Talk:Paul Cézanne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled comments[edit]

The current material is important, but surely Cezanne is much more important for himself than as an influence? --MichaelTinkler

I removed the following link because it is caught by spam filter Tomos 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Cezanne and Impressionism[edit]

Sure, Cezanne "solidified" Impressionism, but it's also worth mentioning that he exhibited twice with the Impressionists (in 1874 and 1877, if memory serves me well).

Needs a lot more work!![edit]

This article needs a lot more work. Cezanne is, in my opinion, one of the top 7 or 8 most significant artists of the last two centuries, and really deserves an in depth article.

One difficulty in writing artist biographies is that it is essential to include examples of paintings to illustrate the written arguments made, and in using images it is almost impossible not to break some copyright or other. Does anyone have any comments of thoughts on this?

The commons has a lot of pictures. Most of the great ones are in there but some are not. I agree with you about the pictures. I doubt if there is any room for in-depth discussion beyond what is currently there. I added a section on the paintings. All I could do without exceeding the size limit is state the bare circumstances. True, Cezanne is important. But he was so prolific one cannot hope to cover the subject. The theory that is in there is at this point well-written. This article can do no more than introduce the reader and let him look at some pictures. There rae quite a number of books I am sure and numerous theories. Who is to decide which critic is best? Better to stick to introduction. More articles might be written. Would they get onto the CD? I doubt it. It might be nice to state a little more about the life of the paintings such as which ones were stolen recently and are on the most wanted list, who owns the most famous, or more prices. As to whether you can get a better Copyright than the one on the commons, I don't know. If better images or better copyrights turn up do not hesitate to make your own selections.Dave 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a look at this article after some months. You folks have made it really splendid. I'm proud to have been a part of it.Dave 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

school project[edit]

Paul cézanne

Paul was born January 19, 1839 - October 22, 1906. One of his famous painting is the flower vace, the main colors are blonk,roseclair,rose,rouge,jhoun,and vert. The thing that inspiered him was to do some thing that was different.

--Dear friend, I very much like the introduction to your school project.It shows that you have been looking carefully at his picture.Cézanne would have been very much pleased with this attention. I hope the difficulty with editing for Wikipedia does not keep you from continuing your project.

Something I myself have always liked in studieing the works of famous painters is to have a well illustrated book about their life at hand so you can easely leaf through and compare many different paintings in one go. Very useful today is a series edited by Times Warner Books on painters: " himself", based on personal correspondence. In "Cézanne by himself"(Richard Kendall ed. 2004) for instance his letters to Emile Bernard are reproduced; including the one dated 15 April 19O4 where he writes:"...treat nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything brought into proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central point." Emile Bernard later included this remark in a famous article he wrote for the journal "L'Occident" (July 1904 pp.17-30) that is often cited as the source for the inspiration of Cubism.

Your own observation of Cézannes picture is much more accurate I believe than one voiced by theorists on the strenght of a sentence and without pictorial evidence. The theory of binocular vision in relation to Cézanne's painterly efforts in the present Wiki-article is a case in point.

Another very useful book for students of Cézanne is "Conversations with Cézanne" (Michael Doran ed. University of California Press 2001): a complete collection of texts by contemporaries of Cézanne, many of whom have grately contributed to the creation of the Cézannian Myth. In this book is also included a paper written by Lawrence Gowing:"Cézanne:The logic of Organised Sensations" (from William Rubin ed. for MOMA 1977 -"Cézanne:The Late Works, Essays...") where Cézanne's principal concept of airial perspective in relation to the "point culminant" of a painting is brilliantly analysed, belieing the fancyful theorie of binocular vision. The search for the expression of airial perspective through modulation in pure color led Cézanne to simplify his touches to the extreme in his later work. The keyword however is "modulation". Looking at Picasso's famous portrait of Ambroise Vollard may lead the student of Cézanne to invent the term "modulation of spatial fragments" for "Cubism".

In an interesting and lavishly illustrated (French) monograph:"Cézanne" -Flammarion 1995 by Philippe Dagen (professor in art history at the University of Tours and art critic of "Le Monde") apart from a clear chronologie a final section on Cézanne's legacy is included, discussing for instance the effect of his painting as recorded by Edvard Munch and Max Beckmann ...

Maybe you find my remarks a bit highwinded, they are ment to compliment what is written in the article. As to yourself I truely believe you have the eye of a painter. Take good care. Sincerely (Lunarian 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Cezanne's Doubt[edit]

There should be a small section (or at least mention) of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's "Cezanne's Doubt"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LonesomeDrifter (talkcontribs) .

Anon comment moved from article[edit]

I question whether the image "Vase of Flowers" is a Cezanne. It is certainly not a recognizable image of his. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

External links[edit]

Most of the links available on this are commercial to some degree. There is likely to be a problem with them as they nearly all include some spam. On the other hand some of their images are better than the ones on Wikipedia.Dave 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Comfortable Life[edit]

I object. Before he got the inheritance his life was not comfortable. The statement implies he did not have to suffer for art like all the other great painters. The article is well-written so I am not going to change it. The author can consider it.Dave 04:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do you pronounce Cezanne? Someone should include it.

  • I put an english pronunciation in there for the time being, if anyone can state it better, by all means please change it. 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cubism and optical phenomena[edit]

I edited the passages on these subjects because they were tending to suggest that Cezanne's contribution to art was primarily his influence upon Picasso and Braque, when it is indeed much broader. Also, the geometric conception of form was not a discovery of Cezanne's, as seems to be suggested here. You are welcome to undo my reverts--I do think some of the elaboration on his rethinking of traditional perspective is of interest, and could be revisited. It's just a bit narrow to tie it only to cubism, and as a result, the article becomes too much about the subsequent movement. JNW 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I entered that Cezanne wanted to "treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere, the cone.", since he urged people to see nature in these three shapes. 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to law school?![edit]

Cézanne is one of the central figures in Impressionism, Post-Impressionism and for Modern Art, but the present content of this article represents the knowledge of the 1980s, though some later bits of literature are supplied in the resources. So, I would propose a


WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

up-grade in priority, as well as an down-grade to the start-class. - rpd (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means add content which reflects more recent scholarship. Is the current information no longer relevant or factual? If the content is essentially correct, but merely dusty and in need of an upgrade, then the current rating would not appear to be inflated. JNW (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent years have seen Cézanne-exhibitions, accompanied by vast and detailed catalogues, brillant time-lines and texts. J. J. Rishel, or even more important Richard Shiff , majour contributors to present knowledge since decades, are at present not even in the bibliography, and at all there is no timeline on WP mirroring the actual state of knowledge (compare Vincent van Gogh chronology. Any WP-User, thus, easily can run into a dead-end, for most of the information we use to take for granted, has a rather narrow base.

To proceed, I think some steps would be helpful:

  • at first, the present content claims verification - impossible, when you rely on the few (and all but first-rate) resources supplied now;
  • probably, it would be helpful to add a chronology (see above) to get transparency of what we really know, and of what we assume;
  • finally, a strict separation of biographical data, based on this chronology, and of Cézanne's personal approach and output can help to sketch his aims and ends.

Then the reader should be able to judge Cézanne's position in modern art, from the text and the material supplied. A lot of work to be done! --rpd (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dating Cézanne[edit]

Most of the datings for Cézanne's works are proposals, by one or several authors. I think this should be considered when dates are supplied, and even more when this dates are linked to the general WP-chronology: It's no help for any user, to find approximate date like "ca. 1885-1887" linked to the (exact!) years 1885 as well as 1887 (but not to 1886, why?). I propose to stop such deliberate nonsense, and to clean up: please, no more links to dates within a range of years. --rpd (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAC on German Wikipedia[edit]

de:Paul Cézanne is up for "exzellente Artikel" status- it might be a good idea to integrate some of its content. Lithoderm 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it passed... any willing German speakers? Lithoderm 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narrative too early[edit]

The second paragraph bugs me. "His often repetitive, sensitive and exploratory brushstrokes are highly characteristic and clearly recognizable." Do say. What does a repetitive brushstroke look like, when it's not exploratory? And if the author finds them "clearly recognizable", he shouldn't have trouble working as an art-fraud detective..!

Don't get me wrong, a narrative is fine, when one needs others' impression of the man's works, but to me, it belongs at the bottom of the article, not the top. Up top, I'd like to get the shorthand facts. Then a fleshing-out. Then the gallery and praise, intermixed so as to let one support the other. On its own, up top, the second paragraph tells me nothing about Cézanne, only that the author idolizes him (or rather: his workmanship).

Other than this, it's a good article. How do I find out why it isn't rated higher? Smolk (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Work[edit]

Paul Cezanne was a famous french artist who studied and painted still life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cezánne and Francisco Oller[edit]

I know for a fact that Cezánne was, briefly, a student of Puerto Rican painter Francisco Oller. What I'm not clear about is for how long. I believe I read an article where Cezánne's relationship with Oller was described as deteriorating with time, to the point where Oller recommended his friend Camille Pissarro to assume the role of mentor to Cezánne, given how acrimonious the relationship had become. Any degree of truth to this? Demf (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request from, 20 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} change decide into decided (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but The word decide is used correctly here: Only after working for two hours under a downpour did he decide to go home; but on the way he collapsed....Modernist (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Card Players question[edit]

Which version of The Card Players did the Qatar Royal Family buy? The article doesn't say. --RThompson82 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the one identified as being in a private collection; the other four versions are in museums. Ewulp (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Paul Cézanne - Interior of a forest - Google Art Project.jpg
this is a bit crazy.

I have found a lot of Google art projects files, that have higher resolution and better colours. I am updating the files used now, as much as I can with identical ones, or a similar. I have found however some interesting paintings that do not figure in the article, the question is they shouldn't be used somewhere, maybe instead of some other less good quality files? ? Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Cézanne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal life?[edit]

This entry says next to nothing about Paul Cezanne. It's only about his pictures. Dreamwoven (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, the article doesn't talk about Cezanne much, instead opting to talk about his artwork. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed I think there should be a section about his personal life or a more info about it. (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The paintings in the "paintings" section of the gallery don't appear to have any organizing principle. As opposed to the Still life, Watercolor or Portrait sections. Would it not be better to have them organized by genre, e.g. Landscapes, and so on Hochithecreator (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am currently expanding this page from the German wikipedia page. However, I notice that I have failed to mark some of my edits as such. This is an oversight on my part due to lapses in concentration, all of my edits are taken from that page. I apologise for any edits that I failed (or let's be honest will fail to) to properly attribute. Hochithecreator (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At the end of the 'Final period, Provence, 1890–1906' section, there is an unattributed quotation "Constructions and harmonies parallel to nature". I have been unable to find a source for it (or, indeed, the quotation itself). I have substituted a similar quotation (with attribution) unless/until a source can be provided for the previous one. (Perhaps it's a back translation from another source of the same original French quote from Cézanne?!) Kitb (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]