if Vincent van gogh knew his artwork  would Be appreciated after his death, would it have made a difference?

       In this episode of Doctor Who, entitled Vincent and the Doctor, we are faced with a question. If Vincent Van Gogh knew that his artwork would some day be appreciated, would it have made a difference? This science fiction television series features a time-traveler and his companion, who during this episode go back in time to visit one of the most famous painters in the world to this day, Vincent Van Gogh. From the moment they meet him, they are faced with the truth that this tortured artist has no idea that he will ever be acknowledged in the art world. Of course, since this is a fictional television show, they are able to take him to the future, and quite particularly to a museum in France, to show him an exhibit of his own work. We, the audience, are left with the same question that motivated the Doctor and his companion to act as such. If Van Gogh, an artist who would shortly after take his own life, knew that he would someday be recognized, & even loved, would his life have ended on different terms?

       Sadly, the answer that this television episode provides to us is that no, it wouldn't have made a difference. Which is the answer I actually agree with. Of course we as the audience wish that it would turn his life around and cause the dark cloud under which he lived to dissipate. But, the truth of the matter is that we must analyze this question through the facts and accounts left behind, and not just through the lense of our heart. First, it is helpful to recognize that the episode was right to portray that Van Gogh's artwork was not accepted in his lifetime. People thought of him as "unskillful and bizzare" (Thaw, 38). They ridiculed him and ostracized him from the community, labeling him a madman. He would never in his life be famous for his artwork, and would indeed only sell one painting before he shot himself in 1890. And yet, "a century later, after decades of ever-increasing popular adoration, Van Gogh's portrait of Dr. Gaghet sold for 82.5 million, the most any painting has ever fetched in the 20th century" (Bethune). 

       However, if we are to believe that the knowledge of his future popularity would save Van Gogh's life, then we are also to believe that the source of Van Gogh's sorrow must have been the absence of any recognition. If you look at Starry Night, or Irisis, or any of his paintings, do you see a cry for attention? Or do you see as the Curator sees? That this was a man who took his pain and transformed his torment into a masterpiece of color. "His best work is eternally alive: color has become passion and image has become spirit." (Hershman, 175). As we have seen, Van Gogh's inner turmoil was far beyond any self-serving agenda. Van Gogh, a man who was haunted by his own demons, would not be able to bear his own life any further. History would remain unchanged. And yet, does that not speak to Van Gogh's true motifs? I believe he painted for himself. He painted to ease his suffering. "I want to paint what I feel," he said, "and feel what I paint" (Naifeh, 6). He did not paint for the fame, or for the recognition, or for the acknowledgement, or for the appreciation. Knowing that his artwork would someday be loved could not save him from himself. For he painted to ease the pain of living. His art was not his livelihood, but instead his genuine life, his existence, the extension of his soul.