Talk:Paul Cézanne

The current material is important, but surely Cezanne is much more important for himself than as an influence? --MichaelTinkler

I removed the following link because it is caught by spam filter Tomos 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• www.insecula.com/recherche/default.html?type=0&mot=cezanne

Cezanne and Impressionism

Sure, Cezanne "solidified" Impressionism, but it's also worth mentioning that he exhibited twice with the Impressionists (in 1874 and 1877, if memory serves me well).

---

his early paintings can hardly be described as 'light and airy' - he began with dismal stuff like the 'modern arcadian' - heavy and ugly! Needs some reviving.

the quote "the father of us all" has been attributed to both Picasso (on NPR the other day) and Matisse (as it is now)- I wonder if someone has a more definitive citation?

I'm in a lecture and my professor just said Cezanne was Dutch!?

--- change schools!

Needs a lot more work!!

This article needs a lot more work. Cezanne is, in my opinion, one of the top 7 or 8 most significant artists of the last two centuries, and really deserves an in depth article.

One difficulty in writing artist biographies is that it is essntial to include examples of paintings to illustrate the written arguments made, and in using images it is almost impossible not to break some copyright or other. Does anyone have any comments of thoughts on this?

The commons has a lot of pictures. Most of the great ones are in there but some are not. I agree with you about the pictures. I doubt if there is any room for in-depth discussion beyond what is currently there. I added a section on the paintings. All I could do without exceeding the size limit is state the bare circumstances. True, Cezanne is important. But he was so prolific one cannot hope to cover the subject. The theory that is in there is at this point well-written. This article can do no more than introduce the reader and let him look at some pictures. There rae quite a number of books I am sure and numerous theories. Who is to decide which critic is best? Better to stick to introduction. More articles might be written. Would they get onto the CD? I doubt it. It might be nice to state a little more about the life of the paintings such as which ones were stolen recently and are on the most wanted list, who owns the most famous, or more prices. As to whether you can get a better Copyright than the one on the commons, I don't know. If better images or better copyrights turn up do not hesitate to make your own selections.Dave 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this article after some months. You folks have made it really splendid. I'm proud to have been a part of it.Dave 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

school project

Paul cézanne

Paul was born January 19,1839-October 22,1906. One of his famous painting is the flower vace, the main colors are blonk,roseclair,rose,rouge,jhoun,and vert. The thing that inspiered him was to do some thing that was different.

--Dear friend, I very much like the introduction to your school project.It shows that you have been looking carefully at his picture.Cézanne would have been very much pleased with this attention. I hope the difficulty with editing for Wikipedia does not keep you from continuing your project.

Something I myself have always liked in studieing the works of famous painters is to have a well illustrated book about their life at hand so you can easely leaf through and compare many different paintings in one go. Very useful today is a series edited by Times Warner Books on painters: "...by himself", based on personal correspondence. In "Cézanne by himself"(Richard Kendall ed. 2004) for instance his letters to Emile Bernard are reproduced; including the one dated 15 April 19O4 where he writes:"...treat nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything brought into proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central point." Emile Bernard later included this remark in a famous article he wrote for the journal "L'Occident" (July 1904 pp.17-30) that is often cited as the source for the inspiration of Cubism.

Your own observation of Cézannes picture is much more accurate I believe than one voiced by theorists on the strenght of a sentence and without pictorial evidence. The theory of binocular vision in relation to Cézanne's painterly efforts in the present Wiki-article is a case in point.

Another very useful book for students of Cézanne is "Conversations with Cézanne" (Michael Doran ed. University of California Press 2001): a complete collection of texts by contemporaries of Cézanne, many of whom have grately contributed to the creation of the Cézannian Myth. In this book is also included a paper written by Lawrence Gowing:"Cézanne:The logic of Organised Sensations" (from William Rubin ed. for MOMA 1977 -"Cézanne:The Late Works, Essays...") where Cézanne's principal concept of airial perspective in relation to the "point culminant" of a painting is brilliantly analysed, belieing the fancyful theorie of binocular vision. The search for the expression of airial perspective through modulation in pure color led Cézanne to simplify his touches to the extreme in his later work. The keyword however is "modulation". Looking at Picasso's famous portrait of Ambroise Vollard may lead the student of Cézanne to invent the term "modulation of spatial fragments" for "Cubism".

In an interesting and lavishly illustrated (French) monograph:"Cézanne" -Flammarion 1995 by Philippe Dagen (professor in art history at the University of Tours and art critic of "Le Monde") apart from a clear chronologie a final section on Cézanne's legacy is included, discussing for instance the effect of his painting as recorded by Edvard Munch and Max Beckmann ...

Maybe you find my remarks a bit highwinded, they are ment to compliment what is written in the article. As to yourself I truely believe you have the eye of a painter. Take good care. Sincerely (Lunarian 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Cezanne's Doubt

There should be a small section (or at least mention) of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's "Cezanne's Doubt"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LonesomeDrifter (talk • contribs) .

Anon comment moved from article

I question whether the image "Vase of Flowers" is a Cezanne. It is certainly not a recognizable image of his. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.37.30 (talk • contribs) .

External links

Most of the links available on this are commercial to some degree. There is likely to be a problem with them as they nearly all include some spam. On the other hand some of their images are better than the ones on Wikipedia.Dave 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Comfortable Life

I object. Before he got the inheritance his life was not comfortable. The statement implies he did not have to suffer for art like all the other great painters. The article is well-written so I am not going to change it. The author can consider it.Dave 04:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

pronounciation

How do you pronounce Cezanne? Someone should include it.

• I put an english pronunciation in there for the time being, if anyone can state it better, by all means please change it.72.50.176.188 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cubism and optical phenomena

I edited the passages on these subjects because they were tending to suggest that Cezanne's contribution to art was primarily his influence upon Picasso and Braque, when it is indeed much broader. Also, the geometric conception of form was not a discovery of Cezanne's, as seems to be suggested here. You are welcome to undo my reverts--I do think some of the elaboration on his rethinking of traditional perspective is of interest, and could be revisited. It's just a bit narrow to tie it only to cubism, and as a result, the article becomes too much about the subsequent movement. JNW 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I entered that Cezanne wanted to "treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere, the cone.", since he urged people to see nature in these three shapes.72.50.176.188 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)