Dr Ben Street

Why all the Vincents? This preponderance of screen van Goghs, from Kirk Douglas’ definitive version in Lust for Life (1956) to Tim Roth in Vincent and Theo (1990) and Willem Defoe in At Eternity’s Gate (2019), provides a benchmark for the representations of artists documented in The Hollywood History of Art. These performances epitomise Frayling’s definition of Hollywood’s archetype of the artist. He – invariably and inevitably he, until the 1980s – is “a special kind of inarticulate, romantic genius-hero, who does not require training… a passionate, rule-breaking outsider, challenged by the stick-in-the-mud academy and by self-serving critics.” He “can express desires which are taboo to the rest of us, though we can enjoy them vicariously”. And, crucially, his art is “misunderstood in [his] lifetime but vindicated posthumously.” Cinema’s van Goghs meet all these criteria. And by such standards, the choice of artists whose lives have made it to the movies makes sense. Frida Kahlo, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Artemisia Gentileschi, Francis Bacon: all, to a greater or lesser extent, are pretty van Gogh-y. It’s much harder to dramatize the life of, say, Henri Matisse, or Raphael (although it’s been tried).

Part of my review of @christopherfrayling’s brilliant new book, “The Hollywood History of Art”, in the current @the.tls. You can also hear me on the TLS podcast, talking about art on film.

Recommendations for best and (ideally) worst representations of artists in cinema and TV?