Study by Candlelight by van Gogh?
Note the all-important question mark here. This controversial painting has been authenticated and then disputed and debated over and over again. Let’s investigate whether we think this is a legit van Gogh or not.
Study by Candlelight
The painting’s backstory is pretty interesting and definitely plays into the debate at hand here. Not a lot is a solid fact (as is the way when the provenance of a painting is disputed) but I’ll tell you some of the things that people theorize because they’re interesting.
We think that Study by Candlelight was painted in 1888 because of a transcription which is no longer visible that read “Portrait by V. Gogh for 9 Japanese prints, Arles 8 Dec 1888”. In 1890 van Gogh dies (if you want to get into that whole separate mystery go read my post on it). Then we jump ahead to 1946, after the war, where there are two versions of how the painting reappeared. The more widely published version (probably because it's highly romanticized) is that American art importer Reeves Lewenthal was driving in the French countryside and got a flat tire. He went into a dingy little bistro near Paris and happened upon Study by Candlelight hanging on the wall, recognized it as a van Gogh and bought it on the spot.
The work was authenticated in 1947 by Dutch art expert Jacob Baart De La Faille, and in 1948 along comes, William Goetz, Hollywood producer and prolific art collector, who bought it for $50,000.
From 1988 to 2013 the painting wasn’t viewed outside the Goetz family collection and honestly, I think people had forgotten it existed. Trouble had been brewing basically since they purchased the painting but more attention was drawn when William and his wife Edith died. There was to be an auction of their massive art collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works. Christie’s was handling the sales of these paintings by masters such as Monet, Matisse, Picasso, Gaugin, and many others. The Goetz heirs were surprised when the auction house returned Study by Candlelight to them saying they couldn’t sell it as they weren’t able to authenticate it as a van Gogh.
The Great Debate
So before we dive in here the thing you need to know is that van Gogh paintings are forged. Like a lot. People have said that he is forged more frequently than any modern master. Not saying that to sway you one way or another but that’s the tea.
Going back a little bit, Goetz purchases the painting (which has been authenticated by the Dutch art expert) in 1948. Then almost immediately, in 1949, the Director of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, Willem Sandberg, denounced this painting as a fake. He said that he could tell from photographs that this was yet another one in a “never-ending string of forged paintings by Van Gogh” (Cranfield, 2013). V.W. van Gogh, Vincent van Gogh’s nephew, supported Sandberg’s claim and added that to his eye the signature looked unusual and that the Japanese characters were poorly painted which was odd since van Gogh had been fascinated by these Japanese prints and illustrations.
Goetz is furious with this statement and threatens a lawsuit against Sandberg and van Gogh. At the same time, in 1949, a committee of American art professionals is gathered by the Metropolitan Museum to try and sort this mess out. They come to the conclusion that Study by Candlelight is NOT an authentic van Gogh. Bummer. But, in 1950, Jacob Baart De La Faille (remember, the guy who originally authenticated it in 1947) convened his own committee of European art experts and they found that the painting was “without doubt the work of Vincent Van Gogh” (Wright, 2013). Back we go to it being a real van Gogh.
Things continue to go back and forth with both sides bickering until 1970 when William Goetz dies and Sotheby’s Auction House sells 16 pieces from the Goetz art collection for $2.7 million. His wife, Edith Goetz died in 1988 and the remainder of the paintings are given to Christie’s to sell. (Which they do for a whopping $85 million!!) However, as I mentioned before, they returned Study by Candlelight to the Goetz heirs saying that they were unable to authenticate the work.
In 1994 the family must have tried to sell it again because Christie’s contacts the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam to get their opinion on the matter. A senior researcher from the museum replied, without ever having seen the painting, “there is no reason to accept the painting representing Vincent Van Gogh by candlelight as an authentic work by the artist” (Wright, 2013). Please keep in mind that this person had never laid eyes on the painting so while yes they are a senior researcher, the van Gogh museum has a vested interest in keeping the number of authentic van Goghs floating around down so people have to come to their museum to see them. Just saying.
Then we jump to 2005 where Stephen Jordan wrote a book about Hollywood art forger John Decker and in it, he describes Decker as explicitly forging a piece and trying to sell it to Goetz. Take that with a huge grain of salt, it could be totally unrelated, it could be false. But interesting.
In 2012 the Goetz family decided to work with the Nevada Museum of Art to try and get to the bottom of this mystery and also allow the painting to be displayed publicly for the first time in 25 years. It’s important to note that the Nevada Museum of Art says that they are not trying to authenticate this work by displaying it, that the exhibit is more of an examination of this fascinating story. Regardless, the family and the museum worked with John Twilley, a prominent art conservation scientist. He examined Study by Candlelight using X-ray radiology, infrared imaging, and pigment analysis. His report is kind of underwhelming tbh, he says there is an underpainting of shapes and books and that the pigments used in the painting would have been available in 1888 when the painting is said to have been painted. This, he says, is the limit of science and the rest needs to be left to art historians and experts.
Ever since that report the debate has been raging within the art historian and expert community with people arguing both sides of this case. Some say the colours are too bright and the brushwork is too lively for it to be a real van Gogh but others refute these claims. Ultimately nothing can really be proven so I think we just need to pick something to believe and go with it.
Works Cited
Cranfield, Dawn. “Nevada Museum of Art and the Controversial Study by Candlelight”. 2013. Liberty Voice. https://guardianlv.com/2013/07/nevada-museum-of-art-and-the-controversial-study-by-candlelight/
Wright, Jonathan L. “Museum Unveils Disputed Painting Not Seen in Decades”. 2013. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/04/11/possible-van-gogh-painting-exhibit/2074219/