> But now tell me what Van Gogh has to do with any of that. What on earth does, for example, his famous starry sky painting, arguably his most recognizable work, have to do with a snapshot of reality? That painting has nothing to do with reality. There's no slice of life thing going on there. It's not even CLOSE to what a camera would pick up, even if you account for a smudgy painting style. He's got humongous swirls of light that just don't exist in reality.
>
> The paintings of his that involve interior scenes tend to have garish, outright ugly colors and bad perspective lines, both of which would be excusable if they were part of a greater purpose, but what "impression" is being conveyed in these paintings? I don't get the sense of a place or a time or a slice of life; I get the impression of someone who has absolutely no sense of aesthetics.

I agree, he's not an Impressionist. (I don't know enough about art history to know what movement he represents, though. I always thought of him more as an individual.)

I'm divided on Van Gogh paintings. I love "Starry Night" and that other one with the trees and the road and the big swirling stars, but hate almost everything else of his. I think it's because the lack of perspective and the harsh, vibrant colours jar badly to me in his indoor scenes, still lifes (lives?) and portraits. However, there's something about the sheer exuberance of it in the outdoor night scenes which appeals to me. It doesn't *look* like reality, but somehow it *feels* like it. That's the only way I can explain it -- it looks like the feeling you get from seeing huge, scary, beautiful, wild night scenes, even when the physical scene itself is one of serenity.