Amazon.com Widgets
  • I think he was

    Now,his art is wonderful land really good.However,the fact he just cut his ear off and gave it to his Girl friend is way beyond me.He had some illnesses and stuff like that.But yes he was Crazy.And most people think I'm being rude but seriously,I'm telling the truth.Many ppl with an illness will not chop their ear off and send it to their GF😁

  • I think he was

    Now,his art is wonderful land really good.However,the fact he just cut his ear off and gave it to his Girl friend is way beyond me.He had some illnesses and stuff like that.But yes he was Crazy.And most people think I'm being rude but seriously,I'm telling the truth.Many ppl with an illness will not chop their ear off and send it to their GF😁

  • He was crazy!

    Van Gogh was crazy, he cut off his own ear I don't even know why someone would be that crazy to cut off his/her own ear! His paintings are nice such as "Starry Night" or "The Sunflowers" and even "The Church at Auvers. They just aren't good to me. I'm sorry I just don't think his art is that good.

  • Van Gogh was crazy.

    Although Van Gogh was a good artist, he was also crazy. He cut off his own ear, a clear sign of insanity. It is obvious, however, that his insanity led him to be a greater artist. If he were not so crazy, maybe he would not have had the inspiration for his great art.

  • Insane? yes he was

    I am fairly certain he suffered from psychological disorders. Psychologically stable individuals do not go around cutting off their ears and handing them to their girlfriends. There is also the fact that the man committed suicide via firearm. From what I have read he went through a lot of differing emotional periods. Today he would probably be diagnosed with manic depression. This psychological disorder probably added to his artistic talents and effected the way he viewed things.

  • Yes, I think he was

    Even though he was a brilliant artist, that does not mean that he was not crazy. In my opinion, anyone who cuts off their own ear is crazy. Even people who lack a lot of self-control do not usually cut their ears off. I think that it is fair to consider him crazy because of this.

  • Not at all ...

    To begin with, the general public is in love with melodrama. Many people love hearing the overtold story of his "madness." One writer even went so far as to say that he painted so much, it drove him mad, which, by the way, makes no sense whatsoever. To maintain the notion that he was "crazy," by the way, has helped the sales of his work enormously over the years, so the art industry has benefited greatly. The reality is that he was a highly sensitive man, yet at the same time, rather aggressive and not infrequently rude. His brother supported him by sending him money each month, but he spent it largely on paints and canvases, with all too little spent on food. He subsisted for many years on scraps, dried bread and stale cheese: So in his thirties, his teeth began to break off, indicative of a severe nutritional deficiency. He seems to have developed a condition known as "pica," in which people try to eat non-food items. He was known for putting his brushes (while he was painting) into his mouth: Those paints contained lead, so obviously he suffered from lead poisoning. He'd also contracted syphilis from the hooker he had lived with. In the 1800s, there was no penicillin, so obviously that was another factor in the slow erosion of his health. He also drank and smoked a great deal. It should come as no surprise, with his conditions, that he began to suffer from hallucinations. But the public has been overly influenced by the psychiatric industry, so they simply and stupidly conclude that "he was crazy." But if you read his writings, they reveal a man who was anything but "crazy." Physically ill? Yes. But "crazy?" Far from it ...

  • Come on really people!

    If Van Gogh was crazy would he be able to do the things he did? Plus, nobody knows if he actually cut his ear off, it could likely of been his roommate Gauguin (I don't know if that's how you spell it, please correct me) He had tons of problems in his life, and I don't think I would call him crazy, that truly could be interpreted as a bad thing, last time i checked, he was for sure not a bad person!

  • No not crazy

    Crazy doesn't really have a direct meaning. It's highly arbitrary. The most factual claim we can make is he suffered from depression, and probably a few other mental illnesses. Mental illness does not mean that somebody is crazy. It means that they have issues with their body that can negatively affect them.

  • No, crazy implies he didn't know what he was doing

    Throughout history there have been a number of eccentric personalities. Some of them, like Van Gogh, were famous enough to spark debate about their mental stability. However, Van Gogh clearly had a grasp on his life and his art. He was certainly a strange character, but not everybody who is strange is crazy.

  • No, and you're asking the wrong question.

    Asking whether or not van Gogh was crazy is asking the wrong question. He may have suffered from mental illness, but "crazy" is a derogatory term and indicates that that is a bad thing. Van Gogh probably had a lot of problems in his life, but that does not mean that he was a bad person or any less of a brilliant artist.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
iLisaLove says2013-11-23T20:04:15.127
No, he was not crazy. He had troubles and issues. His mother had a son that died and his name was Vincent. When that son died the Vincent Van Gogh we know was born and he was forced to visit the cemetery of the other "Vincent" with his family. So he struggled with some issues on top of being around others who did not believe in his work. Troubled, and struggling yes. Brilliant artist-yes. Had fortitude to keep on trying in spite of the negativity around him--yes. Crazy no.