Horribly-FlawedYou might have heard that Paul Gauguin’s painting of two Tahitian girls, When Will You Marry”,  sold for $300m (£197m), which it the most any work of art has ever sold for, but nobody is talking about the dramatic flaws in the painting. And yes, I do know the difference between exaggeration, abstraction, stylization, combinations thereof, and just plain botching it.


First, some background.

Who bought it.

The painting was bought by a Qatari conglomerate of museums that has already spent billions of dollars on art. One may wonder why museums in a country whose constitution is largely based on Shariah Law want a painting of Tahitian girls as depicted by a Frenchman who had sex with several of his subjects. It might have to do with there being more expatriates living there (1.5 million) than Qatari citizens (278,000), and of course that Qatar CAN buy whatever it wants. It is the richest country in the world per capita, with millionaires in 14% of households, according to the World Atlas Factbook. Qatar, as you know, sits on oil. I don’t think I need to elaborate.


 What about the painting?

The Post Impressionist painting “When Will You Marry? (Nafea Faa Ipoipo?) depicts two Tahitian girls in an idyllic landscape of scintillating color. The style is a mix of Impressionism, Symbolism, and Primitivism, with French Polynesian influences. The imagery is rendered in flat shapes, and bold, exotic colors.

The girl in front has a flower over her left ear, which means that she is looking for a husband. The woman in back is wearing a missionary dress, and has her hand up in a gesture of caution and warning. For the intended French audience, we have a young native girl, front and center, and the sternness of the woman accompanying her indicates she is available, and innocent. Gauguin is peddling a bit of a fantasy here: an exotic paradise, untrammeled by Western influences, and populated with ripe young available women who beguile the lazy hours lounging about on the grass.

It’s the world he sought in Tahiti, but didn’t find. By the time he arrived more than two-thirds of the indigenous population had died from exposure to contagious diseases brought by European colonialists, and the native religion had been replaced by Christianity. The island had become an ordinary home to a growing, international, Westernized community.

Gauguin, undeterred, painted his own vision, and his canvas is a mirage of the imagination.

A little about the artist.

Gauguin had been a stockbroker, finally got fed up after the stock market crash of 1882, and sought a life in which he could forsake European civilization, everything that is artificial and conventional, and live off of fish and fruit, while painting in a more and more primitive style.

He died at the age of 54 from a combination of syphilis, enduring effects of malaria, heart problems, eczema, a liver compromised by alcohol, and a possible morphine overdose. He left behind a teenaged bride and one-year old daughter.

Gauguin, like his contemporary, Van Gogh, was not appreciated in his lifetime anything like he is now. It makes one wonder if the more an artist suffered without reward, the more their work is valued post mortem.

What’s so weird about the painting?

Take a look at it and see what you can find that might be considered “wrong” if it weren’t entirely justified as part of his unique style.

If you don’t see anything odd about this picture, you may just be too accustomed to his style to see the obvious.

The easiest thing to pick off, probably, is the color of the sky. But it’s also easy to not notice, because it feels warm, and that makes sense. Just don’t stop and think about it too much, or you might wonder if a volcano had belched an enormous plume of sulfur in the air. Don’t think I don’t like it, though. That kind of liberty with color gives the painting a dreamy, otherworldly feel, which I definitely like. And don’t get me wrong, I like the painting overall, and am a big fan of Gauguin, but there are flaws even within his own stylistic parameters. Don’t get angry. When it’s the world’s most expensive work of art, it can afford to be looked at with a little bit of a critical eye, and you can always completely dismiss me as just not getting it, missing the point, or guilty of “a little knowledge is dangerous”.

Wanna know what it would look like with a blue sky?

How it looks with a blue sky instead?

Ah oh. I’m not 100% sure I prefer the yellow sky. I’m guessing he was trying to convey heat, and blue just wasn’t cutting it. Or maybe blue looked too much like France or someplace else less exotic, and wasn’t the look he was going for.

The thing that really bugged me though, which was actually the first thing I noticed, is that the girl in front doesn’t have a neck, in which case her face looks not only pasted on, but pasted on in the wrong place. Her left shoulder is worthy of the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, especially if you compare it to the corresponding shoulder of the woman behind her.

He really had no idea how to treat the neck.

The only possible explanation for where the neck is, is that it’s completely hidden by the face, in which case it has to be jutting out of her right shoulder. There’s enough room on her left shoulder for a second head.

You could easily fit two heads on those shoulders.

I’m sure if Gauguin gave it enough time, and if his real objective were to get anatomy down correctly, he probably could. He’d rendered anatomy better in the past, though he was a bit hit and miss. But here, in his attempt to be Primitive, there’s a very uneasy relationship between the flattening of the figures, and paying lip service to perspective. And in some sections it went horribly awry. Gauguin, like Van Gogh, got a late start painting, and both of them made beginner mistakes, even as they were developing their mature styles.

In the painting below, Annah, the Javanese, (1893), he clealy shows he can be more realistic with his proportions and perspective if he chooses to, though it is a bit odd how she’s somewhere between standing, sitting, and floating.

Annah, the Javanese, (1893)

Back to the atrocities. Take that hand. Yuck! What’s wrong with the thumb? Take a close look at that hand.

awkward-handIf it’s not perfectly apparent what’s so wrong with the hand, look at your own, especially the distance between the knuckle of your index finger and where your thumb meets your hand. He totally got this wrong in the sketch as well. Yikes! If you can’t be bothered looking at your own hand, I made a comparison for you below that makes the problem abundantly clear.


There’s more in the painting that’s atrocious, if looked at by normal standards of anatomy. And even if it WERE deliberate on Gauguin’s part, then it would mean that we wouldn’t fully be appreciating his art if we hadn’t seen what he’d intended to do. So, without further ado, her left arm is thicker than her head (and I don’t mean above the shoulder, but even at the bicep).

With arms like that, I don’t think she needs the comparatively frail woman behind her for any kind of protection.

Her most extreme physical anomaly, however, is her left leg. It’s dramatically truncated below the knee, and tragically bent.

That leg really is unfortunate.

And what of the woman in the background? I’ve tried and tried and I cannot make sense out of her body, unless she’s doing yoga. I can’t negotiate the relationship between her torso and her lower body. Are those her knees or is it her butt? Either way, I still can’t connect her upper and lower body without severing her spine.

The woman behind looks like her upper body is standing, and her lower body is laying down.

Part of what makes the woman in back confusing is her head is as big as the girl’s in front, and the girl in front is even leaning closer to us. Whatever is closer to us should be bigger, otherwise it will look a bit off.

Even if you are flattening the picture plane and abandoning perspective, the woman in back’s head should still be smaller.

You might be thinking that this is all part of Gauguin’s style of flattening the picture plane, and emphasizing broad shapes and colors. You might also want to say that Picasso is much worse. And you’d be right. But even within that style, you still don’t want the girl’s head to look like it’s been cut and pasted, and in the wrong spot. You don’t want her to look like she could kill you with a left hook, or that her hand and leg are deformed.

I’m sure some Gauguin fans are bristling, if they even made it this far. They might be thinking that I don’t understand the difference between realistic painting and his style. I do. I love some Gauguin paintings, and it has a lot to do with his own particular style, especailly his palette. Below are two of my favorites.

Christ in the Garden of Olives (Gauguin’s self-portrait) 1889
The Sacred Mountain, 1982

Some artists, including Gauguin exaggerate features to get a desired effect. In the portrait by Egon Schiele below, the subject is extremely elongated. Nobody has fingers or a neck that long. But it is consistent and makes sense within its own stylistic framework.

Egon Schiele, Mime van Osen, 1910.

Schiele usually painted from live models, and did so much of it that he wasn’t likely to make the sorts of anatomical mistakes Gauguin did. Gauguin often did not use live models, but worked off his sketches, and eyeballed it (there’s an example further down). However, Schiele’s color can not touch Gauguin’s.

Picasso abstracted figures. In his mature work, you can’t fault his anatomies because he botched them deliberately. But in Gauguin’s “When Will You Marry”, it’s not deliberate, and it’s not within the boundaries of the level of abstraction or exaggeration within his own style. Come to think of it, I don’t think Picasso is as good a colorist as Gauguin, either.

Man With a lollipop 1938.

If you still don’t believe that Gauguin could ever botch something, look at the painting below. I wonder if this is really even by him, it’s so painful to look at. Just gaze your eyes on the girl in the back. What is going on with her arm? We see her back and her chest at the same time, with the arm sandwiched in the middle. And the girl in the front? We are looking at the left side of her head, but see the right corner of her mouth. FAIL! You’re just going to have to admit that sometimes he botched it. Or maybe these works are just not as resolved, and he aways struggled with getting anatomy and perspective correctly. Most artists do. I do (goes without saying).

And the Gold of Their Bodies, 1901. The bodies are so mangled in places I’ve wondered if this is a forgery.

And yes, sometimes he really did copy and paste images from one painting onto the next, and then in making some changes, like in the position of limbs, couldn’t match the new limb to the old body. The two paintings below, from 1891, and 1892, are a good example of this. While I vastly prefer the painting on the right, the new left leg doesn’t align properly with the old position of the body. It looks like her thigh was flattened in a road accident. He may have just tried to eyeball it, and fudge it, and guess what, it didn’t quite succeed.

The painting on the left was done first, but I really prefer the color on the one on the right. However, the girl’s left leg doesn’t work.

So, what’s my point? Art is hard, and even some of the best artists struggle with anatomy, lighting, modeling, and perspective, especially when reconciling combining disparate styles. The only perfect art is minimalist, because there’s not enough going on for there to be more than one or two possible things to go wrong. Art is a bit like a motorcycle stunt. The harder the thing you are trying to achieve, the more likely you’ll bungle it. If you are just jumping over one or two cars, you can clear it no problem. When you try to jump a dozen buses, more can go wrong. I’m also poking fun at Qatar spending $300,000,000 on a painting that has some comical errors.

That $300,000,000 could have been used to give 10,000 living artists $30,000 each to work on art for a year, which would result in a hundred thousand new art pieces. Or we can invest in just this one botched painting as a relic of a celebrity.

The collectors who bought Guaguin’s painting are the same type of collectors who wouldn’t have even looked at his work in his lifetime. They probably don’t even see the oddball gaffes in it, which means they also can’t see what really shines in the work. They are perpetuating the kind of art world that invests in fetish objects by long dead brand names, and keeps the Gauguins of our lifetimes married to their day jobs.

~ Ends


Addendum: Gauguin is not alone.

Look at the painting below by Gustave Caillebotte. Why are their arms and especially their hands so tiny?!

“Pénissoires sur l’Yerres” (1877), by Gustave Caillebotte. National Gallery of Art Washington. Look at those tiny, tiny hands!!

And let’s not forget the 2nd most expensive painting ever, Cezanne’s The Card Players, which sold for $250 million. The man on the left’s arm is much longer between the elbow and the shoulder than between the elbow and the wrist. Compare his forearm to the other man’s.

The Card Players, by Paul Cézanne. Good thing they aren’t arm wrestling.

Another of the top ten most expensive paintings is Picasso’s Garcon à la Pipe, which sold for over $100 million. I don’t care if it IS Picasso. That left arm is agonizing.

Garcon à la Pipe, Pablo Picasso. Never mind the pipe, someone look after his dislocated elbow and broken arm.

If you don’t see the problem, just look where his right elbow is, and then look at his left. I understand abstraction and distortion, like the eyes that aren’t lining up at all, but this is deformation.

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec could also get proportions all wrong. Look at his portrait of Van Gogh below. The head is too big, and the arm is too small.

800px-Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec_056Vincent must have been hard to look at, because nobody seemed to be able to draw or paint him without it coming out very awkward. The portrait below, ostensibly of him, by Emile Bernard places his ear way too far back, so it’s making a slow, counter clockwise, migration around his head.

Vincent’s ear knows what is coming, and it’s trying to sneak away. Here it is poised about to leap off the back of his head.

18 replies on “Is The New Most Expensive Painting Ever Sold Horribly Flawed?!

  1. Van Gogh once traded a painting for a lb of coffee. Japanese bought his Iris’s for 66 million I.n the 80’s, Sure you can point out flaws that are not realistic enough for your taste, but they were painting in a style that was new to the time ; Impressionism. Your critique is useless and off base. Get a grasp of Art History before you write about so etching you obviously have a limited knowledge of…sincerely Starwoman


    1. Right. I knew some people would take umbrage at me criticizing any aspect of a painting by a known, blue chip artist. You obviously didn’t read the whole article. Also, I do have a Master’s in art, and took several art history courses. You said they are “Impressionists”. If you know art history, you’d know that they are NOT Impressionists but Post-Impressionists, and there’s a world of difference between their art and that of, say, Monet or Pissarro. Also, I’m a big fan of Gauguin and read a book on his art, which I purchased decades ago. Thanks, though, for, uh… wait a minute. You insulted me. Ah, just try reading the article and if you still don’t see my point, than, I am more than happy to debate any argument you might have. I do not believe you can make a cogent argument to defend your position, however. Good day. I say good day. 😉


      1. You read a book on his Art…you took a few Art classes in the History of Art..you are no expert by any means. Try studying Art History at Stanford with Wanda Korn … Try Art School, and three major Universities. Try looking up (Google) what the quantum physicist say about Starry Night… do your. Research before you put down the artist you will never be. You pick, pick, pick, to make yourself look good? Your paintings in my expert opinion look like you threw up on a canvas. Loosers try and chop off the heads of even the greats in Art History…Of course you will deleate this…because you can’t handle the truth! I give a hand up to all the talent I see here on the net..I’ve been in the game for more tha 30 years…you are a greenhorn who needs to humble yourself, and say somthing positive about emerging artist..Look up Kevin Spacey and see what he’s doing. Be nice to people on your way up, you will meet them on your way down. Live to the Universe Starwoman


  2. I find the distortions in body and size pretty fascinating. I’m wondering if like Picasso, he was representing 3 dimensions of the human form on a one dimensional canvas. Beyond the weirdness of a country buying a painting for such a sum is the weirdness of that particular piece. At the risk of being a revisionist and bringing 21st sensibilities to this discussion; his lifestyle was excessive.


    1. Yes, I think he was trying to flatten imagery. Japanese prints were popular at this time as well, and they had their own way of flattening out perspective. Even Van Gogh was influenced by those. And, yes, Picasso and Gauguin were both influence by some of the same sources, including Pirmitive art. I think the distortions are also interesting, when they don’t go terribly, horribly wrong. It’s a tightrope act, and sometimes the acrobat falls on his face. Art is like a stunt, and when you try something really difficult and/oir new, it’s easy to fall short of the mark.


      1. Hello Margot from Denmark. https://www.facebook.com/margot.larsen.3
        You seem befuddled. You type in all caps and use more than 5 explamation points at a time. Isn’t it kind of strange for an older woman to be a troll? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were posting while inebriated. Otherwise you may have some serious mental issues. Be gone.


    1. Hi again Margot: Yes, this is your Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/margot.larsen.3. And this is your Google + page: https://plus.google.com/+MargotLarsenStarwoman/about
      And this is your face: Margot Larsen, Troll

      Don’t bother trying to deny it, unless you have a twin separated at birth who also has your same name and history. Your pages have your same college, your extremely conservative and limited tastes in art, your Kevin Spacey fetish, your uninspired and slapdash paintings, and evidence of your hysteria.

      Now, if you don’t mind, kindly stop harrassing me with your nasty and sick comments. Thank you. Matter of fact, I think I’ll just blacklist you. Your comments are now filtered so that I will never see them.

      Moral of the story to you. Don’t try to troll people on their own blog. We have administrative control.

      Bye bye.


  3. I am an artist with the requisite art degree who really liked this article…and I think Gauguin and the other artists would enjoy your observant, nothing-is-sacred analysis and prefer it to all of the spineless, sycophantic praise that piles up for these artists oweing more to their fame than to their actual legacies…( I personally think Picasso was a far more sophisticated and thoughtful colorist than Gauguin, though, personally…) In any case, great to stumble upon an intelligent article like this…best of luck to you…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, man. I took some flack for this article, which got so nasty and personal that I had to delete the comments. Speaking of struggling with anatomy, I’ve got a drawing to work on. But, yeah, it’s great to have a positive comment and remind me people still discover my old articles and get something out of them. Think I’ll reward myself with a snack.


  4. Eric, I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Gauguin & especially your joust with Your adversary, Margot. You definitely are the better puncher in the debater’s ring. I find it refreshing to discover another human being who isn’t a fan of “The Emperor’s Clothes”. You are no coward, but rather a brave artist knight who is not afraid to charge the over rated windmill of static belief of perfection in deceased painter’s paintings. Please keep up your wonderful essays & lively comments.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s