Dutch Courage: The letters of Vincent Van Gogh show a man who craved intellectual companionship

"The uglier, older, meaner, iller, poorer I get, the more I wish to avenge myself by doing brilliant colour, well arranged, resplendent." So wrote Vincent Van Gogh from Arles to his sister Willemien in September 1888, describing the exhilarating joy of painting sunflowers, the night sky, and the cottages and fishing boats of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

He had just painted a self-portrait "in ashy tones against a pale Veronese background", a subject chosen, he told his brother Theo, "for want of a model". He looks ill and ageing, his red hair receding, his face sunken (he had lost many teeth, probably through poor diet), his cheekbones gaunt and jutting, and his expression grim. Yet the brilliance of the colour and the intensity of the brushwork are vibrant with triumphant life. This portrait is but one example of the paradox of his laborious and painful struggle to emerge from the darkness to the light: an epic pilgrimage, tracked and documented by letters, letter sketches and drawings, many on show at the Royal Academy in London.

The mantra of his early years was a quotation from 2 Corinthians 6:10 - "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing" - which is scattered through the first two volumes of this extraordinarily interesting correspondence, recently published by Thames & Hudson. Most of it is directed to his younger brother Theo, with whom he had a mutually supportive relationship. A cursory browse may give the impression that Vincent was always asking for financial help, for rent and materials (as he was), but a closer reading reveals deep affection, shared values, and a strong desire to cheer and help Theo through illness, career difficulties and sexual disasters.

At times Vincent wrote almost daily, describing his life teaching and preaching in England, and later his work in various unaccommodating lodgings in the Netherlands. The darkness drove him to read and to write, as he could not draw or paint in the long evenings. He wrote about his admiration for George Eliot, Charles Dickens, Keats, Charlotte Brontë and Harriet Beecher Stowe. (Another of his favourite quotations was Christina Rossetti's "Does the road wind uphill".) He also devoured Balzac, Hugo and, as they appeared, the novels of Zola and Maupassant. (Gauguin was to tell him he read too much.)

His letters at this period were enriched with sketches of men digging and sowing (after his hero Millet), of women miners carrying sacks of coal, of pollarded willows, of old men ("old orphans") sitting worn out by the fireside, of women peeling potatoes. It is a dark world of hard rural labour, in dark tones, sanctified in his own eyes by a sense of religious humility. He was moved by the old, the gnarled, the destitute, even by the broken-down cab horse, to which he often likened himself. The poor, he believed, would inherit the earth.

Vincent's father was a minister who came to disapprove of his son's unworldly biblical evangelism, and even more strongly of his relationships with women - first, his unrequited love for a widowed cousin, and then his attachment to Sien, a pregnant former prostitute, with whom he lived at The Hague from 1882-83 and who worked as his model. Models were expensive, as he mentioned throughout his career, but he preferred to work from them than from the imagination. (This was to become a subject of aesthetic debate with Gauguin and Émile Bernard.) His relationship with the only models that he could afford must have affected his artistic vision, and he writes about it with compassion, occasional irritation, and some distress. But when his strikingly powerful portrait L'Arlésienne (1888) was admired, he said: "praise the model, not the painter".

Sien was one of the few who posed naked for him, most memorably as "Sorrow", 1882: on the whole he preferred to paint people with their well-worn work clothes on, because, as he said, "that's how we usually see them". He looked after Sien (with Theo's support, and eventually his father's tacit acceptance) and her two children, and his heavily illustrated letters describing efforts to make his studio functional, homely and habitable are touching. So is his affection for Sien's baby: he sent a sketch showing the infant crawling across the studio floor (Adventurer sallying forth, 1883) to his painter friend Anthon van Rappard.

But life in The Hague was no domestic idyll. Van Gogh suffered from ill-health and acute intellectual loneliness, although he rarely indulged himself by complaining. His sense of unremitting purpose, his desire to learn, to teach himself to draw and paint better, were harsh masters, and as his relationship with Sien's mother deteriorated he found himself driven further into the darkness and wilderness. He went first to the bleak countryside of Drenthe, where he worked alone in all weathers, before returning to his parents' house at the end of 1884. His descriptions of his heroic efforts to come to terms with the darkness of his hereditary subject matter - gloomy, impoverished, sparse, Dutch - are heart-breaking. He strove to see the beauty of the peat, the gold in the black night, the dark-green soap and copper tints, the rich dark light of the cottage evening where the potato eaters sat, eating what they had sown and grubbed with their own hands, earth into earth. The Potato Eaters (1885) is the culmination of this sacrificial apprenticeship. It was an end and a beginning. Van Rappard disliked the painting, and said so in words that caused great offence. Van Gogh did not submit, but he did move on, by way of Antwerp and Paris, to the south, propelled by a stubborn, Panglossian faith. He was very fond of quoting Dr Pangloss.

The Van Gogh we know is the artist who emerged from this long trial into the glorious light of Arles, in 1888, where the letters of volume four begin. Here, despite the annoying mistral, all was almost for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. He had moved from coal to sun, from the willow to the cypress. Here were the new subjects that had been awaiting him: sunflowers, almond blossom, gardens, wheat fields, rivers, the blue Mediterranean, suns and stars; and a home of his own, in the Yellow House, with the bed and chairs and tables that have become so familiar to us. His neighbours, too - the Zouave, the Socratic postman, the postman's baby - have become our friends.

The correspondence charts Van Gogh's dream of a community of artists and his hope of intellectual companionship in this "halfway house" between northern Europe and Africa. There is nothing remotely crazy about these hopes. He had a strong sense of continuity, of the descent of true art from generation to generation, and far from wishing to break with the dead, he wished to continue in their footsteps: Rembrandt, Millet, Delacroix and Monticelli had gone before, and he and his comrades would carry on their work. It looked, for a while, as though this dream might come to be. Gauguin at last arrived from Brittany, and both men for a while painted at Arles at the height of their powers, Moreover, it turned out that Gauguin knew how to cook, so they could save money by eating at home.

But this idyll imploded with Van Gogh's first breakdown, provoked by we know not what joyful or terrible intensity of vision or experience. Gauguin departed, and Van Gogh moved to the asylum at Saint Paul-de-Mausole, where he humbly saw the best in his fellow inmates and continued to paint: irises, cypresses, olive groves, sunrises. The astonishing work of this period is the fulfilment of a life's courageous persistence. And we can see that some of his late works had been years in gestation.

Two subjects had long haunted him. One is the sower, inherited from Millet, who reappears in many guises and formats: an emblematic
figure of stooping labour and faith, sometimes against a darkening sky, sometimes in full sunlight. The other is the starry sky itself, a subject "always on my mind". He saw the stars as planets like ours, which we might reach in death. "Just as we take the train to go to Tarascon or Rouen, we take death to go to a star." There, he fancied, the great painters of the past might work on. He wrote to Theo: "The sight of the stars always makes me dream in as simple a way as the black spots on the map, representing towns and villages, make me dream." And so he lives on, in his starry habitation, still at work in our imaginations.

Margaret Drabble's memoir "The Pattern in the Carpet" is published by Atlantic Books (£18.99)
“The Real Van Gogh: the Artist and his Letters" opens at the Royal Academy of Arts, London W1, on 23 January
“Vincent Van Gogh: the Letters" is published in six volumes by Thames & Hudson (£395)

This article first appeared in the 18 January 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Palin Power

ahisgett - Flickr
Show Hide image

Sunjeev Sahota’s The Year of the Runaways: a subtle study of “economic migration”

Sahota’s Man Booker-shortlisted novel goes to places we would all rather not think about.

This summer’s crisis has reinforced the ­distinction that is often made between refugees, who deserve sanctuary because they are fleeing from conflict, and “economic migrants”, those coming to Europe in pursuit of “the good life”, who must be repelled at any cost. The entire bureaucratic and punitive capacity of our immigration system is pitted against these ne’er-do-wells and their impudent aspirations.

Sunjeev Sahota’s fine second novel, The Year of the Runaways, now shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize, takes a closer look at “economic migration”. Why do people – many of them educated, from loving families in peaceful communities – leave their old lives behind and come to Britain? Are they fleeing desperate circumstances or are they on the make? When they arrive here, do they find what they were looking for? Should we welcome them, or try to persuade them to stay at home? The book illuminates all of these questions while, much to its credit, offering no simple answers.

Sahota interweaves the stories of three people whose reasons for emigrating are as individual as they are. Both Avtar and Randeep are from Indian Sikh families that might be characterised as lower-middle-class. Avtar’s father has his own small business – a shawl shop – and Randeep’s father works for the government. Both boys are educated and Avtar, in particular, is smart and motivated. But with employment hard to come by and no social security net to fall back on, it doesn’t take much to make leaving the country seem like the only option. Avtar loses his job, his father’s business is failing and he has high hopes of earning enough to marry Lakhpreet, his girlfriend-on-the-sly. Randeep’s family’s finances fall apart after his father has a psychological breakdown; their only hope of maintaining a respectable lifestyle is for their eldest son to take his chances abroad.

For Tochi, the situation is very different. He is what used to be called an “untouchable” and, although people now use euphemisms (“scheduled”, or chamaar), the taboo remains as strong as ever. He comes to Britain not so much for financial reasons – although he is the poorest of the lot – but to escape the prejudice that killed his father, mother and pregnant sister.

Tying these disparate stories together is the book’s most intriguing character, Narinder, a British Sikh woman who comes to believe that it is her spiritual calling to rescue a desperate Indian by “visa marriage”. Narinder’s progress, from the very limited horizons for an obedient young woman to a greater sense of herself as an active participant in her destiny, reminded me of Nazneen, the protagonist in Monica Ali’s Brick Lane. But Narinder is a more thoughtful character and here the Hollywood-style journey of personal liberation is tempered by a recognition of the powerful bonds of tradition and family.

Once in Britain, Avtar, Randeep and Tochi enter a world of gangmasters, slum accommodation and zero job security, with an ever-present fear of “raids” by immigration officers. They work in fried chicken shops, down sewers, on building sites and cleaning nightclubs. Health care is off-limits for fear of immigration checks. Food is basic and the only charity comes from the gurdwara, or Sikh temple, which provides help in emergencies.

Avtar and Randeep struggle to send money back home while living in poverty and squalor that their families could barely imagine (at one point, Randeep notes with understandable bitterness that his mother has used his hard-earned contributions to buy herself a string of pearls). In the meantime, their desperation leads them to increasingly morally repellent behaviour, from selfishness to stealing and worse. Even if they do eventually find a measure of economic stability in Britain, they have done so at the cost of their better selves.

It has been pointed out that the novels on the Man Booker shortlist this year are even more depressing than usual and The Year of the Runaways certainly won’t have raised the laugh count. At times I had to put it down for a while, overwhelmed by tragedy after tragedy. It was the quality of Sahota’s prose and perceptions that brought me back. He is a wonderfully subtle writer who makes what he leaves unsaid as important as the words on the page. A wise and compassionate observer of humanity, he has gone to some dark places – places we would all rather not think about – to bring us this book. Whether we are prepared to extend a measure of his wisdom and compassion to real immigrants, in the real world, is another question.

“The Year of the Runaways” by Sunjeev Sahota is published by Picador (480pp, £14.99)

Alice O'Keeffe is an award-winning journalist and former arts editor of the New Statesman. She now works as a freelance writer and looks after two young children. You can find her on Twitter as @AliceOKeeffe.

This article first appeared in the 08 October 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin vs Isis