In reference to this newspaper article, but @Sklivvz is claiming that

Reading the article, it seems that nobody is claiming that Van Gogh was color blind. It's only speculated that he was.

As far as I understand, I see a claim has been made in that article, thus I disagree with Sklivvz's position.

Who's right?

| |

I tend to agree with Sklivvz, firstly, the article itself is highly critical of the theory in the last two paragraphs:

There are clear issues with Asada’s argument. First, the versions of the paintings he uses aren’t necessarily true to life. Our dependence on digital screens means that it’s hard to make colors remain stable on a computer-to-computer basis. Asada’s images aren’t of the highest quality, and there’s a strong chance the true paintings look completely different. There’s also the philosophical argument. How can we argue that van Gogh’s paintings look better through a filter? To assume that the painter’s provocative artistic choices were simply the result of a medical condition is to completely disregard his own creativity. van Gogh’s colors are meant to clash; the unorthodox pairings were part of the Post-Impressionist and Fauvist aesthetic. Or were Paul Gauguin and André Derain also colorblind?

The discussion is reminiscent of the argument that after Monet had the lens of one eyeball removed due to cataracts, his palette changed to deep blue because he was suddenly able to see ultraviolet light (the lens, protecting the eye, filters ultraviolet rays naturally). It’s the chicken or the egg. Were the artists innovative simply because of their biology, or were they innovative because they were creative, pioneering artists? The latter seems more likely.

In addition to the problems brought up by the article, the original claim itself, as it's brought in the article, just says that (some of) the painting of Van Gogh look more natural under a certain digital filter, it doesn't claim to prove that the artist meant for the paintings to be more realistic, Van Gogh was a Post-Impressionist artist (at least according to Wikipedia) and many painters of that movement painted paintings that weren't focused on being true to real life

Henri Rousseau Paul Gauguin Paul Cézanne Lemmen Émile Bernard

| |

The article makes an interesting speculation, but it doesn't pass it as a definite truth. There's nothing wrong with speculating as long as you know and tell the difference.

Scientists speculate and theorize all the time. They only get in "trouble", philosophically speaking, when they start thinking that a speculative idea is actually "real".

The same applies here: I have no doubts about the facts presented, and neither do you, and the theory even makes sense. But it's a theory and presented as such, in other words it's a "maybe".

We can't disprove the theory that "maybe" Van Gogh was color blind. We could disprove, or prove, that Van Gogh was indeed color blind, but no one is claiming that. The article is simply speculating that it was based on circumstantial evidence.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .