Some
observations
on
essay
"The
Tokyo
Sunflowers:
a
genuine
repetition
by
Van
Gogh
or a
Schuffenecker
forgery?"
by
Louis
Van
Tilborgh
and
Ella
Endriks,
published
in
the
Van
Gogh
Museum
Journal
2001.
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
This
essay
completely
ignores
my
article
'I
GIRASOLI
CONTESI'
published
in
the
magazine
'QUADRI&SCULTURE'
of
October
2001
which
was
sent,
at a
preview,
on
December
2000,
to
the
Van
Gogh
Museum.
(However
it
was
mentioned
in
note
12 on
p.
335
and
367
of
the
Appendix
to
the
Catalogue
of
the
Exhibition
VAN
GOGH
&
GAUGUIN
- THE
STUDIO
OF
THE
SOUTH).
In
that
article
I
argued
that
Gauguin
and
not
Schuffenecker
was
the
first
one
to
paint
the
Yasuda.
Schuffenecker
would
have
then
manipulated
it in
1900-1901
and
then
put
it
forward
as an
authentic
Van
Gogh,
after
having
enlarged
it
and
positioned
on
its
back
two
labels
of
the
XX
Exhibition
after
having
removed
them
from
the
Amsterdam
version.
This
essay
does
not
mention
all
the
observations
which
I
made
at
different
times
concerning
those
specific
labels
which
are
no
longer
on
the
back
of
the
painting
since
1994
when
it
was
re-framed.
The
following
are
my
remarks:
1.
Who
enlarged
the
Amsterdam
version
of
'The
Sunflowers':
Van
Gogh
or
Schuffenecker?
(p.
17
online)
I am
not
convinced
that
Van
Gogh
was
responsible
for
this.
I
believe
that
during
the
restoration
of
the
painting
in
1900/1901
Schuffenecker
carried
out
two
interactive,
complementary
and
parallel
interventions
on
either
the
Amsterdam
and
Tokyo
versions
which
were
both
accessible
to
him
in
that
precise
period:
a)
Schuffenecker
succeeded
in
enlarging
the
upper
part
of
the
Amsterdam
version
by
eliminating
the
labels
from
the
frame
and
by
adding
a new
wooden
support
on
which
the 2
cms
folded
parts
of
the
canvas
which
were
subsequently
painted,
could
have
been
extended
and
fixed.
b)
Schuffenecker
applied
the
same
technique
to
the
Yasuda
version,
the
size
of
which
was
92X73
cms.
He
obtained
the
present
dimension
of
cms
100X76
by
using
the
four
lateral
folded
parts
which
measured
cms
1.5
each
and
by
adding
4 cm
fabric
to
the
upper
part
of
the
canvas.
He
also
transferred
here
the
horizontal
upper
part
of
the
wood
with
relating
labels
which
had
been
removed
from
the
Amsterdam
painting
during
its
restoration.
During
these
reciprocal,
complementary
manipulations
some
touch-ups
to
the
painting
were
also
made.
This
process
will
be
explained
in
point
6
YASUDA SUNFLOWERS
FRONT BACK
Photographic detail of circled zone Particular of circled zone
2.
Jo
Bonger
Van
Gogh's
list.
'Paintings
for
Leclercq
shipped
on
October
8,
1901
(Ref.
Van
Gogh
Museum
b
5738)
(p.12-13-14
and
note
59
pag.
44
online).
As Dr
VAN
TILBORGH
directly
involved
me on
this
subject,
I'll
try
to
explain
here
new
evidence
which
has,
so
far,
passed
unnoticed
to
all
scholars.
In my
opinion,
the
number
"4"
handwritten
by Jo
next
to
the
TOURNESOLS
(N. 7
in
the
list),
before
the
shipping
of
the
18
paintings
to
Paris
on
October
8,
1901
to
LECLERCQ
was
written
on a
label
on
the
back
of
the
frame
of
the
painting
and
it
referred
to
the
Exhibtion
of
the
XX of
1890
held
in
Brussels.
Van
Gogh
participated
with
6
works
and
two
of
them
were
versions
with
12
and
14
SUNFLOWERS
size
30,
out
of 4
which
had
all
been
catalogued
by
ANDRIES
BONGER
at nn.
94 (Munich),
119 (London),
194
(Amsterdam),
195 (Philadelphia).
In
1901
Jo
was
still
in
possession
of 3
of
these
paintings
as
she
had
only
sold
the
Philadelphia
one
to
SCHUFFENECKER
in
March
1894
through
TANGUY's
widow.
We
can
understand
from
a
bill
of
lading
Tanguy's
dated
April
1894
(MARC
EDO
TRALBAUT
'VAN
GOGH'
page.
211)
that
ANDRIES
BONGER
left
some
paintings
as a
deposit
on
behalf
of Jo
and
jotted
down:
(14)
n° de
la
toile
aux
XX:
9,
TROIS
ARBRES
(les
peupliers)
village
à l'arrière
plan.
This
number
had
been
put
by
THEO
on
January
3,
1890
on
the
labels
of
the
shipping
company
POTTIER
which
were
glued
to
the
back
of
the
frame
of
the
six
paintings
which
were
to be
shipped
to
Brussels.
Evidently
the
numbers
of
the
Van
Gogh's
paintings
ranged
from
4 to
9 as
Theo
had
also
lent
3
works
of
ODILON
REDON
for
the
Exhibtion,
as we
can
see
in
the
Catalogue.
LES
JEUX
CLOS,
one
of
them,
subsequently
belonged
to
ANDRIES
BONGER.
It is
quite
unlikely
that
Jo in
1901
could
have
put
this
number
next
to
one
of
her
Sunflowers
paintings
as it
would
have
been
better
identified
through
one
of
the
numbers
from
the
list
AB
(n.
94,
119,
194),
as
she
used
to
do.
Something
strange
must
have
occurred
and I
tried
to
explain
it at
point
1
above.
Subsequently
LECLERCQ
who
was
interested
in
buying
the
AMSTERDAM
Sunflowers
and
had
just
had
them
restored
secretly
by
SCHUFFENECKER,
as
different
letters
to Jo
can
prove,
offered
a
first
version
of
the
JARDIN
DE
DAUBIGNY
and
then
other
paintings
in
exchange.
In
reply
to
Jo's
constant
refusal,
who
wanted
1,800
francs,
he
must
have
pushed
the
situation
a
little
bit
further
and
sent
to Jo,
withouth
her
authorization,
the
YASUDA
with
the
label
bearing
the
number
4,
which
had
been
taken
away
in
place
of
the
Amsterdam.
Certainly
Jo
who,
we
suppose,
was
extremely
disappointed,
would
have
reacted
with
a
letter
and
sent
the
YASUDA
back
to
the
sender
on
October
8;
this
is
the
reason
why
the
painting,
unlike
other
17 in
the
list,
did
not
show
both
the
sequence
AB
and
the
relating
price,
but
only
the
n. 4
(
subsequenly
crossed
by Jo
so as
to
deny
its
legitimacy)
and
the
inscription
LECLERCQ,
which
was
evidently
to
mark
its
property.
The
latter
couldn't
reply
at
all
as he
died
suddenly
at
the
end
of
October
when
he
was
only
31,
without
leaving
his
wife
any
instructions
on
how
to
render
it to
Jo
who,
on
09-Nov-1901
replies
: 'I
should
be
very
grateful
if
you
would
sent
them
(the
17
paintings)
to
Berlin
with
the
addition
of
the
one
Mr
LECLERCQ
was
still
intending
to
buy (read
the
AMSTERDAM
sunflowers).
Please
kindly
sent
me
back
the
price-list
and,
as
the
cost
of Mr
LECLERCQ's
painting
is
not
mentioned,
I
must
carry
out
an
exchange.
WHY
DOES
THE
PRICE
NOW
APPEAR
ON
THE
LIST
WHICH
IS
DEPOSITED
IN
THE
VAN
GOGH
MUSEUM
ARCHIVES,
NEXT
TO
THE
NAME
LECLERCQ?
THE
NUMBER
"4"
APPEARS
CANCELLED
AND
THE
LIST
HAS
BEEN
MODIFIED
STARTING
FROM
N. 8
(ILLEGIBLE)
ONWARDS,
BY
TAKING
OFF
ONE
NUMBER
WITH
THE
MYSTERIOUS
ADDING
OF
THE
PAINTING
F.
798
(N.
72
LIST
AB)
WHICH
WASN'T
THERE
BEFORE.
UNLIKELY
THAT
WHICH
VAN
TILBORGH
AFFIRMS,
THIS
LIST
HAS
BEEN
TAMPERED
WITH
AFTER
THE
RETURN
OF
THE
PAINTINGS
FROM
BERLIN
AND
NOT
BEFORE
IN
PARIS.
THIS
IS
PROOVED
BY
TWO
CASSIRER'
S
LETTERS
TO
OSTHAUS
OF
FEBRUARY
2 AND
20,
1902
IN
WHICH
18
AND
NOT
19
PAINTINGS
ARE
MENTIONED.
THIS
IS
THE
PROOF
THAT
THE
AMSTERDAM
SUNFLOWERS,
THE
ONE
WHICH
HAD
BEEN
SENT
TO
BRUSSELS
AT XX
IN
1890
AND
SHIPPED
WITH
THE
NUMBER
"4"
WAS
SHIPPED
DIRECTLY
FROM
PARIS
TO
THE
CASSIRER'S
EXHIBITION
IN
BERLIN.
EVIDENTLY,
LECLERCQ'
S
WIDOW
WHO
WASN'
T
AWARE
OF
THE
PREVIOUS
EVENTS,
RETURNED
THE
AMSTERDAM
SUNFLOWERS
TO JO,
TOGETHER
WITH
THE
OTHER
17
PAINTINGS,
BEFORE
RETURNING
TO
FINLAND,
HER
HOME
COUNTRY,
FOR
GOOD.
SHE
THEN
LEFT
THE
YASUDA
TO
ITS
DISCREET
PREVIOUS
OWNER
C.E.
SCHUFFENECKER
WHO
KEPT
ON
INTRODUCING
IT TO
PRESTIGIOUS
EXHIBITIONS:
IN
1904,
IN
BRUSSELS,
AT
THE
"LIBRE
ESHETIQUE"
WHERE
IT IS
INCLUDED
IN
THE
CATALOGUE
AT N.
173,
MARKED
BY A
SIGNIFICANT
UNDERWRITTEN
NOTE
: "EXPOSITION
DES
XX -
1890",
WHICH
WAS
PROBABLY
TAKEN
FROM
THE
LABEL
ON
THE
BACK.
IT
THEN
WENT
TO
MANNHEIM
IN
1907,
DISPLAYED
IN
ROOM
29 OF
THE
LOCAL
MUSEUM
WHICH
WAS
NEW
AT
THAT
TIME,
AS IT
APPEARS
IN A
PHOTO
WHICH
ALSO
SHOWS
THAT
THE
ENLARGEMENT
OF
THE
FOUR
FOLDED
PARTS
HAD
ALREADY
TAKEN
PLACE.
To
obtain
further
interesting
information
about
this
period,
click
on
the
hypertext
"7
reasons"
in
the
chapter
"Four
year
after
London".
SCHUFFENECKER
KEPT
ON
DOING
OTHER
BUSINESS
WITH
THE
UNAWARE
VAN
GOGH'
S
WIDOW
(
April/
May
1906).
THE
LATTER,
PERHAPS
ALERTED
BY
THE
PRESENCE
ON
THE
EUROPEAN
MARKET
OF
THE
YASUDA
WHICH
SHE
MIGHT
HAVE
KNOWN
TO
HAVE
BEEN
PAINTED
BY
GAUGUIN
(IN
MAY
1889
THEO
HAD
INTRODUCED
HIM
TO JO)
TOOK
THE
NECESSARY
MEASURES
BY
CENSURING
A
LETTER
FROM
GAUGUIN
TO
VINCENT
WHICH
IS
NOW
HELD
IN
THE
VAN
GOGH
MUSEUM.
STRANGELY
ENOUGH
ONE
PAGE
IS
MISSING,
THE
VERY
ONE
WHERE
GAUGUIN
ASKS
VAN
GOGH
FOR
THE
SUNFLOWERS
ON A
YELLOW
BACKGROUND.
AT
THE
SAME
TIME,
IN
THE
50s,
A
LETTER
FROM
VINCENT
TO
HIS
BROTHER
MATERIALIZED
(558a),
PUBLISHED
BY
ENGINEER
VINCENT
WILLEM
VAN
GOGH,
THEO'S
SON,
IN A
COLLECTION
OF
LETTERS
FOR
THE
CENTENARY
IN
1953.
IN
THIS
LETTER
VINCENT
REVEALED
THE
FOLLOWING
TO
THEO:
"GAUGUIN
IS
WORKING
ON A
FANTASTIC
PAINTING
ABOUT
WOMEN
WHO
ARE
DOING
THE
WASHING
AND A
STILL-LIFE
WITH
SOME
ORANGE
PUMPKINS,
APPLES
AND A
WHITE
TABLE
CLOTH
AND A
YELLOW
FOREGROUND
AND
BACKGROUND".
PERHAPS
IT IS
UNDER
THE
THICK
STRATUM
OF
THE
YASUDA
PAINTING
THAT
WE
MAY,
ONE
DAY,
FIND
THIS
STILL-LIFE
WHICH
HAS
BEEN
MISSING
SINCE
1888.
To
conclude,
I
find
Jo's
mailing
of
the
other
London
version
at n.
7 of
the
list
of
8-oct-1901
quite
implausible,
as
Van
Tilborgh
affirms.
To
begin
with,
it is
not
true,
as
DORN
says,
that
the
London
one
was
not
included
in
the
list
AB (it
is n.
119),
also
because
all
the
paintings
which
had
decorated
the
rooms
of
Theo
and
Jo's
flat,
bear
an AB
number
very
close
to
119.
Furthermore,
I
find
it
quite
ridiculous
that
Jo
who
had
already
grown
very
anxious
about
the
restitution
of
the
Amsterdam
version
from
LECLERCQ
(see
correspondence
between
the
two
of
them),
decided
to
send
him
also
the
London
version
or,
even
stranger
is
the
chance
that
she
sent
back
to
Paris
the
Amsterdam
version
which
had
just
returned
exactly
from
there.
The
most
logical
supposition
is an
exchange
purposely
organized,
unilateraly,
by
LECLERCQ
through
the
expedition
to
Amsterdam
of
the
YASUDA
(n. 4
on
the
label
on
the
back)
and
refused
by Jo
with
the
prooved
restitution
at n.
7 of
the
list
of a
"TURNESOLS"
(N.4)
with
the
name
LECLERCQ
handwritten
next
to
it.
Jo
seems
here
to
underline
that
the
painting
was
not
hers
but
it
belonged
to
LECLERCQ.
page 52 of catalogue "Exposition des Peintres Impressionistes 1904
Libre Esthetique - Bruxelles du 25 fevrier au 29 mars"
How you can see , "173 Tournesols" is the only marked painting for sale between seven in the list ,near which is missing the owner name (Schuffenecker) , who instead marks his name in painting n. 177.This means the intention of the seller to remain anonymous.Why ?
exhibition of 1907 at Mannheim room 29 detail of photo on the left
3.
"The
mere
fact
that
the
Tokyo
painting
was
produced
on
the
same
piece
of
juta-
canvas,
leads
to
very
tangible
even
if
not
final
proof
of
its
authenticity"
(p.20
online).
This
may
be
true,
provided
that
proper
evidence
of a
previous
painting
on
the
same
canvas
is
produced
through
an
x-ray
examination.
We
shouldn't
forget
that
Gaugin
used
to
re-paint
new
works
on
canvas
which
he
had
previously
used
for
sketching
and
which
he
considered
not
worth
being
kept
aside.
A
recent
example
is
the
painting
'Women
of
Arles',
which
is
mentioned
in
the
catalogue
'Van
Gogh
and
Gaugin
- The
Studio
of
the
South
- p.
253
4.The
charcoal
outlines
(p.
21
online)
In my
letter
to
Professor
Leighton,
Director
of
the
Van
Gogh
Museum,
in
December
2000
I
anticipated
the
contents
of a
particular
study
I had
embarked
on
about
the
mechanical
technique
which
Van
Gogh
and
Gaugin
had
both
used
in
Arles
to
transfer
their
preparatory
sketches
onto
the
canvas
which
were
to be
used
in
their
next
paintings
or to
produce
some
identical
copies
of
the
pre-existing
works.
After
having
covered
a
certain
part
of
the
drawings
or
paintings
with
tissue
paper,
they
outlined
it
using
a
copying
pencil.
This
particular
operation
was
then
reproduced
on
the
convas
they
wanted
to
paint
by
placing
the
tissue-paper
on it
and
by
outlining
the
same
always
through
a
copying
pencil.
This
would
have
saved
them
precious
time
and
would
have
substituted
the
old
grid
technique.
I
could
verify
my
theory
by
placing
the
acetatephotocopies
of
the
drawings
and
paintings
under
examination:
the
relating
outlines
fitted
together
exactly
. I
must
say
that
was
Van
Gogh's
original
idea
and
he
experimented
it
for
the
first
time
when
transferring
the
drawings
in
the
same
scale
onto
the
painting
'Boats
On
Dry
Land'
which
is
now
at
the
Van
Gogh
Museum
. He
subsequently
partook
Gaugin
of
this.
The
latter
then
used
the
same
technique
to
transfer
Madame
Ginoux's
drawing
on
the
painting
'Cafe'
by
Night'
w.305.
This
could
also
explain
the
reason
why
the
charcoal
outlines
are
present
in
both
the
Amsterdam
and
Tokyo
versions
of
'The
Sunflowers',
even
if
they
were
produced
by
Van
Gogh
and
Gaugin
respectively.
5.
The
tick
mixture
of
the
foreground
and
vase
(p.23
online)
On
August
16,
1994
I
sent
a
registered
letter
to
Dr.
Van
Tilborgh
which
was
never
answered.
I
underlined
how
those
two
elements
of
the
mixture
and
the
vase
were
also
present,
in an
impressive
way,
in
the
three
paintings
of
the
Sunflowers
which
had
been
catalogued
as a
forgery
by De
La
Faille
in
his
LES
FAUX
VAN
GOGH
on p.
PL
XXIII
- and
PL
XXVI
at
numbers
77-80-90.
I
also
argued
that
those
three
false
works
could
have
been
painted
by
Schuffenecker
who,
by
the
end
of
1800,
was
the
only
owner
of
the
two
versions
of 12
and
14
sunflowers
by
Vincent,
other
than
Van
Gogh's
widow.
(
After
that
period,
this
chance
wouldn't
have
occurred
unless
it
happened
during
a
temporary
exchange,
then
cancelled,
with
Count
DE LA
ROCHEFOUCOULD
in
1901).
Absurdly
enough,
Theodor
Duret
who
was
the
owner
of
the
40
homogeneous
false
paintings
(
mainly
flowery
still-life)
in
addition
to
the
above
mentioned
three
works,
told
DE LA
FAILLE
that
they
all
came
from
Agostina
Segatori's
Tamburin
Restaurant.
This
is
clearly
incorrect
and
misleading
as
they
appear
copied
from
the
sunflowers
which
VAN
GOGH
had
painted
in
August
1888
whilst
it is
widely
known
that
he
never
met
Agostina
Segatori
(his
lover
)
again,
after
they
had
quarelled
in
the
mid-1887.
If DE
LA
FAILLE
had
acutely
spotted
this
deliberately
wrong
information,
he
could
have
questioned
CLAUDE
SCHUFFENECKER
and
perhaps
unmasked
him
75
ago
as an
astute
forger;
the
WACKER's
case
would
have
assumed
more
international
reverberation
and I
would
have
spared
the
nuisance
of
pursuing
the
would-be
false
Van
Goghs
and
Schuffeneckers
(I
have
catalogued
about
30 of
them
which
you
may
wish
to
find
in
another
section
of
this
site)
as I
have
been
doing
for
ten
years.
Dr
VAN
TILBORGH
affirms
on p.
8 on
line
"
Whilst
we
cannot
demonstrate
that
SCHUFFENECKER
had
ever
owned
the
12
Philadelphia
Sunflowers,
we
can
confidently
maintain
that
this
happened
with
the
YASUDA
Sunflowers".
This
affirmation
loses
its
significance
if we
ascribe,
as
logic
would
impose,
the
three
false
works
which
are
reproduced
below
to
Scuffenecker's
hand,
as
you
can
notice
that
two
of
them
have
been
copied
from
the
YASUDA
(N.
77
and
88)
and
one
from
the
Philadelphia
12
Sunflowers
version
(N.
90).
Consequently,
it is
not
historically
correct
to
state
that
the
latter
painting
has
never
passed
through
SCHUFFENECKER'S
collection.
6.
The
forger
who
copied
the
Yasuda
from
the
London
original
couldn't
be
aware
of
and
consequently
apply
to
his/her
work
those
modifications
which
Van
Gogh
had
made
to
his
Amsterdam
copy
(P.
24
online)
This
observation
would
be
very
bright
and
relevant
if
applied
to
Schuffenecker
as
the
executant
of
the
false
painting.
As it
is
now
clear
enough
that
the
Yasuda
was
painted
by
Gaugin,
it is
quite
logical
to
suppose
that
Schuffenecker
in
1900/1901
could
have
applied
a dry
transfer
on
the
Yasuda
left
to
him
by
Gaugin,
exactly
those
modifications
which
he
could
comfortably
observe
in
the
Amsterdam
version
which
he
was
restoring.
7.
Antedating
of
the
Yasuda
from
february
1889
to
the
beginning
of
december
1888
(p.
24
online).
On
October
8,
2001
I
sent
a
letter
both
via
fax
and e.mail
to
Prof.
Leighton
and
Dr.
Peres
of
the
Van
Gogh
Museum,
where
I
made
some
observations
to
the
Chicago
Exhibition
and,
in
particular,
I
pointed
out
how
this
antedating
is an
historical
forgery
which
can
be
contradicted
by
all
the
vangoghian
correspondence.
I
also
produced
a
list
of
the
letters
to
make
myself
clearer.
8.
The
rose-colouring
of
same
parts
of
the
background
in
the
Yasuda
in
relation
to
the
layers
of
the
preparation
of
the
jute
The
tests
on
this
phenomenon
deserve
a
more
serious
observation.
They
bring
to
light
in
the
YASUDA
two
overlapping
layers
of
preparation
of
the
canvas:
an
underlayer
spread
with
barium
sulphate
and a
white
lead
overlayer
(lead
carbonate).
Considering
that
the
illogical
sequence
of
this
double
preparation
does
not
find
any
counterparts
in
any
other
work
on
jute
which
were
painted
in
Arles
by
VAN
GOGH
and
GAUGUIN,
I
think
that
a
X-Ray
stratigraphy
between
one
combination
and
the
other,
analized
with
awkward
and
particulary
refined
tests,
would
lead
us
straight
towards
the
discovery
of an
underlying
painting,
perhaps
GAUGUIN's
still-life
W.
312
which
was
missing.
The
rose-colouring
of
the
background
in
the
YASUDA
could
be
provoked
by a
chemical
reaction
between
the
red
mixture
of
the
underlying
painting
with
the
edges
of
the
white
lead
stratum
of
the
combination
above.
9.The
x-ray
photograph
of
the
Yasuda
According
to me
the
X-Ray
examination
applied
to
the
painting
has
not
been
carried
out
in a
correct
and
satisfactory
way.
First
of
all
it
would
have
been
necessary
to
proceed
through
an
electronic
scanning
microscope
by
dividing
the
painting
into
sections
to
spot
the
various
overlapping
layers
and
verify
if a
painted
stratum
exists
in
the
sandwich
between
the
underlayer
of
barium
sulphate
and
the
lead
carbonate
layer
above.
It is
well-known
that
an
excessive
spreading
of
lead
carbonate
mixed
with
drying
oils
provokes
the
hardening
of
the
covering
surface
which
tends
to be
more
opaque
to
X-Rays.
This
is
that
which
happened
to
the
YASUDA.
Hence
the
X-Ray
should
be
addressed
towards
the
back
of
the
painting
to be
really
effective,
as
the
barium
sulphate
stratum
would
let
them
pass
through
it.
From
the
analysis
of
the
X-Ray
picture
on
p.34
of
the
essay,
only
one
element
appears
clearly:
the
peripheral
areas
on
the
circumference
of
the
painting
let
X-Ray
pass
through
them
(we
can
see
the
weft
of
the
underlying
jute);
the
central
core,
on
the
contrary,
represented
by
the
vase,
the
flowers
and
most
of
the
table,
has
repelled
the
passage
of
the
radiations.
The
explanation
can
be
too
obvious:
whoever
painted
this
work
left
a
pre-existing
background
(yellow
stratum
on a
barium
sulphate
mixture
on
the
circumference)
and
they
only
covered
the
central
area
with
a
very
thick
new
mixture
based
on
lead-carbonate
hardened
by
drying
oil,
as if
they
had
aimed
at
producing
a new
painting
by
using
(perhaps
to
save
yellow
colour)
the
same
background
of
the
another
underlying
work.
I am
tempted
to
think
that
this
hidden
paiting
might
reasonably
sure
be
Gauguin's
still-life,
catalogued
by
Wildenstein
at n,
W.312
and
which
was
missing
immediately
after
it
had
been
painted
(we
know
it in
detail
only
through
the
letter
n.
558a,
which
was
addressed
at
the
end
of
October
1888
from
Vincent
to
Theo
"Gauguin
is
working
at a
fantastic
painting
about
women
who
are
washing
and a
still-life
with
some
orange
pumpkins,
apples
and a
white
table
cloth
on
foreground
and
background
both
yellow.
He
then
comes
back
to
the
same
subject
in
letter
n.
560
at
the
beginning
of
November:
"Gauguin
works
a
lot,
I
like
his
still
life
very
much
with
the
foreground
and
background
both
yellow".
It is
also
curious
that
Gauguin
places,
on
the
background
wall
of
the
painting
"The
Schuffenecker
Family"
of
January
1889,
perhaps
as an
addition
which
he
painted
on
May
of
the
same
year
(see
the
Exhibition
Catalogue
from
January
10 to
April
24,
1989
at
the
GRAND
PALAIS
OF
PARIS
- p.
141
and
following),
a
large
horizontal
still.-life,
apparently
size
30,
with
some
extra-large
apples
and
other
fruit
(about
20
cm.
diameter
which
also
soon
went
lost.
I
underline
this
in my
essay
"The
Debated
Sunflowers"
which
has
been
published
in
the
Art
Magazine
"Quadri
e
Sculture"
in
the
last
few
months.
With
an
admirable
exactness,
from
the
last
updated
catalogue
of
Gauguin's
production
up to
1888,
published
at
the
end
of
September
2001
by
the
WILDENTEIN
INSTITUTE
OF
PARIS,
we
become
aware
of
the
existence,
in a
private
collection,
of a
small
painting:
"Kitten
With
Three
Apples",
size
24X72
,
made
from
the
same
Arles
jute
where
the
apples
have
unusual
dimensions
if
compared
with
previous
and
subsequent
GAUGUIN
paintings.
It is
consequently
not
hazardous
to
think
of a
link
between
the
two
works
and
between
them
and
the
Arles
period,
if we
juxtapose
those
events
with
the
complex
but
coherent
personality
of
the
painter.
He
often
includes
in
his
work
some
reminiscences
of
recent
paintings;
so,
in
this
case
too,
he
does
not
contradict
himself
as he
picks
up
again
the
theme
of
the
black
kitten
which
was
taken
without
any
modifications
from
one
of
his
works
about
black
coloured
women
from
Martinique
of
1887
(or
perhaps
completed
in
Arles
immediately
after
his
arrival
at
the
end
of
October
1888
? )
and
which,
curiously
enough
he
sends,
in
the
same
period,
to
the
XX
Exhibtion
in
Bruxelles.
I
FORMALLY
ASK
TO
CORRECTLY
REPEAT
AND
TO
INTEGRATE
THE
INSUFFICIENT
EXAMINATIONS
ALREADY
DONE.