Cezanne Perspective
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
The quote below appears to deal with
landscape - He also dealt with still
life. His main concern is to set up
tension between plastic form and flat
surface. His landscapes are similar to
his still life works in the use of
shallow space, with a few modifications
because he is out doors and he still
tries to play with tension between
plastic and flat shapes.
One of the problems we encounter is
trying to determine if he is talking
about traditional perspective, or is he
speaking of the old system of building
plastic form using ovoides. The sphere
and the cone produce ovoids. Ovoids
derive their energy from their centers,
radiating outwards. Titian used this
system as a kind of primordial substance
out of which plastic form would by sheer
will of the artist create itself.
Complex topological design problems
occur when using ovids - it will be one
of my future essays.
This is a very complex process, so in
the end, which is it, traditional liner
and aerial perspective, or ovoids? From
looking at his work for many years, I
chose ovoids - perspective, both linear
and aerial, is to my way of thinking,
not what he was seriously using.
Form realization theory states that
realized form is perceived from the
center not from the edge - as I said -
a future essay.
your humble servant
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Sharon Barcone wrote:
> I quote from his own words in a letter of April 15, 1904 to Emile
Bernard;
>
> "May I repeat what I told you here: treat nature in terms of the
cylinder,
> the sphere, the cone, everything in proper perspective so that each side
of
> an object or a plane is directed towards a central point. Lines parallel
to
> the horizon give breadth, that is a section of nature, or if you prefer,
of
> the spectacle that the Pater Omnipotens Aeterne Deus spreads out before
our
> eyes. Lines perpendicular to this horizon give depth. But nature for us
men
> is more depth than surface, whence the need of introducing into our light
> vibrations, represented by reds and yellows, and a sufficient amount of
blue
> to give the impression of air."
>
> This sounds to me like an artist concerned with both traditional linear
and
> aerial perspective. That is something to my mind he did not accomplish
very
> well.
Sharon Barcone
remarks include "But nature for us men is more depth than surface".
I will include a further quote from Cezanne also from a letter to Emile
Bernard dated July 25th, 1904;
"I mean to say that in an orange, an apple, a bowl, a head, there is a
culminating point: and this point is always - in spite of the tremendous
effect of light and shade and colorful sensations- the closest to our eye,
the edges of the objects recede to a center on our horizon."
sharon
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com) wrote in message
<3B217A05...@tinmangallery.com>...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob & Dale Ford
I think your main problem with Cezanne is that his paintings do not invite one
to enter them and move from one element to another (like a Titian). They live as
a whole and make their statement as such. His paintings have a simplicity and
direct quality that some love and some do not. But these paintings were very
methodically constructed. His paintings have an architectural quality to them.
Traditional perspective and palette were subverted to unity and compositional
strength.
I guess if you as an artist are more concerned with a more traditional view of
the painting as a window then his works must be troubling.
Dale
Sharon Barcone
Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B24F834...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
>Sharon
>I think your main problem with Cezanne is that his paintings do not invite
one
>to enter them and move from one element to another (like a Titian). They
live as
>a whole and make their statement as such. His paintings have a simplicity
and
>direct quality that some love and some do not. But these paintings were
very
>methodically constructed. His paintings have an architectural quality to
them.
>Traditional perspective and palette were subverted to unity and
compositional
>strength.
>
I think you misread me a bit here Dale. First I do not Believe that he was
subverting the traditional foundations of representational art. I realize
few will agree with me as this idea shakes the very foundations of modern
art that Cezanne supposeably ushered in. Your earlier post that his remarks
sound like an artist leaning towards abstraction I see differently. One of
the earliest lessons the representational artist learns is to break down the
forms they wish to represent into their geometric shapes. This being the
cone, cylinder etc. (the square and rectangle usually left out of the
equation when painting from nature). This was not for the purpose of
abstraction but to reduce the given subject to it's simplest form without
regard to detail. His palette was also not subversive but a limited one.
Nothing new to this. Cezanne used a common palette of yellow, red and blue
from which secondary and triary colors could be mixed. The problem with this
palette is that it must be properly controlled, otherwise the three
primaries mix to produce a neutral often muddy result. There is some
evidence of this in Cezanne's work.
>I guess if you as an artist are more concerned with a more traditional view
of
>the painting as a window then his works must be troubling.
>Dale
You are projecting here. IF it means anything, my preference in art runs to
Dali's nuclear/mystical approach and to the irrational. I have no problem
with two dimentional work and shallow space (I have created some of this
work myself, though for me it is not as satisifing) but from Cezanne's own
words "depth not shallow space" I do not believe that is what he was after.
And my real problem concerning Cezanne is the extremely high pedestal that
he is placed upon. Again, while few may agree with me, I present my case as
I see it. The fact that Cezanne may have led following artists to present a
new experience of vision to the world is not what I have a problem with, the
fact that he meant to do is.
sharon
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
I'll paste a quote from your note
below;" This was not for the purpose of
abstraction but to reduce the given
subject to it's simplest form without
regard to detail."
I am wondering if that reduction of
form, without regard to detail, (the
detail may photorealize it), would have
something to do with the early christian
teaching that only god could create life
- therefore painting could not be too
real.
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
P.S. must go and take my pill.
Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
> Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B24F834...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
> >Sharon
> >I think your main problem with Cezanne is that his paintings do not invite
> one
> >to enter them and move from one element to another (like a Titian). They
> live as
> >a whole and make their statement as such. His paintings have a simplicity
> and
> >direct quality that some love and some do not. But these paintings were
> very
> >methodically constructed. His paintings have an architectural quality to
> them.
> >Traditional perspective and palette were subverted to unity and
> compositional
> >strength.
> >
>
> I think you misread me a bit here Dale. First I do not Believe that he was
> subverting the traditional foundations of representational art. I realize
> few will agree with me as this idea shakes the very foundations of modern
> art that Cezanne supposeably ushered in. Your earlier post that his remarks
> sound like an artist leaning towards abstraction I see differently. One of
> the earliest lessons the representational artist learns is to break down the
> forms they wish to represent into their geometric shapes. This being the
> cone, cylinder etc. (the square and rectangle usually left out of the
> equation when painting from nature).. His palette was also not subversive but a limited one.
Bob & Dale Ford
Sharon Barcone wrote:
Dali is quite traditional, just the subject matter is irrational/mystical.
> I have no problem
> with two dimentional work and shallow space (I have created some of this
> work myself, though for me it is not as satisifing) but from Cezanne's own
> words "depth not shallow space" I do not believe that is what he was after.
> And my real problem concerning Cezanne is the extremely high pedestal that
> he is placed upon. Again, while few may agree with me, I present my case as
> I see it. The fact that Cezanne may have led following artists to present a
> new experience of vision to the world is not what I have a problem with, the
> fact that he meant to do is.
Again depth has various meanings. But yes Cezanne was very methodical in his
paintings and in his life time did not receive the acceptance he wanted. He was
puzzled by this lack of success. He desired that acceptance and he thought he
was right, so he never gave up. So yes he meant to do it. Just took him a little
longer to get the acceptance.
Dale
Sharon Barcone
>Hi Sharon:
>
>I'll paste a quote from your note
>below;" This was not for the purpose of
>abstraction but to reduce the given
>subject to it's simplest form without
>regard to detail."
>
>I am wondering if that reduction of
>form, without regard to detail, (the
>detail may photorealize it), would have
>something to do with the early christian
>teaching that only god could create life
>- therefore painting could not be too
>real.
>
>keith (the Bytown gentleman)
>
>P.S. must go and take my pill.
>
>
to paint a tree. The trunk of the tree is basically in the shape of a
cylinder. The light and shadow of the tree trunk would be expressed as it
would be on a cylinder. Details on the trunk may at first make it difficult
to understand the basic form of the truck. This is especially true for a
beginner who may be over whelmed by detail. Once it is understood that the
tree trunk is basically a cylinder and expressed as such, the details are
then added to the extent that is desired. The purpose then is to understand
the basic form of what is being painted. This is most useful to the beginner
as the seasoned artist tends to see and understand these forms more readily.
Even the photorealist must first understand the basic shape of what is being
expressed.
sharon
Sharon Barcone
Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B258B56...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
I studied Dali as a docent at the Dali Museum in St. Pete. Fla. In this case
you are mixing his two known styles. First his surreal period does indeed
run to the irrational. However the nuclear/mystical, while appearing more
traditional are based on the combining of scientific principle with the
mystical of painting. This mystical was often expressed in a kind of
conglomerate united by theme, subject, and /or Spanish tradition. For
example "Morte Vivante" translated as "Still life, fast moving" is a still
life where the objects of the still life seem to float above the table,
moving though the space. His reference was to the molecules that provide the
chemical make up of his subjects are which are always in invisible motion.
These two particular quotes of "nature is more depth than surface" and
"objects recede to a point on our horizon" lead me to believe that Cezanne
was concerned with traditional perspective. I realize you view Cezanne's
aims differently and will not agree with me. But unless I am provided with
evidence from Cezanne own words, I will not change my mind either.
I will allow you the last word on this if you like. :)
sharon
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
Let me see if I understand you:
You seem to be saying that there is an
evolutionary process in which I or early
artists, would start with the basic
cylinder type of form (ref: your example
of a tree, below), and as I progress
through various levels of skill I would
arrive at a photo-realistic form.
Am I understanding you correctly?
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Sharon Barcone
I apologize for not making this point clearer to you. One of the first
lessons beginning artists are often taught is to break down the three
dimensional form they are painting into it's most basic geometrical shape.
This is basic to understanding form. In three dimensional objects you have a
width, a height and a depth to the object. For example the outline of an
orange is a circle but the orange itself is really ball shaped, the tree
trunk is cylindrical, many flowers are cone shaped like the lily. Why is it
important to recognize the geometric shape of an object? Because this shape
will be defined by two elements if you are representing a three dimensional
object on a two dimensional surface. First by the source of light upon the
object and second by perspective. Regardless of the actual color of the
object, you will see it's body color in the lighted area of the object and a
highlight where the light directly strikes the object, as the shape of the
object moves away from the light you will have a halftone where the lighted
area meets the shadow, you will have the shaded area of the object and in
three dimensional objects there is often a lighter area in the shadow from
reflected light, finally you have a darker shadow that is cast by the object
opposite from where the light source is located.
A beginning painter will probably not be satisfied to merely paint a
cylinder to represent his tree trunk but recognizing the trunks basic form
will make it easier to find the values of shadow and light created by the
light source. Details added to the truck will be defined based on whether
the area is in shadow or light. There is nothing to say that the beginner
cannot add detail to his/her heart's content, only that it is necessary to
understand the dimentionality of the tree.
I do believe their is a kind of evolutionary process that a painter goes
through however I am not sure the putting photo-realism at top of the chain
as the most skilled level of ability is the right concept. The more skill
and experience you acquire the better you will be able to express yourself
regardless of the style you want to paint in.
The beginner should first recognize the form of the object and how the light
effects it, but the experience painted who understands form will first
recognize the values created by the light source on the form.
Once form is understood the artist must use his/her own creativity and
vision to decide how it should be represented and to what degree detail
will play a part. Most often photo-realism is a minimizing of some of the
detail but that is another discussion.
I hope I have made the point clearer.
sharon
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com) wrote in message
<3B269B8E...@tinmangallery.com>...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
I find your description interesting and
have quoted a section of it below:
"Why is it important to recognize the
geometric shape of an object? Because
this shape will be defined by two
elements if you are representing a three
dimensional object on a two dimensional
surface. First by the source of light
upon the object and second by
perspective."
I am thinking of "source of light upon
the object". Painters following the
natural lighting theory use a similar
light source for all objects within the
painting and this generally results is
many of them using some variation on
perspective theory. Form lighting, which
is a pre-scientific perspective based
lighting theory does not care where the
light comes from it follows the idea the
the sense of touch (finger running over
the surface of the object) should be
translated into a visual form.
The question now becomes: do you
differentiate between: form lighting,
natural lighting, and scientific
lighting?
Eric L Drever
from "Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> contains these words:
> These two particular quotes of "nature is more depth than surface" and
> "objects recede to a point on our horizon" lead me to believe that Cezanne
> was concerned with traditional perspective. I realize you view Cezanne's
> aims differently and will not agree with me. But unless I am provided with
> evidence from Cezanne own words, I will not change my mind either.
Normally I would agree. We should judge people in terms of what they
themselves claim they are trying to do, not some purpose that we read
into what they do.
However, I think there is a problem in doing this with Cezanne
because his attempts to express his intentions aren't convincing:
they often read like a muddle of cliches and they don't correspond
with the way he actually paints.
If you don't think much of Cezanne then it's easy to explain this: he
wanted to paint 'properly', but he couldn't. So he was OK in theory,
incompetent in practice.
I don't think that's the truth of it. I think he was successful in
practice, i.e. in painting in the way he wanted, and what he was
incompetent about was expressing his intentions in any sort of
coherent theory. This isn't uncommon.
To me the problem in judging Cezanne is that people have assumed his
letters and conversations must be profound, and they have used
phrases from them to draw conclusions about his paintings, or about
painting generally. I don't think they are profound. All we've
really got is his paintings.
mdeli
>To me the problem in judging Cezanne is that people have assumed his
>letters and conversations must be profound, and they have used
>phrases from them to draw conclusions about his paintings, or about
>painting generally. I don't think they are profound.
They are mostly rather stupid.
> All we've
>really got is his paintings.
>
Right, what counts is what's on the wall. This varies from nothing
particular but decorative ( schmiery still lifes to amateurish
landscapes), to perfectly awful ( anything with nudes and his
portraits.) His drawing is third rate and his subject matter 19th
century conventional. He is the patron saint of bad drawing only
Matisse managed to get considerably worse.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Bob & Dale Ford
Dale
Marilyn
How come we never hear from Bob?
Marilyn
Bob & Dale Ford
He is away a lot. These forums aren't really his thing anyway. Oh well maybe
you will.
Dale
Sharon Barcone
Eric L Drever wrote in message <200106141...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>The message <3b260a9a_4@newsfeeds>
> from "Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> contains these words:
>
>
>> These two particular quotes of "nature is more depth than surface" and
>> "objects recede to a point on our horizon" lead me to believe that
Cezanne
>> was concerned with traditional perspective. I realize you view Cezanne's
>> aims differently and will not agree with me. But unless I am provided
with
>> evidence from Cezanne own words, I will not change my mind either.
>
>Normally I would agree. We should judge people in terms of what they
>themselves claim they are trying to do, not some purpose that we read
>into what they do.
>
>However, I think there is a problem in doing this with Cezanne
>because his attempts to express his intentions aren't convincing:
>they often read like a muddle of cliches and they don't correspond
>with the way he actually paints.
Your arguements do not convince me. Cezanne's comments in a series of
letters to Emile Bernard are quite clear and not at all obscure. I believe
his intention for what he was trying to achieve is quite clear. The
reference is not to the way he painted but to how he was trying to paint. As
for cliches, they may be trite and well worn but they become cliches for the
thread of truth the they hold.
>
>If you don't think much of Cezanne then it's easy to explain this: he
>wanted to paint 'properly', but he couldn't. So he was OK in theory,
>incompetent in practice.
In these discussions, I have not expressed my own opinion on Cezanne's
paintings. In fact there is one ainting of his that I do like a great deal.
That is not the point. My point is that I do not believe Cezanne merits
placement on the extremely high pedestal he currently stands upon.
>
>I don't think that's the truth of it. I think he was successful in
>practice, i.e. in painting in the way he wanted, and what he was
>incompetent about was expressing his intentions in any sort of
>coherent theory. This isn't uncommon.
As I stated in earlier posts on this subject, based on a lecture I heard
"Cezanne struggled all his life with three dimentional representation and
became so frustrated at his efforts that many of his works were left
unfinished." And on Cezanne's own works which I believe express his
intentions quite clearly, I have drawn my conclusions.
>
>To me the problem in judging Cezanne is that people have assumed his
>letters and conversations must be profound, and they have used
>phrases from them to draw conclusions about his paintings, or about
>painting generally. I don't think they are profound. All we've
>really got is his paintings.
>
Profound or not, I will leave you with another quote from the man.
"One can do good things without being a harmonist or colorist (which he was
not). It is sufficient to have a sense of art - and this sense is doubtless
the horror of the bourgeois. Therefore institutions, pensions, honors can
only be made for cretins, rogues, and rascals. Do not be an art critic, but
paint, therein lies the salvation."
Regardless of my opinion of Cezanne's work or his current place in art
history; when it comes to words I like the man's style.