Thinking Cézanne as an open source (now in Madrid)

 

The exhibition “Cézanne Site / Non-Site”, at the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid (until 16 May) represents a good opportunity to reflect upon the general theories on art, and on the duel, which occurs in every age, between proponents of the new art and supporters of the past.

Announcing the exhibition, the museum writes that “It will explore the relationship between two genres to which Cézanne devoted an equally intense focus: landscapes and still life. Like the Impressionists, Cézanne painted his landscapes outdoors but there is no sign of the seasons of the year or times of day in them and the motifs from the natural world are arranged in the manner of a stage set. In contrast, in his still lifes, the artist included the changes and dynamics characteristic of nature, with objects that normally convey stability leaning against each other in a precarious equilibrium”. This brief description of the work by Cézanne would be enough to represent the conceptual scope of his work. Yet, although today his art is highly valued, and he is considered to be one of the fathers of modern art, Cézanne has not always enjoyed a proper appreciation from critics.

 

On the contrary, in the early twentieth century, there was an ongoing battle between the supporters of the artist against the traditionalists. While these latter were opposed to the excessive formal abstraction in his works, the former ones regarded Cézanne as the greatest artist of his time. Among them we find the art critic Clive Bell who, in his famous book “Art” (1913) took the artist as an example to demonstrate the true meaning of art. In agreement with the formalism (of which he was a proponent), Bell argued that the knowledge of the historical context of a painting, or the intention of the painter, is unnecessary for the appreciation of visual art. “To appreciate a work of art” he wrote “we need to bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions”.

 

It is interesting to observe from our point of view where Bell was wrong and how his mistake is still common today. Bell developed his own theory starting from the work “Lac d’Annecy” by Cézanne. Attracted by a series of formal characteristics of the artist’s work (not the subject, but the shape, the colour and the way they were organized), the critic theorized a generalization to answer the question “What is art? “. The answer was that “art is” anything that has the formal characteristics that Bell saw in the works by Cézanne, everything else is therefore “not art” – a close examination of all the accusations that have been levelled against the theory of Bell, can be found here.

 

But the most significant thing to note is how the current debate between proponents and critics of contemporary art has very similar features to the one between formalists and traditionalists in the early twentieth century. This analogy allows us to highlight that is inadvisable to consider a work without taking into account the context in which it was produced and the motivations of the artist.

 

We certainly can agree with Bell on the appreciation of Cézanne. If however we use his method for judging all art, then we would lose too much of what has come after Cézanne. Bell, in fact, had understood the “software” of works by Cézanne. But this does not necessarily mean that the same software could be able to run, for example, the works by Bacon, Richter and Beuys and other prominent contemporary artists. Instead of hunting for general theories about art, perhaps, we should learn to work with the open source.

 

July 18, 2015