Paul Gaugin

Paul Gauguin is one of the great artist of the 19th century and the harbinger of the 20th century. I am lucky that there is to be a large retrospective of his work at the Tate Modern this autumn and I expect to be going some time. Due to the nature of this exhibition, it has generated several programmes and critical discussion about his work and of course, his life and times.

The BBC had a superb programme by Waldemar Januszczak- Gauguin -the Full Story. Originally, broadcast in 2003, it was a 2 hour tour-de-force covering from his early life in Peru through to Gauguin's grave in the South Pacific. By going through his life with the places he lived and showing paintings of his world. You gained a sense of the context for his paintings. The shift of colour from his more northern landscapes to the Breton and then beyond to the Pacific. Januszczak is a very good presenter and gives an enthusiasm to each work as well as informing and uncovering things that had been 'lost'.

Alastair Smart's article in the Telegraph puts the case for and against Gauguin. Both as an artist and as a person. The problem is that if you view history from your own period then you are judging by the criteria in some ways shaped by that point of history. The TV programme brought out this outsider's view of Gauguin being both outside of family, friends and culture. A French man brought up in Peru and then a global traveller. The case against him looks very strong from his own family and personal relationships viewpoint. Is this a case of his artistic passion superseding his other commitments, creating a narrative of the penniless creator who struggles until he is 'discovered'. Usually, after his death, so creating a myth of the lone prophet, the voice in the wilderness and whether he then became trapped in this myth partially of his own creation?