[DARISC]

Originally Posted by tabs

One can be frentic in style and still have control. Van Gogh worked very quickly to capture the essence of what he wanted to convey. Sometimes he would do 2 or 3 pictures a day, working quickly before the light failed.

Yes, he often did. Portraits and other exceptions, e.g. "The Potato Eaters", had little to do with failing light as they were not completed, as so many of his works were, in a single session.

Van Gogh developed a unique style or way of painting that you call "singular vision" yet that has nothing to do with a paticular idea or image that he wanted to capture.

Yes, personal or unique would have been better choices than singular.

Style remains a constant and a paticular composition or idea is singular and unique.

Style most often evolves over time, as did Van Gogh's. And of course each of his paintings are unique. One could refer to another's painting as "in the style of an early Van Gogh" or "in the style of Picasso's Blue Period", no?

Sometimes it needs to be captured quickly beofre it fades.

"It" being the image? Yes, when fading light is the issue. But it seems apparent that he spent more time on portraits and other works than he perhaps did on "Starry Night". et al. But then, we really don't know: he was an incredibly tormented and facile painter. That he was often frenziedly caught up in the moment when he painted is true - often, but not necessarily always.

There is a vast difference between the two.

The difference between the use of the word "singular" and "style" in the context I used it strikes me as the basis for a semantics discussion. I tried to clarify, above, what I meant to say.

..