Another Sunday, another summary...

Last Friday a new magazine came out here in the Netherlands called Vincent. The magazine is dedicated to the artist Vincent van Gogh and plays into the trend of naming a magazine by just the first name. I don't know if this is solitarily being used here, but it's becoming quite notorious. We've got the Linda, Wendy, Jan, Ariadne, Mart, Margriet and now Vincent to add to the list. What do all these magazines have got in common (besides using just the first name)? All are based on lifestyle. Naturally Vincent's got a bit more artsy setting, but the magazine is mostly dedicated to the socalled application, or better said influence of Vincent today. So for instance there's an article included in this first issue about why Johnny Depp should play the new Van Gogh, a fashion editorial based upon the painting Starry Night and much more all (vaguely) surrounding the artist as main topic. Which once again proves how we -at this time and day- find it very important to make 'our' heritage play a role in everyday life. Or atleast to try and find a connection of the nowadays crowd to care for 'our' heritage (the magazine thus doesn't include for instance new uncovered facts about him and the regular know-it-all or trivia player will probably be known with the information given. So it's more targeted at the people who like Vincent but aren't very read into him or his work or want to take it all in on a lighter note). Naturally it's quite easy with a name like Vincent. I mean, it's the one name no foreigner can pronounce correctly, but despite they all know who he is. Quite amazing really...

There are many different ways one can interpret heritage. One of the most famous battles within the viewing of heritage is that an object carries its own worth or that we give the object its worth. This magazine very much plays into the last argument by portraying Vincent and his life as something that's still retraceable into the here and now. With the fashion from now, with the recipes from now and overall with the lifestyle from now -all based upon one man and his own heritage.

Vincent's become part of the bigger picture (or even the bigger BIGGER picture, because my oh my that man is famous). However it's very easy to see paintings in a museum as something that isn't confronting the viewer into a dialogue and one may find the need to portray the portrait with strings attached to the here and now (1. If I type now one more time I'm going to scream and 2. We must ask ourselves what these extra layers add to the paintings, to the man. Where's the balance of adding our own findings and time spirit upon the objects to make it worthwile in our view/economy (lets face it, money also plays a big role into this, but maybe more about that another time). And how much is something of great importance, worth and signifigance just on its own, without our viewing and approval? Because the famous nature of Van Gogh's career is naturally that no one was interested in his work and thought he was a bit of a wack job (sorry Vincent) and now he's been put on a pillar and his works are worth over the million euros/dollars/pounds etc. So what's changed and what makes Vincent magazine material NOW? (together naturally with all the -isms (impressionism, expressionism etc) from the 19th century) What makes the now so important? Well??).

Love,
Dominique