marcherarrant:
“Van Gogh and his tutor talking about Rembrandt dying poor and underappreciated: “He died in poverty and disgrace” said Mendes, “He didn’t die unhappy though,” said Vincent. “No” replied Mendes, “he had expressed himself fully and he knew the worth of what he had done. He was the only one in his time who did.” “Then did that make it all right with him, the fact that he knew? Suppose he had been wrong? What if they had been right in neglecting him?” “What the world thought made little difference. Rembrandt had to paint. Whether he painted well or badly didn’t matter; painting was the stuff that held him together as a man. The chief value of art Vincent, lies in the expression it gives to the artist. Rembrandt fulfilled what he knew to be his life purpose; that justified him. Even if his work had been worthless he would have been a thousand times more successful than if he had put down his desire and become the richest merchant in Amsterdam.” “The fact that Rembrandt’s work brings joy to the whole world today is entirely gratuitous. His life was complete and successful when he died even though he was hounded into the grave. The book of life closed then and it was a beautifully wrought volume. The quality of his perseverance and loyalty to his idea is what was important, not the quality of his work.” -From the book Lust for LIfe.
