Was Vincent Van Gogh Murdered?

In 2011, the New York Times claimed that Vincent van Gogh did not commit suicide, but was murdered. At that time, two Pulitzer Prize-winners (Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith) claimed that Vincent was murdered by two teenagers. 

In their more than 1,000 page biography “Vincent van Gogh. The Life”, the two authors explained how the Dutch painter was being harassed by Gaston en René Secrétan. According to the two authors, things heated up on July 27, 1890. Trigger-happy René Secrétan shot Van Gogh, who died two days later.

They claim that suicide was out of the question, since the suicide shot was sloppy (somewhere in the stomach area) and Vincent did not leave a suicide note. They also point out that the high output of paintings during the last week of his life did not indicate a lack of energy. Furthermore, there were lots of rumors in Auvers at the time that two youngsters had shot Van Gogh.

Louis van Tilborgh and Teio Meedendorp are connected to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. They published a book that concludes that Van Gogh did indeed commit suicide. They furthermore state that the murder theory of Naifeh and Smith is based on speculations.

The two Dutch researchers have solid evidence. The suicide shot was well-aimed. The wound was “between 3 and 4 centimeters under the left nipple” as stated by the medical examiner at the time. Furthermore, there was a brown discoloration around the wound that indicated “burnt gunpowder”. The gun must therefore have been fired at close proximity and not by René Secrétan. 

Quite likely, it was Vincent himself who fired the fatal shot. Furthermore, Vincent’s last paintings reflect extreme solitude and angst.

For now, Vincent van Gogh was not a homicide victim. Sadly enough, the genius did indeed take his own life. So let’s celebrate his genius, and stop speculating about his demise!

The Curious Case of Farrah Fawcett’s Andy Warhol Portrait

It comes across as an episode of  a Law and Order. It has all the elements: a priceless piece of modern art, an iconic actress who tragically passed away a sleazy ex-lover, a former quarterback, and a respected university.

It all started after Farrah Fawcett passes away and left all her artwork to her alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin. Her art collection included two portraits that the late Andy Warhol made of her. Created in 1980, the stunning paintings consist of synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen on canvas. One portrait already found its home in the University's Blanton Museum of Art. It’s the other one that is creating a legal and media storm.

The second portrait is currently in the possession of Ryan O’Neal, the former partner of the popular actress. O’Neal claims that Warhol painted one portrait as a gift for Farrah and the other one for him. He went on to state that although he handed over his one to Farrah, it was not a change of ownership.

O”Neil admits that “his” portrait normally hang in his Malibu beach house. He claims that when he was cheating on Farrah with another woman, his new lover told him that Farrah’s portrait made her “uncomfortable” - quite understandable considering the piercing eyes. He further stated that he therefore gave the portrait to Farrah to keep it for him.

The Texas Board of Regents wholeheartedly disagreed. Since the University of Texas is entitled to all art works formally owned by Ms. Fawcett, it promptly sued O’Neal stating: "The Warhol portrait is an irreplaceable piece of art for which legal damages could not fully compensate."

David Beck, lead counsel for the University of Texas, is planning to call some high-profile witnesses including Fawcett's former college sweetheart and Longhorns quarterback Greg Lott, Fawcett's and O'Neal's son Redmond O'Neal, Fawcett's best friend Alana Stewart, and Farrah’s "Charlie's Angels" co-star Jaclyn Smith.

Stay tuned!

The Sweet Smell of Suing Preferred Fragrance Inc.

Brooklyn-based Preferred Fragrance Inc. is being sued by Prada and Summit Entertainment for trademark infringement (LanhamAct).

Preferred Fragrance sees itself as a creator of “products that combine the same premium quality of a designer fragrance with affordable pricing and mass availability”. This sounds a lot like “they make it, we fake it”.

Prada produces Prada Candy, an eau de perfum that is sold for $82. The knockoff Party Candy can be ordered online for a mere $3.99. The look and feel of both fragrances are very similar. Prada has filed its lawsuit in the New York Southern District Court with Judge RonnieAbrams.

Summit Entertainment is also suing Preferred Fragrance for infringing on it Twilight IP. That lawsuit was filed in theCalifornia Central District Court with Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.

It is not the first time the company has been sued. In 2008 Estee Lauder Inc. and Clinique Laboratories Inc.  filed a lawsuit in the Manhattan federal court for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising and dilution.

Although Preferred Fragrance has a mere annual revenue of $5 to 10 million, its parent company International Flavors & FragrancesInc. (NYSE:IFF) has deep pockets, so expect similar lawsuits in the (near) future.