What are your reactions to Cezanne? Do you like his work? Why or why not? Was he an innovator? It's kind of difficult to talk about his influence as you haven't yet seen the art movements he influenced.
16 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think i liked his earlier works before he went all impressionistic. The view where it looks like he is hiding in the tree is worse that his original mount ste, IMHO
I really like how he paints things independent of their relation to each other. Also, I think it's cool to see the progression of this idea in the paintings of the mountain.
I'm not sure I particularly in enjoy his pre-Cubist/Cubist Mt. Ste-Victoire (for purely aesthetic reasons-- the colors and splotches are just not my thing), but I can appreciate it-- I deeply appreciate it. I am fascinated by his innovation. It is such a novel concept-- it still is, for many people-- to paint objects separate of their relationship to each other. And it's wonderful-- to create a reality that is, in a sense, three dimensional, from multiple perspectives. It's a compositional snapshot-- as if you are looking back and forth at a view and each time you focus on something else, or alter your gaze, so that at one point a tree is in the center, the next, a mountain in the upper left, the next, a tree in the lower right. I am amazed that someone could have the creativity-- the mind-- to imagine such a painting.
Likewise with his less radical Still Life with a Basket of Apples. I marvel at how he can look at a still life, and in his mind-- or did he have to move around? (and if he did, to think to move around is still genius)-- but to look at something and transfer it onto canvas so that each object is out of place, ajar with reality-- even the pieces are put together oddly. The image pops at you, it seems alive, and subtly, not quite right. And yet it is only an extension of reality...
Clearly I am in love. I am amazed, impressed, and delighted with Cezanne. Even his bathers are commendable-- he turns the female form-- so often abused to be less art and more an object of lust-- into a simple composition of shapes, and much much more a creation of art above sexuality. One thinks of Ingres' bathers-- a great piece of art, but now, compared to Cezanne, how trite, how merely sexual, merely fashionable, how unspectacular and lacking in innovation.
I suppose I shall stop here. I could go on, but I've said enough.
tl;dr - I FRIGGIN' LOVE CEZANNE! He is utterly innovative and brilliant. His separation of objects from their surroundings, his reality from a new multiple of perspectives, was so novel, and marvelous, and genius.
I don't really like him personally. No offense to those who do, but his paintings just don't do anything for me. I just think they are so plain and are not innovative in any way. I just feel like they are something I would see when walking through the halls of the art building here (not that those aren't beautiful). I don't know... just my personal opinion.
i personally do not like these paintings! i must say i hate the greeen in the sky!!!! it drives me nuts i just think his subject matter is boringgg......
Ok. I guess I can sort of understand what Cezanne was trying to do with the green in the sky stuff. The idea of painting stuff independent of or removed from its context is a pretty interesting idea, if different ways of painting interests you... but I think the way Cezanne puts this idea into effect just looks stupid and unorganized.
I think whoever took the cubism stuff one step further than Cezanne did should be credited with its innovation, because to me Cezanne's messed-up mountain painting just looks like a four-year-old stole a real painting and fingerpainted over it.
I agree with john, his second mount ste is just a bad ending to a good painting. Hopefully cubism that we study will be better organized and look more thought out.
I like the lack of attention to detailed or the fact that nothing is stylized or idealized. A painter can focus on landscape and without portraying the details. I like the green colors in the sky.
i really hated the green in the sky...i don't mind the objects being out of place but when is grass or a tree ever floating hundreds of feet above the surface of the earth?
i know some people think this art is beautiful but in my opinion, it just is not my favor. However, with that being said i respect his innovation and creativity and i think that aspect of his art is great. That is what is great about art in general if one does not like the artwork itself, there is generally one aspect you can find to like about it.
16 comments:
I think i liked his earlier works before he went all impressionistic. The view where it looks like he is hiding in the tree is worse that his original mount ste, IMHO
I really like how he paints things independent of their relation to each other. Also, I think it's cool to see the progression of this idea in the paintings of the mountain.
I hate him passionately. I really don't get any of his paintings. Even when someone explains it to me - I still don't get it.
I'm not sure I particularly in enjoy his pre-Cubist/Cubist Mt. Ste-Victoire (for purely aesthetic reasons-- the colors and splotches are just not my thing), but I can appreciate it-- I deeply appreciate it. I am fascinated by his innovation. It is such a novel concept-- it still is, for many people-- to paint objects separate of their relationship to each other. And it's wonderful-- to create a reality that is, in a sense, three dimensional, from multiple perspectives. It's a compositional snapshot-- as if you are looking back and forth at a view and each time you focus on something else, or alter your gaze, so that at one point a tree is in the center, the next, a mountain in the upper left, the next, a tree in the lower right. I am amazed that someone could have the creativity-- the mind-- to imagine such a painting.
Likewise with his less radical Still Life with a Basket of Apples. I marvel at how he can look at a still life, and in his mind-- or did he have to move around? (and if he did, to think to move around is still genius)-- but to look at something and transfer it onto canvas so that each object is out of place, ajar with reality-- even the pieces are put together oddly. The image pops at you, it seems alive, and subtly, not quite right. And yet it is only an extension of reality...
Clearly I am in love. I am amazed, impressed, and delighted with Cezanne. Even his bathers are commendable-- he turns the female form-- so often abused to be less art and more an object of lust-- into a simple composition of shapes, and much much more a creation of art above sexuality. One thinks of Ingres' bathers-- a great piece of art, but now, compared to Cezanne, how trite, how merely sexual, merely fashionable, how unspectacular and lacking in innovation.
I suppose I shall stop here. I could go on, but I've said enough.
tl;dr - I FRIGGIN' LOVE CEZANNE! He is utterly innovative and brilliant. His separation of objects from their surroundings, his reality from a new multiple of perspectives, was so novel, and marvelous, and genius.
I agree with Michelle, and thanks for the shorter version!
I don't really like him personally. No offense to those who do, but his paintings just don't do anything for me. I just think they are so plain and are not innovative in any way. I just feel like they are something I would see when walking through the halls of the art building here (not that those aren't beautiful). I don't know... just my personal opinion.
i think it was cool how vincent in the movie admires cezanne.
i personally do not like these paintings! i must say i hate the greeen in the sky!!!! it drives me nuts i just think his subject matter is boringgg......
The green in the sky is totally out of place. He looks like he got angry and attacked his painting, but still kept it.
Ok. I guess I can sort of understand what Cezanne was trying to do with the green in the sky stuff. The idea of painting stuff independent of or removed from its context is a pretty interesting idea, if different ways of painting interests you... but I think the way Cezanne puts this idea into effect just looks stupid and unorganized.
I think whoever took the cubism stuff one step further than Cezanne did should be credited with its innovation, because to me Cezanne's messed-up mountain painting just looks like a four-year-old stole a real painting and fingerpainted over it.
I agree with john, his second mount ste is just a bad ending to a good painting. Hopefully cubism that we study will be better organized and look more thought out.
I like the lack of attention to detailed or the fact that nothing is stylized or idealized. A painter can focus on landscape and without portraying the details. I like the green colors in the sky.
i really hated the green in the sky...i don't mind the objects being out of place but when is grass or a tree ever floating hundreds of feet above the surface of the earth?
I have to say, I don't really like his actually work, but i think it is interesting to see the progression of his paintings (like Caroline said).
i know some people think this art is beautiful but in my opinion, it just is not my favor. However, with that being said i respect his innovation and creativity and i think that aspect of his art is great. That is what is great about art in general if one does not like the artwork itself, there is generally one aspect you can find to like about it.
Post a Comment