Get an answer to your question
Interesting question. Both yes and no at the same time. More important is whether he considered himself a failure or not. Judging by many elements of the biography, I did, but here you need to look in more detail.
I'll argue with the previous answers. On the one hand, Van Gogh was certainly not as tragic a person as he was later painted on. He was not poor, provided for by his brother at a fairly good level ( his brother sent him for all needs an amount approximately corresponding to the income of a lawyer or a doctor starting his practice). Vincent was treated in a good psychiatric hospital, since “mental hospitals” for commoners were a terrible sight at that time, there were no separate wards and doctors, but cages, shackles and beatings, etc.
On the other hand, he didn't get much recognition in his lifetime. He was well-known in Bohemia, was close friends with other great contemporaries, and was successful at exhibitions and in critical articles. But it was very modest, first in terms of his ambitions, and second in terms of his posthumous fame. And of course, it sold very little, in the second half of that century, a market for fine arts was formed, and paintings by artists of new schools and trends were often sold after vernissages, which were also trading platforms. It's like concerts where the headliner performs, but the opening act is young artists or bands. That is, they were well-known artists, plus many beginners who could make an impression on the public and the press, sell something, after which they received either orders, or their works grew significantly in price for the next exhibitions.
Van Gogh did not participate in any major exhibitions of the same Impressionists that his friend Gauguin participated in. He did not participate in a large number of exhibitions at all, and they were just held a great many. “Red Vineyards in Arles” was bought by Anna Bosch, who sympathized with Van Gogh, for a rather modest amount, compared to those for which paintings of his contemporaries were traded. I do not know information about other sales, as well as about the amounts earned for them, although in the literature they write about about fifteen works. However, fifteen works is very small for that time already. The money raised was very small even for Vincent to survive on it.
Since Impressionism, European artists have painted a lot of works. This is not a long-term work on one canvas, when dozens of sketches and sketches were written, the composition was carefully thought out before the artist undertook to draw his masterpiece. Drawing very much, they sold a lot, often copying their popular works or making a series of paintings similar in subject matter and techniques. In Russia, which was mentioned in the comments to other answers, there was no such market at that time, and our artists built their careers differently ( see Peredvizhniki).
Van Gogh didn't fit into that market. It didn't sell much, obviously it didn't cost much. Did he consider himself a failure as a result? Yes, obviously, I did-I didn't exhibit much, I didn't sell much, I was cheap.
Interesting wording of the question. On the one hand, yes, van Gogh can be called a loser. For a long time, he suffered setbacks, was poor, was not understood by his family (only his brother Theo supported him both financially and morally), and suffered from a severe form of psychosis.
On the other hand, given the fact that van Gogh started drawing quite late (at the age of 27), the level of his skill developed over the years of persistent self-study is envious. Despite the fact that van Gogh's paintings were practically not sold during his lifetime, after his death he became world famous, and this is worth much more than popularity only in the years of his life.
as a priest-yes, a failure, because Van Gogh seriously wanted to become a priest like his father. He translated the Bible, studied theology, attended a Protestant mission school near Brussels, and was even sent to the south of Belgium for six months to preach to the poor. However, it did not work out( for a number of reasons) and Van Gogh decided to take up art.
as an artist, no, because his works are recognized all over the world and are very expensive. His name is on the list of the most talented artists of all time.�
in general, as a person-it is difficult to say: he lived a hard life and from his current fame then he was neither hot nor hot..Worldly Fame and Success are ambiguous things.
You must Register or
Login to add an answer.