This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
by Paul Henrickson,
tm. © 2007
What is more comprehensible than the sphere, the cone and the cube? One might say that such perfection doesn’t happen in the real world. As a matter of fact such near perfection does occur in the “real” or natural world but normally one doesn’t get to witness it for it is either literally hidden beneath the surface or is camouflaged, or just beyond the sensibilities of our structured visual capabilities. For example, our eyes are not made to perceive the structured geometry of snow flakes. In fact our habits of movement make it unlikely we would notice, for example, the structured poetry of the passion flower.
We must halt if we wish to understand anything more than the simplest, the most elementary characteristics of nearly anything that comes across our paths. We must stop, interrupt our usual patterns of behavior and begin to really observe, intently, what we are looking at and even that degree of concentrated attention is probably insufficient for us to achieve a more complete comprehension. And so it is, I think, for an understanding of the work of Paul Cezanne. If we are to respect the opinions of those who consider themselves equipped to make objective judgments on the mental operations of others we must, with equal fervor respect the reports others provide us of their peculiar realities. For the one labeled psychotic his experiences are real experiences and, as such, have a profound meaning, not only for him, but for anyone studying him. However, those meanings may not be identical. The companions, family and those in close contact with the psychotic may feel that these experiences are rather weirdly real for them as well. What makes them disturbing for most of the rest of us is the absence of consensual validation. We do not see the world the
way they do. That is to say that if the experiences are so particular to the one individual there are, then, fewer people available with whom to share them. It is comforting to have reliable touchstones to “reality”, and having a group of acquaintances who see the world the way one does is reassuring, if both impractical as well as unrealistic. Accepting consensus is sometimes as realistic as having a third grade group of pupils vote on the gender of a rabbit. In that case there is a 50% chance that they would be wrong. But that democratic vote would probably not change Thumper’s behavior. It is very comforting to have people agree with you, but it may not be wise to always accept it. It is, somehow, as unrealistically comforting as the comfort we receive from consulting a roadmap which is only a symbol and not the reality. It is an instance when we feel we cannot trust the reality, but must trust the symbol because the reality is simply not immediately available to our senses. We trust the symbol and when we say, pointing to a spot on the map “we are here!” we would be hard pressed to defend the logic of the language as it relates to the logic of the physical reality. Two people are sitting in an automobile by the side of the road and looking at a map and one says to the other pointing to a dot that gives the name of a city “we are here” as though one might, were language a determinant of reality, able to diminish sufficiently in order to exist in the reality of the dot. One might ask: for what did the creator create us thus simultaneously dependent, independent and careless about how we use out inventions? It is not my intention to submit a thesis that will explain Cezanne’s creative work on the basis that he might be certifiable. I would not, nor could I, do that, for I do not believe there are any experts in the field whose certification would be incontestable. I do not know of any and I do not think any exist, or can exist. What I am quite certain does exist is the drive, the intense drive, to bring a comprehensible order to our experiences and that drive may be stronger in some than it is in others because the frequency of pertinent data seems to be more constant in some than in others. Cezanne may have been able to seriously state that the real world was interpretable in terms of spheres, cones and cubes because he was more constantly aware than others of their existence “out there” and his work was all about rendering that reality in terms of pigment. In this case it would be correct to say that Cezanne’s works were abstractions, or, in other words, equivalent symbols of a reality he was attempting to make manifest an awareness of through paint. Of the painters allegedly influenced by Cezanne it was Duchamp in his “Nude Descending a Staircase” where frame by frame the succeeding positions of the body and its parts on the descending path are depicted without a subjective comment regarding what kind of body it is or how alluring it may be found. This objective observation, vacuumed of personal passion, is more consistently in agreement with Cezanne’s approach than the early cubist works of either Picasso or Braque where despite the superficial similarities neither of these artists was able to really follow through with this approach. Even Duchamp, eventually gave up painting to play chess. I am not ready to
say that Cezanne’s efforts were a dead-end and pointless effort. I am more inclined to think that we have not, as yet, discovered the particular key to correctly associate color and form as Cezanne seemed to be suggesting. I do think there is more in favor of the interpretation that all succeeding artists, Picasso and Braque included, took the easy way out and settled for the superficial characteristics of Cezanne’s approach, not unlike, perhaps, an actor, assuming a French accent might try to pass himself off as Charles Boyer when what was convincingly Boyer was the energy he emitted.
Cezanne ultimately succeeded in eliminating his subjective and erotically dominated responses to the world whereas Van Gogh and Ryder had not. And Braque and Picasso took flight from the strictly scientific and emotionally uninvolved when they first had reacted to Cezanne’s dictum (see the three illustrated below) into the fantastic world of the possible and the possibly less significant (see the two below the three).
When we consider Cezanne’s claim that all the world can be seen in terms of spheres, cones and cubes I have no problem in considering that he is speaking somewhat, if not entirely, metaphorically. I think there may be reason to suspect him of responding to the multiplicity of sensual data in a somewhat procrustean manner, perhaps defensively, as a bulwark against over stimulation, but maybe not if this space view of Antarctic is any indication or
any of the other natural formations illustrated below.
or or or All these worlds come from the natural world and there are many many more symmetrical images out there, but these eight might shake up our preconceptions somewhat.
Certainly Cezanne’s work has left many another’s mind trying to resolve the imperfect images he had left us. Why are they “imperfect” …because they are approximations? What, if anything, does this process of analyzing data tell us? Is it simply the designed function of the human mind to migrate toward, reach for, and achieve satisfaction? And once having achieved it, go through the process yet again in the hope of achieving a better organization? Subsequent to the middle ages the northern aesthetic was described as a horror vacuae where the idea seemed to be, if there was an empty space, fill it!
And, in opposition to this concept, the 20th century minimalist idea seemed to be get rid of everything that has thus far characterized art production, subject matter, form, content, placement.
Instead. let the image the artist creates consume the artist, like Jackson Pollack melting and dripping himself onto the canvas.
This idea of art being a concept, that is, an idea, has validity, ultimately and logically it (art) will need no material substance with which to be embodied, or, any body (person) to form it. Although, having material form or being expressed through some other sense data certainly assists us in understanding the idea.. Otherwise, unexpressed or unembodied ideas remain unattached or dislocated memes waiting for the vehicle of the human mind to employ them. All are particles of spirit, or, in the material world, nano particles, the basic, and perhaps irreducible elements of material existence and infinitely interchangeable. We have been told that “In the beginning there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God” this encapsulated concept, awesomely brief, suggests that all material formulations were the result of, not just a thought, but an utterance. The recent research work in the material sciences suggest that this concept may have a legitimate basis beyond metaphor. I am now wondering whether this mightn’t have been the understanding that Cezanne had been trying to express and which accounts for the startling change from the awkward and clumsy material expressions of his early work to the light, abbreviated and seemingly transparent notations of his later work. Description of the return of the nano particles to their origins might be compared to the divine realization which was that the original wor(l)d had been, perhaps, misspelled and something must be erased, added or rearranged for a better conceptual fit. It is written that God destroyed what he had created because he was dissatisfied with it at one time before the universal flood. This may be the felt need for reformation. This anecdote, or parable, of God being dissatisfied with his creation is an experience every creative artist goes through in his search to arrive at the best possible solution. In this way God is, in our terms, an artist as well, and this may have some integral part to play and the human experience is justified by the divine example. This insistence on trying something different in order to get something, some meaning, more appropriate, more telling, more satisfactory has sometimes been called the divine dis-ease. Germans call it the gestalt, the organization, the arrangement, but the point is
not any of the local stops along the way, not even some theoretical final destination. The point is the trip itself, the compulsion to travel, be on the move, to change, to alter, in some fashion, whatever organization there is. The goal is the goal, but, at the same time the goal is not the goal, for the goal is the process. A rose is a rose is a rose. It is the goal of the rose to become, to be and to disappear as a rose having once entered into the consciousness of all with whom its rosiness had come into contact so the rose’s goal was not to do and to decay, but to be remembered just as, it might be easier to understand that Nijinsky’s goal was not the end of the dance “Le Spectre de la Rose” but the memory that members of the audience carried away as they left for home.. This concept, as well, is quite likely related to that of “entanglement” which tells us that once two objects have become entangled and later separated even if at great distances something happens to the one the other experiences it as well. Brian Clegg has written about this phenomenon in a book entitled “The God Effect”. Human twins have reported being able to know what is happening to the other and the Aborigines of Australia have reported receiving physical sensations in their bodies when family members are in need. Metals having been formed into one shape have a tendency to return to their original conformation, so I have been told.
Vaslav Nijinsky"Nijinsky’s life can be simply summed up: ten years of growth, ten years of learning, ten years of dancing, thirty years of darkness. Altogether some sixty years. How long he will live on in people’s memories, we can only guess."
Richard Buckle (biographer, 1971) .
Nijinsky was yet another searching personality who had demonstrably thrilled his audiences by the perfection of his dance technique and his creative movements on stage,
but off stage and in society, he was a very uncertain fellow, probably even more awkward in dealing with his fellow human beings than was Cezanne.
It has been said that Cezanne's early works were dark and composed of heavy, fluid (sic?)pigment suggesting the moody, romantic expression of previous generations. Quite frankly, what this source identified as “fluid pigment” I probably would have called weighty impasto. Now, there are other painters whose application of the pigment might be said to be heavily laid on. One of these is a European contemporary of Cezanne (1839-1906)0 by the name of Vincent Van Gogh (18531890). Another is an American by the name of Albert Pinkham Ryder (1847-1917)
Paintings by Vincent Van Gogh
Paintings by Albert Pinkham Ryder
Paintings by Paul Cezanne
Even a casual glance at the nine paintings above would inform us that in contrast to both Ryder and Van Gogh Cezanne became more spare as he matured, more select, more distanced from viewing the painting medium as an adversary. Originally, however, all three used the pigment in a rather heavy handed way, laying the paint
on thickly and in Ryder’s case, relentlessly, sometimes he would work on one canvas for years, a process which eventually adversely affected them. For Cezanne, it would appear, the subject tended to become much less important to the work…almost incidental. But the subject matter for both Van Gogh and Ryder remained paramount and inseparable from the way in which they laid the paint on the canvas. Why? If one considers the canvas as one battle field of the emerging spirit it would seem that Cezanne solved his particular problems by dismissing the source of his discontent which may have been emotional entanglements involved in the erotic life. Ryder may never have solved his at all but merely came to a truce, a stalemate, some sort of supportable compromise and Van Gogh as is well known, eventually succumbed to the demands of retaining a balance by shooting himself, but the artistic results are momentous and awesome in revealing the tracks of that effort. The solutions, the art works, though temporary, are truly full of wonder if looked on as evidences of the human struggle. Is a more perfect artistic technique, as judged by various academies, a more acceptable evidence of behavior?
Even the problem of selecting an appropriate hypothesis is troublesome. Many commentators have suggested that Pablo Picasso and George Braque had had reliable insights into the work of Paul Cezanne when they developed their cubist images. I, on the other hand, maintain that they did not understand him, that it wasn’t their job to understand him, and more than that, he was far from understanding himself. Picasso, Braque, Duchanp and others latched onto what they were able to grasp…any port in a storm will do, and what they did when they were there turned out to be pretty fair stuff, but in all the totality of other artists’ work it doesn’t even come close to defining Cezanne. Is Cezanne definable? In any event I reject the idea that Cezanne’s work can be explained by the works of those who may have tried, but were unable, to follow him. The question must be asked at some point, why bother to follow anyone? There was some years back a small volume (published by Curt Valentin in 1951) published of Cezanne’s sketch book. The original, I believe, is owned by The Art Institute of Chicago It “reads” as intimately as a diary and there is abundant evidence that Cezanne’s young son had access to the sketch book as well and took its existence and the activities of his father very seriously indeed. There are several drawings of the child and a few of Mme. Cezanne as well. There are also drawings of what appear to have been plaster casts and an excellent copy of a
drawing by another artist. I recognize the source but have forgotten the name of the artist. What seems to distinguish the drawings of his son and his wife is the very real understanding of who they were. They are well done, thoughtful studies, but when it comes to other subject matter some sort of terror seems to lay hold of Cezanne and he looses all objectivity and proper control over the medium with the exception of the copy
of the drawing mentioned.
Left more on his own devices however, without the assistance of another’s insight, Cezanne exhibits more than identifiable clumsiness, even, it might be said, in his landscapes and still lives. This copy by Cezanne seems to speak of the painstaking effort he took to follow the pathway of the markings of the earlier artist to see whether, perhaps, he might be able to train both his eye and his hand to perform in what he considered to be an appropriate way for an appropriate result. He was not successful.
Francois Boucher: drawing of a man reclining, strumming an instrument
This drawing by Boucher which may have been available for Cezanne’s inspection certainly represents the level of draughtsman-like achievement characteristic of the century preceding and could well have been an eidetic model for Cezanne. A model, if, indeed, it was, he had utterly failed to emulate. This seems to indicate the missing link, or one of them, in Cezanne’s development. He seemed quite unable to achieve that degree of control and of confidence that would have allowed him to conventionally excel in draughtsmanship. What a burden for a man who must surely have felt himself to be visionary and, like Moses and Salieri, in some way, mute. Failure is not unknown to innovators, yet ultimately successful innovators pass through and beyond episodes of failure and persist until they find what it is they may not have been sure they were looking for. But, it must be said, they do not always become aware of it. Had Cezanne been successful in drawing in those ways he initially admired, he probably might never have drawn the way he did. A look at some of his later watercolor drawings of landscapes and still lives…two normally, non-threatening subjects there are two very distinctive characteristics: the uncertain hesitancy of the graphite marks and the very sheer quality of the pigment.
These observations need to be clarified and I believe I have an acceptable explanation.
My view of the behavior of other artists in regard to what Cezanne had to offer, Picasso and Braque included, is that they had before them a rich banana split sundae covered with hot chocolate sauce and topped with a cherry and they have chosen the cherry and left the other behind….on the other hand, just possibly, on the other hand, they sensed the real message of Cezanne and sympathetic vibrations in their own souls should have pointed out to them to take a similar path as a process in the reintegration of their creative spirits.. a divinely wrought reintegration and rebirth as innocent as a child…a blank canvas. One upon which they do the creation…one grand life-long self-portrait, assembled one detail at a time. To a great extent this is precisely what happened. And, if subsequent developments are an indication the motivation for the creation of art shifted from that which complimented the appreciative public in mirroring their comfortable environments to emphasizing the personal involvement and development of the individual involved in the creation of works of art, in short, art moved from being involved with describing exterior events to transcription of personal responses to the creative process itself. Not unlike God being self-evaluating. To this extent art became therapeutic and the artist became a sort of social thermometer. It also became a matter of public belief that artists were likely to be somewhat mad, alcoholic, anti-social and suicidal. If the analogy we have been building holds true, that the elementizing process of what had been considered art is somehow comparable to the discovery of memes (thought elements capable of colonizing human minds) and the emerging nano-technologies, technologies built on the reordering of physical elements what we might logically look for in contemporary art might be a character like Jeff Koons (and there are armies of like ulenspegeler performers), except for the fact that Koons, who has been involved in a few copyright lawsuits, dispensed with his personal and physical involvement, except when he plays the clownish show off in his collection of 36 porn pictures, in the products of works, and thus putting his technical abilities to the test. Actually, his personal technical abilities are not involved, since in one television interview he admitted that he never touched a work, but that the works were the products of his orders (once again God created the world by his word) and other people’s applied training ( I do not know of any indication that God had helpers, but maybe the angels served that purpose) and simply made a more direct
reference to already existing works. In this regard his procedure follows in the tradition of Rubens who had an atelier of fifty technicians helping him produce the vast number of works attributed to him.(personally I much prefer Vermeer where the sensitivity of the individual reveals itself ) It would appear Koon’s only directly physical involvement in works are seen in the following two photographs:
Koons adds a maliciously satirical note, although quite true, regarding the relationship between artists, their works and the public that claims to like them. Jeff Koons and his tribe of fellow travelers such as Kirk Hughy, Paul Shapiro, Paul Brach, Richard Thompson might justifiably be called the collective “coups de grace” for a visual arts system, that has hypocritically thrived on a combination of unintelligent intellectual activity, ineffably poetic language, unscrupulous poseurs and a contentedly ignorant public willing to play the game so long as they are able to one-up their associates and salvage an income by a donation to a public institution. Nevertheless, in all this scrap heap of deceit there are valuable concept to be detected. Koons is forthright about his satire, continues to play the role of ten year-old show-off even when he tells us: The basic story line is about art leaving the realm of the artist, when the artist looses
control of the work. It's defined basically by two ends, one would be Louis (XIV): that if you put art in the hands of an aristocracy or monarch, art will become reflective of ego and decorative, and on the other hand of the scale would be Bob
In such a continuum, which I find to be intellectually misleading for there are many more dimensions to be considered than the tastes of extreme ends of the social scale, the population of subjects in the middle of this hypothetical bell curve should normally, using Koon’s illustration, contain those who have rejected the enticements of aristocracy as well as the call to socialistic arms in defense of the hoi polloi. There, we should, in theory, find the more creative practitioners. But, in point of fact, we hardly find them at all among the popular venues Koons offers us. Koons, may still be very honest in his statements, it could well be that those extremes are all he knows…a falsely egalitarian world where the elite in the forms of “Madonna”, John F, Kennedy Jr., (as a center fold), and Jeff Koons demonstrably boasting of his sexual prowess attract the attention of the ignorant, those who want to miss the point, and the stupid. So much for the cultural contributions of a democracy. It seems all devoted to the felt requirement to give the people what they are thought to want and trash any other consideration. There must be another measuring continuum somewhere around for Cezanne certainly doesn’t fit any measurement of a characteristic
Hope: that if you give art to the masses, art will become reflective of mass ego and also decorative….
shared by Koons. What Koon’s example does, I fear, is to make invalid the claim, so dear to my heart, that the artist’s creativity lies in his attempt to reach a more satisfying solution to his perceptions. Koon’s perceptions are clear, the failure is in his having given up the more valiant effort of making more positive contributions rather than focusing on mundanely clever one-upmanship ridicule. On the other had, I must admit, that as Thor’s hammer dictates, one must destroy before one creates and, maybe, Koons is the destroyer having fun, the comic pubescent pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. The artist, Sol LeWitt, whose work, I think is hardly measureably more acceptable stated:
In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.
Sol LeWitt American, born 1928 Wall Drawing No. 681 C / A wall divided vertically into four equal squares separated and bordered by black bands. Within each square, bands in one of four directions, each with color ink washes superimposed., 1993
colored ink washes, image: 304.8 x 1127.76 cm (120 x 444 in.) The Dorothy and Herbert Vogel Collection, Gift of Dorothy Vogel and Herbert Vogel, Trustees 1993.41.1
In addition to the visual impact, which is hardly more intellectually demanding, significantly less attractive sentimentally and lacking any measure of humor, but gains credits for having been “hand done” LeWitt still expects most of his audience to stand by observing rather witlessly. The author of the caption describing the work tells us first off that the wall is vertically divided.. I am forced to ask the reader to seriously consider how one really goes about dividing a wall
vertically. The statement at least has the virtue of describing Presumably the author has been employed by the National Gallery of Art…another victory for democracy.
Koons is quoted as having explained "I've always looked at my art and what I do in a very moral way,", smiling sweetly ( I add,like the Marquis de Sade) as he surveys big, splashy, collage-like paintings in his exhibition at Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills. I wonder why the Gagosian Gallery on its website had adopted such a “loftier than the observer” image. Does it have the same purpose as a plain brown paper wrapping?
“Jeff Koons is among the most controversial and intriguing artists to have emerged in the past decade. Like Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol before him, he is concerned with the transformation of everyday objects into art and takes such post-modern issues as high and low culture, context, and commodification of art as the central focus of his work.”
— From the Nov/Dec issue of At the Modern, the publication of the San Francisco MoMA
“It's the most important visual arts exhibition in San Francisco this year.”
— The San Francisco Examiner (12/11/92)
“Jeff Koons, the self-proclaimed "most written-about artist in the world," now headlining at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, has indubitably attained a certain "star" status. However, the Koons phenomenon — Koons himself, his objects, and the discursive reception that surrounds it all — seems gravely paradoxical. This problem arises because Koons is made out to be a critical commentator in the tradition of the Dadaists, a controversial figure in the footsteps of the avant-garde. Yet, Koons' art historical glory resides in the fact that he is flat — no depth, all surface (even flatter than Warhol). This meaninglessness and banality, if nothing else, is his most important contribution to art.” This last statement which I have highlighted in purple, as a wry comment of my own, is done so to underscore an additional point. That point being that language itself, originally intended, I had always supposed, was an attempt to clarify intent is, even in this critical purple passage, employing word sounds such as “is his most important contribution to art” to the effect that the image conveyed is precisely opposite of the one presumably intended. Language here has, unintentionally, I would suppose, become intellect’s traitor and a subverter of intelligence. It does appear that language has become incapable of defending itself in the face of this culture’s perverse intent to destroy itself. There are many signs of this phenomenon which might make it appear that our Muslim critics are absolutely correct and a portion of us are quite willing to go along and help in this destruction. Paul Cezanne was not one of those, and he probably knew little and cared less about Muslims, but in the face of Koon’s exhibitionist charade, pulling all the stops on the organ, including even nature’s gifts of a handsome face and beautiful body, in his effort to expose and ridicule an on going purposefully destructive process introduced and encouraged by refined cynics. I think Cezanne, who probably never had a deceitful motivation, would have been baffled by the Koon’s energy and his well-rewarded complicity and immensely saddened by the loss of his vision of an art based on the powers of light and color.
Can you imagine the frustration of the dog whose master had fallen unto a diabetic comma trying to dial 911 on the cell phone and barking into the mouthpiece his anxiety over the welfare of his beloved owner? The dog may have been more passionate about saving his master than Cezanne might have been were he aware of Koon’s efforts. I do not know how concerned Cezanne might have allowed himself to get under any circumstances seeing that it appears he tended to retreat from emotional involvements The cubist work of Pablo Picasso and George Braque as interesting and as valid as it is in its own right does not shed a great deal of light on explanations for the appearances in Cezanne’s work. Tracing the course of Cezanne’s interest in pictorialization might be helpful. On the beginning we see Cezanne clumsily giving expression to his romantic and erotic concerns. These efforts which might be embarrassingly compared to some of the mature work of Delacroix, Rubens and others, finally gives way, or up, to a less emotionally involved and flavored preoccupation. In fact, it does seem that Cezanne repented his earlier behavior and chose an approach characterized more by dispassionate analysis of landscapes and still lives. Where human subjects are involved they are desiccated, driedup, immovable, more real as manikins than the real living subjects they, in fact, were.
The six works illustrated below are by Cezanne.
It may appear a far fetched comparison to make, but Cezanne’s concern for his shoes while he slept on a park bench might also be seen as an indication of his reluctance to be sexually involved. Shoes as protection for the feet might be seen under greater threat than the feet themselves if one psychoanalytically applies the Biblical references to feet as the metaphor they often are when what is actually being referenced are the sexual organs. There is an Old Testament injunction to shave the hair of the feet which Muslims, in Turkey, today still observe. My Turkish landlord informed me that if the pubic hairs are more than 3mm long it is considered to be a social offense. When I asked him how would anyone know he did not reply. I did not further enquire whether anyone measured. There is something in behavior that is motivated more by the symbolism attached than by any practical consideration that makes its appearance absolutely fascinating. On the practical level to sleep with your shoes beneath your head while you lie on a public bench may possibly offer more comfort for the feet if the temperature is warm, but if the temperature is cold the shoes offer more comfort on than off. As for there being more easily stolen from on one’s feet than from beneath one’s head is an argument I can not accept as obviously removing shoes from the feet involves more manipulation than snatching them from beneath the head and of taken from beneath one’s head one is without shoes with which to pursue the thief whereas, probably, one would wake up sometime before the thief would have untied and removed the first shoe. No, Cezanne’s behavior definitely lacked practical sense, but probably made a great deal of symbolic sense. More important than the sexual organ itself was that which protected it from abuse. Consequently, keeping the shoe, the protective cod piece, next to its parent,
the symbol-generating mind, becomes the more practical solution. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. Cezanne’s work does, I believe, document the efficient role of image making and material manipulation in achieving psychic balance. The development of his material technique from the earliest to the last and his consistent choice of non-threatening subject matter may reflect his particular personal pathway it does not, as yet, show us its relationship to a larger picture of graphic development in the western world, a development that has spilled over and influenced developments in other parts of the world as well. The only relatively satisfactory conclusion I am able to arrive at involves the concepts of the meme, the nano, and the relatively current art emphasis on destructuralizing concepts, images and processes –perhaps with the expectation of reorganizing them more satisfactorily. Now, to make a comment relative to the social sciences, this seems to have been the purpose of the film A Torch Song Trilogy where a broader continuum of erotic responses were investigated than is customary. Retrospectively, that play 1983, the film 1988, has now been nearly a quarter of a century in our consciousness and only now are there political movements forming in response to its subject matter, so, in the broad view, it has been said, and it might be said again, that the arts touch upon areas of concern in the consciousness of some and eventually find their way into changed social behavior. While such a summary statement may, in part, apply to the work of Cezanne, I have a problem with its being considered the final answer, on the other hand, maybe it was the preliminary exploring activity of the memes in colonizing the mind of Cezanne that gave rise to the nano technology work of physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988),
approximately a half century later. I realize this essay has roamed, like some bee after nectar, from topic to topic starting with structures found in nature, psychological labeling, learning through sense data, dropped pursuits, no pressing persistence, a vague sense of something else being “out there”, the function of analysis, historic graphic solutions, art reflecting scientific interests, the disolution of traditional parameters, failures fueling achievement, social achievement, therapy and personal development and the role of the clown, all these, and more, have been left hanging and unresolved. Somehow, I find myself content with that arrangement having abundant faith that, at some point, it will all come together and the memes will have brought everything to a proper conclusion in their time.
I realize that it is comfortable for most readers to have a theorist come to a conclusion against which there might be some reaction. If one considers all of the above as some sort of introduction to the Cezanne enigma then my conclusion about Cezanne would be that he was still sorting things out and had le lived another ten or twenty years he might have discovered the colored light systems that would have established, holographically. the optical solidity he sought. Gozo, 2006
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.