Vincent van Gogh made several paintings of shoes, including this work from 1885, which sparked an exceptional debate among twentieth-century art historians and philosophers including Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. You might ask how a painting of a pair of shoes could generate so much discussion? That such a debate came about raises the question of what Van Gogh was after in making a painting of boots in the first place. Is this just a random still-life of what happened to be laying around Van Gogh's studio, or do these shoes bring up particular associations for you? And is there any implication in your mind of the individual (or social category of person) to whom these shoes belong? What significance do you see in the details Van Gogh chooses to emphasize and in the way he handles the paint itself (brushstrokes, thinness/thickness of paint, etc.)?
When looking at this piece by Van Gogh the first thing I noticed was the thickness in the brush strokes Van Gogh used when depicting the shoes. Van Gogh depicted these shoes as having significant wear. This shows that they probably belonged to someone lower in society who either worked all day in the field and/or was unable to get to around (or to their job) without walking. This can be seen though the scuffs that Van Gogh shows on these boots through the lighter (seemingly random) brush stokes that he places throughout the boots. In contrast with the lighter and slightly more refined background, the boots stick out as much darker and heavier, and seem like an old pair of boots that could have possible been found in the garbage. When thinking about the pieces we looked at last lecture, these boots would have definitely belonged to someone like a nursemaid, or possibly someone lower in society, who was paid for their hard and gruesome manual labor.
ReplyDeleteHarry is absolutely right to note the thickness of the brushstrokes and the "impasto" technique that Van Gogh uses to gives these shoes definition and a sense of wear and use.
DeleteAlthough seemingly random at first, Van Gogh’s Pair of Shoes seems to personify the shoes as individuals that embody the divisions of French society during the latter half of the 19th century. This work was made at a time of great political upheaval in France, when the newest trend in political thought was French socialism. This background information seems key to interpreting the painting. The idea that these shoes can be seen as personifications of the French people is supported by a number of factors. First, the way they are lit strongly from the top right corner of the piece – a practice Van Gogh used with almost every portrait he did – betrays a sense of agency and character as the viewer focuses on them. Next, notice these both appear to be shoes made for the left foot because they both curve in the same direction. Having two items that are the same points us as viewers to compare these two shoes; it seems superfluous to have two of the same objects in a piece and it seems natural then to compare and see which one is “better” – a comparison that Van Gogh was intentional in causing. The shoe on the left seems to represent a working-class person. Its collar is pushed down from use, the stretched out shape gives the appearance of age and possibly poverty, and it is shorter in height than the one on the right. The collar even seems to resemble the flat top and wide brim of a peasant hat, which was represented in another painting of Van Gogh’s called Portrait of a Peasant. The laces are also loose, giving us a tired character. The shoe on the left on the other hand is shown tall and straight, with tight laces and shiny hooks to hold the laces firmly in place – showing more wealth than the other shoe. The collar of the shoe also resembles a stereotypical top hat that would be worn by a member of the bourgeoisie. Its height compared to the other shoe shows a physical difference in standing (ha get it because they’re shoes). The shoe on the left also remains within the shadow of the one on the right, adding to class divisions. This social commentary on the growing political divisions between the French classes expressed through such every day and necessary items shows how Van Gogh was in line with the political climate.
ReplyDeleteA very creative analysis of how the two shoes in Van Gogh's painting are not merely two halves of a pair but each seem to have a personality and character of their own. Whether we can read Van Gogh's painting as a political commentary remains uncertain, but what is interesting is the way that the work invites this kind of association between the inanimate objects it represents and their animate associations with individuals who might have worn them.
DeleteJust as his other paintings, Van Gogh applies an extremely thick layer of paint to depict these shoes. His interest in light and color contrast is also very apparent through this painting. Van Gogh's brushstroke creates an interesting texture for this painting, conveying a sense of roughness and torture. When the viewers see this pair of shoes, they can immediately imagine that the owner of these shoes must be in the relative lower social class and work as physical labor. Besides the symbolic and implicit meanings of these shoes, the subject matter of this painting also embodies Van Gogh's personal background as a unsuccessful and poor artist. Just as the suggested owner of this pair of shoes, Van Gogh was also in a relatively lower social class, and nobody appreciated his art. Consequently, this painting may also suggest Van Gogh's pessimistic view of life.
ReplyDeleteAgain, how interesting how Van Gogh's painting invites not only a biography of the shoes but also an autobiographical reading in relation to the artist himself! As discussed in class, it is impossible to know with certainty to whom these shoes belonged. Even if they were the artist's own, we also don't know whether he intended to express his own personal state in depicting them. Nonetheless, the thick brushstrokes and monotone palette seems to invite this kind of interpretation.
DeleteThe shoes appear tattered and worn. They are folding and slouching from signs of wear. The fact that they are sturdy leather boots, which could be worn in a working context, implies that Van Gogh is portraying shoes that belong to a poor peasant class citizen. The brushstrokes, monochromatic and dull colors, and the treatment of the lighting create an impression of a lowly class, and a depressed state. Perhaps Van Gogh is suggesting a personality to these shoes and it is possible they belong to a close friend.
ReplyDeleteGrace's description of the shoes as "slouching" is especially nice because it suggest both the worn state of the shoes themselves and the invitation to personify them as characters with human posture and feeling.
DeleteLike many of his previous works, Van Gogh uses thick brushstrokes to illustrate these shoes. This creates an interesting texture throughout the painting that reveals a sense of roughness. The shoes appear to be worn out, implying that Van Gogh is portraying a working man who spent his days handling manual labor. The strong contrast of lights and darks and the mute colors within the painting suggest that the man may have been from a lower class. This painting creates an overall melancholy and depressed feeling.
ReplyDeleteKelly again emphasizes the attraction of viewing these shoes as belonging to an individual not only in a certain emotional state but also a certain socio-economic position.
DeleteAt initial glance, I found this painting absolutely breathtaking. It is a simple depiction of a pair of shoes, yet it still seems to raise so many questions. Whose shoes are these? Where are they from? Why are they so worn? Where have they been? What significance do they have? It could go on and on. Personally, the singular focus on these pair of shoes brings up a realization of the importance simple objects have. With a pair of shoes, for example, we wear them everyday - they protect our feet from the elements and portray our personal style. The shoes depicted in the painting seem like they could belong to a person of a lower class - or even van Gogh himself! The shoes look ratty and old. The scene they are depicted in is very monotone being composed of various grays and dishwater whites. It gives the painting a sense of being worn out and broken down. The brushstrokes are rough, which add to weathered atmosphere of the painting. The shoes are very ragged - the highlights added to the shoes show how the leather has been beat up and is distressed from old age. The person wearing them clearly wore them for a very long time. The shoelaces on the boots are untied and weaved into mismatched holes. Regardless of the thick and dark brushstrokes, the painting still carries the feeling of hope. It seems though through all the wear and tear, these pair of boots are still standing and significant to be painted by van Gogh.
ReplyDeleteA very thoughtful analysis, Julia! It is a simple yet essential point that shoes are things we wear everyday, and thus have an association with the body and a specific individual more so than other objects that Van Gogh might have represented.
DeleteThese shoes appear to be old and almost falling apart, indicating they belong to a man who cannot afford to buy new ones or whose work would destroy the new shoes anyways. Either way, they indicate that they belong to a lower working class man. The colors van Gogh uses in the painting almost wash out the shoes as they start to blend in with the background, indicating how the working class men blend into the background and go unnoticed by most others. The thick brushstrokes and thick paint grant the painting a heaviness that parallels the shoes, as they appear to be tired of supporting themselves and are beginning to droop. This shows the weariness that a hard life's work brings on people.
ReplyDeleteKelly makes a nice observation about the color affinity between the shoes and the background, as if both the shoes and the environment inhabited by their wearer have the same experiences and mood.
DeleteThese shoes could have belonged someone who was constantly traveling, as they are very battered and worn in. The owner likely walked many miles in these shoes, which show many signs of wear. It looks like Van Gogh carefully manipulated the brushstrokes such that each mark and blemish on the shoe is unique. Some marks are different colors, such as a lighter shades of brown while other marks have varying thickness. Because each blemish on the shoes is unique, they may each tell unique stories about how they were left on the boots. Therefore, these boots may represent a collection of unique experiences of a traveller. For example, he may have had to trek through mud or may have held something that dripped on the shoes and left permanent stains.
ReplyDeleteSophie adds another dimension to the discussion here that is also important: shoes not only carry associations with an individual wearer but also with travel and movement, life experience in other words, that again motivates a biographical reading of the shoes as pictorial subject.
DeleteThese shoes connote a specific response for each viewer, perhaps that was why there was much debate around this painting. The shoes are very general, as in they can bring up very different responses from many different people, yet each response for each person is specific to them. In other words, the individual viewer has their own individual connotation to this painting. Thus, incurring much discussion about what this painting means in the end.
ReplyDeleteFor me, these shoes are worn down and have been used heavily. I think there are mud spots on the shoes, but because of the ambiguous brush strokes on the shoes, it is unclear as to what the lighter brown marks mean. They can be mud splotches or scuff marks or expressive marks made by the artist. I would assume these shoes belong to a worker who works outside in many different conditions. This worker is most likely from the lower classes and does physical labor, judging from the distraught character of the shoes. The background Van Gogh painted is an interesting detail as it continues the tone of the shoes, which results in contributing to the worker/lower class backstory.
Eva offers a great analysis of the ambiguity of Van Gogh's loose and thick brushstrokes, which might be understood as mud on the shoes, as scuff marks, or as gestural expressivity on the part of the artist himself.
Delete