excellent observation. i think maybe with the exception of van Gogh, who we think painted over other paintings because of lack of money - but we really don’t know. we do know that authors have burnt writings they don’t consider good enough for posterity so it is interesting :). stay safe 🌷✨🌿🌸🌱🌼🌷
In austria we have a artist that painted over his painting so many times four men could not lift a painting of round 2 meters, many artist painted over their artwork.
Fascinating as always how the artist composes his work and of course employs economy in terms of recycling a used canvas - materials were expensive as they are today. And yes I concur with the comment about lack of accurate pronunciation - as a professional voice over artist his basic preparation was lacking - ask a Dutchman/woman how to pronounce Van Gogh- it's not that hard if you have a good ear for language.And there is always phonetics - fool proof.
Big deal. All artists paint over stuff. I have paintings with two or three others under them. Sometimes I let parts of them become a part of the top layer. We don't have rules.
There are rules. Like having a purpose for what you are trying to convey. Art that has no direction or rule to guide the principles of the artist is really useless overpriced works of art that just satisfy the ego of the maker the art. Lots of art doesn't have rules and it may fetch loads of money but it has no purpose. You can see it with childrens drawings. Children who have a purpose, even if they draw crazily but with the intent to make something, show a better and more meaningful picture than those kids that draw randomly all over the place just for laughs. What kid were you I wonder?
The usual excuse is always... *The Artist Changed his Mind* If the scientific scrutiny of an artwork is to give a little more disclosure because for centuries they would never ever reveal The Hard Truth 9f a highest level Museum Exhibited Artwork.. of What lies beneath (key word LIES). So when the scientifics proves an artwork to be VERY DIFFERENT and clearly contrary to the usual institutional academic monopoly experts version... They have to provide an answer to avoid controversy. ps: the Mona Lisa is entirely different. Base sketch is a game changer. No DNA No Body And various hearsay accounts over the last 5 centuries Research Pascal Cotte 2000
@@callmeishmael7452 The Cochineal insect is dried then boiled to get the colour out of the shells. as a food colouring I'm unaware of the process, but for paints its stabilized by (if memory serves) soaking it into alumina hydrate. Where upon it can afterwards be used in a pigment like function. Some pigments can be used in a rough dye like matter in colouring cottons, but they easily wash out or rub off. In a way, you could think of pigments as being colourful dirt. Vermillion is used as a pigment in paint, though not in much use today, but it is, and has always been a solid pigment particle
Lots and lost of talk and identification of the various technicians who operate equipment. The subject could be so much more fascinating with less talk and more images. Seems to me that others have been revealing under paintings for many years. It is a subject that deserves a more thorough examination.
What do you prefere? Frecking Goff? For a Dutch person at least this is bearable . If you refuse to pronounce it right, like GoCH, this is a very elegant solution.
It happens all the time . Try Goethe properly. Try zeitgeist . There is a general agreement in English regarding foreign words and one is being snobbish trying to ridicule others for ‘mispronunciation’. To be clear, was there confusion about which artist was being spoken of?
John Scanlon yeah ok, I would have though it concerns all of Europe hence the commentators from all over Europe, I don’t think anywhere on the film anyone is pretending it’s an English documentary. We are very used to the channels that produce documentaries over here and this is nothing like any if them, I’m British and far too polite to suggest why.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that artist reused materials to paint. I wonder if you are damaging the paintings with all the treatments. Let the art be and the scientists to find another job because they don’t know anything about the art of painting. This new way of seeing art has to stop, the purpose of the artist isn’t to be scanned. So many people has to justified their salaries. They only defend poor informed judgements.
Well it depends on whether you're using the name as a homonym or antonym. In the orignal dutch its Van Gough... translated into English its Van GO. Like Paris vs Paree, or my name Cloudia vs clawdia. If we called everything by its native name we'd call Munich Moonchen, etc. just my 2c!
Because its much better than the gow or gofff they use -( instead of the original guttural sound that is ch which is always ignored ) Really nice he spares us that!
English is an open throated language - like Italian - that’s why it transforms when sung. We have no guttural sounds in English, it would sound incredibly pretentious to start producing them in the middle is a sentence.
@@scarletpimpernelagain9124 What about guttural stops? I am not sure how or why you think English is " open-throated". I never have heard of English being "like Italian"! I have to say that is a very ridiculous assertion. No language is really like any other. I've never heard any of these claims in Phonetics. I wonder where you are getting such info. You seem pretty sure that it is true, but I have never heard that claim, and don't find it true in my practice.
Wow.....where can one find more videos like this??
It's like easter eggs... wonderful insights!
I want to go too! Fascinating wonderful work. Bravo!
Fascinating...thank you for adding this.
any artist would hate this. The painting was covered up for reason. I think it's interesting but I can feel them cringe from beyond the grave.
right?
excellent observation. i think maybe with the exception of van Gogh, who we think painted over other paintings because of lack of money - but we really don’t know. we do know that authors have burnt writings they don’t consider good enough for posterity so it is interesting :). stay safe 🌷✨🌿🌸🌱🌼🌷
In austria we have a artist that painted over his painting so many times four men could not lift a painting of round 2 meters, many artist painted over their artwork.
Fascinating as always how the artist composes his work and of course employs economy in terms of recycling a used canvas - materials were expensive as they are today. And yes I concur with the comment about lack of accurate pronunciation - as a professional voice over artist his basic preparation was lacking - ask a Dutchman/woman how to pronounce Van Gogh- it's not that hard if you have a good ear for language.And there is always phonetics - fool proof.
Big deal. All artists paint over stuff. I have paintings with two or three others under them. Sometimes I let parts of them become a part of the top layer. We don't have rules.
There are rules. Like having a purpose for what you are trying to convey. Art that has no direction or rule to guide the principles of the artist is really useless overpriced works of art that just satisfy the ego of the maker the art. Lots of art doesn't have rules and it may fetch loads of money but it has no purpose. You can see it with childrens drawings. Children who have a purpose, even if they draw crazily but with the intent to make something, show a better and more meaningful picture than those kids that draw randomly all over the place just for laughs. What kid were you I wonder?
Is this what they used to scan the Mona Lisa only to find another portrait of a younger woman underneath the top painting ?
The usual excuse is always...
*The Artist Changed his Mind*
If the scientific scrutiny of an artwork is to give a little more disclosure because for centuries they would never ever reveal The Hard Truth 9f a highest level Museum Exhibited Artwork..
of
What lies beneath
(key word LIES).
So when the scientifics proves an artwork to be VERY DIFFERENT and clearly contrary to the usual institutional academic monopoly experts version...
They have to provide an answer to avoid controversy.
ps: the Mona Lisa is entirely different.
Base sketch is a game changer.
No DNA
No Body
And various hearsay accounts over the last 5 centuries
Research Pascal Cotte 2000
Vermillion is a pigment. Not a dye; and yes there is a difference. Also, I'll add myself to the list of; it's Van Gogh not Van Go.
If it is used as a dye it is a dye. Insect shells are used as dyes.
@@callmeishmael7452 The Cochineal insect is dried then boiled to get the colour out of the shells. as a food colouring I'm unaware of the process, but for paints its stabilized by (if memory serves) soaking it into alumina hydrate. Where upon it can afterwards be used in a pigment like function. Some pigments can be used in a rough dye like matter in colouring cottons, but they easily wash out or rub off. In a way, you could think of pigments as being colourful dirt. Vermillion is used as a pigment in paint, though not in much use today, but it is, and has always been a solid pigment particle
Lots and lost of talk and identification of the various technicians who operate equipment. The subject could be so much more fascinating with less talk and more images. Seems to me that others have been revealing under paintings for many years. It is a subject that deserves a more thorough examination.
Matthias Alfeld, extremely thick German accent 🤔 BTW Vincent Who? Van Go?
Right? I thought so too. It was the weirdest Dutch I've ever heard.
Dutch and german s very similar.
Teddy Atlas art historian
Who is Van Go?
What do you prefere?
Frecking Goff?
For a Dutch person at least this is bearable .
If you refuse to pronounce it right, like GoCH, this is a very elegant solution.
It happens all the time . Try Goethe properly. Try zeitgeist . There is a general agreement in English regarding foreign words and one is being snobbish trying to ridicule others for ‘mispronunciation’. To be clear, was there confusion about which artist was being spoken of?
This is a Dutch product, not a British product.
John Scanlon yeah ok, I would have though it concerns all of Europe hence the commentators from all over Europe, I don’t think anywhere on the film anyone is pretending it’s an English documentary. We are very used to the channels that produce documentaries over here and this is nothing like any if them, I’m British and far too polite to suggest why.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that artist reused materials to paint. I wonder if you are damaging the paintings with all the treatments. Let the art be and the scientists to find another job because they don’t know anything about the art of painting. This new way of seeing art has to stop, the purpose of the artist isn’t to be scanned. So many people has to justified their salaries. They only defend poor informed judgements.
Nobody has 18 children.
Who gives a Rats Ass how you say Van Gogh we all know who it is just enjoy his work and get on with it lol .
Buy one get one free 😹
He looks older than 49 to me....just saying.
fascinating insight, not.
You are Bitish narrator, why the heck are you calling hin Van GO?
Well it depends on whether you're using the name as a homonym or antonym. In the orignal dutch its Van Gough... translated into English its Van GO. Like Paris vs Paree, or my name Cloudia vs clawdia. If we called everything by its native name we'd call Munich Moonchen, etc. just my 2c!
Why not ask the narrator to throw in a little guttural throat-clearing for authenticity?
Because its much better than the gow or gofff they use -( instead of the original guttural sound that is ch which is always ignored )
Really nice he spares us that!
English is an open throated language - like Italian - that’s why it transforms when sung. We have no guttural sounds in English, it would sound incredibly pretentious to start producing them in the middle is a sentence.
@@scarletpimpernelagain9124 What about guttural stops? I am not sure how or why you think English is " open-throated". I never have heard of English being "like Italian"! I have to say that is a very ridiculous assertion. No language is really like any other. I've never heard any of these claims in Phonetics. I wonder where you are getting such info. You seem pretty sure that it is true, but I have never heard that claim, and don't find it true in my practice.