In Amsterdam, I went to the van Gogh museum. It’s pretty impressive and well worth the price of admission to go there and just see the entire history of van Gogh’s works, from his earliest studies to his later, more abstract works. But I couldn’t help but wonder, towards the end of the museum: was van Gogh actually good, or do we appreciate him more because of his legacy: his perception as a tortured creative, driven mad, yet still creating such beautiful artworks. The museum even hinted at this: his sister-in-law, who became in charge of his estate, was the one who sold his works and turned van Gogh into the household name he is today. There’s no question that his art is very good, of course: but if we didn’t know van Gogh’s story, if his work was up in an art gallery next to anyone else’s, would the average person instinctively appreciate it more? Or does the general public enjoy his works because they have been told to enjoy them?

Legacies are undoubtedly part of artistic experience. But, as an artist, I also think about what people want to experience when interacting with art in some way. My feeling is that most people just want to look or listen to things that are nice. They are well-crafted, but they are not asked to think too much about the work or what it means. It is usually very obvious what the underlying meaning is — the story of the work is simple, and the audience doesn’t have to grapple with anything problematic. Van Gogh is a great example of this, I think — the majority of his work is incredibly easy to understand. You can look at his painting of sunflowers and very easily get to an understanding of the work, compared to something (hypothetically) called sunflowers that consists of just a yellow square on a white background, or sunflowers in a disturbing context. There’s not much subtext to van Gogh’s work, though people undoubtedly read more into it (such is the beauty of art). In music, I think Bach is a similar example, though not as tragic: his works are very well-crafted, but there is not really an inherent deeper meaning to them (no doubt the Bach fanboys will come after me for this). I once attended a concert of Bach’s Brandenburg concertos where the lead violinist informed the audience that Bach was the greatest composer who ever lived, and that was why Bach got three pieces on the golden record included on the Voyager probe, which represented all of humanity’s music. The only other composer to get more than one piece on this golden record was Beethoven, with two. As a result, Germany is represented with five songs out of the 27 on the record; the United States has four, Peru is the only other country with more than one song, at two. Adding Austria’s addition (Mozart) to Germany, over 20% of the music on the record — to represent humanity’s musical culture — is Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. These three composers were great, but it is important to remember that they persist in part because of their legacy. Mozart and van Gogh are even similar in their stories: they died young and under-appreciated while they still lived.

Legacy also feeds into the clout associated with seeing a work. I was amused, walking around, just how many people had phones out to take photos of art (and I’ll admit, I tried not to do this but even I did it occasionally). I wonder about an art gallery that forces you to hand your phone in on entry, where it goes into a locker box like a coat or bag does. An art gallery where you are forced to be disconnected from social media and clout; from the hustle and bustle of the outside world. Would the Mona Lisa still be as popular if people couldn’t take a photo of it to prove they were there? Or would most people give it a cursory glance and move on? I think it too is an artwork where legacy has outshone the original piece. Is not the point of art to disconnect from the outside world and to step into a different one?

As a musician, I enjoy listening to all sorts of music, and I do enjoy a nice Bach or Beethoven very much, in the same way, I think, that most people can recognise a nicely built house. But I’ve seen many nice houses I wouldn’t want to live in, and I’ve seen many nice houses that I think would be boring to stay in time and time again. For me, the pieces of music I enjoy the most are ones that ask a bit more of me. Pieces which encourage us to grapple with the realities of modern life, which critique things or push the boundaries of music forward. In my experience, most musicians think this way too. But audiences prefer the safety and security of the known quantities of Bach and Beethoven. Perhaps that’s an article for another time.

I enjoyed seeing van Gogh’s works, and the museum itself was fascinating to walk around and see the progression of van Gogh as an artist. But I think it’s important to remember that for every van Gogh who became successful after death, many, many, many more artists died also under-appreciated in a painful situation, and we will never know their names. And, what’s more, these artists continue to be blocked out by the safety and security of artists with safe legacies.