The whole summary in the preferred version is repetitive. It describes van Gogh as underappreciated/unknown and an influence on twentieth century/moderna art in three places, my version makes the former assertion twice - I should have gone further. The summary also contains peacock and weasal terms which editors are supposed to avoid, for example: "Today, he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest painters"; the peer of Titian, Rembrandt or Picasso? Not quite I would suggest.

The sentence closing the second paragraph is problematic: "Today many of his pieces ... are among the world's most recognizable and expensive works of art." The point about recognition may well be true, if we restrict it to the sunflowers series, but who says so? The current version is an exaggeration. "Expensive"? The few which remain in private hands sell for very high prices when they they are auctioned, but prices of impressionist and post-impressionist art have only risen dramatically, to be the most "expensive" works of art, in the last thirty years or so. A substantial portion, those long in the collection of van Gogh's nephew for example, have never passed through the art market. Many entered public collections before the war. The summary is thus imprecise, claiming more than can be sustained or misleading.

My version of the second paragraph cuts out anything superfluous to an outline of the qualities the artworks possess