As for his being less than influential, I’d say it’s possible Van Gogh is more influential but more subtle than people give him credit for; or it’s possible that he (like Pollock or Rousseau, for example) developed a style that just couldn’t be carried forward.

As for your second point, I don’t think — for me, anyway — his life story has any effect at all on my reaction to his work. His story is something I know intellectually; his paintings I experience on a level below the intellectual.

I’m also not sure about your thesis, that Van Gogh is the most famous artist of all time. Picasso and Leonardo are both well known enough; any of the three could and have been used in that layman’s question, “Who do you think you are, Van Gogh?” In fact I think Leonardo and Picasso might have the edge on Van Gogh that way.

Of course, Leonardo was a long time ago — how often does his work go on auction? — and Picasso helped build his own reputation. So Van Gogh is a special case, there.

By some strange coincidence, my MP3 player is currently playing Don McLean’s “Vincent.”

Maybe a Van Gogh doesn’t hit you, personally, as hard as it hits others. But you can’t dismiss it. A lot of people feel something from Van Gogh they never feel from a Gauguin. I know, in my case, I went through an entire Gauguin exhibit without feeling a thing other than “He could’ve used a drawing class.”

Gauguin, Cézanne, Picasso, Matisse — I appreciate them intellectually, but they don’t affect me. Van Gogh does.

Just my feeling.

cheers