Recently, a photo of Vincent van Gogh has been the topic of many discussions surrounding Van Gogh. The photo can be seen on VanGoghFoto.com where it states that it has been proven to be a photo of Vincent van Gogh from 1886. The photo is also in the book by Ken Wilkie The Van Gogh File, the Myth and The Man. While there are known images of Van Gogh’s family members, there are very few of Van Gogh himself especially as an adult. Since this is thought to be one of the few photos of Van Gogh, we would love to get your opinion about the photo and whether or not you think it resembles the likeness he captured in so many of his self portraits such as these. Comment and share your thoughts.
Related Articles:
Of course the photo is of Vincent!!! It is also published in “La folie Gachet” by Benoit Landais, the great French author and Van Gogh expert who also wrote VG, Fakes & Frauds.
hi i just love his vincents painting my favourite!!!!
We would all love this to be a photo of vincent but unfortunately it isn’t.
compare the similarities between the following images;
– the photo of the young vincent
– the portrait of vincent by john russell
– the self portrait that Theo’s wife said was the one that best captured his likeness.
look at the nose, shape of face and eyes in all these. Now look at the photo in question.
This photo sure looks like how we are used to seeing vincent in films and dramas but it does not match up with these other 3 reliable images.
I’m afraid Benoit Landais may be trying to create some PR around his writing. Sorry.
Like I say we would all love to be able to look into the eyes of vincent in a clear photo and maybe one day such a photo may be uncovered
unfortunately this is someone else
Really? How old does Vincent look in his self portraits?
Are you sure the photos of Vincent @ 13 & 19 years old are Vincent? How do you know? Huh! It sure looks like Vincent had a “widows peak”, the hairline on his forehead, and he did not have it at 19. And that photo that shows someone’s back, can’t prove that in a court of law.
Yes, it is Vincent
Why not show this photograph on the VGG site and give more people the opportunity to see it?
This is the calling/advertising card of the photographer, and it is the photographer’s likeness only. He was a portrait photographer, so his calling-card (advertising material) would be useful to show examples of his work. Sensibly he would use a self-portrait, avoiding possible complaints from some other sitter who might not approve of his likeness being bandied-about in such fashion. If the photographer was proudly handing around a photo of Van Gogh, he would have added this fact to the picture, otherwise there would be little point. The card just ‘says’ “Hello, I am Victor Morin. I am a Canadian portrait photographer. This is an example of what I can do. Also it is what I look like”. It is also interesting to note that this so-called van Gogh portrait was purchased in the Northern USA, so it’s likely that it had never traveled any further than North America. As with the so-called portrait paintings of William Shakespeare that occasionally surface, the identification is born of speculative hope rather than logic or commonsense. It’s just a guy who bears a resemblance to Vincent van Gogh (at least in his own self-portraits if not in fact). I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t.