11–20 of 129 posts
Not very impressive at the painfully low resolution you download the images at. You can zoom in for a larger view, but the website does all it can to prevent users from actually downloading the high resolution image. Pathetic for a museum.
On one of the paintings[0] you can see electricity poles that look fairly modern. I didn't realise that was already the case back then! [0]: https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/d0420V1962
Alternatively that could also be part of the telegraphs system which was fairly widespread at the time (the painting is of one of Paris gates).
Not very impressive at the painfully low resolution you download the images at. You can zoom in for a larger view, but the website does all it can to prevent users from actually downloading the high resolution image. Pathetic for a museum.
https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.163184.html
Downloadable JPEG in 4096 × 2441 pixels. Public domain licence.
Another example of the Rijksmuseum neighbouring the Van Gogh Museum:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/rijksstudio/kunstenaars/johann...
Downloadable JPEG in 4226 × 4762 pixels. Public domain licence. Only downside is a required account there, but while it asks for an e-mail address, it doesn't bother to check it. (So why ask? Sounds like a GDPR violation.)
I consider these a baseline for important historical works unencumbered by copyright. There is no reason the Van Gogh Museum should hoard digital assets. That is not their mission.
Not very impressive at the painfully low resolution you download the images at. You can zoom in for a larger view, but the website does all it can to prevent users from actually downloading the high resolution image. Pathetic for a museum.
You need to learn to scrape better: https://iiif.micr.io/qDCTO/full/1800,/0/default.jpg
Not very impressive at the painfully low resolution you download the images at. You can zoom in for a larger view, but the website does all it can to prevent users from actually downloading the high resolution image. Pathetic for a museum.
You need to learn to scrape better: https://iiif.micr.io/qDCTO/full/1800,/0/default.jpg
Then it will complain that 3570x4700 is too large because "the maximum is 4000x4000px" which is weird because 3569x4699 is already bigger than 4000x4000 in both linear and areal dimension.
But what they really mean is 16Mi pixels - 16770731 (3569x4699) < 16777216 (2*24, 4096x4096) < 16779000 (3570x4700).
Not very impressive at the painfully low resolution you download the images at. You can zoom in for a larger view, but the website does all it can to prevent users from actually downloading the high resolution image. Pathetic for a museum.
Where it happens that I saw it a few weeks ago, as part of a big Van Gogh exhibition with many of his paintings.
I have to say that if you have a chance to go to that, or to another Van Gogh exhibition, I really recommend it.
From what I understand, not everyone resonates with his work. In fact I believe I saw a critical post on HN some time ago from someone who mentioned having "art students". I'm cynical enough to think they may have been middle school students because I don't think there are many serious people in the art world today who don't love Van Gogh.
And yet, I have a friend who, when the subject of the importance of preserving Van Gogh's work came up, said "They've never done anything for me!" so he couldn't see a reason why it mattered. And, of course, few loved his work while he was alive. Gauguin is even said to have even mocked some of Van Gogh's work in his own, even though they painted together for a time. (This is mentioned at the exhibition at MOMA and a relevant Gauguin is shown.)
So, YMMV. But, I had tears in my eyes from the beauty. Give Van Gogh a chance; his work may really come to mean something to you. It may not, but if it happens that you have yet to do so, it might be worth your while to give it some time, letting yourself be in a state of openness to the forms and colors.
For an art noob, can someone help me understand why the perspective is off in so many of them? I know that he's a master and I don't want to contest that, but the perspective being off feels a little...amateurish? Or is that an intentional choice? If it is, would love to know the 'why' of it
EDIT: I find this really interesting: a visual timeline of how his relationship with alcohol changed his artistic style in various phases of his life: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/536428/fpsyt-11-0...
