1.      Paris: An Unexpected Encounter with Two Painters 

        In October 1998, during the autumn harvest season, I found myself at the temporary exhibition hall of the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, where numerous farmers were depicted sowing, plowing, weeding, working, napping, and harvesting. 

        Indeed, the room was filled with the essence of farmers—simple and earnest. The portrayal of these laborers lacked the glamour of urban life, nor did it exaggerate the hardships and toil of existence. Everything felt genuine, natural, and heartfelt. 

        The exhibition brought together the works of two artists deeply connected to the land: Jean-François Millet and Vincent van Gogh. 

2.      Millet: The Sincere Farmer 

        I first encountered Millet’s works, such as “The Sower,” “The Angelus,” and “The Gleaners,” during my school years, and that led me to recognize his name. 

        Millet came from a farming background and, like a farmer, was often silent and unassuming. While studying art in Paris, he was often ridiculed for his demeanor. Legend has it that in 1849, at the age of 35, he overheard someone say, “That guy can only paint nudes.” Frustrated, he left Paris and moved to the countryside of Barbizon, thinking that since he was a farmer, he should paint what he knew best. Thus began his series of works focused on rural life. 

        In “The Sower” (1850), a farmer dressed in coarse clothing strides forward, sowing seeds from a bag. 

        “The Angelus” (1855-57) depicts a couple, weary from a day of labor, bowing their heads in prayer as they hear the distant church bell. 

        “The Gleaners” (1857) shows three women bending over a recently harvested wheat field to collect leftover grains. In all these works, there is a sense of tranquillity, simplicity, and goodness. 

        Millet’s paintings do not feature aristocratic beauties or delicate women; he believed that beauty did not lie in appearances. He avoided detailing facial features, asserting that beauty comes from the overall impression of a character and their actions. 

        Critics have interpreted “The Sower” as a symbol of revolutionary spirit, while a reviewer from “Le Figaro” remarked that “The Gleaners” reflected the looming threat of rebellion and the guillotine of 1798. Meanwhile, religious circles frequently printed “The Angelus” for missionary purposes. 

        How much of this interpretation is a misunderstanding? Is it a comedy or a tragedy? 

        Wealthy patrons were unlikely to purchase his works; few would invite a farmer in ragged clothes to live in their opulent homes. 

        Even though realist painter Gustave Courbet invited him to join the Paris Commune, Millet responded, “It's unwise for an artist to engage in politics.” 

        Millet’s art reveals the honesty, sincerity, resilience, and stubbornness of farmers. 

        His life was one of poverty, much like that of the farmers he depicted. 

3.   Van Gogh: Sunflowers Burning and Weeping 

        I came to know Van Gogh largely through media coverage highlighting that he had only sold one painting during his lifetime, yet his works now fetch astronomical prices at auction. His eccentric act of cutting off his ear to give to a prostitute has been sensationalized. Van Gogh is often cited in discussions about “genius or madness.” 

        I reluctantly began my understanding of Van Gogh this way. I felt it was superficial and materialistic to gauge an artist's worth by the selling price of their work. His bizarre behavior might be amusing, but can we truly understand the serious artistic labor of a person through such sensational stories?                 

        However, the society I inhabit forces me to begin this way. I remind myself to stay alert, to be more reserved and questioning, and to avoid becoming a consumer of tabloid news. Yet, I must thank Van Gogh for his surreal stories. Their exaggeration piqued my curiosity. Out of that curiosity, I began collecting Van Gogh's publications to understand his journey.         

        Van Gogh painted for only ten years, the last decade of his life. His art emerged from the wounds of love and disillusionment with religion. His paintings, much like his tumultuous love life and religious dedication, were fervent expressions of his inner turmoil. Van Gogh's sensitivity and intense emotions needed a medium to project, express, and release. His painting was not just a new refuge for his spiritual life; it was a continuation of his passionate, humanitarian spirit and religious sentiment. His love for the prostitute represented compassion for the weak and a rebellion against traditional moral standards. 

        In “The Potato Eaters” (1885), he depicts laborers sitting around a dim kerosene lamp, eating potatoes. 

        In “Sunflowers” (1887), the sunflowers are both burning and weeping. 

        In “Wheatfield with Crows” (1890), he illustrates the struggle of wheat and crows before a storm. 

        Without a doubt, during his last decade, Van Gogh poured his life and spirit into his canvases, merging his existence with his art. 

        Still, I maintain a distance from Van Gogh. Is it that his wildness clashes with my own conservatism? Is it a subconscious belief that Van Gogh is merely a sensational figure, and his unconventional approach to art is just another form of impatience? Or has the myth of Van Gogh detached him from reality, leading to a distorted perception? 

        Van Gogh remains, for me, a figure of complexity and ambiguity. 

4.       Two Artists Close to the Land 

        In the fall of 1998, at the temporary exhibition hall of the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, I was pleasantly surprised to see the works of both painters displayed side by side, offering me the chance to re-evaluate both Millet and Van Gogh, through a lens of emotional and visual resonance. 

        Millet’s numerous sketches of farmers reveal not only his familiarity with their lives but also the foundation and patience required for a timeless masterpiece. His perseverance stemmed not only from family-religious teachings and dedication but also from the innate qualities of a farmer: sincerity, diligence, and steadfastness. 

        I seem to hear Millet saying: “Let others speak. The brush captures what I feel.” The exhibition also showcased Van Gogh’s numerous copies of Millet’s works. It revealed that the strong-willed Van Gogh had moments of humility and earnestness, as evidenced by his extensive sketches and studies, showcasing his determination to learn and improve. Van Gogh is no longer a mere myth; he feels much more relatable. Although his copies of Millet's works were not strict replicas, Van Gogh, as a strong personality, would never create simple, technical imitations. The same subjects and compositions would reflect his unique interpretations and feelings. He was not inclined to compromise with his own sentiments. 

        I can almost see the potatoes unearthed from the soil by Van Gogh. The sunflowers seem to rise from the earth. The swirling clouds are what Van Gogh saw while lying in the wheat fields. Van Gogh is intimately connected to the land. 

        The juxtaposition of “The Sower,” painted by Millet in 1850 and Van Gogh in 1881, transitions me from Millet's mature, steady, and bold style to Van Gogh's youthful, naive, and ambitious early works. 

        The pairing of “First Step,” created in 1858 by Millet and in 1890 by Van Gogh, shifts me from Millet's warmth, harmony, and compassion to Van Gogh's courage, intensity, and vibrant colors. 

        The comparison of “Starry Night,” painted in 1865 by Millet and in 1888 by Van Gogh, contrasts Millet's tranquillity, serenity, and mystery with Van Gogh's dazzling, tumultuous, and striking imagery. 

        Two painters, two vastly different worldviews: one accepts poverty, the other rebels against it, unwilling to remain in silence. 

    Two artists, two contrasting personalities: one is earnest, the other passionate. One wanders in a serene religious life, while the other drifts away. 

        Both lived in periods that didn't entirely overlap, yet they shared the same poverty and loneliness. 

        But how could the tempestuous Van Gogh admire the humble Millet? How did they connect? Both turned away from urban life, both shared a farmer's spirit, both embodied a strong sense of self! As I wander through the gallery, I find myself lingering and reflecting...… 

        I strive to learn to view and reinterpret the works and the artists from different angles, hoping to avoid the mediocrity of parroting others. 

        I aspire to set aside all preconceived notions and to interpret and discover through the knowledge I have digested and the raw emotions I feel. 

        My eyes and senses awaken like maple leaves in the autumn……