Prior to the authentication of the Yasuda Sunflowers, many fascinated by the spread of suspected van Gogh forgeries have wondered what the three versions of Sunflowers look like individually. Until then, only scholars, art historians, and a select number had carefully viewed all three noted versions of the work â€" the original in London, a copy in Amsterdam (pictured to the right), and the contentious Yasuda piece now housed in the Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art in Tokyo. Evidently, geographical separation among the works became the greatest stumbling block prohibiting the public from viewing the paintings collectively. Moreover, the deteriorating physical condition of the Amsterdam copy prevented its move to another location ("Stems of Division"). Consequently, administrators from the National Gallery in London and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam planned to display their respective versions of Sunflowers in a joint exhibition ("Stems of Division"). Their hope was to introduce the Yasuda Sunflowers controversy and allow the public to observe the differences among the paintings. During the exhibition preparation, the curators of the Yasuda work were also contacted and tentatively agreed to showcase the piece. It was also determined that the exhibition would take place after the results of the Yasuda authentication had been reported.


However, the curators of the Yasuda work, skeptical of the pending results of the scientific authentication and concerned that their painting was being put "on trial" ("Stems of Division"), remained wary and never confirmed participation in the exposition. Fearing the consequences of great financial loss and shame if the painting were declared a fraud, the curators ultimately withdrew the piece from the exhibition. Cooperation between the two remaining parties in London and Amsterdam further disintegrated after the exit of the Japanese contributors and unfortunately, the exhibition never rose to fruition. Now that the three versions of Sunflowers have been finally brought together at one location â€" this website â€" we can now view the exhibition that never existed.

As Peter Plagens and Yahlin Chang note in "Van Gogh or No Gogh?", van Gogh's Sunflowers are, paradoxically, "instantly recognizable but easy to imitate," (Plagens and Chang, 72) due not only to the inconsistent style of its copies, but also to its hazy provenance. With regards to this suspected counterfeit work of van Gogh, or "a faux van Gogh" (Ryback), forgers have tried to capitalize and exploit the unsubstantiated provenance, or history of ownership, of his painting. Most recently, scholars find themselves at odds with the debated provenance of the Yasuda Sunflowers (pictured to the left) from the time period of 1891 to 1907, a dispute Martin Bailey proffers in "Stems of Division in the Provenance of 'Sunflowers,' " since a chronological gap exists in the written records of the painting's ownership ("Stems of Division").


The early provenance of the Yasuda Sunflowers is undisputed, but the chronological gap that exists partly discredits the validity of the painting. As such, the provenance of the Yasuda copy of Sunflowers is a contentious factor that counters its academic consideration as an authentic work by van Gogh. At the focal point of the painting's provenance is an individual named Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, who was also a reputed forger of artwork, particularly of other van Gogh pieces. After both van Gogh's and Theo's deaths, Theo's widow, Jo Bonger-van Gogh, loaned eight van Gogh paintings to a an art critic, Julien Leclercq, who in turn called upon Schuffenecker to organize an exhibition for van Gogh works (Ryback). It was around this time in 1901, as Bart de la Faille notes in his catalogue raisonné of van Gogh pieces, that Schuffenecker acquired the painting ("Stems of Division"). But this theory is challenged by a hypothesis proposed by Dr. Roland Dorn, a German art historian, who claims that the painting had passed through the ownership of a Parisian collector, Comte de La Rochefoucauld, prior to reaching Schuffenecker's possession ("Stems of Division"). Yet another theory suggests that the piece is not even a genuine piece of artwork, but simply a fabrication by Claude-Emile Schuffenecker himself. Set forth by Ben Landais and Antonio de Robertis in 1998, the conjecture lacks solid evidence and only offers an elementary explanation of the painting's hazy provenance from 1891 to 1907.


Ironically, it was Schuffenecker who was ultimately accused of forging the original Sunflowers piece and fabricating the Yasuda copy, but it was also he who began establishing a reputation for van Gogh's name among public awareness â€" a reputation that has only continued to grow rapidly with time. This peculiar twist involving Schuffenecker only compounds the mystery surrounding the genesis and transfer of ownership of the painting, a notion that some historians dismiss due to the lack of "serious research" and flawed information, as described by Jeff Daniel in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper article (Daniel, F1).


However, those van Gogh experts who support the authenticity of the Yasuda work offer some evidence suggesting that the obscure provenance of the painting is unproven. For instance, Walter Feilchenfeldt, a longtime van Gogh expert, "expresses complete satisfaction with its authenticity" (Ryback). Art historian Ronald Pickvance, also asserts a similar position, sustaining the notion that this version could not have been forged by the prime suspect, Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, despite unbridled media supposition. Regardless, the different provenance theories of the Yasuda Sunflowers have kept scholars in hot debate throughout the decades until recently, when the work was finally declared authentic.

Paul Gauguin's, Portrait of Vincent Van Gogh Painting Sunflowers, Arles 1888 (pictured to the left), symbolizes Vincent van Gogh's most famed, but contentious, collaboration with a fellow contemporary â€" Gauguin himself. Apparently, suspected forgeries were not the only facets to incite debate over van Gogh, since he has never left the sight and scrutiny of the public microscope. Even his tumultuous relationship with Paul Gauguin caused a stir. Ultimately, van Gogh's partnership with Gauguin led them to produce their most influential works.


In 1888, van Gogh moved to Arles, from Paris, with the hope of establishing the town as a center for other painters of his time. He had long left his wife and children and had abandoned the comfortable surrounding of Paris and the patronage of his brother, Theo (Wendy Beckett, 322). He was hoping for new inspiration and was searching to revive his artistry. Gauguin answered his invitation to join him in Arles, and his presence was all van Gogh needed for inspiration. There, they stayed together in a small house which eventually garnered the name, the Yellow House at Arles. In van Gogh's piece, The Artist's Bedroom (pictured below), we see two pillows resting at the head of the bed, symbols of van Gogh's eagerness of Gauguin's arrival.


However, their relationship suffered during the two years they spent together. Their collaborative efforts withered with time and their friendship deteriorated. Many attribute their fracture to their insular behavior. As Wendy Beckett explains, "both were solitary men, desperately seeking for healing companionship" (Wendy Beckett, 322). Historians also infer that the fall of the pair's camaraderie was the driving reason that prompted the legendary episode of van Gogh's self-mutilation of his own ear. In May 1889, the pair permanently split when van Gogh admitted himself to the asylum at St. Rémy following his fierce mental collapse in Arles. Though van Gogh painted well over 200 works while spending time at the asylum, the pair would never paint together again, even after his discharge (Wendy Beckett, 318). Tragically, van Gogh committed suicide in July 1890, and Gauguin left for Tahiti in April 1891, where he would end up producing his most famous paintings of the country's indigenous people.


Though his partnership with Gauguin led to van Gogh's ultimate mental breakdown, it also benefited his artistry. How would he be remembered in the annals of art history had he not moved to Arles? One can only speculate. It was there, at Arles, that van Gogh produced his most prolific works, particularly his series of sunflower paintings, one of which ultimately led to the Yasuda Sunflowers controversy. Evidently, there is no doubt that Vincent van Gogh has continued to infuse controversy into the art world with, as May expresses, his "story of sunflowers" (May, 21).

The Artist's Bedroom

Vincent van Gogh
Oil on canvas
72.0 x 90.0 cm.
October 1888
Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

For a full biography of Vincent van Gogh, visit the Grove Dictionary of Art here .

For a full biography of Paul Gauguin, visit the Grove Dictionary of Art here .

Provenance of the Yasuda Painting