Should Van Gogh’s Tree Roots Be Government Property?

Van Gogh's "Tree Roots", determined to be his final work. Photo by Niels via Flickr

When a real-life location is associated with a film, album cover or painting, it becomes a place of pilgrimage for fans of the inspired work. Standing on the very ground that was part of something you hold dear is an emotional experience — one that raises concerns about ownership, profitability and rights to privacy.

The final work of Vincent Van Gogh was long disputed, until 2020, when it was determined to be “Tree Roots.” Crafted in Auvers-sur-Oise, a commune of France’s Val-d'Oise, pinpointing the specific roots became lucrative upon realizing they were painted mere hours before Van Gogh’s attempted suicide. 

Along with its status as Van Gogh’s final work is the significance it holds towards his passing and overall legacy. The roots are contorted and mangled but ripe with pops of color. It’s indicative of Van Gogh’s mental state prior to his death: vividly expressive and tragically twisted. It sparks a uniform grief in the viewer, the heartbreak of knowing a voice you admire has been silenced.

The roots of this black locust tree spiral along the outskirts of a public road in Auvers-sur-Oise, known for its booming art tourism season in early spring. This prompted the village’s mayor, Isabelle Mézières, to declare the historic site property of the government. One small issue for Mayor Mézières — while the roots spill onto a public road, the tree itself resides on private property.

This dispute has led to staunch arguments for both art preservation and the right to privacy. Why should one who treasures the art of Vincent Van Gogh be barred from the closest thing to stepping into his works? On the contrary, why should the property owners have their land unjustly seized by authorities, solely because Van Gogh happened to paint it?

For one, it’s worth noting that the property owners have no intention of shunning admirers of Van Gogh. Hélène Serlinger, the owner of the property and a fan of the painter, moved to Auvers-sur-Oise, alongside her husband Jean-François, solely to live in the village where Van Gogh once lived. In an eerie stroke of luck, they found themselves smack dab in the middle of a Van Gogh creation, discovering the land they had bought inspired “Tree Roots.” 

The Serlingers chased the art and found a landmark — but what if a landmark is made from property that already serves a purpose? Joanne Quintana found out the hard way, following her home being used as the filming location for Walter White’s residence in Breaking Bad, that it did not matter to the general public that her family had lived there for over thirty years before Vince Gilligan’s creation. 

Fans of the series felt entitled to 24/7 photo ops and more invasive interactions, such as throwing pizzas on their roof to reenact a scene from the show’s third season. Quintana put the house on the market in January 2025, effectively being forced out of her home due to the show’s popularity.

So, if the Serlingers are content with both the land’s significance and the enthusiasts of he who gave it new life, what entitles Mézières to seize their property? Nothing at all, according to both a 2023 local ruling and a recent decision by the Versailles court of appeals. That did not stop Auvers’s mayor from accosting the Serlingers on social media. 

“The roots belong to the people of Auvers!” she said. “These roots are a common good and not an object of commerce!,” referring to the €8 ticket charge to tour the location.

What Mézières seems to be forgetting is the public’s ease of access to the roots, and that they are one of many staples in Auvers’ art tourism scene. Citizens of Auvers are likely more willing to spend eight euros to visit the roots than to have their income taxed for a ceaseless property dispute.

The Serlingers have been cooperative with tourists and appreciative of their land following the discovery, making Mézières’ cries about preserving art for the people ring insincere. There seems to be a more sinister agenda at hand: preserving ownership under the guise of expression.