INTRODUCTION

In June 2013, while conducting research for a Huffington Post article on fake Jackson Pollock paintings sold to wealthy investors, I asked nineteenth-century American art expert Alexander Boyle one question: “Are there any fake van Gogh paintings?” Without hesitation, Boyle replied, “Sure, there’s one hanging in the Met.” Struck by the idea that one of the most iconic van Gogh works, Wheat Field with Cypresses, could be a fake, I began looking for more information. In the process, I would learn that there were claims of other fake van Goghs on the market. In the 1990s, they would lead to what would become known as the “van Gogh Fakes Controversy.” Art journalists, art historians, and a few art experts made accusations, many of them about several paintings, but no absolute proof was provided for any of these.

While writing about technology, from big data and cloud computing to social media and mobile apps for multiple media outlets, I saw how recent advances enabled one to go online and compare the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s version with another painting of the same landscape, A Wheatfield, with Cypresses, that hangs in Gallery 45 of the National Gallery in London. For instance, as Alex Boyle pointed out to me, the London painting has “cracking” in the pale blue sky that resembles a dried riverbed during drought, while the Met’s canvas shows no such imperfections, like a woman wearing makeup.

Like Pollock, Vincent van Gogh added his own unique signatures to his artwork. For one, he used three custom-made pigments, colors that were unique only to him. He also used a custom-made asymmetrical weave count, in which there were twelve threads on the horizontal axis and thirteen threads on the vertical axis per square centimeter—these custom canvases were ordered and delivered to Vincent during his stay at the Saint-Rémy asylum in the South of France. Recently, an x-ray of a purported van Gogh led to the painting being labeled a fake when it was discovered that the canvas had a square weave count (twelve by twelve threads per cm). And then there are the actual signatures—those found in over 820 letters that Vincent wrote and that still survive. Over a thirty-five-year period after the artist’s death, his sister-in-law Johanna van Gogh-Bonger archived and translated those letters into four languages. Today the van Gogh letters exist online, in an easy-to-use, dynamic database that can be searched by keyword, date, and location. The letter database is run by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, Netherlands, which claims to be the final arbiter of the paintings’ attributions and authenticity, as well as the translations of the original letters.

Because of my background in construction—civil engineering sector—where I had worked with materials that degraded (concrete) and fatigued (steel), I first delved into the material characteristics of the artworks and studied environmental stresses from the way Vincent’s paintings were dried, stretched, handled, rolled, shipped to his brother Theo in Paris, and stored in a “haphazard” manner, as Vincent recalled in his letters. Those material characteristics are what drew me to Wheat Field with Cypresses. After I reviewed troves of van Gogh letters and read what the artist saw, felt, and thought 125 years ago, I was sold on turning this story into a full-length book.

Ultimately, to determine whether a van Gogh is a fake, one should first separate the paintings by time and place. Over Vincent’s short ten-year career as an artist, his drawings and paintings evolved in terms of unique brushwork—he dabbled in Pointillism, but his thick impasto was a signature that belonged strictly to him. When he arrived in Paris, he found his place among the Impressionist peers, from Gauguin and Monet to Pissarro and Cézanne. He was influenced not only by the rich colors and techniques of the artists, but also their drive to not replicate what was in front of them, like a photograph, but rather to draw out the natural symbolic meaning of what they saw and felt at that moment in time.

It was when he went to the South of France to pursue his dream of establishing an artist colony (which never came to fruition) in Arles in 1888—and then, after a mental breakdown, checked himself into the Saint-Rémy asylum—that van Gogh was swept away by the bright southern sunlight and colors (Irises, Sunflowers) and magnificent nature (Wheat Fields and Cypresses) that spoke to him in a way that city life could not. At the Saint-Paul monastery-turned-hospital, in his most troubled mental and emotional state, his nadir, he produced what are unequivocally his greatest artworks.

During his stay at the asylum, painting was part of Vincent’s therapy, and those years in Provence would become the most productive of his career. It was during this time that he went on to produce many of his masterpieces, including Starry Night, Irises, Sunflowers, and Bedroom. It was also during these years that Vincent devised a way to package his paintings to reduce shipping costs. He would stack five to six paintings on top of one another, roll them with the painted side facing outward, bind them tight together with a string (contributing to the disintegration of the impasto), place the rolls in wooden crates, and send the crates on the “goods” train from Arles to Paris in an overnight journey. One or more of Vincent’s letters accompanied the rolled paintings in the trip north to his brother Theo in Paris, who stored them in his small apartment and, when there was no longer room, leased storage space from a local paint shop. A decade later, to make up for the poor storage conditions, one of the paintings (the Sunflowers) was taken to a restorer, who also had a reputation as a copyist and a forger. Shortly after that, the same restorer bought eight van Goghs, including A Wheatfield, with Cypresses (the version that is now in London’s National Gallery). The story soon got more complex.

As I was learning the details of Wheat Field with Cypresses, the Pollock story took a back seat to van Gogh. I reached out to the Met to get the museum’s side—could they tell me more about the painting’s provenance?—and spoke to one of its curators and van Gogh experts. In my quest for answers, I emailed a dozen questions to the Met, but my request to examine the painting’s “condition report” was denied. I would ask in different ways, including going to the museum in person, but was denied access each and every time. Even after I published (in the Huffington Post) a 2,600-word article on the subject, “Hacking van Gogh: Is the Master’s ‘Fingerprint’ Missing from a Met Painting?” on July 10, 2013, the Met still rejected my request to make the condition report available to the public.

By the end of July 2013, I reached out to my longtime editor, Stephen Gregory, the publisher of the English version of the Epoch Times. He wrote a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter to the Met requesting the condition report. Yet again, the Met summarily rejected the query on behalf of the press and general public, claiming that it was not quite a public institution, despite its 1870 charter stating the contrary.

Why am I trying to show that the Met’s Wheat Field with Cypresses is a fake without access to the condition report? Well, why would the museum hide such a report from the public? The more the Met said “No,” the more determined I became to find the answers. When I came across a 1982 New York Times article on the Met’s rebuffing the late Morley Safer and CBS’s 60 Minutes inquiries into examining and testing a different suspect painting the Met bought in 1960, I knew I was in good company.

In investigating the Metropolitan Museum’s Wheat Field with Cypresses, I would learn that the history of the ownership of the painting was in many ways just as interesting as the question of whether the artwork is authentic or not; that the van Gogh paintings from the South of France did suffer from the telltale stress cracking and “impacted” impasto brushstrokes; and that van Gogh was not only a great artist, but also a very literate writer, who was self-critical, thoughtful, and sensitive, able to see life in everything nature had to present to him.

It was this last point—the story of a poor artist who painted the “peasant genre” and died destitute, having sold only one of his nearly nine hundred paintings during his life—that drove me to investigate further. Van Gogh is arguably the most iconic artist of the past two hundred years. Sadly, his early death, with his brother Theo dying six months later, gave other artists of lesser ability ample space and time to copy, forge, and sell knockoff paintings at the turn of the twentieth century.

Breaking van Gogh is divided into three main parts (followed by a concluding section that brings my questions into the contemporary context—the Age of Transparency). The first covers the times and circumstances in which two van Gogh paintings shattered auction records by a magnitude of ten. It also describes the time that the son of a German-Swiss arms dealer, who had made his fortune over the misfortune of dead and wounded soldiers on both sides of the World War II conflict, saw that his father’s company was going to be in the red for the first time in its sixty-two years of business. Did the financial threat influence the decision of the second-generation arms dealer to sell one of the few paintings he had inherited? This part will trace the story of how Wheat Field with Cypresses first made its way from Dieter Bührle into the 1990 Passionate Eye exhibition at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, was then purchased for the collection of Walter Annenberg, and finally ended up at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it resides to this day.

The second part of Breaking van Gogh takes the reader on a tour of Vincent van Gogh’s years in the South of France, through his mental “attacks” and declining health to the iconic works painted in those years, which include the three versions of the Wheat Field with Cypresses landscape: the Met’s First version, purportedly painted in June 1889, and two subsequent versions, the Small version and the Final version (September 1889), the Final version having resided in London’s National Gallery since 1960 with a slightly different title—A Wheatfield, with Cypresses.

The third section of the book delves into the colorful and magnetic owners of the Met’s First Wheat Field with Cypresses in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, connecting the Post-Impressionist era at the turn of the century to the modern-day “Fakes Controversy.” Some of those owners include members of the von Mendelssohn family (descendants of the German composer Felix Mendelssohn) and Emil Georg Bührle, an arms dealer to the Nazis, among others.

This book sets out to answer the question of authenticity of the First Wheat Field with Cypresses painting. To do so in the absence of the condition report, it examines the physical characteristics of the different versions, as well as the paper trail that was the basis of the Met’s attribution and provenance. Do the written historical documents authenticate the First version? Is the First version’s history different from what the Met has long claimed? The book will also examine the relevant van Gogh letters, as well as the inventory list, compiled by Andries Bonger (brother to Theo’s widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger) after the deaths of Vincent and Theo, to point to some curious absences and omissions in these crucial primary sources.

Finally, Breaking van Gogh will take the reader through the history of ownership and the telltale signs of van Gogh’s authentic works. By looking at the technical characteristics of the painting, the written historical records, the convoluted history of the painting, and its journey through one of the most turbulent periods in history, I will ask and attempt to answer the question of whether the Met’s Wheat Field with Cypresses would be more accurately described as a van Nogh.