Something nice to post in an Arts & Literature forum (hint, hint):

http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00273/ENG_New_Vang_273659a.jpg Vincent van Gogh, Le blute-fin windmill, 1886, oil on canvas, 55.2 by 38 cm. Photo De Fundatie museum

New painting by Van Gogh discovered

By Sandra Smallenburg

Dirk Hannema was the laughing stock of the Dutch art world. Until a suspected forgery he bought turned out to be a real Van Gogh.

A small museum in the Dutch city of Zwolle has discovered it owns a painting made by Vincent van Gogh in 1886. A depiction of the Parisian Le Blute-fin windmill made by the Dutch post-impressionist artist was presented to the public in the Fundatie museum on Wednesday.
The work was authenticated “beyond any doubt” in a technical study by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, managing director Ralph Keuning of the Zwolle museum said.



Less than 1,000 euros
The anonymous painting was purchased by the museum’s founder Dirk Hannema (1895-1984) for 6,500 francs (less than 1,000 euros) from a Paris art dealer in 1975. Hannema was always convinced the painting was Van Gogh’s and insured it for a sum equivalent to 35,000 euros. But other Van Gogh experts were sceptical. The painting portrays an impressionistic theme not typical of Van Gogh’s work, it is rather haphazard in nature, and replete with figures, compared to Van Gogh’s other work.
Hannema’s dubious reputation is largely the reason the painting was never recognised as a real Van Gogh before. As the managing director of the Museum Boijmans in Rotterdam in 1938, Hannema purchased a number of paintings he thought were authentic works of the Dutch baroque painter Johannes Vermeer, which were discovered to be forgeries only years later. Hannema also claimed he owned seven Vermeers himself as a part of his private collection.
Between 1961 and 1975, Hannema purchased four anonymous paintings he suspected were Van Gogh’s work. He remained especially convinced of the authenticity of the one now known to be real. He wrote about it in 1976 saying: “This discovery is not an attribution, it is an absolute certainty.” Few paid heed to Hannema’s claims after his previous blunders however. In 1988, the Van Gogh museum still stated it was “commonly assumed,” the Zwolle painting could not be attributed to Van Gogh.



A 17th century windmill Van Gogh knew well
After a repeat requests from the Fundatie museum, the experts at the Van Gogh Museum looked into the matter.
As Hannema had already pointed out, Van Gogh has painted more pictures of the 17th century Parisian windmill. The Blute-fin adorns the highest point of the Montmartre hill in the north of Paris, and was a tourist attraction of sorts, as it still is today. The mill also lay close to Van Gogh’s brother Theo’s apartment. Vincent visited him a lot while he lived in Paris from March 1886 till the spring of 1887
Discoveries of new works by Van Gogh are exceedingly rare. Ever since Jacob Baart de la Faille published his – nearly – exhaustive reference The Works of Vincent van Gogh in 1970, only five paintings have been added to the master’s oeuvre of some 900 works.
The Van Gogh Museum’s technical research has yielded some very convincing evidence the painting is authentic. The materials used and the size of the canvas (55 by 38 centimetres) are the same Van Gogh used for other works from his Parisian period. The back of the painting bears the stamp of the Parisian art-supplies store Rey et Perrot, where Van Gogh regularly shopped for painting stocks.
Computer analysis has shown that the yarn patterns in the canvas correspond with those in another painting from the same period. The primers used in the painting, a red organic lacquer and a chrome-based yellow pigment, have been attributed to Van Gogh’s Parisian period before, as has the technique of painting figures over a still-wet background.

"Le Blute-fin windmill" will be on display at Museum de Fundatie in Zwolle until July 4.


(Source: http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2491374.ece/New_painting_by_Van_Gogh_discovered)

I noticed the Washington Post had the story as well, but there's more information here, so...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/akdomJ3AssY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/akdomJ3AssY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Great news :)
Too bad so many paintings were destroyed after the two world wars, like Ede's.

Wow. What a find!

And now he sells it for a huge profit?

It appears to now belong to this museum in Amsterdam:

http://aminus3.s3.amazonaws.com/image/g0003/u00002752/i00106999/0d1fbce92efc1ec9283c2935cbe4c22a_large.jpg

I doubt it is going to be owned by anybody else in the near future.

Oh I missed the small museum part. I'm an idiot.

It certainly looks different than most other Van Gogh paintings. The color scheme is less vibrant than usual. This is from his earlier period when he was using more earth tones. It wasn't until he moved to Paris in 1886 and was exposed to the French Impressionists that we see the bright colors. It looks like this is one of his very last earth tone paintings.

I like the static black figure in the stairs a lot :)

It certainly looks different than most other Van Gogh paintings. The color scheme is less vibrant than usual. This is from his earlier period when he was using more earth tones. It wasn't until he moved to Paris in 1886 and was exposed to the French Impressionists that we see the bright colors. It looks like this is one of his very last earth tone paintings.That's odd. I think the female figures represent the epitome of French Impressionism, especially the one in blue. But I agree it was likely one of his earlier works, since his later paintings became less realistic and much more bizarre the crazier he got.

That's odd. I think the female figures represent the epitome of French Impressionism, especially the one in blue. But I agree it was likely one of his earlier works, since his later paintings became less realistic and much more bizarre the crazier he got.

Yes this is true, there are certainly impressionist elements in this painting. This was painted in Paris so you can see he is just begining to be directly influenced by impressionism, but he isn't quite there yet. Even in his pre-Parisian paintings there is some indirect impressionist influence. I also think influence from some French Romantic art; such as Delacroix, is in some of his paintings.

It wasn't until he moved to sunny Southern France, became influenced by Japanese art, and began to heavily drink absinthe that he hit his peak.

This is a very cool find! I'm a big fan of Van Gogh's paintings! :goodjob:

it's lovely.
makes me sad.

Thanks for the replies. I've updated the OP with a short video. (The comment is in Dutch, but doesn't contain any additional information - it actually contains some surprising desinformation, like that Van Gogh didn't know any fellow artists before coming to Paris: this is quite untrue.)

I guess this just goes to show that just because someone is wrong once, it doesn't mean they are never right. I bet that Hannema person feels nice.

Don't know: he died in 1984. :sad:

I like it alot actually. Props to Hannema for his faith, sucks he died before he was vindicated.

It is pretty, that should be the criterion rather than that it is a Van Gogh.

In a perfect world it would be. ;) (Though I don't actually know any bad Van Goghs.)

It is pretty, that should be the criterion rather than that it is a Van Gogh.
Agreed on both counts. Too bad Hannema died before vindication, as Narz said.

On a less important note, does anyone else think that museum looks strange? It looks like a bad 3D animation.

I'm unsure. It's a small museum, so small in fact that I'd never heard of it until this discovery. (BTW, obviously this isn't a "new" painting, rather the rediscovery of an old painting. Not that surprising considering the fact tha Van Gogh didn't get famous until after he died...)

After looking at the picture again (of the museum), I think it's in the lighting - plus there's a slight frog-eye effect.

It is pretty, that should be the criterion rather than that it is a Van Gogh.
The criterion for what? Praise? Museum Display? High Value?

For appraisal. (I.e. for liking/not liking a painting.) :rolleyes:

For appraisal. (I.e. for liking/not liking a painting.) :rolleyes:
1. Why the rolleyes?
2. Why do you speak for Shaihulud?
3. Your definition of appraisal seems weird. Isn't appraisal more about setting a monetary value then making an aesthetic judgment?

I'm unsure. It's a small museum, so small in fact that I'd never heard of it until this discovery. (BTW, obviously this isn't a "new" painting, rather the rediscovery of an old painting. Not that surprising considering the fact tha Van Gogh didn't get famous until after he died...)

After looking at the picture again (of the museum), I think it's in the lighting - plus there's a slight frog-eye effect.
I recognised that it was small - tiny even, by museum standards - but I think it was the frog-eye effect that was blowing my mind. That and lack of sleep.

The criterion for what? Praise? Museum Display? High Value?
While I can't speak for Shaihulud, I did agree with him, so will add my point of view. I view it as the criterion for praise and possibly also museum display; I don't see the point in displaying something ugly or stupid, which covers most contemporary art I've seen. Still, I understand that for historical reasons simply being pretty is not a good indicator of value or museum display.

:lol:

Good answer. Thanks. :goodjob: