Specific, answerable questions arise:

1) The table itself, is it parallel to the viewer (horizontal) or is it at an angle going into the picture, or both?
2) That round yellowish thing in the lower left quadrant, is it a drawer knob? Probably not, because it’s too big. So what could it be?
After much pondering, I began to wonder if the lower left part of the painting could be explained by an additional tablecloth with a border and a big pattern. This would mean there are three different fabrics in the painting in addition to the white tablecloth: two in the background, a red and green one on the left, and a beige and green one on the right, and then, underneath the white cloth, another tablecloth with a big pattern and a border, placed on the table at an angle so that you’re seeing the border as a diagonal in the lower left of the painting.
Seen in this way, the table could be straight on to the viewer, with the proposed new tablecloth draping over the corner of the table at far right. A Google image search shows that in the majority of Cézanne’s still lifes the table is in fact horizontal ; and the renowned critic Meyer Schapiro has said that the mass of the the objects in this still life is more or less horizontal across the picture plane. But these two things alone don't prove anything. More convincing evidence could come from another quarter: As a painter of still life myself, I’m conscious of how studio props may be used by painters over and over again in different combinations, so much so that you can sometimes identify the painter by the props. So, to find supporting evidence for my hypothesis, I set out in search of another Cézanne still life with the proposed new tablecloth in it. This was the mission: to find a still life by Cézanne containing a fabric with a large pattern and a border.

And as if that was not

(Above: My blurred photo of the Moma still life)
So now I am reasonably sure that this is a valid explanation of this particular aspect of Apples and Oranges, or rather its lower left quadrant. It was a fun project, a little like detective work, and I was thrilled to come up with a plausible alternative to existing theories. But it has left me feeling sceptical about academic readings of paintings and still unconvinced about the role of multiple viewpoints in Cézanne's art; which in turn makes Cézanne's role in Cubism less clear.
(See also Cezanne 1: Multiple viewpoints and Cubism)
3 comments:
I think you all right about this it’s not about changing viewpoints but I think I would add something to what you say. I think it’s about showing volume by tilting up the actual objects and then painting that he is telling you that these objects have volume I think Picasso and Brock did the same thing and the pre-Cuba stuff that follow their exposure Cezanne. This is seen in several small studies before and after the Demoisellesc Which are In the Barnes foundationthe best example. unfortunately, these small studies are not online. Perhaps I will photograph them myself and send them to you later. Please respond by sending me a direct link to you for example where I can text you or email you. I am very happy to come across your essay. On to the flag.
found early Picasso plastic glass plate, 1901 salt and Bank and companion license plate tilted up earliest I found so far looking at early Picasso still also going to check Brock. I’ll be in touch. I’m looking you up on Google. Gotta get off this stupid program.
Thanks for your interest. I agree the tilting could have been to show volume rather than the multiple viewpoint theory. I’d be most interested to see the Picasso studies. You can find links to contact me directly on my website, maryadam.com
Post a Comment