Rhetorical Analysis

Vincent Van Gogh was a Dutch post-impressionist painter from the 19th century. Van Gogh is mostly recognized for his famous painting such as The Starry Night (1889) and his self-portrait with bandages (1889). Though most people fail to focus on the artist behind the art itself, or more so the mindscape of the artist. Van Gogh is not only known for his incredible artwork, but he is also scarcely known for his mental battles that he faced for a while and that are still undiagnosed even today. 

Van Gogh has been assumed to have dealt with a form of synesthesia-association of color with one of the senses- which was chromesthesia, association of colors with sounds, and as Van Gogh is known to have attempted to take up the piano in 1885, though he struggled with it because he said each note would strike up a different color, and unfortunately his instructor took it as a sign of insanity and was told to leave. Van Gogh also was a heavy alcoholic, and he is most known for cutting his ear off and giving it to a prostitute named Rachel, as described in the letters that he wrote to his brother. Medical notes from Van Gogh’s physician reveal that Van Gogh would often eat paint and drink turpentine in hopes to poison himself. Van Gogh is believed to have died by suicide in 1890 due to a gunshot wound. With the various ways that Van Gogh has inflicted pain on himself, it is common to deduce that Van Gogh did certainly suffer from mental illness. 

The newspaper article “Van Gogh’s Ear Triggers Mental Health Debate” by The London Evening Standard focuses on a Vincent Van Gogh doll created by a line that makes dolls of famous artists. Van Gogh’s doll features a velcro detachable ear, which has sparked a debate. Van Gogh detached his own ear and gave it to a prostitute named Rachel, which was part of the beginning of struggles that Van Gogh had to deal with leading to his suicide two years later. 

The purpose of this article was to not only inform the reader of this debate, but also to spark some thinking amongst the reader as to whether or not the detachable ear of the doll is acceptable or if it is disrespectful and demeaning to Van Gogh’s mental health issues and in some way make them part of the debate. This purpose is shown through Marjorie Wallace’s statement, who is the chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, where she states “‘…using Van Gogh’s ear as a toy does seem insensitive to the mental torments he endured and could give a confusing impression of an already much misunderstood illness.’”but then is followed by a statement by an art critic described as “a great idea…it’s incomplete without the bandage though.”(“Van Gogh’s ear triggers mental health debate.” London Evening Standard [London, England], 6 Sept. 2013, p. 16. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A342114506/ITOF?u=cuny_ccny&sid=ITOF&xid=a5cba780. Accessed 29 Oct. 2019.)) The author(s) of this article may have decided to include both a mental health advocate who is against the doll and an art enthusiast who is for the doll possibly to strike up thought amongst the reader and decide whether or not it is really okay for this doll to be sold. The targeted audience seems to be readers of this newspaper, but also readers who are particular followers of artists or may just know some information of  Vincent Van Gogh, shown through the idea that the article very shortly mentions Vincent Van Gogh and his works. The author(s) possibly expected readers to know more information about Van Gogh, hence why they did not go into much detail about Van Gogh, though providing information for those who may not . The genre, this text being a newspaper, is important to the content because it is stated in a general manner and to no one in specific, so the genre of it being a newspaper helps it reach out to people who may know of the debate, of Van Gogh, or who just may not know of the subject at all and learn more of it through this article. Not only that but 

it is an online newspaper, allowing for more people to have access to this text rather than just, in this case, London.

This newspaper article takes a neutral stance on the debate, informing more of the debate itself and what sparked it as well as both sides of the debate rather than taking one side of the debate. Though, the article does seem to inform more about the side that is in favor of the detachable ear of the doll rather than the side that is against it. The article does come from both sides, also showing how some think that it is just a doll and is for nothing but entertainment, but or others that is 

just crossing a line. The article itself doesn’t seem to take a particular stance as it just speaks on the way that people responded to the doll being sold. The newspaper article does include hyperlinks to certain things for those who are interested in learning more about Vincent Van Gogh, but no other media, possibly to focus more on the debate itself. 

In the web article “Creativity and Chronic Disease Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890)” by Paul Wolf, Clinical Professor of Pathology, Wolf briefly mentions the life of Van Gogh, zeroing in on Van Gogh’s painting The Starry Night and why it is incorrect for people to assume certain physical attributes may have contributed to his actions. He disproves one of the most common assumptions and supports another, first one being that his consumption of absinthe was a great influence on his health. Van Gogh is known to have been greatly fond of absinthe-a particular liquor that may cause hallucinations- as part of his alcohol addiction. Most who support the idea that absinthe caused Van Gogh’s actions say its supported by the idea that he used a significant amount of yellow patterns and absinthe is known to, when consumed, cause the person to see all objects with a yellow hue. Wolf disproves this by saying that investigations done in 1991 show that in order for one to see yellow hues they must consume 182 liters of absinthe, which is assumed Van Gogh did not consume. The second common assumption is that his actions were due to overmedication with digitalis. People who receive large doses of digitalis see the world in a yellow-green tint, and it is believed that this may be the issue because in Van Gogh’s portrait of his physician, his physician had been holding a stem of Digitalis Purpurea, which is where the drug is extracted from. 

Paul Wolf seems to have written this article in hopes of debunking the commonly talked about theory of the cause to Van Gogh’s mental battles and to offer and support another theory that seems more plausible, shown through the way he uses medical facts to deny the plausible theories that caused his mental illness. His audience seems to be those who know about Van Gogh’s mental battles and who he is, as he does not go into much detail about the artist himself or the actions behind what lead people to believe that he had been mentally ill, only focusing on his Starry Night painting and briefly mentioning his suicide in the end of his article, though he does provide an image of Starry Night to assist those who may not be very familiar with the painting or the artist himself. Wolf wrote this in an article to the US National Library of Medicine website possibly for it to be more accessible to people and to those who study or are interested in mental health and how it can be affected and may want to study the plausible ways that Van Gogh’s mental health was triggered as a way to learn. Wolf does not seem to have a particular stance on Van Gogh’s mental health or his actions themselves but he makes it very prominent that he does not think that absinthe was the cause of his mental illness and that it is more possible for digitalis to have been the cause. In terms of media, Wolf uses mainly text to communicate his points but he also includes an image of Starry Night and of the portrait Van Gogh created of his physician in a way to help his audience see the yellow hues that are mentioned in each theory, seeming to only add those to assist visually and not really to those who may not know much about Van Gogh, as it would be too vague to use those images to explain Van Gogh himself.

In the book “Vincent Van Gogh: Chemicals, Crises and Creativity” by Wilfried Niels Arnold, Arnold goes through examining the various chemicals that the painter was said to consume during his lifetime. He then progresses into the various mental health issues that affected him. He progresses past those issues and speaks about his life and successes a painter and the work that he made, seeming to have great admiration for the artist’s ability to create through his difficult situations. In the summary, the author ties the three elements of chemicals crises and creativity by yet again admiring the artist’s ability to work through his mental health that may have possibly been caused by various chemicals that he is said to have consumed. 

Wilfried Niels Arnold possibly wrote his text to inform those who may not know Van Gogh at all or to those who only see Van Gogh as a mere painter from the 19th century. Arnold goes through a sequence throughout his book, beginning with his own discovery of Van Gogh and developing through the life of the artist himself and Arnolds feelings towards the artist and his work. It seems although Arnold’s reason for writing his text had been as a way to bring light to Vincent Van Gogh as not only an artist but also as a victim of mental health, as he speaks not only of his admiration of Van Gogh but the sympathy that he has for the artist. He wrote this text in a book, possibly to have more of an academic text sense and also to connect to the reader more through the classic form of text. Arnold also seems to have a very admirable stance on Van Gogh himself as an artist, but seems to serve no opinion on Van Gogh’s lifestyle except for serving sympathy, only seeming to have a very positive stance on the hypotheses that he makes about certain chemicals that the artist consumed affecting his mental health. The author keeps his book strictly to text, offering no images whatsoever, which may have just been because Arnold wanted the reader to focus strictly on the content and information that he was providing, and not any possible images as it may distract from the information at hand.

In the article “Did Van Gogh have Meniere’s disease?” by C. Martin ignores the various theories behind Van Gogh’s actions and focuses on two specific possibilities as to what his mental illness could have been: Meniere’s disease and temporal epilepsy. The idea of Meniere’s disease had been debunked in favor of temporal epilepsy, yet he focuses in on both illnesses. He gives a large amount of context as to Van Gogh and who he is and the life that he lives, showing that although his life had not been all that great, Van Gogh had not shown any signs of pathological illnesses until the last two years of his life. Martin conclusively states that there is no doubt that alcohol had a significant impact on Van Gogh’s depleting mental health and that during the last few months of his life, he had been suffering significantly by a condition that was only worsened by his alcohol addiction. Martin concludes that it is definitively the case that Meniere’s disease is not the cause of Van Gogh’s actions and it has to be temporal epilepsy. 

Martin seems to have written to people who are greatly educated in general but also in mental health and psychology, as he uses intellectual vocabulary and doesn’t define any of the mental illnesses that he mentions. Martin’s purpose of writing this essay is to further debunk the theory of Van Gogh having Meniere’s disease, as the theory was still put up to par with temporal epilepsy. Martin wrote this in an article on ClinicalKey.com, which he may have done so in order to target his audience, which are educated people and people who are interested in psychological elements or clinical elements in general. Martin takes no stance in the lifestyle of Van Gogh, seeming to only take a stance in supporting the diagnosis of temporal epilepsy as it is more strongly supported. The only media provided through this article is text, which may have also been to focus primarily on the information. Though, the author does divide the information to subsections, which may have been to organize the information being provided or for the audience to know what they are reading about in that section.