The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
asada0.tumblr.com
The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#2This is really interesting. I wish the pictures he provided were a little bigger though. I still don't know that this really improves on the originals. To me, part of the genius of Van Gogh is his unusual use of color. The "improved" versions look nice, but they also look sort of boring compared to the old versions- they are more realistic, but they also loose a lot of the whimsicality and surreally of the originals (two of my favorite traits of Van Gogh). I guess my problem with this article isn't as much the new versions of the paintings, as the authors assertion that they are superior to the originals.
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#3This is really interesting. I wish the pictures he provided were a little bigger though. I still don't know that this really improves on the originals. To me, part of the genius of Van Gogh is his unusual use of color. The "improved" versions look nice, but they also look sort of boring compared to the old versions- they are more realistic, but they also loose a lot of the whimsicality and surreally of the originals…
Concur wholeheartedly. Van Gogh's unusual color choices are a feature, not a bug. The author asserts that the muted color pallet for 'The Harvest' imbues the painting with an autumnal glow. For me, it removes the element of the painting that I find most interesting. The other comparisons fall along similar lines.
Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspective on Van Gogh's art is itself interesting, so this is a great read, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions.
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#4In some of the converted pictures two colors that were different in the original become identical.
If Van Gogh saw colors the way they are in the converted pictures why would he use two different colors that would look identical to him?
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#5This is really interesting. I wish the pictures he provided were a little bigger though. I still don't know that this really improves on the originals. To me, part of the genius of Van Gogh is his unusual use of color. The "improved" versions look nice, but they also look sort of boring compared to the old versions- they are more realistic, but they also loose a lot of the whimsicality and surreally of the originals…
Concur wholeheartedly. Van Gogh's unusual color choices are a feature, not a bug. The author asserts that the muted color pallet for 'The Harvest' imbues the painting with an autumnal glow. For me, it removes the element of the painting that I find most interesting. The other comparisons fall along similar lines. Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspect…
Yes, I think it would be quite interesting to have a museum exhibition where a high quality print of a original Van Gogh is displayed next a high quality print of the filtered version. I would defiantly pay to see that
I wonder if any other famous artists saw their work differently than the rest of us?
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#6This is really interesting. I wish the pictures he provided were a little bigger though. I still don't know that this really improves on the originals. To me, part of the genius of Van Gogh is his unusual use of color. The "improved" versions look nice, but they also look sort of boring compared to the old versions- they are more realistic, but they also loose a lot of the whimsicality and surreally of the originals…
Concur wholeheartedly. Van Gogh's unusual color choices are a feature, not a bug. The author asserts that the muted color pallet for 'The Harvest' imbues the painting with an autumnal glow. For me, it removes the element of the painting that I find most interesting. The other comparisons fall along similar lines. Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspect…
[deleted]
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#7"The Harvest" and "The Starry Night" both look under-illuminated. The rest look more or less the same.
Not sure whether that's my deuteranomaly talking or if it's his small pictures.
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#8In some of the converted pictures two colors that were different in the original become identical. If Van Gogh saw colors the way they are in the converted pictures why would he use two different colors that would look identical to him?
I'd blame that on the author's image processing.
It's also several times more common to be green-deficient than it is to be missing that cone entirely.
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#9In some of the converted pictures two colors that were different in the original become identical. If Van Gogh saw colors the way they are in the converted pictures why would he use two different colors that would look identical to him?
Let me ask this in another way, why would you not use two different colors as one, if they look identical to you?
Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light
#10In some of the converted pictures two colors that were different in the original become identical. If Van Gogh saw colors the way they are in the converted pictures why would he use two different colors that would look identical to him?
Let me ask this in another way, why would you not use two different colors as one, if they look identical to you?
Why would you separately put two "different" colors of paint on your pad, when as far as you can tell they are identical?
I can understand mixing them, or using first one then the other (after you run out of one) - but shading the image partly with one color and parts with another?
The only conclusion is that they were not identical to him, and this software is not correctly showing us what he saw.