Van Gogh is my favorite painter along with Monet. I don't mind glossing over things if the bulk of the audience is children. Not showing his paintings because there was a pipe in them is criminal regardless of age.
The OP said there was a painting of a pipe though. I am really struggling to see the problem here.
How many of Van Gogh's paintings depicted a pipe or pipe smoking? His output was prolific. He painted 900 pictures and made over 1200 sketches over a 10 year period. He made 36 self portraits, 6 of which show him smoking a pipe. I just had a look and was only familiar with one of them. A famous self portrait of himself wrapped up against the cold and wearing a bandage covering his damaged ear.
I know he painted a few other portraits of people with a pipe, but I reckon at a push there must be a dozen, perhaps 2 dozen paintings of pipe smoking in his extensive body of work, less than one percent.
I don't know how many pipe smoking paintings the OP expected to be reproduced at a Van Gogh exhibition for kids. If I was after some pipe smoking content it probably wouldn't be my first choice for a day out.
I'd ask the OP what he expected? Perhaps an information board outlining the history of the make and calibre of fire arm he used to commit suicide, or details of the extent of the chest wound he suffered taken from doctors notes.
Saying that an 8 minute video glossed glossed over a lot of his life is a big statement of the obvious, I would say.
Also with regard to wanting to see paintings with his damaged ear, He never once painted it. There are only 2 paintings which show a bandage over his ear, following the self inflicted injury, but I think he only painted 3 more self portraits following this, all of which show the other (right) side of his face. It was his left ear that he mutilated. So I repeat, that's only 2 paintings in over 2000 works of art that even hint at his injured ear.
I don't know how many of Van Gogh's early works were reproduced at the exhibition showing the work of textile weavers for example. He did quite a few of them. If they were not on display, was the plight and awful working conditions of hard working poor also censored?
I would be a bit more annoyed at paying good money to see NO original artwork, although I understand that would be difficult to have for Van Gogh particularly if its a travelling display, from a logistial and insurance point of view. Sounds like manufactured outrage over nothing to me.
It's a bit amusing and ironic to hear of someone going to an art display in the hope it would cause offense, and then feeling offended when it's intention was apparently not to cause offence.
Also, to add a modicum of measured response I would hardly say that a lack of pipe paintings is criminal! Come on. Really?
Perhaps people need to comment here about how censorship is an epidemic in modern 'woke' society. Do it quick though before the thread gets closed.*
I don't intend to cause offence
*Any mods reading this, it's not intended as a dig at your hard work. Thanks for all you do.
.gif)
