- philip silbernberg Offline
- Berichten: 304
- Lid geworden op: 01 sep 2008, 21:06
Re: The sad story about modern Vincent van Gogh expertise
Bericht door philip silbernberg »Introduction to the report of Landais:
Lets try to give already an introduction to the lengthy report of Landais and give the illustrations later on.
As I told already in fact two things only sre sufficient to declare the Glaneuse authentic.
The simplicity of this case is clear because it is absolutely impossible that the Glaneuse is false.
A indestructable research of the canvas by the ICN ,executed later on in 2004 and even the research of Van Gelder and surely my own research and the research of Landais and Jaegers in 2005/2006 that nothing is false. On the whole canvas is only one little spot of some cemtimeters wide and high which becomes dark under the UV-lamp and this spot is pretty far from the signature as I told already. The reason for this spot will be a later restauration which is not uncommon for a 19th.century work. Astonishing is even that the painting is stll in completely oroginal state included the old varnish
layer(s). So as I told above an honesrt painting cannot be false. As I will show later on the siganture, completely authetic and forming a natural unity with the rest of the paint on ther canvas and surely put by the painter of this work is an authentic signature and as was already observed by Van Gelder, showing all the characteristics of a real Vincent van Gogh -signature, though as I observed recently not exactly like the signature on the drawing from Etten(1881), Van Gelder is referring to. My own observation is that the standpoint of Van Gelder is wrong in this sense, because the signature on the Glaneuse(1883), though showing some simmilarities with the one on the drawing, which is normal as it is of course a signature of the same person, but drawn in one case and painted in the other,shows fundamental differences. I will show this later when I have received a good picture of the signature on the Glaneuse. Anyway I can already say that the signature on the Glaneuse is more interconnected, whuile the signature on the drawing is more unconnected, an important difference. Landais, who is a real expert of the signature of Vincent will show that the way the signature on the Glaneuse is connected
is absolutely normal for Vincent and he proves this by showing signatures on other works of Vincent.Also Landais who observed carefully the backside of the painting too, gives an exact idea of the number of knots per cm2 on the canvas. Also he remarks that the canvas must be from a period before 1900 as it is rather irregular and exactly in the period Vincent was working the indutrialsation of the fabrication of canvasses began to develop in a quick pace!
I as a very experenced observer of canvasses from Dutch painters from the 17th.until the 20th century , I even did a succesful examination for this,observed already by careful observation of the colouring and the matter of the canvas that it must be pure 19th.century. As I mentioned already several times above these two factors, an original Vincent-signature and an original 19th.century canvas togeather are in fact already sufficient for an expert like me, who knows the fact that only since 1902 the Dutch work of Vincent is known to the world,are sufficient to declare the painting an authentic Vincent van Gogh painting. The accademic arthistorions from the Van Gogh Museum and also their professor are in fact incompetent in this sense because they do not seem to understand this simple truth understandable for everybody who has some common sense and an understanding of logical reasoning. but by their incompetence, lack of experience and knowledge of the wide scala of Dutch painters working in the period of Vincent they stay alienated from the researchfield, because being specialised is a good thing, but accompanied by a lack of proper differentiation gives an attitude
characterised by fear and uncertainty.
This is the problem with these accademic arthistorians who become directly after their study at the university appointed "expert" by the Dutch State, and of course one can generalise this to the international artscene. I know how difficult it is to form an opinion of a painting and of its aurthenticity, when one lacks the experience of the observation af all the painters, working at the period of Vincent, because the accademics do not know the way of working of all the painters, big masters and small masters from the period and because they lack this experience they miss the certainty to say 100% yes to a painting they do not know from a painter they are specialised in. It is clear that neither Van Gelder , nor Van Tilborgh can give thwe name of the painter who in their opinion falsified this work, which is in this case also impossible as it is a simple and clear work of Vincent van Gogh.That they invent all kind of false arguments, as is clearly shown anove , is a sad and disgusting fact and for this reason I donot trust the judgements of the professors in arthistory( as Van Gelder, Van Uitert) and their students Van Tilborgh , Van Heugten.
A man who had a practial and good knowledge of the Vincent van Gogh-artmarket of the beginning of the 20th.century, Professor H.P.Bremmer , who was a very good painter himself, writes in his book" Vincent van Gogh,Inleidende Bescouwingen( 1911), one of the first and earliest interesting studies of the work of Vincent that in this period the work of Vincent is largely available on the artmarket and easy to buy, and especially pf the Dutch work of Vincent on the artmarket was plenty available . As the work was already before 1911 in the possesion of the honest and very gifted artdealer Jacob de Vries, specialised in the avant-garde painters of his time,all real impressionists from the Hague-school, a supposition that someone makes a work completelty original and not based on examples in that period,to falsify Dutch work of Vincent van Gogh and give a complete new image, while the Dutch work of Vincent was in multitude available on the artmarket and not very expensive and even much cheaper than the work of the great masters of the Hague-school, like Josef Israels, the brothers Maris, Gabriel, Weissenbruch,Willem de Zwart,Johannes Bosboom,Anton Mauve etc. is a complete illogical hypothesis and a typical product of the incompetent and illogical minds of the arthistorians. As we have the prove that Jacob de Vries sold in 1911 the work to Dr.Pieter Ras, as we were able in 2003 to contact the grandchildren of Jacob de Vries in the USA, who were so nice to send the original Cashbook Of Jacob de Vries to us, so that we could even determine the day ans month that the work was sold to Pieter Ras in 1911 and even got an original photo of the work in black and white, as Jacob was a gifted photographer ,even from before 1911, and the fact becomes clear that we can read there that Jacob de Vries sold the work as real Vincent van Gogh!!! What proves must we give in fact to declare these srthistoriands fools instead of experts. The fqact that Pieter Ras himself was a painter makes the fact that the painting was falsely signed even more improbable, because a false signature would be easy remakable by an experienced and correct artdealer like Jacob and surely too by an experienced painter like Pieter. As the false signature had to be put on the work between 1902 and 1911 the falseness would of course already have been observed by the two or at least by one of the two.An experienced observer of work of Vincent in that period, as director of Oldenzeel gallery and auctionhouse, would of course also have remarked that falseness of the siganture , especially because he too was a real painter and even a real Vincent-expert. So the more we look to these facts the more idiotic the case of the Glaneuse becomes and the more I despise stese stupid arthistorions living in their small world of falsifications and myths coming from brains, lacking the most elementary sense for logic .
That Landais gives the proves that the work is authentic is very special and shows that he is a real expert and a man with a good healthy brain who stands open for the work offered to him for observation and that he is not caught in a stupifying web of prejudices like the poor arthistorions who have to complicate simple things to fool the masses and tho show off and to give the false impression of importance, though they are in fact assholes of the puerest kind, lacking maybe even elementary intelligence.
The Glaneuse is a nice example of that sad fact that they are incompetent andd that a Frenchman has to teach them the scientific truth!!
Thats why Vincent probably escaped this small and narrow-minded country to go to his beloved France where he could at least live and have intelligent conversations with intelligent people.
In this sense I thank God that people like Landais exist and that in Landais I remark the spirit of Rene Descartes and the healthy mind of the Republican, who beheaded the king and queen and who despises all the idioties existing because the Dutch need their royal house
so that we now can enjoy the cooperation between the rats of the Van gogh Museum and the rats of the Shell company all because of a guy who despised Holland and despised snobism and stupidity,and who was gifted with a great talent and a anti-capitalistic ideology.
Will be continued
Drs.Philip Mark Silbernberg,
licensed valuer of paintings.
Will be continued
Lets try to give already an introduction to the lengthy report of Landais and give the illustrations later on.
As I told already in fact two things only sre sufficient to declare the Glaneuse authentic.
The simplicity of this case is clear because it is absolutely impossible that the Glaneuse is false.
A indestructable research of the canvas by the ICN ,executed later on in 2004 and even the research of Van Gelder and surely my own research and the research of Landais and Jaegers in 2005/2006 that nothing is false. On the whole canvas is only one little spot of some cemtimeters wide and high which becomes dark under the UV-lamp and this spot is pretty far from the signature as I told already. The reason for this spot will be a later restauration which is not uncommon for a 19th.century work. Astonishing is even that the painting is stll in completely oroginal state included the old varnish
layer(s). So as I told above an honesrt painting cannot be false. As I will show later on the siganture, completely authetic and forming a natural unity with the rest of the paint on ther canvas and surely put by the painter of this work is an authentic signature and as was already observed by Van Gelder, showing all the characteristics of a real Vincent van Gogh -signature, though as I observed recently not exactly like the signature on the drawing from Etten(1881), Van Gelder is referring to. My own observation is that the standpoint of Van Gelder is wrong in this sense, because the signature on the Glaneuse(1883), though showing some simmilarities with the one on the drawing, which is normal as it is of course a signature of the same person, but drawn in one case and painted in the other,shows fundamental differences. I will show this later when I have received a good picture of the signature on the Glaneuse. Anyway I can already say that the signature on the Glaneuse is more interconnected, whuile the signature on the drawing is more unconnected, an important difference. Landais, who is a real expert of the signature of Vincent will show that the way the signature on the Glaneuse is connected
is absolutely normal for Vincent and he proves this by showing signatures on other works of Vincent.Also Landais who observed carefully the backside of the painting too, gives an exact idea of the number of knots per cm2 on the canvas. Also he remarks that the canvas must be from a period before 1900 as it is rather irregular and exactly in the period Vincent was working the indutrialsation of the fabrication of canvasses began to develop in a quick pace!
I as a very experenced observer of canvasses from Dutch painters from the 17th.until the 20th century , I even did a succesful examination for this,observed already by careful observation of the colouring and the matter of the canvas that it must be pure 19th.century. As I mentioned already several times above these two factors, an original Vincent-signature and an original 19th.century canvas togeather are in fact already sufficient for an expert like me, who knows the fact that only since 1902 the Dutch work of Vincent is known to the world,are sufficient to declare the painting an authentic Vincent van Gogh painting. The accademic arthistorions from the Van Gogh Museum and also their professor are in fact incompetent in this sense because they do not seem to understand this simple truth understandable for everybody who has some common sense and an understanding of logical reasoning. but by their incompetence, lack of experience and knowledge of the wide scala of Dutch painters working in the period of Vincent they stay alienated from the researchfield, because being specialised is a good thing, but accompanied by a lack of proper differentiation gives an attitude
characterised by fear and uncertainty.
This is the problem with these accademic arthistorians who become directly after their study at the university appointed "expert" by the Dutch State, and of course one can generalise this to the international artscene. I know how difficult it is to form an opinion of a painting and of its aurthenticity, when one lacks the experience of the observation af all the painters, working at the period of Vincent, because the accademics do not know the way of working of all the painters, big masters and small masters from the period and because they lack this experience they miss the certainty to say 100% yes to a painting they do not know from a painter they are specialised in. It is clear that neither Van Gelder , nor Van Tilborgh can give thwe name of the painter who in their opinion falsified this work, which is in this case also impossible as it is a simple and clear work of Vincent van Gogh.That they invent all kind of false arguments, as is clearly shown anove , is a sad and disgusting fact and for this reason I donot trust the judgements of the professors in arthistory( as Van Gelder, Van Uitert) and their students Van Tilborgh , Van Heugten.
A man who had a practial and good knowledge of the Vincent van Gogh-artmarket of the beginning of the 20th.century, Professor H.P.Bremmer , who was a very good painter himself, writes in his book" Vincent van Gogh,Inleidende Bescouwingen( 1911), one of the first and earliest interesting studies of the work of Vincent that in this period the work of Vincent is largely available on the artmarket and easy to buy, and especially pf the Dutch work of Vincent on the artmarket was plenty available . As the work was already before 1911 in the possesion of the honest and very gifted artdealer Jacob de Vries, specialised in the avant-garde painters of his time,all real impressionists from the Hague-school, a supposition that someone makes a work completelty original and not based on examples in that period,to falsify Dutch work of Vincent van Gogh and give a complete new image, while the Dutch work of Vincent was in multitude available on the artmarket and not very expensive and even much cheaper than the work of the great masters of the Hague-school, like Josef Israels, the brothers Maris, Gabriel, Weissenbruch,Willem de Zwart,Johannes Bosboom,Anton Mauve etc. is a complete illogical hypothesis and a typical product of the incompetent and illogical minds of the arthistorians. As we have the prove that Jacob de Vries sold in 1911 the work to Dr.Pieter Ras, as we were able in 2003 to contact the grandchildren of Jacob de Vries in the USA, who were so nice to send the original Cashbook Of Jacob de Vries to us, so that we could even determine the day ans month that the work was sold to Pieter Ras in 1911 and even got an original photo of the work in black and white, as Jacob was a gifted photographer ,even from before 1911, and the fact becomes clear that we can read there that Jacob de Vries sold the work as real Vincent van Gogh!!! What proves must we give in fact to declare these srthistoriands fools instead of experts. The fqact that Pieter Ras himself was a painter makes the fact that the painting was falsely signed even more improbable, because a false signature would be easy remakable by an experienced and correct artdealer like Jacob and surely too by an experienced painter like Pieter. As the false signature had to be put on the work between 1902 and 1911 the falseness would of course already have been observed by the two or at least by one of the two.An experienced observer of work of Vincent in that period, as director of Oldenzeel gallery and auctionhouse, would of course also have remarked that falseness of the siganture , especially because he too was a real painter and even a real Vincent-expert. So the more we look to these facts the more idiotic the case of the Glaneuse becomes and the more I despise stese stupid arthistorions living in their small world of falsifications and myths coming from brains, lacking the most elementary sense for logic .
That Landais gives the proves that the work is authentic is very special and shows that he is a real expert and a man with a good healthy brain who stands open for the work offered to him for observation and that he is not caught in a stupifying web of prejudices like the poor arthistorions who have to complicate simple things to fool the masses and tho show off and to give the false impression of importance, though they are in fact assholes of the puerest kind, lacking maybe even elementary intelligence.
The Glaneuse is a nice example of that sad fact that they are incompetent andd that a Frenchman has to teach them the scientific truth!!
Thats why Vincent probably escaped this small and narrow-minded country to go to his beloved France where he could at least live and have intelligent conversations with intelligent people.
In this sense I thank God that people like Landais exist and that in Landais I remark the spirit of Rene Descartes and the healthy mind of the Republican, who beheaded the king and queen and who despises all the idioties existing because the Dutch need their royal house
so that we now can enjoy the cooperation between the rats of the Van gogh Museum and the rats of the Shell company all because of a guy who despised Holland and despised snobism and stupidity,and who was gifted with a great talent and a anti-capitalistic ideology.
Will be continued
Drs.Philip Mark Silbernberg,
licensed valuer of paintings.
Will be continued