Cezanne in Philadelphia
David Littlejohn
I just spent two days at the press preview of the gigantic Cezanne
exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (plus half a day checking out
the 60-plus Cezannes at the Barnes Foundation just outside of
Philadelphia), and would be happy to offer advice to anyone planning to
see this show in the next three months.
I realize from the mind-bogglingly dense and retrograde threads that
appeared on this newsgroup a couple of months ago ("Did Cezanne Know How
to Draw?" "Was Cezanne a Serious Painter?," etc.) that there are readers
of this group who haven't a clue about just how important Cezanne was.
But for the rest of you, I seriously recommend blowing whatever it
costs to get to Philadelphia--ideally for two days--to feast, slowly, on
this once-in-a-lifetime experience. The curators (a larger version of
this exhibition has already appeared in Paris and London; this will be its
last stop, and you will never again have a chance to survey Cezanne in
such depth and quality in a single place) have chosen about 100 oils (out
of nearly 1000), and about 80 watercolors and pencil sketches.
That's really too many to take in on a single visit. So I got and read
the huge, expensive catalogue ahead of time, and tried to decide which
ones deserved close attention. Then I spent 10-5 Friday looking at
everything, but especially those that seemed definitively great,
break-through paintings; and went back Saturday to linger over those--60
of the 180, of which perhaps 35 seem to me total, genuine, all time
classics. If you're planning to go, and don't have infinite time and
calves of steel, I'd be happy to suggest which works in which galleries
seem to me best to reward a long, lingering study. Ignore the
Acoustiguide, which is--like most audio tours--designed for idiots, and
dumbs down Cezanne incredibly.
There's very little junk at the Philadelphia show--which is why they
have 100 oils instead of 1000, and a similarly conscientious culling of
watercolors (there are some genuine jewels here) and pencil drawings. But
you'd have to be either a scholar or a masochist to care about most of his
early work in the first two rooms, for example.
If you want to see what Junk Cezanne looks like, go to the Barnes
foundation--it's about 3 miles west of center city Philadelphia, a hike
from the local (Merion) train station or a $20 cab ride (private parking
very limited--the Barnes is located in a posh suburban neighborhood, and
the neighbors hate visitors parking on their streets). But still worth
the effort, if you can handle two days in Philly, or a long, exhausting
one-day Cezanne glut. Dr. Albert Barnes, a classic American crank (he
made his fortune out of Argyrol nosedrops), managed to buy up 60+ Cezannes
between 1912 and 1936 or so--as well as 120 Renoirs, scores of Matisses,
etc.--and stuck them all in his mansion in Merion where, for years, no one
but his own students could see them.
Today, after a number of lawsuits, the Barnes is open to the public
($5--the Philly show is about $10) Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. All
of Dr. Barnes's thousands of paintings and weird bits of folk art are hung
higgledy-piggledy, ten across and four high on the crowded walls of 23
rooms--unlabelled--so you have to read the laminated sheets in each room
to know what is what.
Among the dregs of Cezanne's work, the rubbishy canvases he must have
used to wipe his brushes on, the Barnes owns about fifteen real gems (one
of the three huge Great (female) Bathers--the other two are at the Philly
show--the giant version of the Card Players, the big male Bathers at Rest,
one of the four Boys in a Red Vest, a couple of great Bibemus Quarries, a
monumental servant in a red dress, Mme Cezanne in a black shawl, a couple
of good Provencal landscapes and still lifes. (Except for a freak
world-tour of its prizes in 1994-5, the Barnes never lends anything, or
allows its works to be photographed.) But Dr. Barnes also bought
landscapes and still lifes that make Cezanne look totally incompetent, so
be forewarned. And they're all jammed in among all those third-rate
Renoirs, the awful Glackenses, Demuths, Pascins, Soutines, Modiglianis,
and Pennsylvania Dutch trivets.
Again, if anyone would like advice on where to find the handful of
truly great Cezannes at the Barnes, let me know. They're all crowded into
about four rooms. The lighting is as bad as the wall-hanging. They sell
Cezanne T-shirts in the basement; but then the Philadelphia Museum is now
selling baseballs painted to look like Cezanne's apples and oranges, and
beach towels imprinted with his nudes. I'm sort of glad he wasn't around
to witness all this hype. (The Tate Gallery in London sold
"Cezanneburgers" in its cafe during the show's run there earlier this
year.)
I'll be writing about all this in due time, but I thought it might be
useful for Cezanne devotees making the trip to Philadelphia to have some
clues as to how to use their time well. I don't know what to say about
the mob scene--during the press preview, perhaps 200 people had all
thirteen galleries to themselves, but I fear the crush to come may become
awesome. These are rather small works, fairly close together--especially
the walls full of watercolors--and a few thousand people in one room might
diminish the viewing experience. Perhaps start early morning, and avoid
weekends if you can. If the Vermeer show in Washington is any indication,
the crowds will get worse as the run proceeds, and the national publicity
begins to grow. (You have to order timed tickets in advance: start
now.) The show has its own Web site.
Altogether, I think--between the giant Paris-London-Philadelphia
retrospective, the Philadelphia Museum's OWN Cezannes not in the show
(just walk across the central court to the 19th C galleries), and the
Barnes collection--I managed to see nearly 100 major works by my favorite
modern painter in two long days. There's no way I could have done this
anywhere else, at any other time of my life; the rest of my life will be
changed for the better because of this trip. Go for it.
David Littlejohn
d...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Bruce Attah
In article <dtl-260596...@littlejohn.hip.berkeley.edu>,
d...@uclink.berkeley.edu (David Littlejohn) wrote:
> I just spent two days at the press preview of the gigantic Cezanne
> exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (plus half a day checking out
> the 60-plus Cezannes at the Barnes Foundation just outside of
> Philadelphia), and would be happy to offer advice to anyone planning to
> see this show in the next three months.
I commend you on your endurance. When the show was on in London, I was
never able to bear more than about sixty minutes at a time looking at
those excrescences. I would not by choice have spent even sixty seconds
on such horrible paintings were it not that I had to arm myself against
those armies of lost souls who, were I to point out to them the mediocrity
of their beloved Cezanne, would claim that I did not know what I was
talking about.
Steve Corning
Sounds like the claim is still valid.
When the show was on in London, I would not by choice have spent even
William DeRaymond
David Littlejohn wrote:
---cut a bunch--
> There's very little junk at the Philadelphia show--which is why they
> have 100 oils instead of 1000, and a similarly conscientious culling of
> watercolors (there are some genuine jewels here) and pencil drawings. But
> you'd have to be either a scholar or a masochist to care about most of his
> early work in the first two rooms, for example.
talking junk and Cezanne in the same breath....you show your weakness. Cezanne's early
work is great and on the basis of your foolishness, I'm challenging you to a duel.
I'll be in philly at the show on 7/20th around noon, meet me there and I'll kick your
butt.
> If you want to see what Junk Cezanne looks like, go to the Barnes
> foundation--
---cut out somemore---
> Among the dregs of Cezanne's work, the rubbishy canvases he must have
> used to wipe his brushes on, the Barnes owns about fifteen real gems (one
> of the three huge Great (female) Bathers--the other two are at the Philly
> show--the giant version of the Card Players, the big male Bathers at Rest,
> one of the four Boys in a Red Vest, a couple of great Bibemus Quarries, a
> monumental servant in a red dress, Mme Cezanne in a black shawl, a couple
> of good Provencal landscapes and still lifes. (Except for a freak
> world-tour of its prizes in 1994-5, the Barnes never lends anything, or
> allows its works to be photographed.) But Dr. Barnes also bought
> landscapes and still lifes that make Cezanne look totally incompetent, so
> be forewarned. And they're all jammed in among all those third-rate
> Renoirs, the awful Glackenses, Demuths, Pascins, Soutines, Modiglianis,
> and Pennsylvania Dutch trivets.
I got to say you are full of shit on this matter. But it is america and you are
welcome to your opinion. I'm simply appalled, that's all.
> Again, if anyone would like advice on where to find the handful of
> truly great Cezannes at the Barnes, let me know. They're all crowded into
> about four rooms. The lighting is as bad as the wall-hanging. They sell
> Cezanne T-shirts in the basement; but then the Philadelphia Museum is now
> selling baseballs painted to look like Cezanne's apples and oranges, and
> beach towels imprinted with his nudes. I'm sort of glad he wasn't around
> to witness all this hype.
If he were around he'd fart in your direction!
> Altogether, I think--between the giant Paris-London-Philadelphia
> retrospective, the Philadelphia Museum's OWN Cezannes not in the show
> (just walk across the central court to the 19th C galleries), and the
> Barnes collection--I managed to see nearly 100 major works by my favorite
> modern painter in two long days. There's no way I could have done this
> anywhere else, at any other time of my life; the rest of my life will be
> changed for the better because of this trip. Go for it.
Well you're not all bad either!
>
> David Littlejohn
> d...@uclink.berkeley.edu
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
William DeRaymond
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <dtl-260596...@littlejohn.hip.berkeley.edu>,
> d...@uclink.berkeley.edu (David Littlejohn) wrote:
>
> > exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (plus half a day checking out
> > the 60-plus Cezannes at the Barnes Foundation just outside of
> > Philadelphia), and would be happy to offer advice to anyone planning to
> > see this show in the next three months.
>
> never able to bear more than about sixty minutes at a time looking at
> on such horrible paintings were it not that I had to arm myself against
> those armies of lost souls who, were I to point out to them the mediocrity
> of their beloved Cezanne, would claim that I did not know what I was
> talking about.
shit and his paintings horrible...it is truly hard to comprehend. Yet we are living in
the age of stupidity. Please forgive me bruce, I forgot, you don't know the first
thing about painting that has anything to do with consciousness and philosophy beyond
the conceptual load you carry around in your pompous psyche!
Even so, I honor the light within you.
William DeRaymond
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <dtl-260596...@littlejohn.hip.berkeley.edu>,
> d...@uclink.berkeley.edu (David Littlejohn) wrote:
>
> > exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (plus half a day checking out
> > the 60-plus Cezannes at the Barnes Foundation just outside of
> > Philadelphia), and would be happy to offer advice to anyone planning to
> > see this show in the next three months.
>
> never able to bear more than about sixty minutes at a time looking at
> those excrescences. I would not by choice have spent even sixty seconds
> on such horrible paintings were it not that I had to arm myself against
> those armies of lost souls who, were I to point out to them the mediocrity
> of their beloved Cezanne, would claim that I did not know what I was
> talking about.
Call it a claim if you must, but you don't know art any better than you know what you
are talking about when it comes to the great genius Cezanne. Being an artist and not
liking Cezanne is incomprehensible, therefore I claim and declare with certainty, you
are no artist. Maybe next lifetime. Sorry.
Helen Bakk
In article <31AD54...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
> Being an artist and not
>liking Cezanne is incomprehensible, therefore I claim and declare with certainty, you
>are no artist. Maybe next lifetime. Sorry.
Here is some more flame bait for your hook, sonny boy. I AM an artist ( ask my kids )
( wanna see my diplomas) and I don't like IMPRESSIONIST work as a category -- period.
And I cannot tell you
how many originals of not only Cezzanne's but other pre, real, and post period pieces
I have seen. I still don't like it. But I DO appreciate it. Sort of like saying one is pro-choice
but anti-abortion, ain't it.
--
******************************************
Impress me with yours and I'll kick
mudholes where you sit.
~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
*******************************************
William DeRaymond
Helen Bakk wrote:
>
> In article <31AD54...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
>
> > Being an artist and not
> >liking Cezanne is incomprehensible, therefore I claim and declare with certainty, you
> >are no artist. Maybe next lifetime. Sorry.
>
> Here is some more flame bait for your hook, sonny boy. I AM an artist ( ask my kids )
> And I cannot tell you
> how many originals of not only Cezzanne's but other pre, real, and post period pieces
> I have seen. I still don't like it. But I DO appreciate it. Sort of like saying one is pro-choice
> but anti-abortion, ain't it.
> --
> ******************************************
> Impress me with yours and I'll kick
> mudholes where you sit.
> ~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
> *******************************************
appreciate him? Why don't you like Impressionist work as a catagory, period? I stand
by my statements if you are an artist you will love Cezanne. I don't make this
absolutist statement just to be difficult. There is very little in Cezanne's work that
is not aesthetically astute. If you know how to see, his works are absolutely
gorgeous. While there is certainly room for personal preference if you must, his work
is a mirror for your conceptual mind. What ever your judgements about his work, your
understanding and where you are at is reflected back to you, and if you have the
ability or arrogance to express them publicly, you reveal yourself to those who know.
This is good unless arrogance blinds one to learning. I must admit, I do not know
whether tis better for me to keep my opinions to myself, but I guess sticking my neck
out is better than not. Possibly I am the greatest fool. I have to admit that there
are few I consider artists who say they are. For me this means folks who express from
an absolute point of view and have a style of their own, ie. are not stylized. This is
all very difficult and beyond our concepts, and based in direct experience or seeing
things as they are. In my opinion all the great artists express themselves dierectly
in terms of the medium. Not in terms of the 'literary spirit' (Cezanne).
Honoring the light within you.
Helen Bakk
In article <31B0D4...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
>This is good unless arrogance blinds one to learning. I must admit, I do not know
>whether tis better for me to keep my opinions to myself, but I guess sticking my neck
>out is better than not. Possibly I am the greatest fool. I have to admit that there
>are few I consider artists who say they are. For me this means folks who express from
>an absolute point of view and have a style of their own, ie. are not stylized.
I am not sure that I can express in words WHY I don't like Impressionist style as a
category. I never said that I didn't like Cezanne in particular. I find fault with his work
in the same way that many have critiqued it, and I am not about to get in an argument
about a subject that I admittedly have little interest in. You know, I have an essay all
written in my head on the subject of "Study" and "Learning." One does NOT relate
directly to the other -- especially when we speak of art. When I study a Cezanne, or
any post-impressionist work, I do so with all the prejudice and misconceptions that
I bring to the viewing with me. But I haven't LEARNED anything beyond what my own
reading is of the work of art. In order to LEARN from the experience, I have to do
more than LOOK. I have to first read the placard next to the work to see who created
it, get some clue to why from the title, etc. I will only learn if I make the effort to seek
out information--looking for material on the artist and all that influenced that artist to
create in the manner (style) preferred. The only reason I ever learned as little as I did
about the Impressionist school was because I try to have an open mind. But when
one has no interest in a topic in the first place, one is not inclined to spend a lot of
time convincing oneself they are wrong. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has
everything to do with spending one's time productively on things that matter to the
individual -- otherwise it comes under WASTING TIME -- and that is the most precious
of all commodities for any one of us. And I've wasted enough on this response.
Goodbye.
--
******************************************
Opinions are a dime a dozen.
I just gave you mine for free.
Helen Bakk
> I stand
>by my statements if you are an artist you will love Cezanne.
Do yourself a favor and look at Mark Harden's page of juxtaposed
images, specifically this page at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~daldridg/juxt/juxt3.htm
It speaks volumes without textual content.
--
******************************************
From Her Holiness, Harpy of Hoopla.
Been there, done that, matters not.
Bruce Attah
In article <4omv04$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, He...@been-there.com (Helen
Bakk) wrote:
> I AM an artist...and I don't like IMPRESSIONIST work as a category -- period.
There's a great piece by critic-at-large A. A. Gill that was published in
the Sunday Times about a year ago in which he pours scorn on the
Impressionists, deriding their work as pointless and trivial. It's good
fun. Everyone who has an opinion on Impressionism should read it.
> And I cannot tell you how many originals of not only Cezzanne's but
other pre,
> real, and post period pieces I have seen. I still don't like it. But I DO
> appreciate it.
Y'know, I was looking at the Degas show that's on in the National Gallery,
London, and my thoughts went inevitably to the Cezanne show that was on
here earlier (and is now in Philadelphia), and to why it was that Degas
was a decent artist and Cezanne was crap.
Here's a quick list of the differences between Degas and Cezanne, in no
particular order of importance:
1) Degas could draw reasonably well (not flawlessly -- far from it, but a
hell of a lot better than Cezanne, who was inept and lazy and, when he
used pencil, excessively tentative).
2) Degas was consistently inventive, while Cezanne was utterly
derivative. All of Cezanne's paintings slot into traditional categories:
portrait, landscape, still-life, while almost none of Degas' works do.
Furthermore, even when Degas does do something as traditional as a family
group portrait, he devises a composition that is both novel and effective.
3) Degas is interested in life and cares about his subjects. Cezanne
hates life, and his subjects are, be they rocks or apples or card players
are all reduced by his morose self-absorption to lumps of charmless clay.
4) Cezanne's portrayal of women consistently displays a neurotic
nymphophobia, from his early (and revolting) Modern Olympia to his late
(and repulsive) Large Bathers. This is a most unattractive trait that
simply never appears in Degas' work.
5) Degas has an acute sense of colour that rarely fails him. Cezanne has
no sense of colour whatsoever. When his paintings are not horribly dark
or muddy, they fall into a simple formula of green/orange/brown/blue in
proportions that vary according to whether the painting is a landscape, a
portrait or a still-life.
6) Degas always respected the medium. Whether he used pastel, charcoal,
oils, or whatever else, he always made sure to make the best and most
appropriate use of them to produce an attractive and interesting surface.
Cezanne simply didn't give a toss.
Helen Bakk
In article <Bruce.Attah-03...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>Y'know, I was looking at the Degas show that's on in the National Gallery,
>London, and my thoughts went inevitably to the Cezanne show that was on
>here earlier (and is now in Philadelphia), and to why it was that Degas
>was a decent artist and Cezanne was crap.
Bruce, I realize you are comparing these two artists because you recently
saw their work in exhibits, but -- and pardon the pun -- you are comparing
apples and oranges. I don't care to go into all the reasons WHY I say that.
You have the knowledge of art, amply demonstrated in your posts. If you will
stop and think about why MANY, MANY others have agreed to call Cezanne
the Father of Modern Art, then you will have an inkling of why I say you
cannot compare him to Degas, or any other impressionist for that matter.
--
******************************************
A clear impression is NOT what you
see, but what they painted.
Bruce Attah
In article <4p1ebn$g...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, He...@been-there.com (Helen
Bakk) wrote:
> In article <Bruce.Attah-03...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>
> >Y'know, I was looking at the Degas show that's on in the National Gallery,
> >London, and my thoughts went inevitably to the Cezanne show that was on
> >here earlier (and is now in Philadelphia), and to why it was that Degas
> >was a decent artist and Cezanne was crap.
>
> Bruce, I realize you are comparing these two artists because you recently
> saw their work in exhibits, but -- and pardon the pun -- you are comparing
> apples and oranges.
I think pretty much the case when you compare any two artists, except when
one of them is completely in the thrall of the other, wouldn't you agree?
Yet, it is perfectly legitimate to compare apples with oranges. It might
seem strange if I were to compare an apple with a steam engine, but that's
not what I'm doing, is it?
Degas and Cezanne are very different painters, yet they are not so
different that they cannot be compared. Comparison is, after all, only
the flip-side of contrast. You would not your waste time comparing things
you knew to be identical.
> If you will
> stop and think about why MANY, MANY others have agreed to call Cezanne
> the Father of Modern Art, then you will have an inkling of why I say you
> cannot compare him to Degas, or any other impressionist for that matter.
Well, I have stopped and thought about why people call Cezanne the "Father
of Modern Art", and here are the conclusions I have drawn: First, it does
not serve historical accuracy to call any one person the Father of Modern
Art. Second, as I have already argued in this group, Cezanne was not an
*exceptionally* influential artist, and in order to be called the Father
of such a grand thing as Modern Art he would have had to be far more
influential than he was. Thirdly, the manner of Cezanne's influence was
this: that his critical acceptance indicated to younger artists that good
drawing, colour and handling of paint were no longer prerequisites for
pleasing the critics. All one needed now was the temerity, the nerve, to
present something, *anything*, as art, and one's claim to be an artist
would be acclaimed unquestioningly.
A substantial part of what has been called art since Cezanne has been no
more than a macho display of nerve: At first the boast was "I can sell a
painting with no x," where x was an attribute normally thought to add to
the aesthetic worth of a painting. Later, when the impossibilities of
painting were clearly exhausted, would-be artists vied with one another to
sell the most unlikely objects as art. Taking their cue from Duchamp's
ironic bycicle wheel and latrine gags, they offered junk or mass-produced
objects for sale. The tendency reached its final nadir in the 60s and
70s, when the competition turned into rivalry to present events or objects
that apparently could not possibly be sold. This last bit of stupidity
was justified by silly, ill-formed Marxian theories to which some art
historians continue to adhere.
So, Cezanne might be called *a* father of Modern Art, in that he was one
of the first minimalists -- he did just enough so that what he did was
recognizable to his contemporaries as a work of art, and nothing more.
But the truth is that Modern Art is not a phenomenon of art, but of
criticism. It was a collapse in the standards of art criticism, and not
anything that Cezanne himself did that made him a "great artist". Have
you ever wondered why Cezanne is called a "post-impressionist" even though
he was a member of the original Impressionist group, and of the same age
(older, for instance, than Monet)? I suspect you will say that Cezanne
was not an impressionist because he was concerned more with form than with
light. But the fact of the matter is that none of the original
impressionists conformed completely to the stereotype of impressionism,
with the possible exception of Monet. They all had other concerns than
the momentary effects of light on a semi-rural landscape. Cezanne is
known as a post-impressionist because he did not receive critical acclaim
until after the impressionist movement was popularly regarded as spent.
It took him that long because his contemporaries realised that his work
was no good. Success came to him posthumously simply because the demand
for impressionist work had become so great that there was room in the
market for peripheral work such as Cezanne's. When criticism went
bourgeois, Cezanne went supernova.
If "post-impressionist" were a label of any real significance, if, for
instance it referred to a style of painting that went *beyond*
impressionism into something new, the label would better apply to Degas in
his later years than to Cezanne at any point in his career.
Helen Bakk
In article <Bruce.Attah-04...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>Degas and Cezanne are very different painters, yet they are not so
>different that they cannot be compared. Comparison is, after all, only
>the flip-side of contrast. You would not your waste time comparing things
>you knew to be identical.
Okay, I yield. You can compare and CONTRAST all you want. But when
you denigrate an artist who has been elevated to the level of FATHER figure
for artists who follow, you take on THE establishment.
> Second, as I have already argued in this group, Cezanne was not an
>*exceptionally* influential artist, and in order to be called the Father
>of such a grand thing as Modern Art he would have had to be far more
>influential than he was.
You apparently know a lot about both Cezanne and Degas, so I cannot
understand your lack of acknowledgement of Cezanne's influence on
his contemporaries, to say nothing of the world of art and artists to follow
from then till now. How can you possibly know who has and hasn't been
influenced by their study of Cezzane? I am NOT going to get into a debate
with you -- the facts stand. Artists of reknown have acclaimed Cezanne
and declared their tributes to him and the influences his work has had on
their own for a century now, so I can't add to that dialogue, and you choose
to ignore it, apparently. Just look at the provenance of the Cezannes
recently auctioned -- many of the prior owners were other reknowned artists,
both contemporary and post-Cezanne.
>A substantial part of what has been called art since Cezanne has been no
>more than a macho display of nerve: At first the boast was "I can sell a
>painting with no x," where x was an attribute normally thought to add to
>the aesthetic worth of a painting.
Your own prejudices and misconceptions are showing again. Read on . . .
>So, Cezanne might be called *a* father of Modern Art, in that he was one
>of the first minimalists --
I understand your reason for saying this, but I dare say I have never heard
anyone else use that term when talking about Cezzane. Again, you are
creating your own vocabulary to discuss the reasons you dislike his work.
I have already stated that I do NOT like art done in impressionist style.
BUT I do appreciate the contributions these ground-breaking artists made
to a new vision of Art. I don't think marketing had anything to do with it at the
time they lived. I do think marketing has everything to do with much of what
has followed, and as both you and Mani Deli abhor, carries us into today.
>But the truth is that Modern Art is not a phenomenon of art, but of
>criticism.
I would not disagree with that -- it is a fact. But you seem to not accept
other facts -- instead want to create your own re-invention of criticism--of
The Cezzanes, in particular.
>It was a collapse in the standards of art criticism, and not
>anything that Cezanne himself did that made him a "great artist".
That is an arguable statement that is NOT born out by the facts. What do
you mean by "collapse in standards of art criticism?" That in itself is a
topic that can lead to a new thread that should generate lots of debate.
Whose "standards" are you referring to? What preceded the criticism
that you think of as sub-standard? Who were the critics who set those
standards by which you judge their followers? Is their such as thing maybe
as "post-criticism?"
>Have you ever wondered why Cezanne is called a "post-impressionist"
No, never. I have little interest in the subject, so have given it little thought
til now, I must admit. That is not to say that I haven't studied the subject, just
as I have studied ART in general. But as I have said earlier, to Study is not
to Learn necessarily.
>he was a member of the original Impressionist group, and of the same age
>(older, for instance, than Monet)?
I thought we were going to compare (contrast) him with Degas, also a contemporary.
>I suspect you will say that Cezanne
>was not an impressionist because he was concerned more with form than with
>light.
You would be wrong to suspect that -- or what I might say at all, eh. Do you
really find me that predictable? My, my -- my ability to obfuscate must be
slipping. But just because I wouldn't necessarily say it doesn't mean it hasn't
been said -- by many people of knowledge who have made the effort to analyze
his works intellectually. So you are just parrotting them in order to make some
point yourself -- you are not making an original observation as you might like
people to think.
> Success came to him posthumously simply because the demand
>for impressionist work had become so great that there was room in the
>market for peripheral work such as Cezanne's. When criticism went
>bourgeois, Cezanne went supernova.
Again, you are falling victim to the same forces you deplore. You are
re-inventing criticism of not only Cezanne, but the Impressionists and
P-Is to suit your own prejudices. I could do the same, and argue along
the same lines, since I don't like Impressionist work in general, but who
am I to invent & re-write fact. Your claim that Cezanne was a peripheral
figure flies in the face of facts. He didn't get to be called FATHER because
anyone saw him as a peripheral figure.
--
******************************************
Enuff from me on this subject. I have
"work" to do -- making messes and
labeling it ART. See ya.
~ Helen Bakk ~ I am NOT E-mailable.
*******************************************
My favorite colour is Rose Madder.
As fugitive as the Midnite Strangler.
Wayne A. Lambright III
Helen Bakk wrote:
>
> In article <31B0D4...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
>
What do You have to say?
PAUL CEZANNE has not spoken in over ninety years, but his words and work are still with us today.
hello, my name is Wayne lambright. with your help, I am writing a book about art quotations. I need
your thoughts, and ideas relating to art. I mean anything. Deep thoughts, shallow thoughts, long
thoughts, short thoughts, well you get the idea. Thanks for adding to history.
Please tell all your friends to go to HTTP://WWW.lambright.COM/mybook.htm
thanks for your support.
Be nice you guys.
Bruce Attah
In article <4p43d2$9...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, He...@been-there.com (Helen
Bakk) wrote:
> But when
> you denigrate an artist who has been elevated to the level of FATHER figure
> for artists who follow, you take on THE establishment.
I guess that may be true, but many artist say things like "I respect
Cezanne, but I don't *like* his work," and a fair few critics say similar
things. I think that what has happened is that Cezanne has become such a
sacred cow that people are afraid to deprecate for fear of seeming too
much at odds with current taste.
As far as I can make out, the originator of the idea that Cezanne is the
"father" is Matisse. I've already expressed my views on Matisse's
mediocrity as a painter and his lack of an artist's sensibility, so you
know well that I find it easy to discount his opinion on anything. But
beyond that, when Matisse called Cezanne the "father of modern art", he
was talking about Cezanne as a precursor to, and possibly influence on,
the painting of the very early twentieth century. Modern art has gone
through huge changes since those years, and influences have come into play
that Cezanne could never have imagined; these influences, I suggest are
far more important than anything Cezanne may have originated. So Cezanne,
I argue, is not the principle antecedent to whom we should look when we
look for the roots of modernism in art.
I also believe that the claim that Cezanne is the "father of modern art"
is not rooted in any sort of proper historical analysis of the genesis of
modernism, but is a mantra that has come to have the ring of truth merely
through frequent repetition. Just as in a game of Chinese Whispers, the
claim "I think Cezanne is the father of Modern art" became "Matisse says
Cezanne is the father of Modern art" and later "Eminent art historians
quote Matisse as saying Cezanne is the father of Modern art" and
ultimately "Cezanne is the father of Modern art".
> You apparently know a lot about both Cezanne and Degas, so I cannot
> understand your lack of acknowledgement of Cezanne's influence on
> his contemporaries,
I could list you names of artists who claimed to be impressed by Cezanne,
but whose own work shows no obvious debt to the man. Or I could refer you
to the paintings of Picasso and Braque made during their analytical cubist
stage, which bear a superficial similarity to Cezanne and which are the
real basis for claims that Cezanne has been a vital influence on
modernism. To me, those paintings look like caricatures of Cezanne's
handling of paint, but to a far greater extent, and more fundamentally,
they look like paintings influenced by African and Oceanic sculpture --
the latter influence having nothing whatever to do with Cezanne. After
this period, Picasso's and Braque's painting diverges. Each artists' work
retains features that owe to their examination of "primitive" art, but
neither retains the Cezannesque appearance. The truth is that neither
artists needed Cezanne as an impetus to their creativity; they both showed
that they had substantially greater talent than Cezanne in any case, so
it's fair to say that affecting his manner was little more than a game to
them.
> >So, Cezanne might be called *a* father of Modern Art, in that he was one
> >of the first minimalists --
>
> I understand your reason for saying this, but I dare say I have never heard
> anyone else use that term when talking about Cezzane. Again, you are
> creating your own vocabulary to discuss the reasons you dislike his work.
I realise perfectly well that the word "minimalism" has not been used in
precisely this way before, but I think it is a pretty effective way of
making clear the nature of Cezanne's painting and the way it relates to
certain strands of modernist and postmodernist art.
The thing that distinguishes Cezanne's oeuvre from that of the other
impressionists is his apparent relative lack of concern for aesthetic
results.
>
> I have already stated that I do NOT like art done in impressionist style.
> BUT I do appreciate the contributions these ground-breaking artists made
> to a new vision of Art.
Impressionism was a brand of realism; indeed, before the "Impressionist"
label stuck, its chief apologists tended to call it "Realism" or
"Naturalism". Unfortunately, we do not get to see a lot of the painting
that was produced by non-impressionist contemporaries of the original
impressionist. When we do, we realise that the differences between the
impressionists and their rivals was not has vast as is generally made out,
but if there is a difference, it is in the readiness of the impressionists
to paint contemporary, mundane, urban or suburban life, usually without
adding a narrative or moralistic hook.
Impressionism was more the tail end of something than the beginning of
something, because realism had been a force in French art for quite a few
years before the Impressionists came along. When Impressionism passed out
of fashion, the new styles that took its place were symbolism and
abstractionism. The painting of modern life faded from preeminence.
What I'm saying is that, though Impressionism has the reputation of being
the starting-point of modernism, it can better be seen as a point on a
strand of art that is NOT a major part of modernism. Cezanne belongs to
that -- realist -- strand, not at the root of what came to be identified
as modernism in the first decades of the twentieth century.
Instead of Cezanne, I would propose a quite different, and at first,
perhaps, surprising candidate for the position of "Father of Modern Art",
namely Gustave Moreau. Far more painters in this century could trace the
ancestry of their style to him than they could to Cezanne, of that I am
pretty confident.
> >It was a collapse in the standards of art criticism, and not
> >anything that Cezanne himself did that made him a "great artist".
>
> That is an arguable statement that is NOT born out by the facts. What do
> you mean by "collapse in standards of art criticism?"
I once posted here that the first rule of criticism is never to give the
artist the benefit of the doubt. This century has seen an increasing
tendency among critics to do just that, paving the way for chancers and
charlatans as never before. This, in my opinion, amounts to a collapse of
critical standards. The other problem is the rise of relativism, which
undermines any criticism, and allows the most pushy to get to the front,
because all other standards of merit are discarded. I think, also, that
there has been an increased tendency for art to be criticized by people
who have no technical knowledge -- which is harmful.
> Your claim that Cezanne was a peripheral
> figure flies in the face of facts.
Such as the fact that he was so disgusted with his lack of success in
Paris that he retired to Aix while the other Impressionists gradually
gained acceptance and success? The facts are that Cezanne was totally
inconsequential until after his death, then he gained stature because a
small number of influential people promoted his work vigorously. The
facts lead me to believe that it was the legend of Cezanne the loner
rather than the work itself that made him famous.
Randy Woods
> In article <Bruce.Attah-04...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>
> >Degas and Cezanne are very different painters, yet they are not so
I'm not sure this will help conclude your debate, but I thought you might
want to check out the new Degas received by the National Gallery of
Canada (if only to use it as cannon fodder). It (and a personal essay on
the painting) can be found at:
http://national.gallery.ca
or
http://musee.beaux-arts.ca
Cheers,
Randy
Helen Bakk
In article <Bruce.Attah-06...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>The
>facts lead me to believe that it was the legend of Cezanne the loner
>rather than the work itself that made him famous.
aHHH, Bruce, I yield. I have no real love for Cezzane. Next time you
are in the vicinity of the National Gallery, go in and see if Lady Jane has
been beheaded yet. When I had my office on Leicester Square, I used to
check on her on my lunch hours occasionally. The painting by Paul Delaroche
is one that has most impressed me of all the works I have seen in their
original state. It's the sheer pathos of the stage setting I suppose. It will tell
you much about my taste, or lack of same, in art -- if you are not familiar
with the work. Look for: The Beheading of Lady Jane Grey, by Delaroche (sp?).
--
******************************************
Taste in art is like that for ice cream--
the more fat and the less air the richer
it is.
Mdeli
The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about
how great Cezanne is by quotes and the usual praise.
They don't dare take a painting and criticize it.
Previously I've mentioned three paintings and made some
points about them.
The result was an idiotic message saying that I'm
insulting the intelligence of those who inhabit this
conference and that I'm bitter. Can anyone here defend
the works of artists they like? I challenge them to
defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his
conformist "Bathers."
Tell us about the great
draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands
and the drapery and the
novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat
on the conehead on the left.
In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about
the
drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare
in two directions.
Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth
and color in the background.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
William DeRaymond
Mdeli wrote:
>
> The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about
> how great Cezanne is by quotes and the usual praise.
> They don't dare take a painting and criticize it.
> Previously I've mentioned three paintings and made some
> points about them.
>
> The result was an idiotic message saying that I'm
> insulting the intelligence of those who inhabit this
> conference and that I'm bitter. Can anyone here defend
> the works of artists they like? I challenge them to
> defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
>
> Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his
> conformist "Bathers."
Cezanne wasn't interested in your idea of draughtsmanship which from my experience of
your opinions is basically of the adolescent variety, you know, the 'complete
expression of an incomplete intelligence' and all of that...
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about
> the
> drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare
> in two directions.
> Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth
> and color in the background.
Cezanne was interested in creating paintings however that did express his intelligence.
If you look carefully abd with sincerity and with your own eyes with out preconception
you will see there is no background at all in a Cezanne painting. It is all
foreground, or maybe a better way of saying it is the focus is the entire painting not
the apple on the table, that is just the representation of visual reality the love of a
true artist philosopher. Come on Mani, think! Isn't color and form one? Wasn't this
one of Cezanne's greatest realizations. When are you going to contemplate the truth?
And what does the realization of color and form being one mean to the visual artist?
The bottom line with Cezanne is he is always a painter. He ALWAYS expresses the brush,
motif, and his intensely profound sense of and devotion to color, in terms of his own
personality. Sorry you can't understand him. You are missing some of the most erudite
expression of the planet. What you need to do is become like a child and simply
recieve the vibrations of his work with color and painting like you would a beautiful
piece of music, and then if you can truly recieve with out preconception you will begin
to be moved by the muse (music). May you laugh and cry!
Bruce Attah
In article <4p7q8c$m...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, He...@been-there.com (Helen
Bakk) wrote:
> In article <Bruce.Attah-06...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>
> >The
> >facts lead me to believe that it was the legend of Cezanne the loner
> >rather than the work itself that made him famous.
>
> aHHH, Bruce, I yield. I have no real love for Cezzane.
Ha! So, the truth is out! If only all the artists and critics who have no
real love for Cezanne would stop sticking up for him, he would sink into
deserved obscurity.
> Next time you
> are in the vicinity of the National Gallery, go in and see if Lady Jane has
> been beheaded yet. When I had my office on Leicester Square, I used to
> check on her on my lunch hours occasionally. The painting by Paul Delaroche
> is one that has most impressed me of all the works I have seen in their
> original state. It's the sheer pathos of the stage setting I suppose. It
will tell
> you much about my taste, or lack of same, in art -- if you are not familiar
> with the work. Look for: The Beheading of Lady Jane Grey, by Delaroche (sp?).
I know the picture well. It is a fine work, and the critical neglect of
such paintings in favour of even the most amateurish impressionist works
is an outrage. What terrible crime did the 19th century academics
commit to deserve the mocking disparagement they get (when they are not
simply ignored) from modernist critics?
Harriet Schock
hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about
>how great Cezanne is by quotes and the usual praise.
>
painter influenced, inspired, and transcended Modern art for the next 100
years. This is a fact. A self evident truth that cannot be devalidated.
Like it or not. Read your art history books.
>Can anyone here defend
>the works of artists they like? I challenge them to
>defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
>
colorer because you could stay in the lines with your Crayolas. I would
also guess that the only art that you can appreciate is real glossy smooth
"real" looking stuff, as I would imagine that your art looks. And you are
probably pretty good at doing this. I would also imagine that you feel
that real artists like yourself have been alienated by the chicanery and
sophistry of the whole modern art scene. And that every time you look at
a Cezanne you get a little outraged because the fact that this man who
drew a hat a little too small for somebody in a painting is revered as one
of the best ever. Because if Cezanne was truly one of the best ever then
that would devalidate a truth that you base your identity on, and I would
imagine that nobody really wants to go there.
The real truth here is, Mani, that what you say about Cezanne, is like
someone who can't read villifying Ernest Hemingway for marring hundreds of
pieces of paper with thousands of little squigly black marks. Just
because you cannot read does not mean that it doesn't mean anything. You
are illiterate; you are form-blind. And Mani, I am going to crucify you
to your front door with the tools you left on your porch.
The real genius of Cezanne lies in his formal orchestration, and in his
ability to represent a scene that revealed more detail, more life, than if
he were to just use an objective realism. Or as Whistler said it, "The
imitator is a poor kind of creature. If the man who paints only the tree,
or flower, or other surface he sees before him were an artist, the king of
artists would be the photographer. It is for the artist to do something
beyond this: in in portrait painting to put on canvas something more than
the face the model wears for that one day; to paint the man, in short, as
well as his features; in arrangement of colors to treat a flower as his
key, not as his model."--And Cezanne does just this.
>Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his
>conformist "Bathers."
>Tell us about the great
>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands
>and the drapery and the
>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat
>on the conehead on the left
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about
>the
>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare
>in two directions.
>Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth
>and color in the background.
>
Take another look at these paintings Mani, think first as you probably do,
back to the 15th century when artists did as best they could to mirror an
objective reality with an outward eye, when every artist made use of the
scientists'research on anatomy and the mechanical laws of perspective;
when artists could render absolutely anything with absolute detail; when
the only thing an artist couldn't do was destort perspective, anatomy, or
proportion as a means to get a truer reflection of what they saw with an
inward eye, to let the viewer look at the painting and see how the artist
was affected by his subject, to stand in the psychological shadow of their
subject. Because this is the real draftsmanship in a Cezanne, and this is
where modern art was in fact initiated, and exactly what makes Cezanne so
important to modern art.
>...no skill no art
>
true, but a bit cliche, don't you think?
Nik Venet
Rose Madder
In article <Bruce.Attah-12...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>>> It will tell you much about my taste, or lack of same, in art -- if you are not familiar
>> with the work. Look for: The Beheading of Lady Jane Grey, by Delaroche (sp?).
>I know the picture well. It is a fine work, and the critical neglect of
>such paintings in favour of even the most amateurish impressionist works
>is an outrage.
You might assume that I agree with your assessment of the work as a "fine work."
And I might have agreed with you when I was visiting it all those years ago. But
the intervening years have led me to study and to learn what is good and what is
bad in art, albeit I still maintain some prejudice. What I now see in the painting
we are discussing here is the crudeness that escaped my notice before. It is
too much like the scene painting for a stage production, only in this case the
artist attempted to paint both the actors and the stage as one. Still and all,
without getting critical in an educated way, the painting is a powerful presence
because of the handling of the subject -- not because of the handling of the
materials. I think that is the crux of the argument when it comes down to arguing
with you and Mani Deli. You want the artist to be a craftsman as well as a
conceptualist. It is hard to put the two together and create a work that doesn't
become trite on the whole. When everything works together, we get a consensus
on whether or not an individual is a master and the work a masterpiece.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Colorful but fugitive.
~ Rose Madder ~
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mdeli
>(Mdeli) wrote:
>>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about
>>how great Cezanne is by quotes and the usual praise.
>> Harriet Schock answers
>With no school; with no students; Cezanne, more fully than any other
>painter influenced, inspired, and transcended Modern art for the next 100
>years. This is a fact. A self evident truth that cannot be devalidated.
>Like it or not. Read your art history books.
Yes that’s true you believe Modern Academic Art history
which ignores 98% of 19th and 20th century artists.
>>Can anyone here defend
>>the works of artists they like? I challenge them to
>>defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
>>
>Mani, I would guess that when you were a child you thought yourself a good
>colorer because you could stay in the lines with your Crayolas.
Did your extroardinary talent lead you to draw
exclusivly outside the lines?
> I would
>also guess that the only art that you can appreciate is real glossy smooth
>"real" looking stuff, as I would imagine that your art looks. And you are
>probably pretty good at doing this. I would also imagine that you feel
>that real artists like yourself have been alienated by the chicanery and
>sophistry of the whole modern art scene.
I don’t feel the least bit alienated; rather I’m
amused, even inspired. The more art students influenced
by likes of Cezanne’s incompetence and by the presently
fashionable school of popular Stupid Art, the less
competition for those who learn their craft.
> And that every time you look at
>a Cezanne you get a little outraged because the fact that this man who
>drew a hat a little too small for somebody in a painting is revered as one
>of the best ever. Because if Cezanne was truly one of the best ever then
>that would devalidate a truth that you base your identity on, and I would
>imagine that nobody really wants to go there.
Try writing religious tracts.
>The real truth here is, Mani, that what you say about Cezanne, is like
>someone who can't read villifying Ernest Hemingway for marring hundreds of
>pieces of paper with thousands of little squigly black marks. Just
>because you cannot read does not mean that it doesn't mean anything. You
>are illiterate; you are form-blind. And Mani, I am going to crucify you
>to your front door with the tools you left on your porch.
I’m an apartment dweller and I’m sure you won’t make it
past the doorman.
>The real genius of Cezanne lies in his formal orchestration, and in his
>ability to represent a scene that revealed more detail, more life, than if
>he were to just use an objective realism.
The pinheads and hydrocephalic that inhabit his works
look like an objective attempt at realism to me. Are
his apples objective?
Or as Whistler said it, "The
>imitator is a poor kind of creature. If the man who paintsTAKETHIS <96061407345...@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Path: hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!AOL.COM!Barbara804
Comments: Gated by NET...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.autism
Message-ID: <96061407345...@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 07:34:54 -0400
Sender: SJU Autism and Developmental Disablities List
<AUT...@SJUVM.stjohns.edu>
X-PH: V4...@jericho.american.edu
From: Barbara Dixon <Barba...@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: When is he 'okay' enough?
Lines: 52
Karen,
I'm not an adult with autism, but I'm about 10 years ahead of you in this
journey. My son is 14 and hi-functioning with autism, not PDD. To me, the
only difference is that most PDD kids are a little more social than my son.
You ask some very good questions, unfortunately only you will be able to
make those decisions. I have NOT had all those tests or AIT or Lovaas
therapy for my son. We did have early intervention at 4, with an excellent
regonal program that specialized in autism.
I think you're right. It does become a problem of what do you put him
through to fix what. He is just 4, and some "normal" kids are still having
problems learning appropriate behavior. I, too, believe that it's important
for us to understand autism/PDD. We have found that it helps our son to be
informed of changes ahead of time, have written (or pictures) schedulTAKETHIS <96061407345...@emout07.mail.aol.com>
William DeRaymond
Helen Bakk wrote:
>
> In article <31B0D4...@worldlightproductions.com>, dray...@worldlightproductions.com says...
>
> >by my statements if you are an artist you will love Cezanne.
>
> Do yourself a favor and look at Mark Harden's page of juxtaposed
> images, specifically this page at:
> http://lonestar.texas.net/~daldridg/juxt/juxt3.htm
> It speaks volumes without textual content.
> --
> ******************************************
> From Her Holiness, Harpy of Hoopla.
> Been there, done that, matters not.
Cezanne...do you actually think it compares outside of the literal cuteness of the
textual juxtaposition?