had a quick look recently and was especially mortified to see that they had posted a prominent thank you along the lines of "Thanks to all of you for making us the #1 Van Gogh site on the internet!" This was especially galling in that it was, in fact, me that made www.vangoghgallery.com the #1 Van Gogh site on the internet. The new owners of www.vangoghgallery.com simply benefited from the endless labours of my hard work. For which I received absolutely nothing in return.
My own Van Gogh website, www.vggallery.com, doesn't rank well on the search engines despite the fact that it's comprised of the same material that allowed me to make www.vangoghgallery.com #1 all those years ago. I've looked at every possible solution to no avail.
In the end, I suppose it's my own fault for allowing someone else to own the URL to a site that I committed thousands of hours to. What can I say? I was young and foolish. But it's still immensely disappointing to me to see others profit from years of my hard work and I remain, not only uncredited, but absolutely powerless in remedying the situation.
So there's your answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)