I've done a bit of looking around and it appears that "Pointillism" is not what some people think it is. (Myself included, I guess.) There are lots of references on art sites to van Gogh's "pointillist work" when he was in Paris (and met Seurat). However, the examples I have looked at are not the Pointillism I was taught about, but sometimes are being referred to as "pointillist inspired."
One site referred to "Route aux confins de Paris" as his 'most complete and harmonious pointillist painting' but take a look:
I admit it could be deceiving in this small size, but it sure doesn't look like Pointillism to me.
This page describes one of his 1887 self-portraits as an 'attempt at pointillism' and calls it 'clumsy'
I wouldn't call it Pointillism at all.
At the end of the day, I'm not about to go up against the art world if they have re-defined or expanded the term. The interesting thing is that if you look at the definitions of the technique it is clear-cut and leaves no room for debate: primary colour dots only.
But when you start looking at art sites, they turn it into a gray area. Maybe the art historians/writers/etc. are too used to other movement terms, like Impressionism for example, that do have a lot of room for interpretation.
