
Van Gogh's sunflowers are wilting as yellow paint fades to brown - agronaut
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/may/31/van-goghs-sunflowers-are-wilting-as-yellow-paint-fades-to-brown
======
sus_007
A little off topic, but I recently watched this documentary on YouTube about a
poor Chinese copy artist Zhao Xiaoyong, who has sold more than 90,000 Van Gogh
reproductions. They follow him to the Netherlands to see the real works of Van
Gogh who's consumed his life for decades. You might enjoy it :
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGECg0K3gMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGECg0K3gMI)

~~~
mchahn
Did he say his work was real or a copy? If defrauding then I can't be
sympathetic.

~~~
wyattpeak
It would be an impressive achievement indeed to sell 90,000 originals without
anyone noticing.

------
dopamean
The idea of "restoring" art is really fascinating to me. There have been times
in the past where the restorers' choices would likely have been in conflict
with the artist's original intention. I'd love to know more about the people
who do that work and how they justify the decisions they make because it's not
always about making sure things look exactly as they did when the painting was
originally completed.

~~~
dpkonofa
This is so key to discussions about an "accurate" restoration of a piece of
art. Just look at the restorations done of classic films. There's so much
argument, in many of these cases, about whether or not the restoration is true
to the artist's original vision but, even in the case where the original
artist is involved in the restoration, there continues to be argument over
whether that artist's own vision changed. I mean, just look at George Lucas
and the restorations/updates of the Star Wars franchise. Fans are now
clamoring to "properly" restore these films to their original versions while
others claim that George Lucas's updates are the proper ones because he's the
original artist. The idea that technology has allowed him to create what he
"originally wanted" instead of what he had to release is a really interesting
argument.

And then you have the case of monkey Jesus where an attempt was made to
restore a piece of art that, arguably, either made it better or worse
depending on what your view of the original piece is. I find it hilarious but
a lot of people have suggested that the original piece wouldn't have been
viewed by as many people or gained such popularity if it wasn't for that
terrible restoration job.

/shrug

~~~
Eric_WVGG
The turning point in the art world was probably the restoration of the Sistine
Chapel, which for most of the twentieth century was believed to be sort of
dark and sinister, until a restorer finally pointed out that this was just the
accumulation of centuries worth of candle smoke. The resultant restoration was
controversial but certainly the right decision.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Cha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes)

~~~
crdb
Count me amongst those who prized the patina.

A significant number of people in the arts world decried the cleaning - some
even petitioning the Pope to halt it.

Whilst skillful, part of the appeal was the passage of the centuries, like
shoes or furniture acquiring a deep marbled appearance after decades of
cleaning and waxing, or the statue on the Charles Bridge given a unique
luster, like a spotlight on a few scenes, by millions of hands over the years.
It would be almost criminal to either darken the spots or frequently clean the
rest of the statue to the same brassy finish.

~~~
abritinthebay
Having been their recently: god no. With the patina it would have been an
unimpressive dark box. It’s not a very impressive space without the paintings
so having them obscured by centuries of gunk is just silly.

------
sgillen
It would be very cool to learn that Van Gogh did this on purpose (though that
seems unlikely).

From the article: "Van Gogh, as did his contemporaries, used several pigments
that discolour over time"

I wonder if the artists were aware that this would happen but had no
alternatives?

~~~
jdietrich
Pigment durability was reasonably well understood. Oil paints are much more
lightfast than watercolors, because the oil medium offers some protection from
UV. Varnishes added another layer of protection. When applied as watercolor or
gouache, many pigments will visibly fade in a matter of days if exposed to
direct sunlight. Lightfastness was a major motivation for pigment research,
especially in exterior applications like signwriting.

Even today, many artists pay little attention to the lightfastness of
pigments, despite most manufacturers providing extensive information on
lightfastness. The great watercolorist J.M.W. Turner was notorious for using
pigments that were known to have poor lightfastness; many of his watercolors
were severely faded within his lifetime. The relative lightfastness of oil
paints may have lulled some artists into a false sense of security.

The latter half of the 19th century saw a huge increase in the number of
available pigments due to advances in synthetic chemistry. Cadmium yellow was
starting to replace the less durable chromium yellow, but it remained
relatively expensive and was used infrequently by an artist as impoverished as
Van Gogh. The chemistry of these new pigments was not fully understood, so
some lightfast pigments used at that time have degraded due to chemical
reactions with additives and impurities in the oil paint medium or varnish.

~~~
daemin
Even though a part of me wants to store everything (like Art) in exact detail
when it was originally made, I'm building a certain appreciation for just
letting things diminish and atrophy. Not needing to fix everything to be
exactly how it was like brand new.

------
fenwick67
FYI, "chrome yellow" is lead(II) chromate, which is a stunning color that is,
for obvious reasons, not as popular anymore.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_chromate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead\(II\)_chromate)

~~~
evincarofautumn
Lead-based pigments are really stunning—shame about the toxicity. Lead(II)
iodide is another lovely yellow, albeit less stable than the chromate. I had a
chemistry teacher in high school who used to work on paints and inks—he showed
us several demonstrations of making beautiful and highly toxic pigments.

------
pasta
It is believed that van Gogh was color blind[1] and that he saw all his
paintings more faded than most people see them.

If this is true we might see the picture as van Gogh saw it.

[1] [http://asada0.tumblr.com/post/11517603099/the-day-i-saw-
van-...](http://asada0.tumblr.com/post/11517603099/the-day-i-saw-van-goghs-
genius-in-a-new-light)

~~~
hvidgaard
If he was color blind, why would his painting be far more vibrant than his
reference points: what he saw in nature? No matter if he was or not, his
paintings are more saturated in color than his reference points because that
was what he wanted them to be.

~~~
epicide
He could have been compensating for his vision. If he were color blind, he
probably figured out something was wrong with his vision even if he didn't
know what to call it.

------
peter303
Not unlike 1950s/1960s movies using cheaper two-color films, compared to
technic-color, have lost most their greens,

------
Double_a_92
Imagine if he knew that the paint would become brown... and planned that all
along.

------
plankers
Art imitates life, go figure.

