van gogh museum paintings

7/30/2019 Van Gogh Museum Paintings

1/23

Vincent

vanGoghPaintings

Volume 2

Antwerp & Paris

1885-1888Van Gogh Museum

Ella Hendriks

Louis van Tilborgh

With the assistance of

Margriet van Eikema Hommes

Monique Hageman

Translated by Michael Hoyle

Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

Waanders Publishers, Zwolle


2/23

The Van Gogh Museum collection catalogueVincent van Gogh,

Paintings 2: Antwerp & Paris, is the second volume in the series

Vincent van Gogh, Paintings 1-3.

Previously published volume:

Vincent van Gogh, Paintings 1

The Dutch Period, 1881-1885

Louis van Tilborgh and Marije Vellekoop

(1999)

Previously published in the series Vincent van Gogh, Drawings i-4:

Vincent van Gogh, Drawings 1

The early years, 1880-1883

Sjraar van Heugten

(1996)


Nuenen, 1883-1885

Sjraar van Heugten

(1997)


Antwerp & Paris, 1885-1888

Marije Vellekoop and Sjraar van Heugten

(2001)


Arles, Saint-Rmy & Auvers-sur-Oise, 1888-1890

Marije Vellekoop and Roelie Zwikker

(2007)

Cover illustrations

Front: Vincent van Gogh, In the caf: Agostina Segatori in Le Tambourin,

1887, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum

Back: Vincent van Gogh, Boulevard de Clichy, 1887, Amsterdam,

Van Gogh Museum

We thank our partners for generously supporting

the research


3/23

Contents

9 Foreword Axel Rger

11 Introduction Ella Hendriks & Louis van Tilborgh

17 The history of the collection: exchanges, gifts,

sales and the sacrosanct core Louis van Tilborgh

17 Sales, exchanges, gifts25 The collection after 1890

28 Treatment history of the collection Ella Hendriks

28 Early period and Jo van Gogh-Bonger

29 The J.C. Traas campaign (1926-33)

33 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

34 Vandalism in 1978

35 Mid-1980s condition survey

35 In-house conservation studio, 1986-present

37 Establishing the chronology Louis van Tilborgh

37 Documentary sources38 Paintings as source material

39 Winter 1885/86-autumn 1886

44 Winter 1886/87-winter 1887/88

51 From Realist to modernist. Van Gogh meets the

Parisian avant-garde Louis van Tilborgh

53 The need to sell

56 Van Goghs earliest theory of art

58 Nature versus the imagination

61 New elements of art

67 Leaving peasant painting behind: new genres

70 Monticelli and the shock of recognition72 A dialogue with modernism

74 The influence of Bernard and Toulouse-Lautrec

77 The Neo-Impressionist example

82 New ideas from Bernard: abstraction and stylisation

85 Van Goghs own contribution

5


4/23

90 Van Goghs working practice: a technical study Ella Hendriks

with scientific analysis by Muriel Geldof

90 Introduction

91 Sources of painting materials

91 Antwerp

92 Paris

97 Picture supports

97 Carton

99 Canvas

100 Format

103 Fabrics and weaves

104 Distinguishing dierent types of priming

112 Reused pictures

117 Underdrawing and use of the perspective frame127 Tracing and scaling-up technique

127 Use of colour

128 Blues

130 Yellows and oranges

134 Reds and violets

139 Greens

140 Blacks

141 Earth pigments

141 Whites and extenders

142 Summary

144 Developing technique and style Ella Hendriks144 Technical evidence for dating

144 Changing materials

146 1886, tradition versus modernity

148 1886/87, a turning point

148 A lessence painting combined with the Neo-Impressionist touch

150 Pointillism

151 Spontaneity versus method

151 Mid-toned grounds

152 High-key colour versus tone

154 Texture and the use of twill canvas

156 Conclusion

157 Catalogue

Ella Hendriks & Louis van Tilborgh

with the assistance of

Margriet van Eikema Hommes & Monique Hageman

159 Note to the reader

6


5/23

Antwerp

162 45 Portrait of an old man

168 46 Portrait of an old woman

17 1 47, 48 Studies of a prostitute

178 49 Houses seen from the back

183 50 Head of a skeleton with a burning cigarette

Paris

186 51 Nude girl, seated

190 52-54 Self-portraitand portraits of a woman

198 55 Path in Montmartre

201 56 View from Vincents studio

205 57-63 Studies of plaster casts

221 64, 65 Views of the hill of Montmartre230 66 View of Paris

236 67-69 Flower studies

246 70, 71 Studies of a vase with gladioli and Chinese asters

253 72 Prawns and mussels

257 73 Shoes

264 74, 75 Self-portraits

271 76 Self-portrait with felt hat

274 77 Self-portrait with glass

278 78 Shoes

281 79, 80 Basket of crocus bulbs and Flowerpot with garlic chives

287 81, 82 Basket of hyacinth bulbs and Three novels

294 83 Portrait of Agostina Segatori299 84 In the caf: Agostina Segatori in Le Tambourin

306 85-87 Studies of plaster casts

3 1 3 88, 89 Dish with citrus fruitand Carafe and dish with citrus fruit

319 90 Caf table with absinthe

324 91 Sunset in Montmartre

328 92 Impasse des Deux Frres

335 93 Montmartre: windmills and allotments

340 94 Boulevard de Clichy

345 95 View from Theos apartment

352 96 Portrait of Lonie Rose Charbuy-Davy

356 97, 98 Self-portraits

362 99, 100 Studies of skulls366 101 Square Saint-Pierre at sunset

374 102 Basket of pansies

379 103 Horse chestnut tree in blossom

382 104 Garden with courting couples: square Saint-Pierre

387 105 Exterior of a restaurant in Asnires

391 106 Bank of the Seine

395 107 By the Seine

399 108 The bridge at Courbevoie

7


6/23

403 109 Path in the woods

406 110 Wheatfield with partridge

410 111, 112 Studies of trees and undergrowth

416 113 Undergrowth

419 114 Allotment with sunflower

423 115 Montmartre: behind the Moulin de la Galette

429 116-20 Self-portraits

440 121, 122 Portrait of Theo van Gogh and Self-portrait

448 123 Kingfisher by the waterside

452 124 Sunflowers gone to seed

457 125 Self-portrait with straw hat

461 126, 127 Studies of fruit

468 128 Quinces, lemons, pears and grapes

473 129 Self-portrait with pipe and straw hat476 130 Self-portrait with grey felt hat

480 131 Flowering plum orchard: after Hiroshige

488 132 Bridge in the rain: after Hiroshige

495 133 Courtesan: after Eisen

502 134 Piles of French novels

509 135 Red cabbages and onions

5 1 3 136 Portrait of Etienne-Lucien Martin

5 1 8 137 Self-portrait as a painter

525 Tables summarizing the results of technical examinations

and scientific analysis Ella Hendriks, Muriel Geldof, Maarten van Bommel,

Natasha Walker527 1 Paint-sellers visited in Paris

529 2 Carton supports

5 3 1 3 Primed canvas supports

549 4 Standard-sized canvases

550 5 Reused pictures

5 5 5 6 Pictures with underdrawing from a perspective frame

556 7 Pigments identified in visible images

563 Appendices

565 1 Rejected works

5 7 1 2 The dates of the Antwerp and Paris paintings

579 Documentation

5 81 Exhibitions

5 95 Literature

611 Concordance

61 3 Acknowledgements

8


7/23

The history of the collection: exchanges,

gifts, sales and the sacrosanct core

Louis van Tilborgh

Van Gogh made around 200 paintings during his time in Antwerp and Paris, 93 of

which are now in the Van Gogh Museum: 6 from the Antwerp period and 87 from

Paris (cats. 45-50 and 51-137).1 They amount to all but one of the surviving Belgian

oeuvre and almost half the Paris output. There are characteristic examples of all the

genres and the artistic phases that Van Gogh went through, so the museums col-

lection forms an excellent basis for charting his amazing and rapid transformation

from a peasant painter in the tradition of Jean-Franois Millet to an unconventionalmodernist in thrall to Japanese prints.

To take just a few examples, the paintings include portraits of ladies of easy

virtue influenced by Rubens and Jordaens (cats. 47, 48); his only surviving figure

piece in oils from the spring of 1886, when he was studying with the Paris history

painter Cormon (cat. 51); four flower still lifes from the summer of that year in

which he experimented with a bold palette and rough manner in imitation of

Adolphe Monticelli (cats. 68-71); his first tentative eorts in early 1887 to follow

in the footsteps of the Neo-Impressionists by working with small, distinct dots

of colour (cats. 81, 82, 90-95); two of his four paintings in which he followed the

example of the French Realists and Impressionists by depicting the caf and restau-

rant life of Paris (cats. 84, 90); and his three remarkable translations of Japanese

prints, which were prompted by his need to subordinate perspective to decorativeeects (cats. 131-33).

The collection also contains a sizeable number of self-portraits (cats. 52, 74-77,

97, 98, 116-20, 122, 125, 129, 130, 137), most of which are exercises in colour and

form, but which do include one fully-fledged painting (cat. 137), and last but not

least two of the three large pictures which Van Gogh exhibited in 1888 in the

Thtre Libre founded by Andr Antoine and at the exhibition of Les Indpendants

(cats. 104, 115). In addition to these ambitious works there are many small and

charming nature studies like Horse chestnut tree in blossom(cat. 103; see also cats.

105, 106, 109) and several experimental pieces, including the ten interesting exer-

cises after plaster casts (cats. 57-63, 85-87) and Prawns and mussels (cat. 72).

Sales, exchanges, giftsBut however large and rich it may be, there are certainly gaps in the museums col-

lection. For example, there is not a single specimen from 1886 of Van Goghs many

park scenes and views of the Moulin de la Galette, the entertainment centre on the

hill of Montmartre. His most colourful flower pieces are in other collections, nor

does the museum have any of his systematically Pointillist paintings from May

1887, unless one counts the slightly earlier View from Theos apartment(cat. 95) or

the less dogmatic Garden with courting couples: Square Saint-Pierre (cat. 104).2 There

are only one unfinished and two small samples of the many river views painted

17

1 It is only possible to give a rough estimate of Van

Goghs output in this period, since the authenticity of

several of the paintings listed in the oeuvre cataloguesstill has to be investigated (see Appendix 2). In addi-

tion to the 93 from Antwerp and Paris, the museum

has 44 from his Dutch period (1880-late 1885; see

Paintings 1, cats. 1-44) and 73 from Arles, Saint-Rmy

and Auvers-sur-Oise (early 1888-90). The studies

executed in Nuenen with backs painted in Paris, six

in all (cats. 114, 116-20), are counted twice, once each

in the Dutch and Paris oeuvres.

2 The markedly Pointillist works are F 276 JH 1259,

F 342 JH 1256 and F 361 JH 1260.


8/23

near Asnires (cats. 106-08), which might mislead visitors into thinking that the

work Van Gogh did in this village near Paris was of only minor importance.

The reason for these omissions is simple: Van Goghs paintings soon became

dispersed, even when he was still alive, and it is dicult to reconstruct the process.

His need to sell his work had become increasingly acute towards the end of his stayin Nuenen, and when he arrived in Antwerp he immediately got in touch with local

art dealers.3 Although he did not sell anything, as far as we know, he remained opti-

mistic and continued to do the same in Paris.4 Several paintings from that period

are signed, mainly flower still lifes and views of the city and windmills, from which

it can be inferred that they, in particular, were intended for sale.5 It is known that in

the summer of 1886 he left works with a number of smaller dealers whom he had

probably got to know through his brother. They were Pierre-Firmin Martin (1817-

91; fig. 1), who specialised in paintings by the Barbizon School but who also sold

18

3 Van Goghs constantly changing views on when his

art was ready to be displayed to the outside world arebriefly discussed in Van Tilborgh/Van Uitert 1990,

pp. 15-26. See also pp. 53-55.

4 Letter 546.

5 It is dicult to investigate this systematically. The

history of the signed works is often incomplete, and

strictly speaking we do not know whether they were

sold, given away or exchanged. In most cases, too

(apart from those in the Van Gogh Museum), it is

not known whether Van Gogh wrote the signatures

when the paint was still wet or added them later.

1 Adolphe-Felix Cals, Portrait of Pierre-Firmin Martin, 1878. Honfleur,

Muse Eugne Boudin.

2 Portrait of Julien Tanguy (F 363 JH 1351), 1887. Paris, Muse Rodin.

3 Photograph of Alphonse Portier. From Paris 1988, p. 339.


9/23

work by Johan Barthold Jongkind and Impressionists, and whose adopted daughter

sat to Van Gogh for her portrait in 1887 (cat. 96); Georges Thomas (?-after 1908),

a former wine merchant about whom little is known but who later sold works by

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Louis Anquetin; Julien Tanguy (1825-94; fig. 2),

who mainly sold artists materials but also dealt in paintings, by Czanne, among

others; and probably Alphonse Portier (1841-1902; fig. 3), an important acquain-

tance of Theos who had worked at Durand-Ruel and was in direct touch with Edgar

Degas, Claude Monet and others.6

As far as is known Van Gogh only actually sold anything through Tanguy: a por-

trait for 20 francs, 30 less than he wanted for it (fig.4).7 Most works left his studio

as exchanges,8 not so much because he wanted to build up his own collection of

modern art but in order to become better known in his new home. His paintings

are getting so much better and he is beginning to exchange them for ones by other

painters, thats how it must gradually come about, as his sister Willemien wrote inAugust 1886.9 Like him, those other painters were foreigners and thus newcomers

on the Paris art market. They included the American Frank Myers Boggs, a busi-

ness associate of Theos, and several fellow students at Cormons studio: the

Spaniard Fabian de Castro, the Algerian-born Charles Antoine, also called Antonio

Cristobal, and the Australian John Russell.10 The latter exchanged either his portrait

of Van Gogh or a nude study for a still life with shoes (figs. 5, 6).11 Antoine gave Van

Gogh a study of a young girl, Boggs two seascapes and Fabian a landscape, but it is

not known which works of Van Gogh they got in return, although they were very

probably Paris street scenes or views of windmills.12

Although Van Gogh had already tried to organise an exchange with a French

artist in 1886, Charles Angrand, his relations with local painters only became su-

ciently personal for exchanges in the course of the following year.13

Those willingto do so may well have included Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and certainly Emile

4 Portrait of a man (F 288 JH 1200), 1886-87.

Whereabouts unknown.

19

notes 26 and 27, and Destremau 1996, pp. 174, 175,

note 34 on p. 182, and p. 184.

11 Russells nude study has hitherto been attributed toan anonymous artist, but a description in a bill relating

to it from the restorer J.C. Traas of January 1930 (b

4208) and the manner of execution, especially of the

draperies, indicate that it is his work, although that

attribution is not entirely trusted by Galbally 2008,

p. 274, note 30. It is known that he owned Van Goghs

Shoes from the sale of his estate at the Htel Drouot in

Paris on 31 March 1920 (lot 62). According to his son

Lionel he had another Van Gogh about which nothing

further is known, but he may have been mistaken

(Albie Thoms, Brothers of the brush, in Sydney/

Queensland 2001-02, p. 53).

12 If one takes Van Goghs signedcanvases from this

period with a provenance other than the family collec-

tion and rules out still lifes, since apart from Antoineand Russell his colleagues supplied landscape sub-

jects, then the eligible works are F 224 JH 1112, F 262

JH 1102, F 265 JH 1100, F 273 JH 1116 and F 274 JH 1115.

13 Letter 570; see also Welsh-Ovcharov 1971 II, pp. 36-

38, and Van Tilborgh 2010, pp. 150-60, for an overview

of his social integration in France. Van Gogh wanted

Angrands fille aux poules of 1884 (private collection),

and oered 2 vues du Moulin de la galette in

exchange. For an identification of these works see

p. 43, note 22.

6 Van Gogh said that four dealers were involved in

letter 569 from the autumn of 1886, and it is assumed

that he meant these four, partly on evidence in his

ater correspondence (Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, pp.

213-17, Nonne 1988, Nonne 2000, pp. 45, 46). See

also Theos letter of August 1886 to their mother in

which he also spoke of four dealers (b 942). He wrote

that one of them had already taken four of his paint-

ings (al vier van zijn schilderijen genomen) and

had promised to hold an exhibition of his work next

year (het volgend jaar een expositie van zijn werk te

houden). Vincent was probably also in touch withAthanase Bague (1843-93), who had founded the

firm of Bague & Cie with several partners in 1873,

as emerges from the later correspondence (letters

699, 700 and 702).

7 That painting, described in letter 638, is F 288

JH 1200. The only alternative is F 209 JH 1201, but

Ronald Pickvance rightly argued against its authentic-

ity (Pickvance 2006, p. 501). The price of 50 francs

is mentioned in letters 569 and 640.

8 Van Gogh reported this for the first time in his letter

of September or October 1886: I have exchanged stud-

ies with several artists [569].

9 Letter of 26 August 1886 to Line Kruysse (b 4536):

Zijn schilderijen worden zooveel beter en hij begint ze

te verruilen tegen die van andere schilders, zoo moet

t langsamerhand komen. She based this on a letter

from Theo to their mother (b 942).

10 The family collection contains the following paint-

ings by them: two seascapes by Boggs (inv. s 212,

s 213); an 1886 portrait of a woman by Antoine (inv.

s 203); a portrait of Van Gogh and a nude study by

Russell (inv. s 262, s 273), and a small landscapescene of Montmartre by Fabian (inv. s 218) (unless

F 233 JH 1180, which is no longer attributed to Van

Gogh, is also a work by this artist; see Appendix 1).

The first four bear dedications to Vincent, while the last

three do not, but it is unlikely that Theo bought them.

The artists may have given them to Vincent without

taking anything in return, but that is mainly a theor-

etical possibility and is ignored here. It is known that

not only Russell but Antoine and Fabian as well were

pupils of Cormon from Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, p. 56,


10/23

20

5 John Russell, Nude study, c. 1886.

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum.

6 Shoes (F 332 JH 1234), 1886. Cambridge

(Mass.), Fogg Art Museum, Harvard

University.


11/23

Bernard, who exchanged four or even more paintings with him, among them his

Portrait of Bernards grandmother(figs. 7, 8).14 All but one of those pictures date from

the second half of 1887, when Van Gogh was also doing business with Lucien Pis-

sarro, Camilles son,15 who gave him prints in return for a painting (figs. 9, 10). At

the end of the year Van Gogh exchanged two still lifes of sunflowers for a landscape(figs. 11, 12), which says enough about his modest position as a foreign newcomer

amidst the Parisian avant-garde.16

21

14 Toulouse-Lautrec owned Van Goghs second ver-

sion of his View from Theos apartment of 1887 (F 341a

JH 1243; fig. 95b). There is a painting and a pastel by

him in the family collection that could have been part

of an exchange: Two prostitutes in a cafof c. 1886 (inv.

s 275) and Portrait of Vincent van Gogh in Le Tambourin

from the beginning of 1887 (inv. d 693). However, we

do not know whether this took place during Van Goghs

time in Paris. Toulouse-Lautrec may only have got Van

Goghs painting after 1888-89 (see cat. 95, note 12).

Van Gogh did make an exchange with Bernard in 1887:a self-portrait in return for the portrait of the latters

grandmother (figs.8, 7), as we know from letter 704.

He also reported in letter 640 that he had exchanged

Japanese prints for several works by his friend just

before he left Paris. They probably includedAcrobats

(Montevideo, Uruguay, Museo Nacional de Bellas

Artes), which is dedicated to Vincent and belonged to

the brothers but was evidently returned to Bernard

later (letter 630; Luthi 1982, p. 14, no. 65). The follow-

ing three works from the family collection could also

have been part of the transaction, for they are all from

Bernards Paris period: Figure in the grass, Still life with

flowers and Ragpicker fishing(inv. s 258, s 255, s 367).

Bernard owned several of Van Goghs paintings from

before 1888, but with the exception of the self-portrait

mentioned above it is not known when he acquired

them (see New York 2007-08, pp. 366, 367). According

to De la Faille 1970 he had Woman with a scarlet bow in

her hairof 1885 (F 207 JH 979), Woman strolling in a gar-

den (F 368 JH 1262) and The Seine with a rowing boat of

1887 (F 298 JH 1257), but that seems unlikely in the caseof the latter two (see Feilchenfeldt 2009, pp. 79, 88).

It emerges from the Vollard archive in the Muse

dOrsay that he also had two nude studies (F 329

JH 1215 and F 330 JH 1214), Les usines, which may

have been F 318 JH 1288, two self-portraits, F 319

JH 1333 and F 366 JH 1345, and perhaps F 810 JH 2109

(see Feilchenfeldt 2009, p. 84), all of 1887 as well. Blue

and white grapes, apples, pears and lemons of 1887 (F 382

JH 1337) also seems to have belonged to Bernard

(Feilchenfeldt 2009, pp. 64, 276). Furthermore, he

had Poires et marrons, listed in the 1890 inventory of

Theos collection as a Paris work (Bonger 1890, no. 42),

but it cannot be identified with any of the paintings in

the oeuvre catalogues. Interestingly enough, the FineArts Museum of San Francisco has a still life with pears

and chestnuts (and an apple) which is attributed to Van

Gogh on its website. Further examination is needed to

see whether that is correct and whether this is the work

listed as being in Theos collection in Bonger 1890.

15 Ragpicker fishing(see the previous note) dates from

1886 (kind communication of Fred Leeman). The ex-

change with Lucien Pissarro is mentioned in letter 592

and in Luciens letter of 26 January 1928 to Paul Gachet

Jr (b 886). Lucien worked from July 1887 as a lithog-

rapher in the printing works of Theos employer Bous-

sod, Valadon & Cie, which probably enabled Vincent to

get to know him better. On this see Bailey 1994, p. 44.

16 Those sunflower still lifes are F 375 JH 1329 (fig.12)

and F 376 JH 1331; Gauguin gave him On the shore ofthe lake, Martinique (fig. 11). See letters 640, 736. Later,

when he was in Arles, Vincent also wanted to exchange

works with three other artists he had met in Paris:

Georges Seurat (letters 584 and 594), Camille Pissarro

(letter 594) and Arnold Hendrik Koning. The latter said

that he would rather have one painted study than the 2

drawings (liever een geschilderde studie in plaats van

de 2 teekeningen), as Vincent had originally proposed

(quotation from b 1077 and letters 600, 614, note 3,

615 and 740).

8 Self-portrait (F 526 JH 1309), 1887. Detroit,

The Detroit Institute of Arts.

7 Emile Bernard, Portrait of Bernards grandmother, 1887. Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum.


12/23

He also realised that exchanges with colleagues were not enough to get his

name known. Gifts to friendly art dealers, no matter how modest their reputations

and influence, were also important. For instance, Theos colleague Alexander Reid

(1854-1928; fig. 13), a Scottish dealer, received a still life and a portrait in 1887.17

Tanguy also owned works by Van Gogh, but then he supplied him with artists

materials free of charge or at least he did until his wife got wind of it.18 In addi-

tion, not long after arriving in Arles Van Gogh considered giving the modern art

museum in The Hague two of the three largest paintings from his stay in Paris:

Montmartre: behind the Moulin de la Galette and Allotments in Montmartre (cat. 115

and fig. 115a), which he hoped would make him better known in the Netherlands.19

However, he never put the plan into action.

22

17 F 379 JH 1341 (see le tter 592). According to Cooper

1976, p. 6, the other work was a portrait of Reid that

has recently been identified as F 270 JH 1207 (Bailey

2006).

18 In 1888 Tanguy owned at least four paintings from

Van Goghs Paris period: a flower piece [640], the

study [...] of Asnires a bank of the Seine [637], Vin-

cents portrait of him (F 363 JH 1351) and another of his

wife, which they sold [638]. Van Gogh also painted the

portrait of a friend of Tanguys for which he was paid

20 francs (see p. 19 above and note 7; fig. 4). His estate

also contained one of the still lifes of shoes from 1887,

F 333 JH 1236, but Tanguy may have acquired it after

Vincent left Paris (for the provenance see De la Faille

1970, p. 624). It is clear from letters 637, 638, and

Hartrick 1939, p. 47, that Van Gogh gave Tanguy

at least one painting in exchange for free paints.

See letter 571 for the part played by Tanguys wife.

19 Letter 592. Van Gogh also wanted to surprise Anton

Mauves widow with a painting of a peach tree (F 394

JH 1379), George Hendrik Breitner with a still life of

oranges (F 395 JH 1363) and H.G. Tersteeg, the Dutch

manager of the Hague branch of Boussod, Valadon &

Cie, with The Langlois bridge with washerwomen (F 397

JH 1368). In the end, though, only Mauves widow

received the painting earmarked for her. Nothing

came of the other plans.

9 Lucien Pissarro after Camille Pissarro, The chestnut

seller, 1884. Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum.

10 Still life with apples (F 378 JH 1340), 1887. Otterlo, Krller-Mller Museum.


13/23

23

11 Paul Gauguin, On the shore

of the lake, Martinique, 1887.

Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum.

12 Sunflowers gone to seed

(F 375 JH 1329), 1887. New York,

The Metropolitan Museum of

Art.


14/23

67Flame nettle in a flowerpot

68Small bottle with peonies andblue delphiniums

69Glass with yellow roses

Van Gogh wanted to continue painting figures after he left Cormons studio (seecats. 57-63), but a lack of models made that impossible. He had not had the oppor-

tunity to find models, as he wrote to his sister Willemien a year later [574], anddecided instead to study the question of colour, probably inspired by DelacroixsChrist asleep during the tempest(New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art).1

He did so with the aid of still lifes, and painted almost nothing but flowers [574],

thanks to helpful acquaintances, from whom he receives a beautiful delivery [...]

every week, according to Theo in a letter probably written at the beginning ofAugust.2

Van Gogh had little experience of painting flower still lifes. He had made his first

cautious forays in the genre in Nuenen,3 but in Paris he let himself go. In the sum-mer of 1886 he painted between 35 and 40 of them, for which he adopted a tradi-

tional approach, not so much in style but in composition.4 The flowers are all

depicted in vases placed almost in the centre of the scene against a neutral back-ground.5 After the middle of September, however, there were no more flowers to be

had, and Van Gogh only started painting them again in the spring of 1887 (see cat.102). He only produced a few then, but he returned to the genre in the late summer

albeit equally briefly (see cat. 124).Just how much he valued his flower still lifes of 1886 as exercises in colour is

apparent from the letter that he wrote to his English colleague Horace Mann Livensin the autumn of that year. I have made a series of colour studies in painting sim-

ply flowers, red poppies, blue corn flowers and myosotys, white and rose roses, yel-low chrysantemums [sic] seeking oppositions of blue with orange, red & green,

yellow and violet, seeking les tons rompus et neutres to harmonise brutalextremes. Trying to render intense colour and not a grey harmony [569]. What

he did not add was that there was an economic reason for this choice of genre.Flower still lifes had been popular since time immemorial, and as we know that

Theo had tried to interest Dutch art dealers in one of Vincents still lifes on a visit

67

Paris, late June-mid-July 1886

Oil on canvas

42.1 x 22.0 cm

Unsigned

Inv. s 185 V/1962

F 281 JH 1143

68


Oil on carton

35.0 x 27.0 cm

Unsigned

Inv. s 182 V/1962

F 243a JH 1106

Black chalk drawing of a Ferris

wheel on the reverse (fig. 67g)

March-June 1886

69


Oil on carton

35.0 x 27.0 cm

Unsigned

Inv. s 178 V/1962

F 218 JH 1144

Underlying image: plaster castafter Michelangelos Young slave

(fig.67j)

Mid-June 1886

236

paris

1 For Van Goghs decision to concentrate on flower

still lifes see pp. 69-72.

2 [...] hem elke week een mooie bezending; Theo van

Gogh to his mother, undated (b 942), in which he

mentions his annual visit to her. It is not known pre-

cisely when it took place. She was looking forward to

it at the end of July 1886 (b 4173), and Theo travelled

back to Paris on 25 August (b 4536), which is why the

letter is dated to August. Coyle 2007, p. 299, assumedthat the bouquets came from Ernest Quost, a flower

painter and friend of Theos who had a flower garden

in Montmartre. Van Gogh noted down his address

74 rue Rochechouart in a sketchbook from the begin-

ning of his time in Paris, only a few sheets of which

survive (Van der Wolk 1987, p. 143) SB 5/1, no. 145.

3 For his Dutch works in this genre see p. 69, note 71.

4 For a summary see p. 41, note 18.

5 The only exception is F 247 JH 1149, which has a

detailed background.


15/23

67 Flame nettle in a flowerpot

237

paris


16/23

68 Small bottle with peonies and blue delphiniums

238

paris


17/23

69 Glass with yellow roses

239

paris


18/23

there in August 1886, it looks as if the latter set out on this exercise with a view toselling the results.6 He had already come up with the idea of making still lifes as

decoration for cafs, and at the beginning of 1887 he succeeded in doing just thatwith his flower still lifes of 1886,7 when he exhibited a large number of works in theLe tambourin restaurant, which was run by his lover Agostina Segatori (see cat. 102).

As far as we know, though, he did not succeed in selling any of them.When Segatori got into financial diculties in the summer of 1887, Van Goghmade her a present of the flower still lifes in the exhibition (see cat. 102), which left

few examples of the genre in Theos collection. He regretted his generosity at the

beginning of 1888. Ill happily exchange Tanguys flowers for a new study, if hesgiven up hope of the flowers. The point is that we have hardly any of the flowers left

[640]. We do not know exactly how many flower still lifes remained in Theos col-lection at the time, but in 1890 there could not have been many more than around

ten.8 That number was soon reduced even further. Two of them were given to VanGoghs mother, two to his sister Elisabeth, and one to Hendrik Christiaan Bonger,

Jos eldest brother (cat. 68), although strictly speaking he may have bought it.9

Another one was sold in 1893 (it is now in Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada),

which left just four in the family collection (cats. 67, 69-71).10

They were rejoinedin 1944 by Small bottle with peonies and blue delphiniums (cat. 68), which Theos son

inherited that year.11

67a Still life with cornflowers, daisies, poppies and white carnations

(F 324 JH 1293), 1886. Netherlands, Triton Foundation.

67b Roses and peonies (F 249 JH 1105), 1886. Otterlo, Krller-Mller Museum.

240

paris

6On this see letter 568, from which we learn that Theo

was unable to sell it but could perhaps exchange it for

two watercolours by Eugne Isabey (1803-86). That evi-

dently did not happen, because there are no works of

his in the family collection, unless Jo van Gogh-Bonger

sold the two watercolours at an early date.

7 On this see cat. 102, letters 546 and 547, and pp. 67-

70.

8 This is excluding the flower still lifes from the late

summer of 1887. Bonger 1890 lists eight flower pieces

from the Paris period (see Feilchenfeldt 2009, pp. 294,

295): nos. 19 (Pivoines, F 249 JH 1105, later owned

by Vincents mother); 19bis

Dahlias (8), perhaps F 322JH 1292, later owned by Vincents sister Elisabeth; 19ter

(Glaieuls, cat. 70); 194 (Myosotis, possibly cat. 68);

31 (fleurs dans un pot emaill, perhaps F 251 JH 1142);

38 (Roses jaune dans un verre: cat. 69); 43 (Pot de

fleurs, possibly cat. 71); and 48 (Begonia: cat. 67).

Together with F 286 JH 1127, which entered Elisabeths

collection later, one arrives at a total of nine, although

there would certainly have been a few more. Works

that were given away after 1890 may also have included

F 217 JH 1164 and F 324 JH 1293, of which Paul Gachet

Sr is the first documented owner. According to De

la Faille 1970, p. 620, F 242 JH 1147 also came from

Theos collection, like F 247 JH 1149, but there is no

direct evidence for this, which is why they have not

been included.

9 F 286 JH 1127, which is from the collection of Vin-

cents sister Elisabeth, was cautiously doubted by

Dorn/Feilchenfeldt 1993, p. 285, but their opinion

needs closer examination.

10 The work that was sold was F 251 JH 1142 (Stolwijk/

Veenenbos 2002, p. 168).

11 On this see note 15 of cats. 64, 65.


19/23

It had always been thought that Van Gogh painted his first flower still lifes inthe early spring of 1886 and his last ones in late autumn.12 According to Welsh-

Ovcharov, though, they date from the second half of the year, and this is confirmedby the varieties depicted.13 Most of them can be identified, so their flowering times

are known.14 The first ones were made in the period June to mid-July and the last

ones in August to mid-September.15

The first period is based on the presence ofpeonies, poppies and cornflowers (figs. 67a, 67b),16 and the latter on hollyhocks(fig. 67c), gladioli (cats. 70, 71) and Chinese asters (cats. 70, 71). However, we know

that Van Gogh started on his series of plaster casts at the beginning of June (cats.57-63), and since it is unlikely that he worked on two such dierent genres at the

same time, it can be assumed that he first began exploring flower still lifes in the

period late June to mid-July.Almost the entire series displays the influence of the Provenal artist Adolphe

Monticelli (fig. 67d). Van Gogh got to know Monticellis art in this period, and fromhis later work he borrowed not just the vivid, sometimes even garish touches of

colour but also the use of impasted paints applied with varied, very spontaneousbrushwork.17 He also practised with pronounced chiaroscuro contrasts modelled

on Monticelli, who combined glaringly light foregrounds with dark, reddish brownbackgrounds. However, this was not slavish imitation. Van Gogh worked in Monti-

cellis spirit but retained his own taste, as can be seen, for example, from his abun-

241

paris

JH 1127 and F 286a JH 1128, in which the flowers look

very schematic and could have been painted after ear-

lier flower pieces.

15 It cannot be ruled out that he stopped earlier, but

there is no evidence that he did. All that we know is

that he was ill for a while at the end of August (letter

of 27 August 1886 from Andries Bonger to his parents,

b 1844), but he could have returned to the series after

that. It is clear from letter 568 that he was still workingon his flower still lifes in the middle of August, at any

rate.

16 Poppies and cornflowers recur in F 279 JH 1104, the

authenticity of which is doubted by Dorn/Feilchenfeldt

1993, p. 280, but their opinion needs to be examined

more closely.

17 Monticelli was a largely forgotten artist who died

on 28 June 1886, which was around the time Van

Gogh got to know his works. See pp. 70-72, and Aaron

Sheons book on the artist (Pittsburgh etc. 1978-79).

67c Still life with hollyhocks (F 235 JH 1136), 1886.

Zrich, Kunsthaus Zrich.

67d Adolphe Monticelli, Still life with flowers, 1875-77. Lyon,

Muse des Beaux-Arts.

67e Detail of infrared reflectogram of cat. 67.

12 According to De la Faille 1970, only cat. 102 was

painted in the spring of 1886. In his oeuvre catalogue,

Hulsker 1977 then grouped several displaced works

around this one painting: F 214 JH 1092, F 666

JH 1094, F 244 JH 1093 and F 199 JH 1091. However,

they do not belong in that period; see p. 41, note 18.

13Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, pp. 226, 227.

14 The assumption here is that, by and large, Van

Gogh painted his flower pieces from life, with only

some later additions not being observed from the

actual bouquet. This general rule probably does not

apply to the tall, decorative works, such as F 286


20/23

dant use of blue backgrounds, which are not found in Monticellis oeuvre but are

common in Van Goghs (see cats. 57-63).18 The Provenal artist also worked mainlyon panel, but Van Gogh did not follow that example.

Monticellis influence is not apparent in Flame nettle in a flowerpot(cat. 67),which is why we are assuming that this elongated, vertical work was one of Van

Goghs earliest still lifes from the summer of 1886, and possibly even the very firstone.19 In order to capture the tall, narrow plant properly he chose a canvas which

almost precisely matched the size of a marine 6 (41 x 24 cm) or a basse marine 6(40.5 x 21.5 cm) (Table 3.5, no. 48). It is not just the absence of Monticelli-like stylis-

tic eects that argues for an early date in the series, but also the choice of such asmall canvas.

As with his later still lifes, Van Gogh studied the question of colour in this paint-ing [574], although he was still relying on his old manner, as shown by the basket-

work pattern in the background and the descriptive brushwork in the leaves, forexample, which closely resemble those in the studies of plaster casts that he had

just been making (cats. 57-63). There is also an abundance of complementary

colour contrasts: a blue background with leaves edged with orange, green againstred in the leaf, and a purplish shadow by the yellow of the flowerpot and the table.

The eye is also caught by the transparent, deep red in the plant, for which Van Goghused the relatively stable organic red pigment Kopps purpurin (see Table 7).

Van Gogh indicated the positions of the plant and pot on the pale pink groundwith sharp schematic lines that have been revealed by infrared reflectography (fig.

67e),20 after which he drew the detailed outlines of the leaves, probably with char-coal. He followed that sketch very faithfully in the paint, only modifying it to place

the flowerpot a little higher up and a touch further to the right, making the compo-

sition less rigidly symmetrical. No traces of any underdrawings have been foundbeneath the other flower still lifes, which suggests that Van Gogh was still notentirely at his ease with the subject in this painting. This is yet another argument

for placing it early in the series.The paint was largely applied wet-into-wet; only the bright blue basketwork pat-

tern in the background was added when the rest of the scene was dry. Van Gogh

was now looking for a more forceful blue than the one in the backgrounds of hisstudies of plaster casts, for all of which he used the inexpensive Prussian blue,

sometimes mixed with French ultramarine. To this end he first applied a layerof French ultramarine, with expensive cobalt blue on top for the very last, bright

touches (p. 126, fig. 53).Flame nettle in a flowerpotwas followed by Small bottle with peonies and blue

delphiniums (cat. 68) and Glass with yellow roses (cat. 69). The latter two are theonly paintings in the series on commercially prepared carton, but unlike cat. 67

Monticellis influence is now very evident. We have given them the same earlydate of late June to mid-July because of the cheap support and small size: the stan-

dardfigure 5.21 They are unpretentious studies, so Van Gogh did not take muchcare over them. The impasto in both has been flattened as a result of other works

being pressed up against them, leaving traces of paint and fibres behind in thepaint surface. There are also many fingerprints at the edges which show that Van

Gogh did not always keep his nails short (fig. 67f). The paint layer is damaged at

242

paris

18 Most of the surviving works have red, red-brown,

bluish or blackish backgrounds. However, it is known

from letter 568, which was probably written at the

beginning of August, that he had also painted still lifes

with a yellowish background, but they have not sur-

vived.

19 Both De la Faille 1970 and Hulsker 1996 date this

work to the late summer. It is wrongly not included in

Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, and was given the incorrect titleof [blad]Bgonia (Rex begonia) in the 1890 inventory

of Theos collection (Bonger 1890, no. 48; see also

Amsterdam 1905, no. 87). It was correctly described

as Plante de colus in De la Faille 1928.

20 The paint surface was also examined with a stereo-

microscope for this purpose.

21De la Faille 1970, Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, p. 227;

Hulsker 1996; and Amsterdam 1987 all dated this work

to the summer. Roses flower from the end of May until

deep into the autumn.


21/23

many points due to this frequent handling, which sometimes left paint sticking tothe artists fingers.

Interestingly, Small bottle with peonies and blue delphiniums is one of the few car-

ton supports in the family collection that was not given a backing support by the

restorer J.C. Traas. The original reverse is thus visible (fig. 67g), together with the

sticker of the supplier, the colourman Pignel-Dupont, whose shop was at 17 rueLepic. The price of 50 centimes is marked on the sticker. Van Gogh had bought thecarton supports for his view of the roofs from the apartment window (cat. 56) and

the studies of plaster casts of early June (cats. 57-59, 61-63) from the same shop, and

since the grounds of those works and ofSmall bottle with peonies and blue delphini-ums and Glass with yellow roses (cat. 69) are identical, the latter carton support must

have been bought in that shop as well (see Table 2).Van Gogh made a sketch on the back ofSmall bottle with peonies and blue delphini-

ums (cat. 68), probably in black chalk (fig. 67g). It is of two couples seated in a fair-ground Ferris wheel, and shows that he had taken the piece ofcarton with him on

one of his many walks through the city, probably before painting the still life on theother side.22 The drawing is partly hidden by a sticker of the Dutch art dealers Bua

en Zonen that was applied in February-March 1892, when the firms Amsterdambranch had reluctantly agreed to exhibit ten of Van Goghs works.23 It was held

at the same time as an exhibition in Rotterdam. Between them they were the firstVan Gogh exhibition to be held in the Netherlands, and according to a reviewer the

works on display included flowers that are not without charm.24

The flowers in cat. 68 are white peonies and what look like garden carnations

the variety with dark red and white stripes. The three blue flowers with pointedpetals on the right are delphiniums.25 Peonies finish flowering around mid-July,

so the painting must have been made before then.26

243

paris

22 It is impossible to identify the location, and the style

of the drawing is too sketchy for it to be datable.

23 It was decided to go ahead with the exhibition at the

urging of the critic Joseph Jacob Isaacson (1859-1942)

and others; see Han van Crimpen, Johanna van Gogh,

a legacy, in Kodera 1993, pp. 358, 359.

24 Anonymous, Vincent van Gogh, Nieuwe Rotter-

damsche Courant, 16 February 1892 (bloemen niet

zonder charme). Other works in the show were

a city scene kept in tone with great distinction (eenstadgezicht met veel distinctie in den toon gehouden)

and a field of reeds that really sway (een veld met riet

dat werkelijk wuift), which might be cats. 66 and 110,

in other words Paris canvases, like cat. 68.

25 It was thought for a long time that the flowers were

myosotis (forget-me-nots), as first suggested in De la

Faille 1928.

26De la Faille 1970 dated this painting to June 1886.

That was then extended to the summer of that year in

both Welsh-Ovcharov 1976 and Hulsker 1977.

67g The reverse

of cat. 68.

67h Detail of cat. 68, showing multi-coloured

brushwork.

67f Detail of cat. 68

showing Van Goghs

fingerprints in the fresh

paint.

67i Detail of cat. 68 showing discoloured red lake.


22/23

Van Gogh applied an airy, streaky brown on top of the ground (p. 140, fig. 71).

That underlayer appears to be limited to the bottom half of the composition, andwas not fully dry when Van Gogh started on the still life. This kind of underpaint is

unusual in his flower pieces, but one does find a local tonal preparation in hisplein-airlandscapes (cats. 64, 65). Since we know that he took the carton with him on one

of his forays into Paris, it very much looks as if this underlayer was applied in prepa-ration for a landscape. In the end the carton was not used for that purpose, and the

brown layer came in very handy for the opening and lower part of the bottle.Like Flame nettle in a flowerpot, this painting is a study in complementary con-

trasts, with green beside red and blue beside orange, in the table, for example.Much of the work was executed wet-into-wet. After painting the greenish-blue back-

ground, in which reserves were left for the bottle and the largest flowers in the bou-quet, Van Gogh worked alternately on the background, the flowers and the bottle.

The delphiniums were added at a late stage, for their flowers extended over the wetbut completely finished background.Small bottle with peonies and blue delphiniums (cat. 68) was painted in a lively man-

ner inspired by Monticelli. Van Gogh used viscous paint of almost chewing-gumconsistency for the stems and leaves. The most pronounced impasto was reserved

for the blooms and the highest lights on the table. Buttery strokes of white, red andblue were first intermingled in the large blooms before being mixed into each other

to create striking marbled brushstrokes (fig. 67h) in which it is not entirely clearwhich strokes belong to the blooms and which to the background. So here one finds

Van Goghs search for the eect of colour contrasts expressed at the level of thesingle brushstroke, and that was a device he continued using in the still lifes that

followed (cats. 70, 71). He waited until his heavy impasto was good and dry so as

not to disturb it, and only then applied strokes of red glaze consisting of Koppspurpurin and redwood by the blooms and the bottle (see p. 136, figs. 61-63). Heused thick paint that even began to drip here and there among the leaves. The

pigment discoloured to brown under the influence of light, as can be seen in the

bottle and foreground (fig. 67i).Van Gogh used an earlier painting that was evidently a failure as the support for

his Glass with yellow roses (cat. 69). As can be seen from the X-radiograph, it was astudy after the plaster cast of Michelangelos Young slave (fig. 67j), one of his still

lifes with casts from the first half of June 1886 (cats. 57-63).27 The table in theunderlying scene has an equally odd curved shape as that in one of his studies of a

torso of Venus (cat. 60). The heavily impasted rendering of the cast and the numberof layers in the background show that the painting was in a very advanced stage, and

might even have been finished, when Van Gogh painted the flower still life on top.He did not scrape it o or cover it with a layer of paint, with the result that the bright

blue of the background is clearly visible in small spots of paint loss and in dryingcracks in the paint film. It was only in the background that he did his best to elimi-

nate the underlying blue by applying the dark brown paint extremely thickly.This dark layer composed of a complex mixture of pigments served as the base

for a bright, organic red glaze, the refined warm glow of which is typical of the darkbrown background in Monticellis still lifes (p. 114, fig. 32, p. 137, fig. 64).28 This

is an unusual method, because a transparent red glaze is seen to its best eect on

244

paris

27Van Heugten 1995, p. 77, no. 12.

28Monticelli achieved this eect in a very dierent way

by painting on wood that was usually unprimed, which

was then allowed to play a part in the colouring of

background.

67j X-radiography of cat. 69.


23/23

a light-coloured underlayer. Van Gogh painted the glass and the flowers before

adding this bright red, because a glaze of that kind can only be applied to a com-pletely dry underpaint. Their shapes were roughly reserved in the dark brown of the

background, and the paint along the contours is mixed a little with the background,which was still wet.

Van Gogh once again followed Monticellis example by opting for a rather busyand varied impasto. As in Small bottle with peonies and blue delphiniums he used a

viscous, stringy paint that was drawn into fine, twisting tendrils of colour, and hechose a basketwork pattern for the background. That is due in part to the texture

of the underlying blue background, but he heightened that eect. The same brush-work can be seen in the table, although there Van Gogh used a slightly finer brush.

paris

Cat. 67

Provenance

See Note to the reader

Literature

Bonger 1890, no. 48 [Begonia]; Bremmer 1926,

vol. 11, pp. 81, 82, no. 81; De la Faille 1928, vol. 1,

p. 82, vol. 2, pl. lxxviii; De la Faille 1939, p. 242,

no. 324; Tralbaut 1955 i, p. 36; De la Faille 1970,

pp. 140, 622; Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, pp. 122, 123,

note 30; Hulsker 1977, p. 250; Hulsker 1980,

p. 250; Amsterdam 1987, p. 327, no. 1.126;

Feilchenfeldt 1988, p. 86; Hulsker 1996, p. 250;

Van Bommel et al. 2005, pp. 116, 124, 127, 128;

Hendriks/Geldof 2005, pp. 49, 68; Feilchenfeldt2009, pp. 48, 285, 307.

Exhibitions

1892 Rotterdam, no cat. known [for sale]; 1905

Amsterdam i, no. 87 [Dfl. 350]; 1908 Berlin ii ,

no cat. known [Dfl. 800]; 1910 Leiden, no cat.

known; 1926 Amsterdam, no. 45; 1930 London,

no. 9; 1932 Cologne, no cat. known; 1932

Manchester, no. 31; 1948-49 The Hague, no. 69.

Cat. 68

Provenance

1886-91 T. van Gogh; 1891-? J.G. van Gogh-

Bonger; ?-1929 H.C. Bonger, Amsterdam; 1929-

44 E.H. Bonger, Amsterdam; 1944-52 V.W. van

Gogh; 1952-60 Vincent van Gogh Foundation;

1960-62 Theo van Gogh Foundation; 1962

Vincent van Gogh Foundation; 1962-73 on loan

to the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; 1973 on

permanent loan to the Van Gogh Museum,

Amsterdam.

Literature

Bonger 1890, no. 194, [Myosotis (8)]?; De la Faille

1928, vol. 1, p. 72, vol. 2, pl. lxv [as 243bis]; De laFaille 1939, p. 250, no. 337 [F 243bis]; De la Faille

1970, pp. 124, 621; Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, p. 227;

Hulsker 1977, p. 242; Hulsker 1980, p. 242;

Amsterdam 1987, p. 327, no. 1.122; Hulsker 1996,

p. 242; Van Bommel et al. 2005, pp. 117, 124, 128,

129, 131; Hendriks/Geldof 2005, pp. 45, 47, 73,

notes 33, 36; Feilchenfeldt 2009, pp. 48, 284.

Exhibitions

1892 Amsterdam, no cat.?; 1948 Amsterdam,

unnumbered; 1948-49 The Hague, no. 56; 1957-

58 Stockholm, no. 105, Lule, Kiruna, Ume,

stersund, Sandviken & Gothenburg, no cat.

known; 1960 Cuesmes, no. 6; 2003 Tokyo,no. 20; 2004-05 Humlebk & Riehen, nos. 132

and 48 respectively; 2007 Stockholm, no. 106.

Cat. 69

Provenance

1886-91 T. van Gogh; 1891-1925 J.G. van Gogh-

Bonger; 1917-19 on loan to the Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam; 1925-62 V.W. van Gogh; 1962

Vincent van Gogh Foundation (ratified in 1982);

1962-73 on loan to the Stedelijk Museum,

Amsterdam; 1973 on permanent loan to the Van

Gogh Museum, Amsterdam.

Literature

Bonger 1890, no. 38 [Roses jaunes dans un verre];

De la Faille 1928, vol. 1, p. 66, vol. 2, pl. lxi; De

la Faille 1939, p. 254, no. 344; De la Faille 1970,

pp. 116, 620; Welsh-Ovcharov 1976, pp. 78, 227;Hulsker 1977, p. 250; Hulsker 1980, p. 250;

Amsterdam 1987, p. 327, no. 1.123; Van Heugten

1995, p. 77, no. 12; Hulsker 1996, p. 250; Van

Bommel et al. 2005, pp. 116, 124, 127-30, 132;

Hendriks/Geldof 2005, pp. 47, 73, note 36; Coyle

2007, p. 303; Feilchenfeldt 2009, pp. 47, 285.

Exhibitions

None.

van gogh museum paintings

Documents