6 ms·

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exce

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.

martian 17y ago
Yes, Cezanne could paint brilliantly: http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne
pg 17y ago
Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.
- foldr 17y ago
  Right, but saying they're mistakes implies that he drew that way because he couldn't have rendered if he'd wanted to (your "Occam's razor" explanation). I don't know if that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it seems kind of unlikely to me.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Dude, don't make me have to write another essay. http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&vo=&vl=&owner=&isKiosk=&SIZE=FULL http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&#3...
  - huntse 17y ago
    That is a truly spectacular drawing. Astonishing.
    - euccastro 17y ago
      You're being ironic, aren't you? As a sketch that may well do the trick, but as a demonstration of drawing ability it's abysmal.
      - zimbabwe 17y ago
        It certainly shows that he's got a good sense of perspective re: drawing bodies. And that's the suggestion Paul's making, right?, that Cezanne makes stupid goofy mistakes. The sketch here is just a sketch, but it shows he knows his shit.
        euccastro 17y ago
        Sorry, but no. Left arm (right from the observer's POV) is orangoutan-sized, while the other (closer to the viewer) appears too small and thin in comparison, even accounting for perspective. Hip bone goes way too high, and thorax is amorphously portrayed in comparison. Neck starts behind guy's back. Head outline is missing. The thing that bites guy's ass is ridiculously sized if a lion was intended, and that front leg looks more human than animal (then again, he might be going for some mythological chimera-ish thing). Overall, the drawing is confusing and I can't make out what many of the lines in the legs/ground area are supposed to represent. Finally, this is not a casual doodle. Lines were drawn and refined several times over. If he was going for manierism or El Greco-ish stylization, fair enough, but still proves little about his ability to draw. If he was trying to achieve a render true to anatomy and perspective, I call fail. I don't know whether Cézanne could draw or not, but I don't think this works as evidence that he could.
        pg 17y ago
        Cezanne can't be blamed for the lion. This is a drawing of a statue in the Louvre. The sculptor may have made the lion small intentionally. But the human was pretty anatomically correct as far as I remember.
- huntse 17y ago
  That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+after+Pigalles+Love+and+Friendship-1024x768-4056.jpg http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps? http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~35400~99964:Sketch-of-Anatomical-Sculpture--rec?sort=INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID&qvq=q:AMICOID=CMA_.1958.14.a+;sort:INITIALSORT_CRN,OCS,AMICOID;lc:AMICO~1~1&mi=0&trs=1 http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~3... The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.
  - jules 17y ago
    I think he means things like this: http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-table.jpg http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-... The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either. Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - zimbabwe 17y ago
      You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting. Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- nuba 17y ago
  Any camera can do this, "rendering" in the sense of "an objective, accurate, realistic view of the world". Distortions and imperfections in the artwork convey the artist's subjective view of the world, and you need an artist for that. Imagine a perfect rendering of what's depicted in Picasso's Guernica. It wouldn't work. And that came from someone who could probably do academic realism in a handstand and blindfolded ;)
huntse 17y ago
let's look at that claim in detail. For example, does this http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg look to you like it was done by someone who couldn't draw? It's pretty darn accurately drafted.

martian 17y ago

Yes, Cezanne could paint brilliantly: http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne

pg 17y ago

Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.

foldr 17y ago
Right, but saying they're mistakes implies that he drew that way because he couldn't have rendered if he'd wanted to (your "Occam's razor" explanation). I don't know if that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it seems kind of unlikely to me.
idlewords 17y ago
Dude, don't make me have to write another essay. http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&vo=&vl=&owner=&isKiosk=&SIZE=FULL http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&#3...
- huntse 17y ago
  That is a truly spectacular drawing. Astonishing.
  - euccastro 17y ago
    You're being ironic, aren't you? As a sketch that may well do the trick, but as a demonstration of drawing ability it's abysmal.
    - zimbabwe 17y ago
      It certainly shows that he's got a good sense of perspective re: drawing bodies. And that's the suggestion Paul's making, right?, that Cezanne makes stupid goofy mistakes. The sketch here is just a sketch, but it shows he knows his shit.
      - euccastro 17y ago
        Sorry, but no. Left arm (right from the observer's POV) is orangoutan-sized, while the other (closer to the viewer) appears too small and thin in comparison, even accounting for perspective. Hip bone goes way too high, and thorax is amorphously portrayed in comparison. Neck starts behind guy's back. Head outline is missing. The thing that bites guy's ass is ridiculously sized if a lion was intended, and that front leg looks more human than animal (then again, he might be going for some mythological chimera-ish thing). Overall, the drawing is confusing and I can't make out what many of the lines in the legs/ground area are supposed to represent. Finally, this is not a casual doodle. Lines were drawn and refined several times over. If he was going for manierism or El Greco-ish stylization, fair enough, but still proves little about his ability to draw. If he was trying to achieve a render true to anatomy and perspective, I call fail. I don't know whether Cézanne could draw or not, but I don't think this works as evidence that he could.
        pg 17y ago
        Cezanne can't be blamed for the lion. This is a drawing of a statue in the Louvre. The sculptor may have made the lion small intentionally. But the human was pretty anatomically correct as far as I remember.
huntse 17y ago
That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+after+Pigalles+Love+and+Friendship-1024x768-4056.jpg http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps? http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~35400~99964:Sketch-of-Anatomical-Sculpture--rec?sort=INITIALSORT_CRN%2COCS%2CAMICOID&qvq=q:AMICOID=CMA_.1958.14.a+;sort:INITIALSORT_CRN,OCS,AMICOID;lc:AMICO~1~1&mi=0&trs=1 http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~3... The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.
- jules 17y ago
  I think he means things like this: http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-table.jpg http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-... The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either. Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting. Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
nuba 17y ago
Any camera can do this, "rendering" in the sense of "an objective, accurate, realistic view of the world". Distortions and imperfections in the artwork convey the artist's subjective view of the world, and you need an artist for that. Imagine a perfect rendering of what's depicted in Picasso's Guernica. It wouldn't work. And that came from someone who could probably do academic realism in a handstand and blindfolded ;)

huntse 17y ago

let's look at that claim in detail. For example, does this http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg look to you like it was done by someone who couldn't draw? It's pretty darn accurately drafted.