Comments on: Paul Cézanne: Site/Non-Site

By: Roger Barnard

Roger Barnard — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:18:31 +0000

A few more thoughts after rereading your review. It seems to me that in almost every analysis of Cézanne’s work there has been ample ‘consideration of the physical context in the production of Cézanne’s painting’. And why ‘the hitherto mutually exclusive experiences’? The connection between the still lifes and the landscapes has often been commented on; to give just one example, referring to the drapery in ‘Apples and Oranges’ c. 1899, Isabelle Cahn comments in the 1996 catalogue of the Philadelphia Museum of Art show: “Here its folds evoke the geological configurations of Mont Sainte-Victoire.” So nothing new there. I wonder if the whole concept of site/non-site is rather misleading and nothing more than a catchy title. The crucially important thing about Cézanne was that all his motifs, whether near or distant, were treated in a similar way – apple, figure, mountain – all part of the flux of human perception.

By: Roger Barnard

Roger Barnard — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:56:10 +0000

In reply to Roger Barnard. Apologies. That should be 'a little more carefully'. Careful typing is also an asset.

By: Roger Barnard

Roger Barnard — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:53:00 +0000

The identity of the sitter in “Portrait of a Peasant” may be unknown, but it’s extremely unlikely to be ‘the artist himself’. Even a cursory glance shows there is little resemblance to Cézanne. And how would he have painted a full-figure self-portrait – with the aid of a large mirror? Also, you mention ‘the wall on which the figure sits.’ It’s pretty clear that the man is not sitting on the wall, but on a chair or stool in front of it. This is even more obvious in the watercolor of the same subject done at the same time. If we are discussing paintings, I think we should look at them s little more carefully.