Excellent!! A lot of comments so picky about the "narration ability" and "hilarious" narration... English is not my mother tongue but I have to make an effort because it is the lingua franca of current times, so, I'm grateful at least to understand this precious information, you should be grateful too... Betapicts did a great job...maybe the experts in "narration" can do it better.
Highly informative, truly interesting !!! Thanks for this Art Documentary and for adding the titles of the artworks as well as the artists' names and when they appear on the Video. A thousand times, thank you !!!!
Love his use of color. I have made a perspective frame for several landscape drawings and it works great for creating an accurate drawing. Very easy to make with small bits of wood and string.
I love the video and explanation! But I don´t totally agree on the perspective comment for persons like in 07:12. Please be aware that humans don´t have a standard hight. the variety of hight can differ from 1,50 m. to 2.00 m. The range can have a discrepancy of 25 %.
Perspective is only rules, but the rules can change if you take into account that extreme horizontal lines can in reality bend away. The camera is now taken to be the single viewpoint. The photography image was just in the infancy and I was wondering if Van Gogh had seen any images.?
My Starry Night Yarn Painting Time Lapse so far...🙂🧶🎨👍🏻 1. The Moon, Stars, & Venus ruclips.net/video/ccnOlrB9rJk/видео.html 2. The Swirling Wind ruclips.net/video/-tRYCg2nnms/видео.html 3. The Cypress Tree ruclips.net/video/yRy8Io64ZoE/видео.html 4. The Church & Village ruclips.net/video/9lKLekxhJGE/видео.html
@@renelevaillant6601 as a speaker of the Dutch language, you FIRST need to master the gutteral “g” sound...which is much like clearing your throat. The “Gogh” portion of his name is pronounced completely to the rear of the mouth and at the base of the tongue. there is NO “h” sound in his name.. And, the “gh” at the end sounds the same as the beginning gutteral “g.” The short “a” sound in “van” is NOT like the sound in the English word “fan,” it is a much shorter sound that resembles the sound in the filler word “ah.” Phonetically, you would be more correct to write it as “fahn.”
Justin, the narrator in this piece is a native Dutch speaker, to hear his accent. However, he has adapted to/adopted the generalized pronunciation of van Gogh’s name...however that is not a “correct” pronunciation. The real pronunciation is difficult for those with no experience of the Dutch language.
@@justinthyme3396 here is an excellent vid from a well-known RUclips personality who does a lot of both language and culture vids. After the intro, there is a video about Vincent Van Gogh narrated in Dutch. You can clearly hear how the name is correctly pronounced. Groeten uit Bonaire, DC. ruclips.net/video/uEjCKVLDsag/видео.html
At 20:54, the narrator says "notice ... the device to keep head and eye fixed." This is quite false. Head and eye can move all around behind the "device", while the artist is only constrained to draw on the paper what a line from his eye to the "device" reaches in the subject. Later the narrator completely misunderstands the incompleteness of Van Gogh's version of the perspective frame. Since there is no "device", no projection reference point at all, by moving his head and eye the artist can see ANY point in the subject at ANY point in the frame. At 24:20 the narrator leaps from the eye height being more or less fixed by the artist's height, to the eye being fixed. No, not laterally, nor in distance from the frame. It was that mad freedom that led Van Gogh to non-perspectival pictures which may have corresponded to deliberate motions of his head in conjunction with the fixed perspective frame.
of course the method is quite crude, to keep your head "fixed" during drawing is rather impossible, but the observed position of the grid in relation to the model behind it gives the draftsman the possibility to check whether head and eyes remain relatively stable.
@@betapicts You can't speak of "the method" being "quite crude" when the method illustrated by Dürer isn't at all crude and is fundamentally different from the non-method you've described Van Gogh to use. Dürer includes a "device" to indicate a projection point in space; Van Gogh apparently omitted this. Projection, and linear perspective, require such a point. In the Dürer sketch (illustrated for almost a whole minute in the video) the artist's eye is not that point; rather the indicating device is. In fact Dürer's artist, being far behind that point, must move his head a great deal up and down and from side to side in order to see where the figure plants in the grid. The "device" directs the artist's head positioning all around, rather than fixing it. As for Van Gogh's non-method, appeals to crudity won't save your non-account. Take a Van Gogh grid device into the field and discover what it does and doesn't constrain. It fairly invites deviation. Your whole video promotes the fantasy that Van Gogh hankered after Renaissance perspective until his great undoing in 1890 with his Wheatfield with Crows. This ignores the the multiple horizons in his Night Cafe from 1888, and the famous curved straight lines in his paintings of his bedroom in 1888. Frame or no, perspective deviance must appear throughout his works. The blue coated man in the "Road in Etten" drawing from 1881 shows Van Gogh not to be a slow student to learn perspective, but rather an artist struggling to pack extra meanings into space.
@@dcouzin Dürer's method seems basically the same as Van Gogh's, except D uses the "eye pole" whose point must continuously coincide with a point in the scene while drawing, VG uses the center of his frame for this. By the way, in the beginning of his career as a painter VG studied many books explaining perspective. To his brother he wrote (1881): “Your remarks about the Dutch artists, that it’s doubtful whether they’d be able to give clear advice on the difficulties of perspective &c. with which I’m wrestling…” and “Be sure and keep an eye out, though, for all manner of prints or books about proportion, and find out as much as you can about them, that’s of inestimable value, without it one can’t make a figure drawing quickly.” and in 1882 “I’m working again on the drawings for C.M. But will he like them? Perhaps not. I can’t see such drawings as anything other than studies of perspective - and so I’m doing them mainly to practise.” and “While I spent less on paint this winter than others did, I had more expenses in connection with the study of perspective and proportion for an instrument described in a work by Albrecht Dürer and used by the Dutchmen of old. It makes it possible to compare the proportions of objects close at hand with those on a plane further away, in cases where construction according to the rules of perspective isn’t feasible. Which, if you do it by eye, will always come out wrong, unless you’re very experienced and skilled.” and “To tell you the truth, it surprises me a little. I thought that the first things would look like nothing at all, although they would improve later, I thought, though I say so myself, that they do look like something, and that rather amazes me. I believe that this is because, before I began painting, I spent so long drawing and studying perspective so that I could put together a thing I saw.” and in 1883 “If only there had been someone then who had told me what perspective was, how much misery I would have been spared, how much further along I would be now.”
@@betapicts What "seems basically the same" to you, and perhaps to Van Gogh, is not the same. In Dürer's "Draftsman Drawing a Reclining Woman" what you call the "eye pole" is very near the eye and practically fixes the eye, while in Dürer's "Draftsman Drawing a Reclining Man" what you call the "eye pole" is quite far from the eye so that the artist's head and eye aren't fixed at all -- my original comment. Understand that in both Dürer examples, the perspective machine consists of the fixed grid and the fixed pole. Every accessible point in the subject is projected into a point in the grid via the pole point. The artist is the worker, busy reading off the perspective machine. Scene + picture plane + projection point are necessary and sufficient for perspective -- the artist's eye is not properly part of the Dürer machine. To say that Van Gogh "uses the center of his frame" for what Dürer used his pole is to collapse Dürer's two part machine into one part, for Dürer's grid already had a center. (Incidentally your quibble about Dürer's artist's paper showing fewer squares than his grid is answered by noting that the model occupies just the lower half of the grid.) Even if Van Gogh established a certain point in the scene to map into the center of his perspective frame, and always positioned his eye so as to maintain this, the distance from eye to frame is completely undetermined. Freely varying that distance the artist can wildly vary where other points in the scene map into the perspective frame, converting straight lines to curves, etc. The more evidence -- Van Gogh's letters and his Road in Etten from the early 1880s -- you provide of Van Gogh's struggle with perspective the more obvious it should be that he would be incompletely constrained by his perspective frame sans projection point. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago offered a course called "Projective Geometry" in the 1980s. It was a liberating exercise for artists, but it should be required study for art historians.
People are really funny, when he was alive, no body bought any of his paintings, now after couple of centuries he is the most popular painter. Too little too late
The most interesting idea that Vincent would of had, is what would of he done if he were given a sx-70 Polaroid camera ? The color rendition and their tones would certainly provide good experiments to him , Manet, and Monet , maybe even perhaps Picasso himself .....
betapicts experimentation in color renditions to the landscapes and subject matter to which he could reference as a color chart for paintings along with the fact of their soft Focused images
Okay! Vincent had his own solution for color experiments. He used a lacquer box with yarn balls instead of a camera, not bad hu? knittingbeforeknittingwascool.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/van-goghs-yarn-balls/ and more: www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/stories/looking-for-contrast
I agree (Vincent was about 34 when he painted this unusual self-portrait), but he was in a bad physical condition when he came to his brother in Paris. And that 19th cent. beard of his is also not helpful in making somebody look young. In the third place, he used in this portrait a new technique: www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0158V1962
betapicts yes. It’s true. Most of his self-portraits are pretty grim, and he looks like a junkie in many of them. But the Gauguin portrait of him painting a sunflower, in the VGM has him rather obese and flabby!!!
@@johnlawrence2757 In my view it shows that Gauguin had a low opinion of Vincent as an artist (that changed drastically after V’s death btw). But I love Toulouse-Lautrec’s drawing of Vincent (1887) depicting a complete different figure: keen looking, alert (although middle-aged): www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/d0693V1962
betapicts I suspect Gauguin’s low opinion related to V as a person rather than as a painter!!! Though sometimes it’s hard to see where he is going with a particular painting. Toulouse-Lautrec was a superb portraitist - breathtaking! This is certainly a fine example, even if the subject is a bit blurred . But again the age of the subject seems inconsistent with what we know.
@@johnlawrence2757 When he was in Arles, Paul Gauguin fervently tried to change Vincent’s painting style. And at that time he wrote to Émile Bernard: “Vincent and I have very little agreement in general, especially in painting.” So it seems to me that Gauguin was not that fond of Vincent’s art.
So excited to come across something I have not seen previously -- but, brother your narration ability needs prayer. This video could have really been awesome. Thanks for your effort.
So excited to come across something I have not seen previously, but, brother, your narration is LOVELY, vooral voor iemand wie zijn moedertaal is niet engels. There, Michelle, I fixed your comment for you. Your attitude needs prayer. Next video, let’s listen to you speak Dutch.
the correct German ü pronunciation is somewhat like the u in cute, so in principal the Anglicisation of the name of a German is not a good idea. by the way, how do you call yourself, c- dvadeset i edno or c-twenty one? 😊
I think you missed the point... this isn't a picture book, it's a thoroughly researched and highly illuminating treatise on the historic use of visual aids by artists and particularly by Van Gogh as he sought to attain a sense of perspective in his earlier works. If you are interested in the actual paintings and how they really look, I suggest you go to the museums that house them.
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
....with in You Tube there is piles of junk and garbage, every once in a while there is a Gem. This is a Gem. Thank You.
This is a superb documentary. You've dug deep and presented the information in an accessible way.
Spent my life studying Vincent and this is new to me! BRAVO!!!
That was incredibly informative! Thanks! Don't listen to the negative feedback, the narration was fine! I learned so much!
nice to say!
wow one of the best videos i've seen...thank you very much!
Excellent!!
A lot of comments so picky about the "narration ability" and "hilarious" narration...
English is not my mother tongue but I have to make an effort because it is the lingua franca of current times, so, I'm grateful at least to understand this precious information, you should be grateful too...
Betapicts did a great job...maybe the experts in "narration" can do it better.
Thank you so very much for posting this video. Very enlightening!
so kind to say
Thank you for posting this video. I gained insight into Van Gogh's mind, development and working methods.
stay tuned, I'm working on another one.
I look forward to it!
awesome...very insightful thanks
my pleasure
What a lovely overview of Vincent's methodology.
Highly informative, truly interesting !!! Thanks for this Art Documentary and for adding the titles of the artworks as well as the artists' names and when they appear on the Video.
A thousand times, thank you !!!!
nice to say!
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing this with us.
This channel is amazing..so many information! Internet can be an amazing place in the right hands! Thanks so much!
Great video, really instructive, thanks a lot!
Informative....not instructive.
Me too, really enjoyed this 👍🏼
One of the best documentaries about Van Gogh! Thank you!
Bravo! A most interesting and lovingly crafted video on Vincent and his methods.
gracias!
Love his use of color. I have made a perspective frame for several landscape drawings and it works great for creating an accurate drawing.
Very easy to make with small bits of wood and string.
but remember, at te end of his life Vincent stopped using his "little window"
yes I heard that. The frame stills works to create an accurate drawing. I doubt any of us will become Van Gogh
Steve Cook I will
@@dayers8715 I hope you do young lady. The world needs another great one.
Excelente documental sobre perspectiva y sobre la visión de mi artista favorito
Thank you so much for the great informations
very good !!!
well done
congrats !
Rorian Guimaraes thank you
I enjoyed every second of this video. Thank you!
Great video!
Love Vincent Van Gogh thanks for the video 😂😢😢
great video
Amazing
The frame enables me to draw like lightning.
He is my Inspiration. I use Acrylic paint. I am good at trees and mountains. I use to use Watercolor but move to Acrylic.
I love the video and explanation! But I don´t totally agree on the perspective comment for persons like in 07:12. Please be aware that humans don´t have a standard hight. the variety of hight can differ from 1,50 m. to 2.00 m. The range can have a discrepancy of 25 %.
Rene R indeed, in the picture the man in the center is about 2 m high.
loved
спасибо за интересную информацию!
пожалуйста
Excellent. Really bloody good.
He was a painting scientist
Perspective is only rules, but the rules can change if you take into account that extreme horizontal lines can in reality bend away. The camera is now taken to be the single viewpoint. The photography image was just in the infancy and I was wondering if Van Gogh had seen any images.?
of course he had seen many photographs, if that's what you mean
interesant.
Perfection artist 😍
My Starry Night Yarn Painting Time Lapse so far...🙂🧶🎨👍🏻
1. The Moon, Stars, & Venus
ruclips.net/video/ccnOlrB9rJk/видео.html
2. The Swirling Wind
ruclips.net/video/-tRYCg2nnms/видео.html
3. The Cypress Tree
ruclips.net/video/yRy8Io64ZoE/видео.html
4. The Church & Village
ruclips.net/video/9lKLekxhJGE/видео.html
does anyone know where to buy one but with glass
27:33 Natural cadre! so a kind of frame within the composition?
natural cadre - a frame that is part of the landscape: 25:07
@@betapicts thought so, cheers.
Good to hear his name pronounced correctly VAN GOCK...From Australia thanks..
Pronunciation is Fan Hoch. H sound.
@@renelevaillant6601 as a speaker of the Dutch language, you FIRST need to master the gutteral “g” sound...which is much like clearing your throat. The “Gogh” portion of his name is pronounced completely to the rear of the mouth and at the base of the tongue. there is NO “h” sound in his name.. And, the “gh” at the end sounds the same as the beginning gutteral “g.” The short “a” sound in “van” is NOT like the sound in the English word “fan,” it is a much shorter sound that resembles the sound in the filler word “ah.” Phonetically, you would be more correct to write it as “fahn.”
Justin, the narrator in this piece is a native Dutch speaker, to hear his accent. However, he has adapted to/adopted the generalized pronunciation of van Gogh’s name...however that is not a “correct” pronunciation. The real pronunciation is difficult for those with no experience of the Dutch language.
@@joansmit5782 thanks for the better understanding of the correct pronunciation, having said that I just love Van Coghs work. Hi from Australia.
@@justinthyme3396 here is an excellent vid from a well-known RUclips personality who does a lot of both language and culture vids. After the intro, there is a video about Vincent Van Gogh narrated in Dutch. You can clearly hear how the name is correctly pronounced. Groeten uit Bonaire, DC.
ruclips.net/video/uEjCKVLDsag/видео.html
At 20:54, the narrator says "notice ... the device to keep head and eye fixed." This is quite false. Head and eye can move all around behind the "device", while the artist is only constrained to draw on the paper what a line from his eye to the "device" reaches in the subject. Later the narrator completely misunderstands the incompleteness of Van Gogh's version of the perspective frame. Since there is no "device", no projection reference point at all, by moving his head and eye the artist can see ANY point in the subject at ANY point in the frame. At 24:20 the narrator leaps from the eye height being more or less fixed by the artist's height, to the eye being fixed. No, not laterally, nor in distance from the frame. It was that mad freedom that led Van Gogh to non-perspectival pictures which may have corresponded to deliberate motions of his head in conjunction with the fixed perspective frame.
of course the method is quite crude, to keep your head "fixed" during drawing is rather impossible, but the observed position of the grid in relation to the model behind it gives the draftsman the possibility to check whether head and eyes remain relatively stable.
@@betapicts You can't speak of "the method" being "quite crude" when the method illustrated by Dürer isn't at all crude and is fundamentally different from the non-method you've described Van Gogh to use. Dürer includes a "device" to indicate a projection point in space; Van Gogh apparently omitted this. Projection, and linear perspective, require such a point. In the Dürer sketch (illustrated for almost a whole minute in the video) the artist's eye is not that point; rather the indicating device is. In fact Dürer's artist, being far behind that point, must move his head a great deal up and down and from side to side in order to see where the figure plants in the grid. The "device" directs the artist's head positioning all around, rather than fixing it.
As for Van Gogh's non-method, appeals to crudity won't save your non-account. Take a Van Gogh grid device into the field and discover what it does and doesn't constrain. It fairly invites deviation.
Your whole video promotes the fantasy that Van Gogh hankered after Renaissance perspective until his great undoing in 1890 with his Wheatfield with Crows. This ignores the the multiple horizons in his Night Cafe from 1888, and the famous curved straight lines in his paintings of his bedroom in 1888. Frame or no, perspective deviance must appear throughout his works. The blue coated man in the "Road in Etten" drawing from 1881 shows Van Gogh not to be a slow student to learn perspective, but rather an artist struggling to pack extra meanings into space.
@@dcouzin Dürer's method seems basically the same as Van Gogh's, except D uses the "eye pole" whose point must continuously coincide with a point in the scene while drawing, VG uses the center of his frame for this.
By the way, in the beginning of his career as a painter VG studied many books explaining perspective. To his brother he wrote (1881):
“Your remarks about the Dutch artists, that it’s doubtful whether they’d be able to give clear advice on the difficulties of perspective &c. with which I’m wrestling…”
and
“Be sure and keep an eye out, though, for all manner of prints or books about proportion, and find out as much as you can about them, that’s of inestimable value, without it one can’t make a figure drawing quickly.”
and in 1882
“I’m working again on the drawings for C.M. But will he like them? Perhaps not. I can’t see such drawings as anything other than studies of perspective - and so I’m doing them mainly to practise.”
and
“While I spent less on paint this winter than others did, I had more expenses in connection with the study of perspective and proportion for an instrument described in a work by Albrecht Dürer and used by the Dutchmen of old. It makes it possible to compare the proportions of objects close at hand with those on a plane further away, in cases where construction according to the rules of perspective isn’t feasible. Which, if you do it by eye, will always come out wrong, unless you’re very experienced and skilled.”
and
“To tell you the truth, it surprises me a little. I thought that the first things would look like nothing at all, although they would improve later, I thought, though I say so myself, that they do look like something, and that rather amazes me. I believe that this is because, before I began painting, I spent so long drawing and studying perspective so that I could put together a thing I saw.”
and in 1883
“If only there had been someone then who had told me what perspective was, how much misery I would have been spared, how much further along I would be now.”
@@betapicts What "seems basically the same" to you, and perhaps to Van Gogh, is not the same. In Dürer's "Draftsman Drawing a Reclining Woman" what you call the "eye pole" is very near the eye and practically fixes the eye, while in Dürer's "Draftsman Drawing a Reclining Man" what you call the "eye pole" is quite far from the eye so that the artist's head and eye aren't fixed at all -- my original comment. Understand that in both Dürer examples, the perspective machine consists of the fixed grid and the fixed pole. Every accessible point in the subject is projected into a point in the grid via the pole point. The artist is the worker, busy reading off the perspective machine. Scene + picture plane + projection point are necessary and sufficient for perspective -- the artist's eye is not properly part of the Dürer machine.
To say that Van Gogh "uses the center of his frame" for what Dürer used his pole is to collapse Dürer's two part machine into one part, for Dürer's grid already had a center. (Incidentally your quibble about Dürer's artist's paper showing fewer squares than his grid is answered by noting that the model occupies just the lower half of the grid.)
Even if Van Gogh established a certain point in the scene to map into the center of his perspective frame, and always positioned his eye so as to maintain this, the distance from eye to frame is completely undetermined. Freely varying that distance the artist can wildly vary where other points in the scene map into the perspective frame, converting straight lines to curves, etc. The more evidence -- Van Gogh's letters and his Road in Etten from the early 1880s -- you provide of Van Gogh's struggle with perspective the more obvious it should be that he would be incompletely constrained by his perspective frame sans projection point.
The School of the Art Institute of Chicago offered a course called "Projective Geometry" in the 1980s. It was a liberating exercise for artists, but it should be required study for art historians.
@@dcouzin it's obvious you don't understand at all the use of a perspective frame. e.g Dürer's grid had no center. I give up....
People are really funny, when he was alive, no body bought any of his paintings, now after couple of centuries he is the most popular painter. Too little too late
Vincent actually experienced quite a bit of success before his passing.
The most interesting idea that Vincent would of had, is what would of he done if he were given a sx-70 Polaroid camera ?
The color rendition and their tones would certainly provide good experiments to him , Manet, and Monet , maybe even perhaps Picasso himself .....
don't get it, experiments for what?
betapicts experimentation in color renditions to the landscapes and subject matter to which he could reference as a color chart for paintings along with the fact of their soft Focused images
Okay! Vincent had his own solution for color experiments. He used a lacquer box with yarn balls instead of a camera, not bad hu?
knittingbeforeknittingwascool.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/van-goghs-yarn-balls/
and more:
www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/stories/looking-for-contrast
What does the quote at the end of the video mean?
that, at the time, he's not happy, to say the least.
The portrait on the left in the intro: it’s quite hard to believe this is a picture of a man under 40 years old don’t you think ?
I agree (Vincent was about 34 when he painted this unusual self-portrait), but he was in a bad physical condition when he came to his brother in Paris. And that 19th cent. beard of his is also not helpful in making somebody look young. In the third place, he used in this portrait a new technique:
www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0158V1962
betapicts yes. It’s true. Most of his self-portraits are pretty grim, and he looks like a junkie in many of them. But the Gauguin portrait of him painting a sunflower, in the VGM has him rather obese and flabby!!!
@@johnlawrence2757 In my view it shows that Gauguin had a low opinion of Vincent as an artist (that changed drastically after V’s death btw). But I love Toulouse-Lautrec’s drawing of Vincent (1887) depicting a complete different figure: keen looking, alert (although middle-aged):
www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/d0693V1962
betapicts I suspect Gauguin’s low opinion related to V as a person rather than as a painter!!! Though sometimes it’s hard to see where he is going with a particular painting.
Toulouse-Lautrec was a superb portraitist - breathtaking! This is certainly a fine example, even if the subject is a bit blurred . But again the age of the subject seems inconsistent with what we know.
@@johnlawrence2757 When he was in Arles, Paul Gauguin fervently tried to change Vincent’s painting style. And at that time he wrote to Émile Bernard: “Vincent and I have very little agreement in general, especially in painting.” So it seems to me that Gauguin was not that fond of Vincent’s art.
So excited to come across something I have not seen previously -- but, brother your narration ability needs prayer. This video could have really been awesome. Thanks for your effort.
hi sister, is it just something as irrelevant as the pronunciation you don't like?
So excited to come across something I have not seen previously, but, brother, your narration is LOVELY, vooral voor iemand wie zijn moedertaal is niet engels. There, Michelle, I fixed your comment for you. Your attitude needs prayer. Next video, let’s listen to you speak Dutch.
The images are very good, but the narration is HILARIOUS!
can u give 1 example?
@@betapicts
4:32 He says, "Melancholy".
It's really difficult to understand this narrator at times.
subtitles my friend
Would LOVE to hear YOUR version in Dutch...just sayin.’ Pretty sure his spoken English is head and shoulders over your Dutch.
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙👍
4:32 He says, "Melancholy".
It's really difficult to understand this narrator at times.
The Dutch call it "charcoal English"; the version of English of Dutchies who've never lived abroad. At least he pronounces van Gogh properly.
what about subtitles (CC)? :-)
if you speed it up, can't understand a word..
16:38 Albrecht DU-reerh
the correct German ü pronunciation is somewhat like the u in cute, so in principal the Anglicisation of the name of a German is not a good idea. by the way, how do you call yourself, c- dvadeset i edno or c-twenty one? 😊
TERRIBLE reproduction...does disservice to the art and the artist by giving a false impression of the works...
I think you missed the point... this isn't a picture book, it's a thoroughly researched and highly illuminating treatise on the historic use of visual aids by artists and particularly by Van Gogh as he sought to attain a sense of perspective in his earlier works.
If you are interested in the actual paintings and how they really look, I suggest you go to the museums that house them.
michael4250 - perhaps some explanation seems necessary, don't you think?