Compare The Church At Auvers-Sur-Oise By Vincent Van Gogh

Based on color, detail, and shape; Van Gogh’s painting draws the eye of the viewer and extends the imagination much more than the recent image does. Upon reading the assignment and searching for the options to choose from, I found myself struck bored. It was only until turning the page that my brain went, “Whoa!” The right image drew my eye immediately with its dark purple background, and then I turned to see the contrasting image on the left of the same exact building; making me want to examine further.
“Church at Auvers-sur-Oise”, painted by Vincent Van Gogh from 1853-1890, first drew my eye with its vivid color. The background sky is painted a deep, dark purple that engrossed me. The color makes a great sky, especially in contrast to the normal blue of the opposing image: an actual photograph of the Church at Auvers-sur-Oise, France, from 2002. While I appreciate the beauty of a clear blue sky as much as the next girl, I did not notice it in the image like I did the vibrant purple of Van Gogh’s image.
The next color to pop out at me was
bright red. Looking closer, I realized the red was the color of the shadow of the building. Compare that to the normal black shadow of the other image, and you’ve got me interested. This gives me a small glimpse into just how imaginative Van Gogh was: he saw light where there is usually darkness and joy where there is usually gloom. I wish to have this mindset.
The Wizard of Oz is one of my favorite movies, and I was reminded of it when I saw the yellow, red, and blue sidewalk in Van Gogh’s painting.
Of course, the image of the actual church had a normal cement sidewalk, so my mind didn’t give it a second thought. I marveled at the multi-color sidewalk. How wonderful it would be to walk upon that kind of creativity instead of a plain surface! Van Gogh must have thought the colorful road signified the pathway to a fulfilling worship service in the church. The only time I was drawn to a plain aspect of Van Gogh’s painting rather than a more colorful one of the opposing image was in terms of the grass. I was captivated by the dark, deep black grass, rather than the normal green grass of the real image. Van Gogh’s grass had flecks of a pretty blue and pale green in it; it even faded into a yellow. The actual picture of the church featured your typical grass: dull and mowed and
green.
The next criteria I used was the intricate detail of Vincent Van Gogh’s image as opposed to the 2002 image. I first noticed that of the grass: to my delight, there are little flowers and plants sprinkled in the painting from 1890. The 2002 image’s grass was quite desolate, not giving the detail to spike joy from me. Next to the grass lay the road and its detail: stray line after line. The pathway to the church is marked, like one hundred playful traffic lines saying, “Do not cross.” The 2002 image has no such lines, only plain brick. Upon this plain brick road stood nothing, but in the painting by Van Gogh, a lone person stood. It made me wonder who this person is. Is it Vincent himself? Is it a woman? Is the person alone and seeking the comfort of the church?
White clouds fill the sky from 2002, but black streaks darken the beautiful purple sky from 1890. Again, I’d normally go for bright and cheerful, but Van Gogh’s dark clouds make me think. Did it signify a gloom over the church? Was the traveler on his or her way to a funeral or to pray for forgiveness? That brings me to the church building itself. The lack of numbers on the 1890 clock intrigues me. It has no hands or digits and only looks like a smudged circle. Of course, the 2002 image has both of those. Is there a reason for not telling time? Did being rushed bother Van Gogh; did he hate being pressured to finish his paintings quickly or to meet the standard of another?
The top windows of 1890 have shutters drawn to a close, while the opposing image has open windows. Did Van Gogh see the church as a hidden a secretive place? Was the traveler going to a sacred meeting? The bottom windows have a tiny design to them. All three are different with their own lines and dots and swirls. They remind me much of a stained glass window of Catholic church. The 2002 painting’s bottom windows are, once again, open with no detail.
My last criteria is shape. The reason Van Gogh’s image stood out to me so much is that it literally “stood out” more than the 2002 image. It seems as though it is closer to my eyes, turned further forward. The church is bigger and wider in 1890 than 2002. Instead of a strict, stern shape, Van Gogh’s portrayal of the church gives it a fluid shape. There aren’t necessarily edges and points but flowing strokes. Instead of a judgmental look that the 2002 image could give off, Van Gogh gives off a warm invitation by reducing the hard shape. Next to the church building, the shape of the road and the grassy area flows and curves into a gentle-looking path. It’s not a straight sidewalk, like the 2002 image. Maybe the traveler felt welcome going to Van Gogh’s church.
The image from 1890 spikes so much wonder and creativity in my own brain. Since it was painted before the 2002 image was photographed, I wonder if the building actually used to look different. Did the Church at Auvers-sur-Oise used to be a ray of light in France but slowly turn dull and dark? Vincent Van Gogh has put all of these wondrous questions in my mind. Based on color, detail, and shape; his painting draws the eye of the viewer and extends the imagination much more than the recent image does.