The Lure of Van Gogh's Severed Ear

Today in breaking art history news, two German historians who've spent a lot of time reviewing the police reports, say that the infamous story of Van Gogh severing his own ear after a fight with fellow artist Paul Gauguin is in fact, false.

The actual culprit? Gauguin himself. (GASP.)

The two historians, Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans, have published their theory in a book Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, basing their conclusion on "inconsistencies" in the evidence--Gauguin's personal accounts, Van Gogh's letters, and police reports.

Curators at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam are sticking to the original self-mutilation story, but I'm interested in why this debate has such a following in the first place. Does it really matter who cut off Van Gogh's ear and why? The myth of the artist as a slightly-mad creative genius still has currency in today's concepts of what makes great art so great. Why does "brilliant" so often go hand-in-hand with "troubled"?

What do you think? Would Van Gogh still be the post-Impressionist hero he is today if he hadn't had a reputation for being such a loose canon?