After recent reappraisal of the work of Dutch Post-Impressionist painter Vincent Van Gough, senior figures in the word of art criticism and academia have concluded that his work was not as revolutionary or accomplished as had previously been accepted.
A source from the heart of the art establishment said: ‘It’s all a bit embarrassing really. Van Gogh has been regarded for years as one of the greatest painters of all time. After closer inspection though, you come to realise that anyone could have got the same effect by getting a camel to spit on a canvass after it’s just chewed a packet of Wine Gums. I mean, I reckon my three year old daughter could have done a better job.’
A member of the academic community; a Professor of Art History who did not wish to be named commented: ‘It’s obvious when you think about it. That ‘Starry Night’ one he did was rubbish. He painted the night sky like it was a load of blue swirls when everyone knows the sky at night is pitch-black. And the stars themselves look more like car headlights than stars. We’ve been teaching students that this guy was a genius when really he was just a mental case who got his hands on some paint brushes. In hindsight, I feel like a right bell end.’
The reassessment comes at same time as a rethink within the theatre world after a top critic was overheard commenting to a colleague during a recent production of Harold Pinter’s ‘The Birthday Party’ : ‘To be honest, I can’t understand what the bloody hell’s going on most of the time.’