The author’s study of Cezanne is perhaps the best study of an artist in the series of articles we have read to date. Instead of vague references to artists creating work in order to construct or deconstruct some abstract relationship, Merleau-Ponty actually uses historical references to gain insight into Cezanne’s style and motivation. Quotes from Cezanne, such as “But aren’t nature and art different? I want to make them the same.” This is a clear opportunity for us to gain insight into Cezanne’s style, from his perspective to his use of colors, to his motivation itself.
Later in the article, the author uses Cezanne to define some interesting yet difficult relationship between artists, their life and their works. Here we enter again onto shaky ground, creating assumptions based on some form of logic. The example I have in mind comes from this passage...”The work to come is to be hinted at, but it would be wrong to take these hints for causes, although they do make a single adventure of his (Cezanne’s) life and work. Here we are beyond causes and effects; both come together in the simultaneity of an eternal Cezanne who is at the same time the formula of what he wanted to be and what he wanted to do.” These types of abstract suppositions literally call out to be questioned and my question is, how can you be sure of this?
The article continues with many more examples of assumptive logic, so that the article then joins in the legion of the impeachable bodies of work that continue to roll over with the passage of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment