Pity to poor Paul
Robert Bursian
I have stumbled upon this group, and with great joy I might add. This is
refreshing to find a place of fellow artists. I have read this debate
about Cezanne with interest, and am not going to jump into a thread without
analyzing the views. However, Cezanne helped to foster Cubism. His
attempts in simplifying nature were great studies and should be warranted
some credit...he displays a fine representation of the Post
Impressionists. Cezanne, in my opinion, was not the "Father of Modern
Art", a misguided label indeed. I would have given that title to Monet.
R. Mark Bursian
--
R. Mark Bursian as...@freenet.carleton.ca rbur...@dow.com
William DeRaymond
>
> In article <314111...@worldlightproductions.com>, William DeRaymond
> <dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Bursian wrote:
> > >
> > > I have stumbled upon this group, and with great joy I might add. This is
> > > refreshing to find a place of fellow artists. I have read this debate
> > > about Cezanne with interest, and am not going to jump into a thread without
> > > analyzing the views. However, Cezanne helped to foster Cubism.
> >
> > by Cezanne. It was a total misreading of Cezanne's values.
>
> Was it? Or did it in fact have nothing of substance to do with Cezanne,
> being rather a manifestation of primitivism and a response to African and
> Polynesian sculpture?
>
> Maybe some people who owned Cezannes made up the story about Cezanne being
> the 'father of modern art' in order to increase the market value of some
> ghastly paintings they needed to offload. Salesmanship, they call it.
My understanding is the cubists did in fact take their cue from Cezanne,
like you, I don't think they understood his work. , which is not to say they
weren't inspired by its originality.(just like you're not inspired by it) I
consider the cubists to be neo-modern, ie. self-consciously 'modern' -
different for the sake of difference. I don't think Cezanne was trying to be
anything but who he was, a painter.
by the way I got your communication that you think Cezanne to be a lousy
artist. I believe we will just have to hold different opinions on that.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'A painting is a doorway into psychological/spiritual space.
It is an expression of transcendent form, which opens out into
the infinite.' - William
Bruce Attah
Julia Stewart
like a lot of what has been said is merely silly squabbling, I feel that
I must add something on one point.
Cezanne is the father of modern art, whether or not you like his
paintings. It is important to realize that the appellation applies to
art created in the modern period (1900-1945, approximately). The two
most prominent painters of the modern period are Picasso and Matisse.
Both are deeply indebted to Cezanne in their own art. It is useless to
argue over whether what they derived from Cezanne is what Cezanne really
intended to be there, since both artists clearly stated that what they
were doing was influenced by Cezanne's art. They each saw something in
Cezanne's art that caused them to explore the things they did in their
own paintings.
Obviously, they were using their own interpretations of what Cezanne's
art was all about. That's clear in the fact that their painting styles
are so radically different. However, it must be acknowledged that both
artists were familiar with Cezanne. Matisse owned one of Cezanne's
"Bather" paintings and based several of his compositions on it,
particularly his _Luxe Calm et Volupte_ of 1906. Picasso's _Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon_ also shows a clear debt to Cezanne's bather
paintings. Towards the end of his life, Matisse presented his Cezanne
bather painting to the city of Paris, saying of it, "It has sustained me
spiritually in the critical moments of my career as an artist; I have
drawn from it my faith and my perseverance" (quoted in George Heard
Hamilton, _Painting and Sculpture in Europe 1880-1940_, pg. 164).
Picasso and Matisse both admitted their debt to Cezanne in their own
painting. These two artists subsequently influenced nearly every other
modernist painter in Europe, either directly or indirectly. Hence,
Cezanne deserves the title "the Father of Modern Painting." His works,
whether he intended them to be or not, were one of the primary
ispirations for modernist innovation.
Julia Stewart
"How great was my joy, with London at my feet
Five shillings in my hand, and not expected back 'till after tea!"
William DeRaymond
work than Cezanne or any of the post impressionist/impressionist painters,
and that they somehow owe this advance to Cezanne. It is my contention that
they are not nearly as advanced and in fact are not even truly modern, but
neo-modern. In other words they become trapped by their ideas of what art
should or could be... I think if you would understand modernism, you have
to go further back than Picasso and Matisse. They are not my modern
Masters. Honring the Light within you.
Bruce Attah
<jste...@cougarnet.byu.edu> wrote:
> I know this thread has been going on for a long time, and although I feel
> like a lot of what has been said is merely silly squabbling, I feel that
> I must add something on one point.
>
> Cezanne is the father of modern art, whether or not you like his
> paintings.
The received wisdom that Cezanne is the father of anything at all is pure
fiction (as my remarks below will help to show).
> It is important to realize that the appellation applies to
> art created in the modern period (1900-1945, approximately).
The slack terminology of art history is a reflection of the sloppy
thinking that dominates in that discipline. So it is that some can
declare that the "modern" period ended fifty years ago, while others
proclaim that it began five years later. Still others mark the modern era
as beginning with impressionism.
> The two
> most prominent painters of the modern period are Picasso and Matisse.
Accepting your definition "modern period", we can agree with that.
> Both are deeply indebted to Cezanne in their own art.
Here we must disagree. Picasso and Braque used a manner of painting that
bore superficial resemblance to Cezanne's style during their adventures
with analytical cubism, but beyond that, Picasso's painting, throughout a
very long and very wide-ranging career was untouched by Cezanne. It
should be noted also that in the first decade or so of his career, Picasso
imitated just about every trendy style going. As for Matisse, he declared
an admiration for Cezanne, but there is nothing in his work that indicates
the influence of the latter at all.
> It is useless to
> argue over whether what they derived from Cezanne is what Cezanne really
> intended to be there, since both artists clearly stated that what they
> were doing was influenced by Cezanne's art.
While the artists' work is available to us as evidence, we should regard
that as a more reliable clue to their intentions than anything they might
have said.
> [...] Matisse owned one of Cezanne's
> "Bather" paintings and based several of his compositions on it,
> particularly his _Luxe Calm et Volupte_ of 1906.
To great effect, of course. One talentless artist copying another.
> Picasso's _Les
> Demoiselles d'Avignon_ also shows a clear debt to Cezanne's bather
> paintings.
It does no such thing. That painting shows a clear debt to West African
sculpture, but none whatsoever to Cezanne.
> Towards the end of his life, Matisse presented his Cezanne
> bather painting to the city of Paris, saying of it, "It has sustained me
> spiritually in the critical moments of my career as an artist; I have
> drawn from it my faith and my perseverance" (quoted in George Heard
> Hamilton, _Painting and Sculpture in Europe 1880-1940_, pg. 164).
What that painting gave Matisse was probably reassurance that it was
possible to be mediocre and still receive acclaim -- which is the sort of
reassurance Matisse himself continues to offer mediocre artists to this
day.
> Picasso and Matisse both admitted their debt to Cezanne in their own
> painting. These two artists subsequently influenced nearly every other
> modernist painter in Europe, either directly or indirectly. Hence,
> Cezanne deserves the title "the Father of Modern Painting." His works,
> whether he intended them to be or not, were one of the primary
> ispirations for modernist innovation.
If there is not much of Cezanne present in Picasso or Matisse, there is
still less in the work of their imitators.
Paul ("Mad Cow") Lesarge
who regularly post to this group, I will voice my opinion that
impressionism was one of, if not "the", most significant
developments in what I (in my simplicity) will refer to as the
modern age of art, and, well, I like the pictures. I certainly
like them better than the vast majority of non-representational
art I have seen.
I am still struggling with the question "Should a work of Art
be able to stand on its own?"; ie: if the quality of a
particular piece depends on whether or not I know that this is
part of "a logical progression in the development of the
artist's quest for inner emptiness" or some other such crap.
Somehow, it seems to me, that a work should be able to stand on
its own, without "accessories".