In his life time, of course, van Gogh, was dismissed, unappreciated and virtually invisible.
But what if there were another van Gogh out there in the world today?
Invisible, dismissed, unknown.
Would he be equally obscure and could he or she ever be found?
Of course, there were then and are now wonderful painters, whose works touch us, move us give us "an experience." But there is something about van Gogh, who now is unique in having his own museum. There may be another artist with his own museum, but I'm not booking a flight to Europe to see it. There is only the van Gogh museum, really. No other artist has attracted crowds for an "immersive" experience based on his work, but not even his work.
Why is Van Gogh so widely loved?
His work is accessible. Unlike Picasso or Jackson Pollack, his work does not have to be explained. There are, of course, youtube channels which instruct you on what makes a van Gogh painting wonderful, but you don't really need them. You know, just looking at a van Gogh, it's wonderful. The why can be explained and you may even agree with the explanation but you know it's wonderful without the explanation and the explanation only adds to the enjoyment.
In his day, there were arbiters of taste: The Academy could accept or reject your paintings. The Post Impressionists got together and exhibited their paintings together and challenged that authority and van Gogh colluded with them. He learned about color from Gauguin.
That's another thing about van Gogh: not all his paintings are wonderful. He went through a brown period and his brother suggested he needed to use more color and that turned out to be crucial to van Gogh's success.
Today, there is no art critic who could propel an artist with van Gogh's appeal to world wide attention. There is no academy.
What might propel an artist would be money: a big sale at auction, at Sotheby's.
Andy Warhol knew this: He gave away art to rich and famous people, like Linda Eastman, of the Eastman fortune, later married to a Beatle. Warhol knew to be recognized and celebrated you have to pursue fame and fortune.
And Warhol was good. But he is no van Gogh.
Nobody is.
What other artist would attract crowds for electronic renditions of a "virtual Van Gogh," a walk into "immersive" van Gogh?
"Genius" is a useless word. Overused. Misapplied.
"Unique" means one of a kind and is also so often misused as to be almost worthless as a word, but van Gogh might qualify.
But could there be someone like van Gogh out there somewhere? In this internet age, if we were patient and persistent enough, would we discover that one of a kind blow you away artist?
So far, the answer is no.
