The Ironies of Arles: Part 1

DSCF1192The French city of Arles is filled with contrasts—you could even say ironies.

It begins with geography: an ancient city in the South of France built by the Romans on a marshland beside the Rhone, Arles is swimming in humidity and still heat one day. The next, it is swept by a fierce, dry wind—the Mistral—as sharp and piercing as you might expect before a sandstorm.

In fact, our early impression of the city as a paradise of mosquitos the first night of our visit was soon belied by this blast of Siberian air that blasted the annoying insects straight out of sight. I’d originally thought the Mistral was a sort of Southern French legend without much basis in fact, much like the Yeti or Loch Ness monster. I was quite wrong—the people of Provence were not exaggerating its strength.

But just as striking to the visitor is the legacy of another visitor who came to Arles, Vincent Van Gogh, who seems to hover over the city like a ghost, by turns benevolent and wrathful—and, most of all, lucrative.

The Dutch Van Gogh, who’d previously lived in London and Paris, came to Arles in 1888 for the light, he wrote to his brother Theo, an art dealer who gave him much encouragement. Van Gogh loved how bright everything was there compared to the rain-soaked north. The landscape also reminded him of Japan, he said, a great inspiration. He hoped to found an art colony in Arles and make the city a real destination for artists and art-lovers.

DSCF1194
The city of Arles, with the Rhone in the distance, as seen from the top of the Roman arena

Van Gogh’s painting was incredibly prolific and innovative during his one year and three months in Arles. Many famous works were done in the city and in the nearby town of St Remy-de-Provence, a few miles away (where he went directly after Arles, voluntarily confined to the Saint-Paul-de-Mausole asylum there). He produced around 300 drawings and paintings during the short period he lived in Provence.

Imagine the painter at night, the sweep of the Rhone River below him, sticking candles in his straw hat to provide light in the dark, and then painting a starry night scene over the water.

IMG_6522
Van Gogh’s view of the stars over the Rhone…. a painting in the Musee d’Orsay in Paris

Imagine him depicting a bright yellow café lit up in the evening in the Place du Forum, its wide awning beckoning passersby to come and have a drink.

img_7629-e1537739651474.jpg
Arles’ commemoration of the Cafe le Soir, the subject of Van Gogh’s 1888 painting

Imagine the people of Arles, irate, so angry that they started circulating a petition to force Van Gogh to move out of town.

That’s the part of the Van Gogh story that you may not hear so much about if you travel to Arles. Van Gogh, a “redhaired madman” (“fou roux”), as some called him, became known for acting erratically. He had been hearing voices, and he frequented brothels and drank heavily. Some (including his painter friend Paul Gauguin) found him physically threatening. Then—in an incident that has been used to sum of Van Gogh’s madness ever since—he severed his own ear and gave it to a prostitute he knew.

Van Gogh was taken to the hospital in Arles for a period—where he continued to paint, including an image of the flower-filled hospital courtyard—and began to recover, returning to his home. But the hallucinations continued.

DSCF1275
The Arles hospital garden, through Van Gogh’s eyes
DSCF1273
The Arles hospital courtyard today (now a space dedicated to Van Gogh and art)

At that point, 30 Arlesians who signed a petition to force out Van Gogh made their wishes known. The authorities made Van Gogh leave the Arles “Yellow House” where he lived, and soon after he made his way to the asylum in St. Remy.

He continued to produce bright, beautiful paintings. Nevertheless, his troubles continued, and he committed suicide near Paris not long after.

Today it’s quite a different reception for Van Gogh in Arles’ tourist materials, local sites, art museums, and shops. Everywhere it’s Van Gogh. There’s the Espace Van Gogh, an art institution that was formerly the hospital, and the Fondation Vincent Van Gogh, housed in a 15th-century mansion, which features a handful of his paintings and many works “inspired” by him as well as other contemporary exhibits.

There are numerous outdoor reproductions of his paintings forming “easels” scattered around town, in spots where Van Gogh created his art. My family used those to organize a walking tour through the city.

DSCF1172
Van Gogh’s Yellow House residence was destroyed by WWII bombs, but an easel honors its spot
img_7600.jpg
The Arles public garden

Some have tried to capitalize by recreating what Van Gogh saw. The “Night Café” he painted in bright yellow is there today on the Place du Forum, again brilliant yellow thanks to its current owners. Our guidebook warned it is a tourist trap, so we just walked by and ate at another restaurant. Many foreign tourists we observed seemed to focus almost exclusively on Van Gogh sites in Arles.

img_7631-e1537741463333.jpg
The “Night Cafe” today (in the day time) in the Place du Forum

What was once hatred has blossomed into love, appreciation, and international commerce.

It’s a very friendly commerce. Shopkeepers and small stall-keepers in Arles were among the nicest and most patient that I’ve encountered anywhere in France. They explained, guided, and even made a little conversation with yet another tourist in their midst. I didn’t begrudge them at all wanting to give the public a piece of Van Gogh’s artistic legacy to take home, and to make a few Euros in the process.

I happily participated in the capitalist celebration of this tragic genius, coming home with a Van Gogh tote bag, Van Gogh calendar, Van Gogh pocket flashlight, and pillbox, not to mention a magnet and numerous postcards. (In my defense, several of these were gifts.)

And now, when I see artwork by the master, I’ll think of the windswept streets, the quiet gardens, and the expansive riverbanks of Arles.

 

dscf1179.jpg

Next time: Van Gogh’s dream of making Arles an arts destination is becoming a reality today. Find out how.

The Cult of Beauty

Beauty itself is very subjective, but the pursuit of it is not– either you think things should be beautiful whenever possible, or you don’t really care either way (or maybe believe spending money/time on beautifying things is just a waste). One of the many revolutions of the late 19th century was the notion that everyday objects could and should be beautiful, and that art should infuse even modest homes in ways large and small, from the wallpaper to chairs to teapots.


That way of thinking was a natural response to the mass-produced mayhem of the industrial revolution, and it still influences us today. It’s why we like Apple products–functional AND elegantly beautiful–and why stores as ubiquitous as Ikea feature furnishings that appeal to our sense of style.


That’s just one message lurking beneath the surface at the gorgeous exhibit on view at San Francisco’s Legion of Honor museum right now: The Cult of Beauty: The Victorian Avant-Garde 1860 – 1900. I highly recommend it. Not just for the delectable teapots by Christopher Dresser and wallpaper by William Morris, but also for the many waves of aesthetic movements that it covers, and the many approaches to beauty it encompasses. There are several must-see paintings by James McNeill Whistler, a proponent of “art for art’s sake” who really does show how “modern” artists in this period could be, and a number of over-the-top works by Dante Gabriel Rossetti and company–not my favorite artists but a force to be reckoned with for (at least) a whole generation. 

Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl
by James McNeill Whistler-
This piece is featured in the exhibit.
(from Wikipedia Commons)

Another undercurrent of the show is the rise of sensual approaches to art that scandalized the establishment. Cited in many of the art descriptions is poet Algernon Charles Swinburne. The name brought back a flood of memories for me: I’d written one of my college research papers on some of his poems, comparing his work with that of Gerard Manley Hopkins. These two three-barreled men at first glance had very little in common, one being a “decadent”  and sensualist (Swinburne) and the other a devout Jesuit (Hopkins)–but I tried to show how much they did share in a counter-intuitive way. I don’t normally quote myself, but here’s a little taste: “Both poets wrote about the divine and the body, and both believed that there were intimate links between the spiritual and the physical…” And in conclusion: “Both men took uniquely physical approaches to the spiritual, and both attempted to mingle the body and the soul in unique, redemptive philosophies.” Of course the core ideas of those philosophies were at either ends of the spectrum of their age–a Dorian Gray-like release through sensual materialism, vs. a martyr-imbued Catholicism.


Swinburne, in a contemporary caricature
from Vanity Fair (from Wikipedia Commons)

Perhaps one of the most striking set of images towards the end of this exhibit were a handful drawings by Aubrey Beardsley. The man was pure genius–his caricature-like pen and ink pieces delicately captured a wicked sensibility (which Swinburne strove towards also). He was buddies with Oscar Wilde and illustrated his writings. I learned a little more after the show: It turns out that he died of tuberculosis at age 25–not long after converting to Catholicism and trying to get his publisher to destroy all his earlier “obscene drawings” (which he did NOT do). It was a journey that highlights those same competing sensibilities of Victorian England that I wrote about over 15 years ago. What a very rich period, and source of much worthy art by any standard of beauty.

Aubrey Beardsley’s The Peacock Skirt
(from Wikipedia Commons)