Cezanne's "The Blue Vase"
Todd Strickland
Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
drawing, The Blue Vase (1883-1887) is the kind of painting the
untrained eye will quickly dismiss. But upon close examination, The
Blue Vase is a veritable painting clinic. Not as well known as many
"classic" Cezannes, The Blue Vase strikes a wonderful balance between
the seriousness of Cezanne's formalist ethic and a certain playfulness
and spontaneity which is sometimes missing in his later works.
The arangement of the still life objects, at first glance, seems
terribly unsatisfying. Everything is too spread out, dispersed rather
than gathered into a pleasing arrangement. The placement of the plate
behind the vase, the pairing of the two fruit on the right, as well as
the central pair of vase and apple, all seem too obviously artificial,
one might say insistently artificial.
But this insistence draws our attention; Cezanne is giving us a key to
the color relations which he uses throughout the picture. The three
apples form a kind of "spectrum," defining the range of warm tones.
This leads us to the strong blue of the vase, the dominant color of
the painting, and up to the green of the leaves. So the compostion
tells us in a direct way that one important aspect of the picture is
the contrast of warm and cool tones within this prescribed range. At
close range, we see these interactions of warm and cool in every part
of the painting.
Looking at the blue, for example, we easily see the strong, cold blue
of the vase leading upward to the more atmospheric blue of the
background. But if we look closely at the yellow expanse of table, we
see numerous subtle touches of blue here, as well. Focusing on the
section of table between the vase and the bottle we see touches of
blue which veriagate the hue and "cool off" the yellow. They also
lead our eye on little journeys away from and back to the vase.
Starting from the vase, our eye notices a relatively strong touch of
blue near the bottle. Notice that Cezanne has placed this patch away
from the vase (too far to work as reflected light), but not so far as
to make a difficult leap for the eye; we can comfortably take in both
areas of blue across the yellow with a single glance. From this patch
we easily move on to the mottled green and blue shadow of the bottle.
As a representational element, this shadow is inadequate; it has
neither the shape nor the color of a "real" shadow. But Cezanne is
using it here merely as an excuse to introduce cool tones into the
table. Following the line of the shadow we come to a sort of
intersection; we can go up, along the vertical which is apparently a
glass behind the bottle, we can continue straight to the blue
background (which is full of more mottled, subtle tones to follow), or
we can move to the right and follow the blue edge of the plate back to
the vase. On the plate, Cezanne is using blue ostensibly as reflected
light from the bottle. But as with the shadow, its true purpose is
purely formal; it is a way to extend the blue of the vase, reaching
out to the blue of the shadow, and giving our eye a path to follow.
From the minute to the macro, Cezanne creates the same kind of
movement with the major red elements. The fruit form a horizontal
line which points toward the red bottle. The jump from fruit to
bottle is a bit too far, so Cezanne has painted the table's base in
red, which stretches across the entire base of the painting. This
helps explain the table's distorted shape; if the table continued at
its diagonal angle (from right to left) the red base would be cut off
before it reached the bottle, so Cezanne "bends" the table. The need
to connect the red elements takes preference over "accurate"
representation.
The main compositional lines of the painting are roughly horizontal
and vertical, yet Cezanne plays with us here as well, avoiding a
"squared" composition with the odd tilt of the vase, the bent table,
the diagonal line cutting behind the vase. It's difficult to read the
background; is the wall facing us squarely or receding at an angle?
Does the yellow vertical represent a window frame? As representation
these forms are ambiguous and a little frustrating for a viewer who
expects the artist to paint "accurately." However, within the
structure of the painting, these odd lines create a unique sense of
shallow space. The horizontal line behind the vase, if read according
to the traditional rules of perspective, indicate that the wall is
receding away to the left of the picture. Yet the flatness of the
color and lack of other visual cues makes the wall appear squared; at
one moment the wall is receding, at the next we see a squared flat
surface. We cannot resolve this ambiguity, and we are left with the
reality of the flat painting surface. On the one hand, Cezanne seems
to be rejecting the "illusion" of space, but at the same time he has
created a different kind of space on his own terms.
Todd Strickland
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
can for a moment imagine this scene. We have Hutto flogging himself for past
sins - Mani is running around stabbing everyone in sight - we have another
one using a paedophile style of posting - I run around trying to stir up
shit in the pot and you walk on the posting stage with a flower and say "
look at this flower I found"
It is absolutely incredible - we have spontaneously created a play in a news
post system.
everyone: time to bow you all did a fantastic job.
take care: keith
Todd Strickland <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02012...@posting.google.com...
Frida Wails
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp says...
>On the one hand, Cezanne seems
>to be rejecting the "illusion" of space, but at the same time he has
>created a different kind of space on his own terms.
>
>Todd Strickland
I hope your paper garners an "A" - or did!
Nothing forces one to look at a painting
harder than to have an art history professor
assign you a painting and ask you for a
5,000 word analysis.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Frida Wails <fre...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
really need a copy of the painting, or preferably the painting, in front
of you to check all the details. My problem with such analysis is that
it gives the impression of such a rigid 'paint-by-numbers' approach by
the artist that it appears to wash out all the living colour from the
painting. Of course an analysis is not a reflection of the process the
painter took to produce the painting, but the danger is that it can be
seen as that.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
Peter H.M. Brooks
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Very nice, Todd. Newcomers and students: this is what art criticism
can be.
> Read and learn.
>
Yes, Dan, it can be. Technically it is good and it leaves out the
bullshit jargon that too often makes such pieces pretentious and empty.
As I said in another post, my feeling is that it leaves the picture
appearing sterile. The technique of composition is covered, but it is a
bit like a manual describing the design of a Faberge egg, afterwards,
like the smile of the Cheshire cat, only a hint of the beauty of the
piece and the intent of the designer is left, the real egg in its
magnificence is gone.
Todd Strickland
> Hi Tod: your post is very interesting but your timing is fantastic. If you
> can for a moment imagine this scene. We have Hutto flogging himself for past
> sins - Mani is running around stabbing everyone in sight - we have another
> one using a paedophile style of posting - I run around trying to stir up
> shit in the pot and you walk on the posting stage with a flower and say "
> look at this flower I found"
>
> It is absolutely incredible - we have spontaneously created a play in a news
> post system.
>
> everyone: time to bow you all did a fantastic job.
>
> take care: keith
Hi Keith.
I've been checking in daily, reading all the goofiness. I was tempted
to join in a few times but my silly meter kept reaching its "giddy
level" cutoff; Picasso was a Chinese?! What can you say to such
silliness?
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
No grades. No art school for me. I just thought, "rec.arts.fine?
Why not talk about a Cezanne painting?"
Pretty silly of me, I guess...
Todd Strickland
RBrac53660
WOW I'm kewl
Frida Wails
>No grades. No art school for me. I just thought, "rec.arts.fine?
>Why not talk about a Cezanne painting?"
Well, I think it should earn an "A" in any event.
With that kind of analytical ability you'd breeze
through any art history course, I feel sure.
Todd Strickland
Thank you.
Todd Strickland
> Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Very nice, Todd. Newcomers and students: this is what art criticism
> can be.
> > Read and learn.
> >
> Yes, Dan, it can be. Technically it is good and it leaves out the
> bullshit jargon that too often makes such pieces pretentious and empty.
>
> As I said in another post, my feeling is that it leaves the picture
> appearing sterile. The technique of composition is covered, but it is a
> bit like a manual describing the design of a Faberge egg, afterwards,
> like the smile of the Cheshire cat, only a hint of the beauty of the
> piece and the intent of the designer is left, the real egg in its
> magnificence is gone.
I realize that analyzing a painting isn't the same as experiencing it,
nor does it convey any sense of the experience to my readers. But I
think it's still worthwhile to analyze and explicate paintings, and a
non-binaries newsgroup seems like a good place to do that.
I've found that when I take the time to actually write about what I
see in a painting I notice much that I didn't at first glance. So it
helps me to understand the picture better, myself. Also, I'm always
hoping others will join in and point out things that I didn't notice.
Finally, there's always the off-chance that someone here might learn
something from any discussion that gets underway; I know it's hard to
imagine, as apparently everyone in this newsgroup (myself included,
sadly) seems to think they know everything already.
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
news:<a2lh5s$eid$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net>...
> > Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Very nice, Todd. Newcomers and students: this is what art
criticism
> > can be.
> > > Read and learn.
> > >
> > Yes, Dan, it can be. Technically it is good and it leaves out the
> > bullshit jargon that too often makes such pieces pretentious and
empty.
> >
> > As I said in another post, my feeling is that it leaves the picture
> > appearing sterile. The technique of composition is covered, but it
is a
> > bit like a manual describing the design of a Faberge egg,
afterwards,
> > like the smile of the Cheshire cat, only a hint of the beauty of the
> > piece and the intent of the designer is left, the real egg in its
> > magnificence is gone.
>
> I realize that analyzing a painting isn't the same as experiencing it,
> nor does it convey any sense of the experience to my readers. But I
> think it's still worthwhile to analyze and explicate paintings, and a
> non-binaries newsgroup seems like a good place to do that.
>
>
> I've found that when I take the time to actually write about what I
> see in a painting I notice much that I didn't at first glance. So it
> helps me to understand the picture better, myself. Also, I'm always
> hoping others will join in and point out things that I didn't notice.
> Finally, there's always the off-chance that someone here might learn
> something from any discussion that gets underway; I know it's hard to
> imagine, as apparently everyone in this newsgroup (myself included,
> sadly) seems to think they know everything already.
>
impression - I would have thought that most regulars had a slightly more
open mind.
You may take the nutters for regulars, which would give a skewed view, I
agree.
I like the exercise of remembering scenes and paintings in my mind then
comparing them to reality to see how close the fit is - it is a
stimulating though easy exercise. I often go for mental walks around my
childhood home, my old school and the mountains I spent so much time in
as a child. I like to see where changes have been made over the years -
how it is possible to remember a site as it was when one last saw it,
then remember the main building under construction, then the building
before that, then how that was itself extended.
Clearly one's memory is fallible and I find some places are blank and
others have visual confabulations, but even that is interesting as a
guide to perception and memory.
I also find that writing about an experience is a tremendous way to
explore it and revitalise it.
There is always the other side of the coin, though. A photograph of an
event becomes, years later, all that remains, the strength of the forced
memory fades others. Holidays where there were not photographs to fix
the event in aspic are more vital in my memory than those that were
fixed. So, maybe, a description of events also fixes what is described
and makes fade that which is not. So too, a description of a painting or
sculpture can capture the feeling understanding and imagery that it gave
rise to at one viewing - and may fix it. So I know that, for example,
the last time I saw the Blue Vase, last November in the Musee d'Orsay, I
was struck by its vibrancy both from a distance and in the brushstrokes
close up. We had had a reasonably good reproduction of the painting when
I was a child, so I am very familiar with it, but the original is so
much more striking. The time before I was impressed by the freshness and
starkness of the painting. Having now thought about it, and read you
piece, I am sure that if I see it again some day I shall have another
experience. If I see it soon it may be more analytical - I'll look to
see if your points are really there or if you have read them into the
painting and wonder if they were a consciously contrived intent or an
unconscious reaction to compositional balance. Or even, as is most
likely, a combination - and, if so, which part weighed harder with which
parts of the composition.
I wouldn't want to have all my favourite painting and sculptures so
analysed, or even to do it myself. I would feel they would become too
much like the image on 'Prufrock' of a being fixed upon a pin.
William Barkin
I for one don't believe ANY painting should have analysis done in which
"excuses" are made for poor representation.
You said: "As representation these forms are ambiguous and a little
frustrating for a viewer who expects the artist to paint "accurately."" Are
you Cézanne's spokesman?
You state: "The arrangement of the still life objects, at first glance,
seems
terribly unsatisfying." You're right...now do we need an explanation as to
why so we can "get it"?
You said: "On the plate, Cézanne is using blue ostensibly as reflected light
from the bottle. But as with the shadow, its true purpose is purely formal;
it is a way to extend the blue of the vase, reaching out to the blue of the
the painting? The shadows can represent whatever the viewer wants...I do
not know what the painter intended...how do you come to discern the "true
purpose"? A bit verbose I'd say on your part.
Personally, I do not like the piece; not because it is Cézanne, but because
of the work itself. But since it is Cézanne I will state right here that I
am no fan of his. The intent of the artist should never have to be taken
into account by the viewer.
If you had told me the work was by a contemporary art student, I would have
offered some constructive criticism on how best to improve the composition
and color. Your dissertation does nothing to make me appreciate the
work...it only reinforces my fundamental dislike for the artist's work.
Again, I don't think one should dream up reasons for a painting's
aberrations.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02012...@posting.google.com...
> http://artchive.com/artchive/C/cezanne/bluevase.jpg.html
>
> Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
> drawing, The Blue Vase (1883-1887) is the kind of painting the
> untrained eye will quickly dismiss. [Todd's analysis]
Peter H.M. Brooks
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
>
> Personally, I do not like the piece;
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn <nos...@islandnet.com> wrote in messageLike any good essayist, you were thinking while you were writing
instead of looking for votes the usual method here.
Your analysis
in no way diminished my appreciation of the painting but rather
drew my attention to Cezanne's method in many more ways. I
would add that he relied on reciprocity and reflected colour,
adding green to the reds and red to the greens.
It's a beautiful haunting painting and your appreciation of it resonates
with my own.
Todd Strickland
> Do you really believe all that you wrote?
Yes, I do.
> Is this a "writing" exercise?
Yes, it is (my essay, that is).
> I for one don't believe ANY painting should have analysis done in which
> "excuses" are made for poor representation.
The overall purpose of my post wasn't to "excuse" Cezanne's poor
representation, per se, but rather to analyze a work of art. This
work is representational to a degree, therefore it's necessary to
consider that aspect, and to what degree it is representational. I
don't assume that the representation is "poor," but rather that this
is the way Cezanne intended the picture to look. I'm merely
speculating as to why.
> You said: "As representation these forms are ambiguous and a little
> frustrating for a viewer who expects the artist to paint "accurately."" Are
> you Cezanne's spokesman?
Not his spokesman; just an interested viewer with an interpretation.
> You state: "The arrangement of the still life objects, at first glance,
> seems
> terribly unsatisfying." You're right...now do we need an explanation as to
> why so we can "get it"?
Apparently so. Again, I believe the arrangement of the objects serves
a purpose in the picture and that Cezanne had a reason for
constructing this "bad" composition; the composition is poor by
certain traditional standards but I think Cezanne knew that and choose
this composition anyway. Thinking over the vast number of still-lives
which Cezanne painted I believe it's obvious he understood traditional
composition, had mastered it, and was one of the great innovators of
composition; of course, that's just my opinion and you're free to
disagree.
> You said: "On the plate, Cezanne is using blue ostensibly as reflected light
> from the bottle. But as with the shadow, its true purpose is purely formal;
> it is a way to extend the blue of the vase, reaching out to the blue of the
> shadow, and giving our eye a path to follow." Now is that what YOU read into
> the painting?
Yes, that's what I see. Yes, that's how I interpret it. You're
certainly free to interpret it differently.
> The shadows can represent whatever the viewer wants...
I don't think so, and I didn't say anything close to that. However, I
do think that there is room for interpretation here. To say that
those marks near the bottle are meant to represent a shadow, and do
NOTHING BUT represent a shadow, is a childish interpretation; artists
and art lovers (who have a more developed sense of aesthetics) should
consider the issue a bit more deeply. I haven't argued that those
marks symbolize anything, or stand for the artist's "soul." I simply
pointed out that Cezanne is using this area to emphasize color
relationships; I really don't think I'm going off the deep end here.
I suppose if we wanted to go deeply into semiotic theory, it could be
argued that a sign (the painted area we are calling a "shadow," in
this case) means whatever viewers think it means; that would be a
"strong" argument. However, in practice, most people are willing to
accept that signs are limited in their meanings. We just seem to
disagree over how limited those meanings should be, and where to draw
the line. Again, I really don't think my essay went so far beyond the
pale...
> I do
> not know what the painter intended...how do you come to discern the "true
> purpose"? A bit verbose I'd say on your part.
Now your just getting nit-picky. It's my essay so, OBVIOUSLY, it's my
interpretation of his "true purpose." It gets a little tedious to
begin every statement with "I think," "It's my opinion," or "According
to my analysis." I don't think the average person needs, expects, or
wants a writer to completely qualify every opinion. I notice that you
have characterized this painting as containing "aberrations," yet you
don't bother to qualify that statement with "I think." I don't think
the painting has any major flaws; I think it is just the way Cezanne
wanted it to be (or at least close enough that he was satisfied with
it), so where are the aberrations?
> Personally, I do not like the piece; not because it is Cezanne, but because
> of the work itself.
To each his own. I happen to like it because of the work itself.
> But since it is Cezanne I will state right here that I
> am no fan of his.
OK.
> The intent of the artist should never have to be taken
> into account by the viewer.
Another completely unqualified assertion. Why shouldn't the intent of
the artist be taken into account? What should be taken into account?
Line, color, composition? I looked at all these aspects in my essay,
and I admire Cezanne's handling of them. Isn't it also reasonable to
ask why he used these elements in the way he did?
> If you had told me the work was by a contemporary art student, I would have
> offered some constructive criticism on how best to improve the composition
> and color. Your dissertation does nothing to make me appreciate the
> work...it only reinforces my fundamental dislike for the artist's work.
I'll try to do better next time.
> Again, I don't think one should dream up reasons for a painting's
> aberrations.
>
> -Bill
But aren't you also "dreaming up reasons?" I think you're dreaming up
the aberrations, as well. Because you see the work as flawed you
"dream up" that Cezanne is somehow wrong. I see the bent edge of the
table and dream up that he wanted to connect the red elements of the
painting; you dream up that it's an aberration and in need of
improvement. But in all honesty, do you really believe that Cezanne
was incapable of making that table edge straighter than it is?
Tell me a painting you like and why. Point out its fine qualities.
Make some observations and interpretations. Now tell me why those
points are valid, objective facts and are not merely dreamed up by
you.
But, in the end, you're entitled to your dreams, as I'm entitled to
mine...
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
> argued that a sign (the painted area we are calling a "shadow," in
> this case) means whatever viewers think it means; that would be a
> "strong" argument. However, in practice, most people are willing to
> accept that signs are limited in their meanings. We just seem to
> disagree over how limited those meanings should be, and where to draw
> the line. Again, I really don't think my essay went so far beyond the
> pale...
>
everything tends to fall towards bullshit - semiotics is like memetics,
a nice idea but a fairly insubstantial one.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> functional analysis and doesn't address the beauty of the piece and
the
> emotion it evokes. It does not, at least not directly, but that's not
its
> purpose. The purpose of such analysis is enhance our enjoyment of a
piece
> when we do see it through a knowledge of how it was executed. Even if
we do
> not agree completely, we can enjoy comparing our own analysis with the
> existing one.
>
True. With dead artists it is obviously not possible, but it is
sometimes interesting to hear artists comment in response to such
analysis.
mdeli
Artspeak. It must surely ring a sentimental bell and remind them of
art school babble they once lived through.
Instead of criticizing some of the nonsense phrases in a few select
paragraphs, I've put them in caps. Readers can decide for themselves
whether they think they are nonsense as I do. I also advise readers to
ask themselves what the sentences really mean and what one can really
conclude from the paragraphs. I maintain that the analysis of color
and composition is just plain double-talk which can be changed around
anyway one likes and still mean as little.
The painting itself is ordinary conventional subject matter by someone
on sub-student level. If the painting wasn't by Cezanne and hung on
some obscure art school wall instead of the Louvre it would hardly
evoke a glance.
In particular I find the plate behind the vase and the blotches which
are supposed to be leaves milestones for what follows in the work of
20th century no-skill-realism. Cezanne is a major model for imitation
for all lame artists who failed to learn their craft. His, is a
perfect example of artwork which allows some viewers to imagine they
see what they have been told.
(Todd Strickland) wrote:
>http://artchive.com/artchive/C/cezanne/bluevase.jpg.html
>
>Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
>drawing,
Right on! Even Strickland can sense this. Wonder why? Perhaps he lacks
a certificate in eye training.
>The Blue Vase (1883-1887) is the kind of painting the
>UNTRAINED EYE will quickly dismiss.
The usual BS about trained eyes. Only those with properly trained eyes
should read the descriptions here otherwise they will only get the
clear meaning of the first sentence.
> But upon close examination, The
>Blue Vase is a veritable painting clinic.
---for Artspeakers.
> Not as well known as many
>"classic" Cezannes, The Blue Vase strikes A WONDERFUL BALANCE BETWEEN
>THE SERIOUSNESS of Cezanne's FORMALIST ETHIC AND A CERTAIN
>PLAYFULNESS and spontaneity which is sometimes missing in his later works.
>The arangement of the still life objects, at first glance, seems terribly unsatisfying.
--- and utterly childish and stupid which further glances will readily
confirm.
>Everything is too spread out, dispersed rather
>than gathered into a pleasing arrangement.
---because of the poor composition, lack of imigination and horrible
technique.
>The placement of the plate
>behind the vase, the pairing of the two fruit on the right, as well as
>the central pair of vase and apple, all seem too obviously artificial,
>one might say INSISTENTLY ARTIFICIAL.But this INSISTENCE draws our >attention;
> Cezanne is giving us a key to
>the color relations which he uses throughout the picture. The three
>apples form a kind of "spectrum," defining the range of warm tones.
Note that the third apple is really a badly drawn potato.
>This leads us to the strong blue of the vase, the dominant color of
>the painting, and up to the green of the leaves. So the compostion
>tells us in a direct way that one important aspect of the picture is
>the contrast of warm and cool tones within this prescribed range. At
>close range, we see these interactions of warm and cool in every part
>of the painting.
This paragraph is pure baloney. "We see these interactions of warm
and cool" in practically every painting so what?
>
>Looking at the blue, for example, we easily see the strong, cold blue
>of the vase leading upward TO THE MORE ATMOSPHERIC BLUE of the
>background. But if we look closely at the yellow expanse of table, we
>see numerous subtle touches of blue here, as well. Focusing on the
>section of table between the vase and the bottle we see touches of
>BLUE WHICH VERIAGATE THE HUE AND "COOL OFF" THE YELLOW. They also
>lead our eye on little journeys away from and back to the vase.
>Starting from the vase, our eye notices a relatively strong touch of
>blue near the bottle. Notice that Cezanne has placed this patch away
>from the vase (too far to work as reflected light), but not so far as
>to make a difficult leap for the eye; we can comfortably take in both
>areas of blue across the yellow with a single glance. From this patch
>WE EASILY MOVE on to the mottled green and blue shadow of the bottle.
>As a representational element, this shadow is inadequate; it has
>neither the shape nor the color of a "real" shadow. But Cezanne is
>using it here merely as an excuse to introduce cool tones into the
>table. Following the line of the shadow we come to A SORT OF
>INTERSECTION; we can go up, along the vertical which is apparently a
>glass behind the bottle, we can continue straight to the blue
>background (which is full of more mottled, subtle tones to follow), or
>we can move to the right and follow the blue edge of the plate back to
>the vase. On the plate, Cezanne IS USING BLUE OSTENSIBLY as reflected
>light from the bottle. But as with the shadow, its true purpose is
>purely formal; it is a way to extend the blue of the vase, reaching
>out to the blue of the shadow, and giving our eye a path to follow.
>
>FROM THE MINUTE TO THE MACRO, CEZANNE CREATES THE SAME KIND >OF
>MOVEMENT WITH THE MAJOR RED ELEMENTS. The fruit form a horizontal
>line which points toward the red bottle. The jump from fruit to
>bottle is a bit too far, so Cezanne has painted the table's base in
>red, which stretches across the entire base of the painting. This
>helps EXPLAIN the table's distorted shape;
Really?
>if the table continued at
>its diagonal angle (from right to left) the red base would be cut off
>before it reached the bottle, so Cezanne "bends" the table. The need
>to connect the red elements takes preference over "accurate"
>representation.
Sure! Seems more like the diagonal line is part of the back wall and
the end of the table is really just conventionally behind the plate
(if that's what you want to call it).
>
>The main compositional lines of the painting are roughly horizontal
>and vertical, yet Cezanne plays with us here as well, avoiding a
>"squared" composition with the odd tilt of the vase, the bent table,
>the diagonal line cutting behind the vase. It's difficult to read the
>background; is the wall facing us squarely or receding at an angle?
>Does the yellow vertical represent a window frame? As representation
>these forms are ambiguous and a little frustrating for a viewer who
>expects the artist to paint "accurately."
---they aren't ambiguous. Every object can be identified but they all
the have the very common look of student incompetent sloppiness.
> However, within the
>Structure of the painting, these odd lines create A UNIQUE SENSE OF
>SHALLOW SPACE. The horizontal line behind the vase, if read according
>to the traditional rules of perspective, indicate that the wall is
>receding away to the left of the picture. Yet the flatness of the
>color and lack of other visual cues makes the wall appear squared; at
>one moment the wall is receding, at the next we see a squared flat
>surface. We cannot resolve this ambiguity, and we are left with the
>reality of the flat painting surface.
No, we are stuck with the reality of the flat painting surface which
is very close to what he had before he started.
> On the one hand, Cezanne seems
>to be rejecting the "illusion" of space, but at the same time he has
>created a different kind of space on his own terms.
There is no illusion of space anywhere.
For a detailed analysis of a far more incompetent Cezanne horror by a
real Artspeak pro read my analysis of Shapiro on Cezanne on my
website.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
William Barkin
tax the muscles in my arms and hand....
Explanations from a third party of an artist's intent on a piece of work
count for nothing. The immediate impact on the viewer is all that matters.
Just my stated belief. But I would be happy to voice my likes and dislikes
with regard to a painting...interpretation? I'm not so sure as to what you
mean. I do not try to figure out the artist's "intent" when I look at a
painting; instead I try to come to terms with what pleases or displeases me
about the piece. My opinions on a piece need only have validity to me.
Perhaps I should list a number of artists, of which some of their work I
genuinely admire...just so you don't think I'm too narrow minded in my
tastes. Carravagio, Vermeer, Corot, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Van
Gogh, Martin, Signac, Eakins, Constatable, Sloan, Henri, Weir, Metcalf,
Frieske, Mondrian, Tanguay, Dali, Hassam, Ranger, Inness, Sargent,
Rembrandt, Fiske, Beaux, Peterson, Hopper, Caldwell...
Please excuse me if I spelled any artist's name incorrectly...I do try to
get them right.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02012...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
discussion
The Blue Vase, I was struck by the obvious distortion of vertical,
both in the vase and repeated in the window frame(?).
Also there seems to be a deliberate effort to distort perspective.
That Cezanne did this deliberately seems to me to be obvious, but
his reasons and the effect puzzle me.
I have come across a number of modern watercolour paintings which
seem to deliberately distort the vertical, and some in 'how I do it' books,
without any explanation.
The choice of a still life composition is guaranteed to give me a yawn,
even those painters who try to put in movement by introducing splashed water
and fallen petals. No such 'life' here.
In layman's terms, please, am I wrong in trying to judge such a work as I do
with visually realistic works, or is there a different set of rules by which
'modern' works are to be judged?
Is it considered that the roughness with which most of his paintings were
produced are an enhancement? If he had taken more time in the studio as
did Constable with some of his(reluctantly), would his paintings have had
more artistic worth? Maybe he and all the other Impressionists and Moderns
were frightened of being compared to Ingres?
N.H
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:<a2lh5s$eid$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net>...
> > Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Very nice, Todd. Newcomers and students: this is what art criticism
> > can be.
> > > Read and learn.
> > >snipped<<<
> Todd Strickland
mdeli
Artspeak. It must surely ring a sentimental bell and remind them of
art school babble they once lived through.
Instead of criticizing some of the nonsense phrases in a few select
paragraphs, I've put them in caps. Readers can decide for themselves
whether they think they are nonsense as I do. I also advise readers to
ask themselves what the sentences really mean and what one can really
conclude from the paragraphs. I maintain that the analysis of color
and composition is just plain double-talk which can be changed around
anyway one likes and still mean as little.
The painting itself is ordinary conventional subject matter by someone
on sub-student level. If the painting wasn't by Cezanne and hung on
some obscure art school wall instead of the Louvre it would hardly
evoke a glance.
In particular I find the plate behind the vase and the blotches which
are supposed to be leaves milestones for what follows in the work of
20th century no-skill-realism. Cezanne is a major model for imitation
for all lame artists who failed to learn their craft. His, is a
perfect example of artwork which allows some viewers to imagine they
see what they have been told.
(Todd Strickland) wrote:
>http://artchive.com/artchive/C/cezanne/bluevase.jpg.html
>
>Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
>drawing,
Right on! Even Strickland can sense this. Wonder why? Perhaps he lacks
a certificate in eye training.
>The Blue Vase (1883-1887) is the kind of painting the
>UNTRAINED EYE will quickly dismiss.
The usual BS about trained eyes. Only those with properly trained eyes
should read the descriptions here otherwise they will only get the
clear meaning of the first sentence.
> But upon close examination, The
>Blue Vase is a veritable painting clinic.
---for Artspeakers.
> Not as well known as many
>"classic" Cezannes, The Blue Vase strikes A WONDERFUL BALANCE BETWEEN
>THE SERIOUSNESS of Cezanne's FORMALIST ETHIC AND A CERTAIN
>PLAYFULNESS and spontaneity which is sometimes missing in his later works.
>The arangement of the still life objects, at first glance, seems terribly unsatisfying.
--- and utterly childish and stupid which further glances will readily
confirm.
>Everything is too spread out, dispersed rather
>than gathered into a pleasing arrangement.
---because of the poor composition, lack of imigination and horrible
technique.
>The placement of the plate
>behind the vase, the pairing of the two fruit on the right, as well as
>the central pair of vase and apple, all seem too obviously artificial,
>one might say INSISTENTLY ARTIFICIAL.But this INSISTENCE draws our >attention;
> Cezanne is giving us a key to
>the color relations which he uses throughout the picture. The three
>apples form a kind of "spectrum," defining the range of warm tones.
Note that the third apple is really a badly drawn potato.
>This leads us to the strong blue of the vase, the dominant color of
>the painting, and up to the green of the leaves. So the compostion
>tells us in a direct way that one important aspect of the picture is
>the contrast of warm and cool tones within this prescribed range. At
>close range, we see these interactions of warm and cool in every part
>of the painting.
This paragraph is pure baloney. "We see these interactions of warm
and cool" in practically every painting so what?
>
>Looking at the blue, for example, we easily see the strong, cold blue
>of the vase leading upward TO THE MORE ATMOSPHERIC BLUE of the
>background. But if we look closely at the yellow expanse of table, we
>see numerous subtle touches of blue here, as well. Focusing on the
>section of table between the vase and the bottle we see touches of
>BLUE WHICH VERIAGATE THE HUE AND "COOL OFF" THE YELLOW. They also
>lead our eye on little journeys away from and back to the vase.
>Starting from the vase, our eye notices a relatively strong touch of
>blue near the bottle. Notice that Cezanne has placed this patch away
>from the vase (too far to work as reflected light), but not so far as
>to make a difficult leap for the eye; we can comfortably take in both
>areas of blue across the yellow with a single glance. From this patch
>WE EASILY MOVE on to the mottled green and blue shadow of the bottle.
>As a representational element, this shadow is inadequate; it has
>neither the shape nor the color of a "real" shadow. But Cezanne is
>using it here merely as an excuse to introduce cool tones into the
>table. Following the line of the shadow we come to A SORT OF
>INTERSECTION; we can go up, along the vertical which is apparently a
>glass behind the bottle, we can continue straight to the blue
>background (which is full of more mottled, subtle tones to follow), or
>we can move to the right and follow the blue edge of the plate back to
>the vase. On the plate, Cezanne IS USING BLUE OSTENSIBLY as reflected
>light from the bottle. But as with the shadow, its true purpose is
>purely formal; it is a way to extend the blue of the vase, reaching
>out to the blue of the shadow, and giving our eye a path to follow.
>
>FROM THE MINUTE TO THE MACRO, CEZANNE CREATES THE SAME KIND >OF
>MOVEMENT WITH THE MAJOR RED ELEMENTS. The fruit form a horizontal
>line which points toward the red bottle. The jump from fruit to
>bottle is a bit too far, so Cezanne has painted the table's base in
>red, which stretches across the entire base of the painting. This
>helps EXPLAIN the table's distorted shape;
Really?
>if the table continued at
>its diagonal angle (from right to left) the red base would be cut off
>before it reached the bottle, so Cezanne "bends" the table. The need
>to connect the red elements takes preference over "accurate"
>representation.
Sure! Seems more like the diagonal line is part of the back wall and
the end of the table is really just conventionally behind the plate
(if that's what you want to call it).
>
>The main compositional lines of the painting are roughly horizontal
>and vertical, yet Cezanne plays with us here as well, avoiding a
>"squared" composition with the odd tilt of the vase, the bent table,
>the diagonal line cutting behind the vase. It's difficult to read the
>background; is the wall facing us squarely or receding at an angle?
>Does the yellow vertical represent a window frame? As representation
>these forms are ambiguous and a little frustrating for a viewer who
>expects the artist to paint "accurately."
---they aren't ambiguous. Every object can be identified but they all
the have the very common look of student incompetent sloppiness.
> However, within the
>Structure of the painting, these odd lines create A UNIQUE SENSE OF
>SHALLOW SPACE. The horizontal line behind the vase, if read according
>to the traditional rules of perspective, indicate that the wall is
>receding away to the left of the picture. Yet the flatness of the
>color and lack of other visual cues makes the wall appear squared; at
>one moment the wall is receding, at the next we see a squared flat
>surface. We cannot resolve this ambiguity, and we are left with the
>reality of the flat painting surface.
No, we are stuck with the reality of the flat painting surface which
is very close to what he had before he started.
> On the one hand, Cezanne seems
>to be rejecting the "illusion" of space, but at the same time he has
>created a different kind of space on his own terms.
There is no illusion of space anywhere.
Todd Strickland
Anyone else?
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
reason:
> an illustrator attempts to copy nature, to have his painting look as
much
> like the observed scene as possible. When he is finished, he has a
copy of
> something that already exists. The artist, however, uses the forms in
front
> of him as *formal devices*. This means that any vases, figures, trees,
> etc., are present to serve in the creation of an entirely new object:
a
> work of art. The distortions help create an effective composition.
That
> they are not 'realistic' is of no consequence; the work of art is not
> intended to be compared to an outside reference (Indeed, this is what
> separates art from illustration: an illustration must be faithful to
the
> outside world - 'doesn't that look just like Aunt Harriet' - while a
work
> of art refers only to itself.)
>
You make an important point, and I agree, up to a point. Surely a
painting is an abstraction from a view of the world and it communicates
something about that view. Lucien Freud's painting of Aunt Harriet would
indeed look like Aunt Harriet, rather too much like her her nieces might
complain, but this doesn't stop it being a work of art, nor being an
abstraction from Aunt Harriet at the same time as being representational
of Aunt Harriet in a way that a photograph or technical drawing
illustration or Arno-side portratists result could never hope to be.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
"There is no illusion of space anywhere."
I have argued on previous occasions that people who follow the continuous
space theory have a difficult time understanding shallow space theory, and
it is shallow space theory that Cezanne is exploring.
It is impossible for Mani to understand anything other than his continuous
space theory.
This would normally be acceptable but he combines it with a very aggressive
and pompous disposition. In my poem "Louis Riel the Metis" I argue that
Thomas Scott was hung because he possessed Mani's type of temperament.
Mani needs everyone to accept his view of the world because anyone who
disagrees with him represents a threat to his belief. He cannot accept the
existence of two contradictory ideas. Or in our terms he cannot deal with
complementality.
It is interesting to note that Cezanne used more colour than the big "B". Is
there something in that? Is this a conflict between the drab grey brown
people and the colourful artzy fartzie people?
keith
P.S. I can see my imagination having fun with this idea. After all Lord of
the Rings is a metaphor for human interaction.
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c506518...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
>I will paste a simple quote from Mani
>"There is no illusion of space anywhere."
And I repeat There is no illusion of space anywhere.
>I have argued on previous occasions that people who follow the continuous
>space theory have a difficult time understanding shallow space theory, and
>it is shallow space theory that Cezanne is exploring.
Just state the shallow space theory and we'll take it from there.
>It is impossible for Mani to understand anything other than his continuous
>space theory.
Just state the theory and hold the crap. If you understand it just
state it. You can also state the continuous space theory, whatever
that is.
I suspect that like Dale and Marilyn all he'll say is you can't
understand blah blah.
>This would normally be acceptable but he combines it with a very aggressive
>and pompous disposition.
I've read forty years of this sort of stuff without a whiff of
decent. As to pompous, its the author who claims to know Cezanne's
intentions.
>Mani needs everyone to accept his view of the world because anyone who
>disagrees with him represents a threat to his belief.
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHETHER ANYONE ACCEPTS MY VIEWS. No views here
threaten much of anything; yours or mine.
>It is interesting to note that Cezanne used more colour than the big "B".
Which goes to show that you have probably never even seen a
Bouguereau. It is really too bad that we can't show pictures on this
conference.
Cezanne's color in my opinion is miserable. I suspect that he got
better color on his pants when he painted.
>Is
>there something in that? Is this a conflict between the drab grey brown
>people and the colourful artzy fartzie people?
Drab brown-- most of Cezanne's portraits, his miserable sketches, and
the crap you would call leaves in the Blue Vase. I think the color in
that painting is art school patzer.
And I repeat
The painting itself is ordinary conventional subject matter by
someone on sub-student level. If the painting wasn't by Cezanne and
hung on some obscure art school wall instead of the Louvre it would
hardly evoke a glance.
And Strickland admitted:
>>Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
>>drawing,
He then repeated the pompous bullshit about the "UNTRAINED EYE." As if
his eye is better TRAINED than that of others, even your's perhaps.
and he wrote:
>> >if the table continued at
>> >its diagonal angle (from right to left) the red base would be cut off
>> >before it reached the bottle, so Cezanne "bends" the table. The need
>> >to connect the red elements takes preference over "accurate"
>> >representation.
>>
Sure! Seems more like the diagonal line is part of the back wall and
the end of the table is really just conventionally behind the plate
(if that's what you want to call it). Perhaps Strickland should go in
for some added eye training.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Surely a
> > painting is an abstraction from a view of the world and it
communicates
> > something about that view. Lucien Freud's painting of Aunt Harriet
would
> > indeed look like Aunt Harriet, rather too much like her her nieces
might
> > complain, but this doesn't stop it being a work of art, nor being an
> > abstraction from Aunt Harriet at the same time as being
representational
> > of Aunt Harriet in a way that a photograph or technical drawing
> > illustration or Arno-side portratists result could never hope to be.
>
but
> felt it would only present too much information. Indeed, when Vermeer
or
> Velasquez or other masters painted Aunt Harriet, they produced
something
> that was both a picture (illustration) *and* a painting. No mean
trick!
>
No mean trick but certainly a reasonable aim in producing fine art. The
best, like Freud, produce not only a painting of Aunt Harriet herself,
but also a painting of all our Aunt Harriets. I would love to see the
recent painting of the Queen, a small painting by all accounts. I have
seen a good reproduction of it and find it more sympathetic than any
previous image I have seen of her. In fact, looking at his painting I
wonder, for the first time ever, if I might actually like the woman! Its
odd that an image that has been castigated for being unkind is, to me at
any rate, kind in the extreme as it displays herself, her humanity and
her approach to the human condition. It makes me feel that we are very
much on the same planet.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "There is no illusion of space anywhere."
>
> I have argued on previous occasions that people who follow the
continuous
> space theory have a difficult time understanding shallow space theory,
and
> it is shallow space theory that Cezanne is exploring.
>
> It is impossible for Mani to understand anything other than his
continuous
> space theory.
>
Lets say that Mani, like the rest of us, is actually interested to learn
and understand the world - if he were given sufficient evidence that he
was wrong he would, like you or I, concede defeat and rethink his
position.
So, if that is accepted as likely, then, rather than teasing poor Mani
and saying that he can't understand (or worse, that it is impossible for
him to understand), why not try to explain, in terms that he would
understand, the difference between shallow and continuous space theory.
I think that there is a danger of pandering to Mani's paranoia and
making modern art something only understandable to 'modern art clones'.
After all, if these two theories have value, or different values, then
there is a benefit in explaining how they differ, what flows from the
difference and, maybe, how the application of shallow space theory might
help classically minded painters, artists, or theorists, to widen their
vision.
Isn't it worth a try?
Todd Strickland
----- Original Message -----
From: "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: Cezanne's "The Blue Vase"
> I hope I have not missed a post, but looking at my small copy of
> The Blue Vase, I was struck by the obvious distortion of vertical,
> both in the vase and repeated in the window frame(?).
> Also there seems to be a deliberate effort to distort perspective.
> That Cezanne did this deliberately seems to me to be obvious, but
> his reasons and the effect puzzle me.
Hi Neil.
I don't have any kind of final answer on this question, but here are a few
more thoughts about it.
Notwithstanding Mani's opinion to the contrary, Cezanne indeed does create a
shallow sense of depth in this picture, without using the conventional tool
of linear perspective too much. As I noted in my original post, the
diagonal line which runs behind the vase suggests a receding wall, while the
relatively simple blue background suggests a "squared" wall. The eye wants
to look into the picture, following that line, but before it gets too far
the flat surface of the blue "jumps" forward, pushing the eye back; the
space becomes ambiguous, but it also becomes active. Cezanne is careful NOT
to overdo it with the perspective; he doesn't want the viewer to "see
through" the invisible "window" of the painting surface, but rather to be
aware of that surface, with all it's forms, colors, brushmarks, even its
flaws, if there be any. Cezanne is a painter, not an illusionist.
Line implies motion, and our eye tends to move along lines. The diagonal
behind the vase moves from lower right to upper left, and as a perspective
line the upper left would be deeper into the perspective space. If Cezanne
had painted the vetical line of the window frame straight up, it would too
much emphasize the diagonal blue line as a perspective line, enhancing the
sense of depth more than Cezanne wished. By distorting that window frame
Cezanne achieves two aims; the blue line looses some of its quality of
depth, and the window frame looses some of its quality of representation.
They both become simply forms on a flat painting surface (but without
completely giving up their illustrative qualities). Same with the tilted
vase; if it stands straight up it would be too assertive against these other
tilting lines; it would appear as the "real" object "in front of" this
distorted "background." The vase, too, is made to admit its status as a
simple, painted form on a flat canvas, and to harmonize with the leftward
moving lines.
With all these tilting elements moving from right to left, and with the
shallow perspective space getting deeper to the left, the picture verges on
loosing its balance. We feel like the picture is falling over. To
compensate for this Cezanne gives us the outdoor view through the window.
It's just a sliver, and there is no detail in the scene, but the viewer
still feels that the "out there" through the window is deeper than the "in
here" at the left of the picture. This pulls the picture back into balance,
but not very securely. There is an uneasy struggle between the elements
which would pull the picture to the left, and those that pull to the right.
Cezanne also gives us the bottle on the left, the one true vertical of the
painting, which "stops" the diagonals from running off the left edge of the
picture.
The effect of all this is a very unique and dynamic sense of space (I can
already hear Mani accusing me of more artspeak, but look at the picture
again and see if you can't sense that the space IS dynamic; I know it's
especially hard just looking at small reproductions in a book, or a computer
screen, but I'm sure your aware of what a difference seeing actually oil
color can make; use your imagination and try to sense what the original
might look like, bright and vibrant). In my opinion, this picture is an
excellent primer on Cubist space; after getting a feel for what Cezanne does
here take a look at some Analytical Cubist paintings and I think you'll find
some affinity.
> I have come across a number of modern watercolour paintings which
> seem to deliberately distort the vertical, and some in 'how I do it'
books,
> without any explanation.
> The choice of a still life composition is guaranteed to give me a yawn,
> even those painters who try to put in movement by introducing splashed
water
> and fallen petals. No such 'life' here.
> In layman's terms, please, am I wrong in trying to judge such a work as I
do
> with visually realistic works, or is there a different set of rules by
which
> 'modern' works are to be judged?
In my opinion, it's not a question of a different set of rules, or a
different "language" of Modern art (although I definitely feel there is a
language of visual art, in general). The rules are the same, just different
points of emphasis. All of these formal techniques which I've talked about
were in use by all of the great masters; but Cezanne made them much more
explicit, much more the focus of his art. The old masters didn't want their
viewers to notice these things too much, but for Cezanne, the artist's craft
is to use these elements, so why hide them? It is, afterall, the forms,
colors, and lines which make up the beauty in art.
> Is it considered that the roughness with which most of his paintings were
> produced are an enhancement? If he had taken more time in the studio as
> did Constable with some of his(reluctantly), would his paintings have had
> more artistic worth?
It isn't a question of better or worse, just a question of style; that was
his style. I wouldn't say that an artist who spends more time polishing his
works is necessarily better or worse. The value of the individual quality
of one's style can't be overemphasized.
> Maybe he and all the other Impressionists and Moderns
> were frightened of being compared to Ingres?
I don't think so, although Ingres (as well as all the other great masters)
have always been acknowledged as great by most modern artists.
Todd Strickland
Lauri Levanto
> Lets be reasonable here, if you like, lets be more than reasonable.
>
> Lets say that Mani, like the rest of us, is actually interested to learn
> and understand the world -
And what you think could be sufficient evidence *for Mani*?
> if he were given sufficient evidence that he
> was wrong he would, like you or I, concede defeat and rethink his
> position.
>
During all these years, have you ever seen it happen.
Mani has his mission to fight windmills. I admire his perseverance.
Let us give him peace to do that. Someone was worried about misinformation.
It might be polite, say bimonthly, to publish some background for the
newbies
-lauri
Frida Wails
>Notwithstanding Mani's opinion to the contrary, Cezanne indeed does create a
>shallow sense of depth in this picture, without using the conventional tool
>of linear perspective too much. As I
As a class requirement, I once wrote a personal analyses
of one of Cezanne's paintings. It was a small work that
looked as if it might have been a preparatory sketch for
a later work - but who knows. One of the things I commented
on was the 'shallow depth of field.' This was a painting
of a hill in the country with scattered buildings in the
middle ground. I also noticed a specific horizontal division,
as if Cezanne had intended to convey three different zones
to the painting - foreground field, middle ground houses,
and background hill/sky. Another thing that was noticeable
to me was the extreme economy of brush strokes with which
Cezanne was able to convey the feeling of a completed work.
I know that's a contradiction, since I thought this looked
like a preparatory sketch, but the museum in which the
painting hung presented it as if it were a finished work,
and therefore I assume it was. Those houses were nothing
more than a single brush stroke for each - roof and wall(s).
While the sketchiness of the style was pronounced, one
still had the feeling of a completed scene.
Peter H.M. Brooks
with
> most people. But Mani isn't most people. Most of us here began by
thinking
> that we could reason with him, explain what he didn't understand,
broaden
> his horizons, etc.
>
I know. I was being a little tongue in cheek there. What I really meant
was that, since this group is kept in archives, it would be useful to
describe the differences for people how may come looking - using Mani as
the object of the lesson would simply be a hat to hang that on. Who
knows, he might read and learn anyway.
>
> Mani is a kook - a possessed little guy with a major axe to grind.
> Reasoning with him is impossible. Can you imagine arguing with a
religious
> fundamentalist about evolution, or an astrologer about how human
> temperament is acquired? Same thing. Can you imagine the time and
effort he
> has taken to build his website, write his book, and actually make
paintings
> satirizing modern art? You aren't going to budge this guy - one
defining
> characteristic of kooks: they don't change. Ever.
>
Yes, I do agree with you, in the main. However I am an optimist and I
don't place many people outside the ambit of reason.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Todd Strickland <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
> flaws, if there be any. Cezanne is a painter, not an illusionist.
>
[nice discussion deleted]
I do wonder about that distinction. Surely the essence of any painter,
other than a house painter [and even then..], is illusion. After all, it
is a flat surface, not a landscape, portrait or abstract, so anything
that pretends that it isn't is an illusion
Frida Wails
>
>Cezanne was not the only one. One of the hallmarks of modernism is a
>shallow space - as modernism progressed, from about Manet forward, the rear
>of the picture plane moved forward.
Too true, but of course that was accompanied
by a de-emphasis on representation too. The
two go hand in glove if we believe there was
a logical progression in the "modernist" movement.
mdeli
>Mani is a kook - a possessed little guy with a major axe to grind.
>Reasoning with him is impossible. Can you imagine arguing with a religious
>fundamentalist about evolution, or an astrologer about how human
>temperament is acquired? Same thing.
> Most of us here began by thinking
>that we could reason with him, explain what he didn't understand, broaden
>his horizons, etc.
Sounds like convert seeking fundamentalism me. How about also adding
some of your psychobabble.
>Can you imagine the time and effort he
>has taken to build his website, write his book, and actually make paintings
>satirizing modern art?
As to time, can you imagine how little time it takes Fox to crank out
one of his schmiers and how many beers he drank in between?
>You aren't going to budge this guy - one defining
>characteristic of kooks: they don't change. Ever.
Sounds like the kvetsching of a Modern Academic art fundamentalist who
is pissed off at non-believers.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
repro has psychological depth looking out through the brush strokes.
Fantastic work.
keith (the colourful artzy fartzy)
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a2s8vu$kp$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
the
> repro has psychological depth looking out through the brush strokes.
> Fantastic work.
>
see such bold brush strokes on large paintings.
mdeli
Gerhard Richter: An Artist Beyond Isms By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN NY Times
BS art critic ---I write about a few snippets
After a bit of introduction the Artspeak begins
>Since the mid-60's, Richter has been celebrated and attacked, pretty much equally, for the extreme physical precision, maddening opacity and daunting intellectual quality of his work, which switch-hits, sometimes almost as if arbitrarily, between realism and abstraction. (---snip) The abstractions sometimes perversely turn improvisational gestures into deliberate, mechanical-looking, freeze-dried marks. They have the quality of blue ice, pristine and cool. Richter's paintings are disciplined, contradictory, strange, melancholic, even sometimes morbid.
And the Enron talk begins: (read about how blue chip Modern Art is
created on my web site.)
>And they are among the great works of the postwar era. (&) Richter's reputation is as a prolific, tricky virtuoso, a deliberately elusive Conceptualist who, it is often said, paints only to prove that painting is dead.
Which shows that this guy has nothing much to say
>Spending time with Richter, talking to him, you discover that far from being sterile or evasive, he is at heart a traditionalist: in a completely unsentimental, cold-eyed way, he is a true believer in painting.
", he is a true believer in painting. " This should reassure all here
that his stuff is really worth millions.
More Artspeak
>His work asks people to think freshly and not romantically about control versus freedom, austerity versus exuberance, faith versus skepticism: about what we can trust in what we see. It raises questions about contemporary politics and German history, which Richter doesn't presume to answer.
I believe Richter work raises questions about quality in all Modern
Academic Art.
>Thirty years ago, Richter painted 48 black-and-white portrait heads copied straight from an old German encyclopedia. The subjects included Thomas Mann, Puccini, William James and Kafka. Dead white males. A pantheon of dour faces.
I saw all the originals and found them utterly stupid incompetent
third rate student knockouts of no interest whatever except perhaps to
art vendors pushing another Modern Art nobody to stardom.
>Richter has never said much about these pictures,
A wise move
>''Idiots can do what I do,'' he says, although of course he doesn't really think so.
I think he does.
''When I first started to do this in the 60's, people laughed. I
clearly showed that I painted from photographs. It seemed so juvenile.
The provocation was purely formal -- that I was making paintings like
photographs.
He hasn't the skill to copy a photo. And if he weren't hyped up by
dealers critics and curators who are making tubs of money on his
stuff, people still wouldn't laugh but would consider it garbage.
>"What I have is not facility, because this really doesn't take skill."
Right on!
>I have an eye.
Most have two.
>I couldn't make a drawing of you sitting here right now. I would love to have that ability, in the same way that I would love to play the piano. Virtuosity is a precondition for pianists, but in addition you have to be good. These are not the same thing. This is the big problem for painting today, the terrible side of modern art, because you can now do anything and simply declare it to be art -- with no sense of quality.''
The guy is a realist! Far more intelligent and cleaver than the boob
who wrote the article!
>In the mid-60's, Richter began painting color charts. They were like the paint charts in hardware stores, only bigger, and the colors were not in any particular order. The charts looked Pop and also Minimalist, but they weren't either, precisely.
Precisely?
>He starts with splashes of color or some geometric composition -- usually something gaudy and generic. Then he employs homemade wood-and-plexiglass squeegees to wipe and drag the paint. The process entails repeatedly building up and wiping off. The effects change depending on where and how he applies pressure with the squeegee. He has become very adept at this, but there is still an element of chance involved. He also pulls brushes through the wiped surface -- fine boar's hair brushes -- and in the end the pictures always turn out to look excruciatingly subtle and calculated.
Unlike this twit critic, Richter knows a bit more as he learned a
little about drawing. Richter's better abstractions have a slightly
three-dimensional look. No big deal. Lots of no-name abstractionist do
the same, but it is a far cry from the flat-as-a-board AE patzers that
are still in fashion. After all critics can't push every schmierer
they have to pick and choose.
Snip-the rest--I 'd go on if the NY Times paid me.
Michael Kimmelman is the chief art critic of The New York Times. He
has written recently for the magazine about Ellsworth Kelly, Bridget
Riley and Matthew Barney.
Try reading his stupidity on Kelly
mdeli
More Artspeak
A wise move
I think he does.
Right on!
>I have an eye.
Most have two.
Precisely?
...no skill no art
mdeli
>
>Notwithstanding Mani's opinion to the contrary, Cezanne indeed does create a
>shallow sense of depth in this picture, without using the conventional tool
>of linear perspective too much.
Its not contrary to my opinion. The depth is definitely shallow as
shallow as the depth in most art student work and child drawing.
Cezanne doesn't use perspective because he didn't know perspective or
how to draw.
You said,
>>Deceptively simple, almost naive in its stiff composition and "bad"
>>drawing,
Couldn't agree more!
> As I noted in my original post, the
>diagonal line which runs behind the vase suggests a receding wall, while the
>relatively simple blue background suggests a "squared" wall. The eye wants
>to look into the picture, following that line, but before it gets too far
>the flat surface of the blue "jumps" forward, pushing the eye back; the
>space becomes ambiguous, but it also becomes active.
I presume this Artspeak derives from your advanced eye training.
> Cezanne is careful NOT
>to overdo it with the perspective; he doesn't want the viewer to "see
>through" the invisible "window" of the painting surface, but rather to be
>aware of that surface, with all it's forms, colors, brushmarks, even its
>flaws, if there be any. Cezanne is a painter, not an illusionist.
>
>Line implies motion, and our eye tends to move along lines The diagonal
>behind the vase moves from lower right to upper left, and as a perspective
>line the upper left would be deeper into the perspective space. If Cezanne
>had painted the vetical line of the window frame straight up, it would too
>much emphasize the diagonal blue line as a perspective line, enhancing the
>sense of depth more than Cezanne wished.
Strickland apparently knows what Cezanne wished. I suspect Cezanne
often wished he could draw. It never helped much.
> By distorting that window frame
It isn't distorted, the window fame is a cockeyed and schmiery
rectangle with no color variation and about as interesting as the
work of a five year old.
>Cezanne achieves two aims; the blue line looses some of its quality of
>depth, and the window frame looses some of its quality of representation.
It doesn't lose anything because there was nothing there in the first
place.
>They both become simply forms on a flat painting surface (but without
>completely giving up their illustrative qualities). Same with the tilted
>vase; if it stands straight up it would be too assertive against these other
>tilting lines; it would appear as the "real" object "in front of" this
>distorted "background." The vase, too, is made to admit its status as a
>simple, painted form on a flat canvas, and to harmonize with the leftward
>moving lines.
Great last sentence! "The vase, too, is made to admit---" If you can
get to AK the right people and expand your article five times you
might make Artforum.
>
>With all these tilting elements moving from right to left, and with the
>shallow perspective space getting deeper to the left, the picture verges on
>loosing its balance. We feel like the picture is falling over. To
>compensate for this Cezanne gives us the outdoor view through the window.
>It's just a sliver, and there is no detail in the scene, but the viewer
>still feels that the "out there" through the window is deeper than the "in
>here" at the left of the picture. This pulls the picture back into balance,
>but not very securely. There is an uneasy struggle between the elements
>which would pull the picture to the left, and those that pull to the right.
>Cezanne also gives us the bottle on the left, the one true vertical of the
>painting, which "stops" the diagonals from running off the left edge of the
>picture.
This is the usual art school bullshit attempting to justify a fifth
rate painting. It is the same sort of BS which one is trained to use
to excuse their incompetent student product. It can be applied to any
painting and takes up a lot of slack time in most art schools.
>The effect of all this is a very unique and dynamic sense of space
Its as unique as a product of a below average art school inmate which
made it into the museum..
> (I can
>already hear Mani accusing me of more artspeak, but look at the picture
>again and see if you can't sense that the space IS dynamic;
"That the space IS dynamic." fair Artspeak but dull. Use something
more exciting like parabolic ecstatic or protoplasmic, fifth
dimensional or transcendental. Try these words in your next treatise
they will spruce up your Artspeak and excite Fox and company. Also
mention James Joyce and Gertrude Stein and the list of most
intellectuals you know of, it works wonders on artzy fartzies.
>I know it's
>especially hard just looking at small reproductions in a book, or a computer
>screen, but I'm sure your aware of what a difference seeing actually oil
>color can make; use your imagination and try to sense what the original
>might look like, bright and vibrant).
Believe me the original looks even worse. When it looks lousy in
reproduction its always worse in the original. Check it out the next
time you visit Paris.
>In my opinion, this picture is an
>excellent primer on Cubist space; after getting a feel for what Cezanne does
>here take a look at some Analytical Cubist paintings and I think you'll find
>some affinity.
>
>> I have come across a number of modern watercolour paintings which
>> seem to deliberately distort the vertical, and some in 'how I do it'
>books without any explanation.
What's to explain. Most texts won't write your sort of prattle because
it explains nothing.
>> In layman's terms, please, am I wrong in trying to judge such a work as I
>do with visually realistic works, or is there a different set of rules by
>which 'modern' works are to be judged?
Judge them any way you wish but expect criticism.
>In my opinion, it's not a question of a different set of rules, or a
>different "language" of Modern art (although I definitely feel there is a
>language of visual art, in general). The rules are the same, just different
>points of emphasis.
What rules?
>All of these formal techniques which I've talked about
>were in use by all of the great masters;
You didn't mention any formal techniques except perspective which
Cezanne didn't know.
>but Cezanne made them much more
>explicit, much more the focus of his art. The old masters didn't want their
>viewers to notice these things too much,
What's that supposed to mean? Its people like Fox who don't want to
people to notice things too much. He achieves this admirably by
inhabiting his paintings with hardly anything. In fact I doubt that
most people notice anything at all.
> but for Cezanne, the artist's craft
>is to use these elements, so why hide them? It is, afterall, the forms,
>colors, and lines which make up the beauty in art.
Note the beauty of the schmiered blotched leaves, the plate behind the
vase and the thing next to it.
>> Is it considered that the roughness with which most of his paintings were
>> produced are an enhancement? If he had taken more time in the studio as
>> did Constable with some of his(reluctantly), would his paintings have had
>> more artistic worth?
He spent a lot of time painting over and over the paint got thicker
and thicker but it didn't help.
>It isn't a question of better or worse, just a question of style; that was
>his style.
All art is a question of better and worse.
> I wouldn't say that an artist who spends more time polishing his
>works is necessarily better or worse. The value of the individual quality
>of one's style can't be overemphasized.
I have my doubts that Cezanne could polish his shoes.
discussion
Hi Todd, I am still considering the points you have made, but
first would tell me if Cezanne was
a) a sophisticated, intelligent artist who was very self aware, and
wished to make the very points you have detected in this work,
or
b) an artist who painted all this by 'feel'?
I feel that (totally) a) is too cold and analytical a method to produce
great
art as I understand it. `
I know that I have said that I am not interested in still life, but surely
there is
still something more to say about a composition than purely it's optical
effect argument?
Is there anything to be understood from his bold outlines? I see
he did not always use this.
Is it possible to be a Cezanne and produce a work that would both
do the above (an example of early Modern?) yet exist as a work
admired for it's more traditional 'look'? Or is the work of Modernists
necessarily non realistic?
N.H
p.s.
Art Critic Gustave Geffroy in Le Journal:-
"He is a great seeker after truth, fiery and naive, austere and subtle.
He will get to the Louvre."
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:a2sd7...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com>
<snipped<
> Hi Neil.
>
> I don't have any kind of final answer on this question, but here are a few
> more thoughts about it.
>Big snip<
> Todd Strickland
>
Todd Strickland
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:xqZ48.176$425.4...@newsr2.u-net.net...
> [Cezanne haters please ignore this post]
>
> Hi Todd, I am still considering the points you have made, but
> first would tell me if Cezanne was
> a) a sophisticated, intelligent artist who was very self aware, and
> wished to make the very points you have detected in this work,
> or
> b) an artist who painted all this by 'feel'?
I don't know. I couldn't even hazard a guess how much he intellectualized
his approach and how much was painted by feel. Probably a combination of
both.
> I feel that (totally) a) is too cold and analytical a method to produce
> great
> art as I understand it. `
> I know that I have said that I am not interested in still life, but surely
> there is
> still something more to say about a composition than purely it's optical
> effect argument?
> Is there anything to be understood from his bold outlines? I see
> he did not always use this.
If my explanation comes across as cold and analytical, please don't hold
that against Cezanne ;-)
I think Cezanne used different techniques to a more or less degree in
different pictures. One thing that really defines Cezanne as a master, in
my (and others') opinion is the range of techniques and styles he uses;
sometimes his painting surfaces are heavily impastoed, other times they look
like watercolor wash paintings; sometimes his colors are dark and broken,
other times they are pure and bright; sometimes he emphasizes line and
drawing, other times he emphasizes impressionistic light effects. No one
painting can sum up all that Cezanne is about. You can read some good Meyer
Schapiro articles on this point at Mark Harden's Artchive web site.
> Is it possible to be a Cezanne and produce a work that would both
> do the above (an example of early Modern?) yet exist as a work
> admired for it's more traditional 'look'? Or is the work of Modernists
> necessarily non realistic?
> N.H
I think it's definitely possible; I don't think Modern works are necessarily
non-realistic. Think of Dali, Tanguy, the "New Objectivism" school of
German painting; in the Postmodern era we have Ralph Goings, Richard Estes,
Gerhardt Richter, Lucian Freud, Claudio Bravo. If your inclinations as an
artist are toward realism, don't let anyone tell you that makes your work
passe. At the same time, stay open to other "non-realistic" styles; they
are equally valid.
Todd Strickland
Lauri Levanto
Ueber die Malerie Cesanne desribes quite deeply
his thoughts and intentions. The fact that he spent
so much time painting Mt Victoire again and again
is one clue to his contemplating method.
Of course it hard to say anuthing about his writings.
He had the poet Rainer Maria Rilke as secretary,
so the words are not necessarily Cesanne's own
all the way.
-lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I think Cezanne used different techniques to a more or less degree in
> different pictures. One thing that really defines Cezanne as a
master, in
> my (and others') opinion is the range of techniques and styles he
uses;
> sometimes his painting surfaces are heavily impastoed, other times
they look
> like watercolor wash paintings; sometimes his colors are dark and
broken,
> other times they are pure and bright; sometimes he emphasizes line and
> drawing, other times he emphasizes impressionistic light effects. No
one
> painting can sum up all that Cezanne is about.
>
I'd agree with that. However, I should point out, that I have
encountered at least one 'academically trained' person [I'll leave it at
that] who would claim that the above meant that he hadn't 'found his
style'!
Todd Strickland
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:xqZ48.176$425.4...@newsr2.u-net.net...
> Is it possible to be a Cezanne and produce a work that would both
> do the above (an example of early Modern?) yet exist as a work
> admired for it's more traditional 'look'? Or is the work of Modernists
> necessarily non realistic?
> N.H
Neil,
Here's a great quote from Courbet which adresses your desire to fuse the
traditional with the modern:
"I have studied outside the system and without prejudice, the art of the
ancients and the art of the moderns. I no more wanted to imitate the one
than to copy the other; nor, furthermore, was it my intention to attain the
trivial goal of 'art for art's sake.' No! I simply wanted to draw forth
from a complete acquaintance with tradition the reasoned and independent
consciousness of my own individuality. To know in order to be able to
create, that was my idea. To be in a position to translate the customs, the
ideas, the appearance of my epoch, according to my own estimation; to be not
only a painter, but a man as well; in short, to create a living art--this
was my goal."
Pretty inspirational stuff, eh?
Todd Strickland