The Cézanne Effect

In Richard Shift’s essay Mark, Motif, Materiality: The Cézanne Effect in the Twentieth Century, Shift expounded on how much of an influence Cézanne had on artists of this era. In 1904, the Salon showcased several of Cézanne’s artworks, eliciting mixed reviews. Over the course of the twentieth century, it seemed as if “Cézanne’s effect” took prominence and individuals, particularly art critics, either began to look towards him for inspiration or criticize his technique. However, the point of Shift’s essay wasn’t to acknowledge every aspect of Cézanne’s work that younger generations aspired to work towards, rather, it was an examination of two specific characteristics of Cézanne’s creations, his distinctive “mark” and the critical “abstraction.”
About the abstraction characteristic, Shift was referring to “the tendency of a Cézanne picture to be organized by a self-generating, self-sustaining “motif,” (Shift 289). The “motif” that Shift is referring to applied to something that was unique, something that was not present in other artworks. For instance, in Cézanne’s Arbres au Tholonet (Trees at Le Tholonet), the “motif” was the occurrence of continuing rhythm. Cézanne only continued to present varying “motifs” in his imminent artworks. Furthermore, Shift points out that there was a shift from “reality” to “abstraction” (Shift 293). It was common for critics to link Cézanne to abstraction, whether it be positive or negative or negative feedback. Critics frequently commented that his images were incomplete, either noting Cézanne’s failure to properly showcase nature’s assets or his neglect to choose a suitable arrangement. Additionally, Shift described the link between bourgeois life and Cézanne’s progress.
Cézanne typically complained about the complexity of modernity. Impressionism was viewed as radical by critics, while Neo-Impressionism was perceived as “scientific.” Cézanne incorporated the worst qualities of both movements, reducing his technique to a purer state. Morice, a critic at the time, “took Cézanne’s apparent withdrawal from humanistic culture as a signal that conventional notions of art were failing present human needs,” (Shift 295). Cézanne had the tendency to separate himself from standard traditions, rather, his work became personal. Throughout the remainder of the reading, Shift elaborates the theme of “motif” present in Cézanne’s work such as Madame Cézanne in a Red Armchair and Still Life: Flask, Glass, and Jug. Both pieces were deemed incomplete by various critics, however, the “motif “is essentially the same, it became “a hybrid of the perceptual effects of these disparate objects; it represents their interaction in human experience,” (Shift 297). During Cézanne’s later years, his “abstractions” became more distinct. An organic quality was showcased, much different from his earlier works. Shift then introduced Matisse, one of the more fervent followers of Cézanne. Matisse understood that his work would change over time, appreciated Cézanne’s images as they were, and applied color to his canvas in a manner like Cézanne. Furthermore, Shift stressed the importance of passage, a term dubbed by Picasso. Passage tended to “eliminate breaks and gaps introduced by other technical devices, such as overlap,” (Shift 307). However, Cézanne’s version of this concept was quite distinct. He showcased human feeling in a way that other artists were not prone to do. American artists in the later part of the twentieth century attempted to change painting by isolating personal matters from social ones. As with the Cubists, these artists looked to Cézanne for inspiration,
“especially with regard to his straightforward materiality,” (Shift 312). Cézanne’s personal touches were particularly unique and proved to abolish representation from abstraction. With this notion in mind, the popularity of the artist was sure to rise, a moment that Cézanne surely cherished.