Regarding Cezanne's feelings of failure, failure The Secret of Successful Failing
advice on using failure to be successful is feedback, nothing more. Failure is just a reflection of something that isn't working on the inside. It doesn't hold any hidden meaning about our worthiness and doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. It is feedback about what worked and what didn't work. It contains all the necessary information for us to go back and change something on the inside so that we can produce a different outcome. If you can master the art of learning from your failures, you will find that you can literally direct your life exactly as you want it.

(RG note) Thanks, Gina. Gina Mollicone-Long is the author of The Secret of Successful Failing . Gina is trying an interesting experiment. While her excellent book is available on Amazon and other places, people who buy her book today, October 16th, 2007, will receive access to over $5800.00 worth of bonuses--plus they will be helping her raise money for some of the charities she believes in. A lot of sponsors who have found value in Gina's book are participating in the event. You can find out about it at www.ginaML.com/bookbonus.htm

I am a photographer and have been teaching photography and basic design
Quarry and Mt. Ste. Victoire
Painting by Paul Cezanne for over 11 years at the college level and at guest lectures. I picked or should I say Cezanne picked me to fascinate over his paintings. He is my favorite of all Impressionists because of his use of design elements. Your Dewain is only stating what is obvious to all experts of design: Everything is made up of parts of lines and parts of circles. I have taught this for years. Add only shadow to give dimension. If you see a cone in Cezanne's work, it is only your eye (brain) giving depth to the simpler elements which he laid down so carefully then added his wonderful color to give that depth. Gestalt to the max.

I have been fascinated by Cezanne for many years, and recently read
Quarry and Mt. Ste. Victoire 2
Painting by Paul Cezanne a biography by Philip Callow. As I was reading, it was uncanny to come upon references to his sadness, strange moods, fear of touch and unusual appearance. I have several people in my immediate family who have varying degrees of Asperger's syndrome , and I can't help but think that he might well have had a similar condition. One of my sons who has quite severe Asperger's is an artist also. All of them have particular skills and are narrowly focused on those skills. It made me wonder whether Cezanne might have been similarly obsessive about his work.

I don't know what Mr. Boyce is smoking, but I want some! It is true Questioning Detail
painted portrait though that everywhere in Cezanne's work there is the air of a plan - some principle or principles that he held in his mind and applied as he worked. If only we could truly know exactly what he was up to! Then maybe we'd understand how many of his paintings, which seem homogenous at first glance, hold our attention with some underlying core.

When I was in grad school I was playing with a hypothesis. Wine glasses and matches
acrylic on canvas The fact that we see with two eyes means that we learn to ignore second images instinctively. A thumb at arms length will give the illusion of a double background when you focus both eyes on the thumb. Likewise focusing on the distant landscape makes the thumb appear as double. Used in a painting, a tree at the edge painted as a double gives the feel of causing a focus on a distant object, and a double church steeple or double mountain peak produces a large depth of field effect and focuses on a near object. I put the conjecture in my thesis paper then saw, a few years later, a local museum exhibition of Impressionist work, including Cezanne paintings with double church steeples, double mountain peaks (Mont Sainte-Victoire) and double tree trunks at the side of his paintings. He had seen and realized the truth, using it to demonstrate his expertise at enhanced illusory depth. I had admired his varied back edges that implied a moving eye experiencing edges between still life objects as spatial objects in real space, the moving line that affects the viewer. I knew he was sophisticated, but he was also a clear-eyed genius who knew what he was doing.

I always think of Cezanne taking his morning stroll Snake and Apples
painting on canvas round the local street market, choosing fresh fruit according to quality, shape, size and colour for a new composition, bartering at the flower stall, calling in at the wine store for another interesting bottle, than taking it all home, finding a fresh cloth to drape over the rickety old table and setting it all up. I'm sure all the edible and drinkable bits of his still lifes wandered either into a cooking pot or straight down his gullet. Identifying with Cezanne is easy. His humanity, striving and refined simplicity are an inspiration.

Two worthwhile books are Erle Loran's Cezanne's Composition , first published Along the Creek
oil on paper
22.75 x 30.25 inches in 1943 and Cezanne Landscape into Art by Pavel Machotka. To me some of Cezanne's compositions seem to focus on variations of one geometric shape, such as his The Great Bathers , but most of them include multiple layers of all the basic shapes, masterfully integrated into compositions which always seem to present something new. I have always loved the way he is able to distort space and convince us that it is completely real. Looking at a Cezanne in person is a rich experience, seeing all the layers of color sparkling through one another and also realizing how much time, struggle and perseverance went into the making of his paintings. We are fortunate to have his work to learn from.

The underlying geometric structure in Cezanne's paintings, as Boyce
The Great Pine
Painting by Paul Cezanne points out in his research, is paramount to the success of his paintings. But I feel this is merely a "given," for no painting will succeed without it. Every great painting utilizes a geometric framework based on basic shapes. Whether it is a conscious or subconscious thing is a moot point- If you do a thing long enough consciously, eventually it will become "second-nature." Where I believe Cezanne excelled above all, is with his colour. He is the master of colour and he is the artist's artist because of this.

Too much analysis kills the joy in great works of art; it's
Still Life with Peppermint Bottle
oil on canvas
25 5/8 x 31 7/8 inches
by Paul Cezanne a left-brain exercise. Cezanne was a humble man, who probably never knew how influential he would be. Someone once defined humility as "low, of the earth." When you're "low" - that is, close to the earth - you're a realist, you're in touch with the reality of the world as it is. To say that he painted "relatively uninspiring subject matter" is another way of saying that he painted the reality of his, not someone else's world. Yes, he was a plodder; he walked and walked to find what his vision searched for. And died out in his beloved Provence, while walking, easel on shoulder, cane in hand, searching the earth. Humble. We could use more of this.

"Hidden scaffolding" resonated for me. And certainly Cezanne has always Ashford Wall
Photograph been the "painter's painter." The natural world, created by systems of greater and greater complexity is metaphorically represented in the exterior by the internal structure of how we transpose what we see and experience from the interior. In my own work The process begins with using a variety of 3-D imaging software to create a virtual three dimensional space, arranging and composing simple primitives shapes (spheres, cubes, tori, columns), and sometimes more complex polygon mesh models. This "virtual" composition is then texture mapped using fragments of text and letters, digital photos, and real-world textures. Lighting is introduced and positioned to either create the illusion of a landscape, or a generic interior. The resulting three-dimensional render is then brought into an image editing program where it is treated as one "pass" of a multiple composite image. Digital art, and the use of geometrics in virtual space, is analogous to the hidden scaffolding present in Cezanne's later paintings, which was, as I see it, further explored by the Cubists and Futurists by the use of plural viewpoints and the exploitation of the picture plane.

This is fascinating stuff. When reading your letter, I thought "Aha! Night Club
painting
20 x 26 inches Finally a way to understand Cezanne's genius!" But when viewing the painting maps, all I could think of was those "magic eye" posters that were so popular a few years back. I just can't see it. Now I'm trying to decide if it is my vision that is deficient, or if Dewain Boyce is just like many art critics: a big talker, trying to make himself sound intelligent. I wish his article had talked more about how he sees the maps. Does he visualize the cones in 3 dimensions by looking at the color? Is it the line that leads the way to finding them? I am stretching my imagination to the utmost, but still can't see the connection.

What a wonderful way to start my day, hearing about the way great representational
original artwork work is strengthened by the underlying structure of abstract geometric forms. More importantly, though, is the fact that Cezanne made his way by honing the process and proving once again that perspiration will win out over inspiration. One of the reasons we value this work is that it transcends the obvious subject matter, and probably led to our present day approach of expressionist and non-objective subject matter.

Although I can see how it may be true that Cezanne used intentional
original glass artwork structural scaffolding in his work (and what artist doesn't really, in one way or another), when I went to look at the examples you provided of Cezanne's paintings with the shapes superimposed upon them I felt very skeptical. Because I suspect that instead of ellipses you could just as easily take cylinders or cones, find those shapes suggested in the structure of the painting and voila you'd see a bunch of that particular shape. Sous Bois with revealed ellipses is particularly suspect to me - I see more triangular than elliptical shapes myself. Plus, where exactly is the structure and harmony in how those ellipses have been laid out? Is this a case of theoretical "spin"? Or the emperor's new clothes maybe.

I wonder how much time Mr. Boyce has spent drawing shapes where Feeling Blue
abstract painting there were none. It seems like a lot of nonsense to me. These shapes appear to have been drawn completely arbitrarily with no real basis to them at all. They could be drawn anywhere on the painting. Frankly, I don't get it. I don't see where he gets these shapes from and I don't see how these shapes provide "structural integrity or harmony." Seems to me more like a case of 'the emperor's new clothes.' If an expert says something exists, then everyone agrees with him for fear of appearing ignorant. I find the whole thing to be nonsense, and quite pointless. I hope this is not his life's work.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I've studied Mr. Boyce's cones and the Nocturna
Sculpture paintings without them and I don't see the "clues" he sees for placing them. His cone placements seem totally arbitrary and unrelated to the colors, forms, or images. I need some sense of how he discerns the placement of these cones... surely Cezanne didn't scatter them willy-nilly like so many scraps of paper dropped on the canvas. If Cezanne used these cones for scaffolding, wouldn't there be a sense of structural relationship among them? Wouldn't that relationship harmonize with the image? The point of scaffolding is to support, not rattle around independently of the image. I understand the concept of distilling shapes and forms into geometrics and then building a pictorial reality upon that... I use it myself in figure drawing and sculpting. I have also seen how an underlying line or shape can exist across various objects or color changes across a canvas. I recall a seascape painter (whose name escapes me) who carried the lines of a sail or a shadow on to the edges of the canvas with a change of color. His brushwork had a Monet quality of dabs of color working together. Granted, this scaffolding was clearly obvious in the final image, but he could well have implied other shapes within his color. But Boyce's secret, invisible cones smack of an emperor's new clothes. An interesting premise but not very edifying, if not downright obfuscating.

That someone is serious about "stating a case" with "in-depth research" and Male Cardinal
acrylic
24 x 24 inches is actually trying to prove that Cezanne, or any other master, did not already know the basics is preposterous. Questioning whether he was consciously applying knowledge is ridiculous; of course he was, if only by way of practice and experience. Sometimes Art logic becomes so far removed from the real thing, and I can hardly believe what I'm reading! To summarize and combine comments I've wanted to make to a few of the recent clickbacks: without Heart, Art is nothing because it maintains and is the origin of enthusiasm - but without structure Art is only chaos and is not enough to grab the viewer and maintain their enthusiasm. (Without proof we'll all progress just fine).

What disturbs me most is Impressionism, after some 150 years, still being at I Wish I Hadn't Sold These at the Garage Sale
painting of woman the forefront of what is stale representative art. Despite having held the stage for this long, too many contemporary writers, however indirectly, still promote Impressionism by reference. I am guilty of it myself. Such doings explain its longevity. Popularity still rules, that's why it is named popular and therefore common and it is lowering instead of raising the common denominator for art making or selling.

In the classic The New Cezanne by Charles Biederman, he gives the understanding that
Still Life with Skull
Painting by Paul Cezanne Cezanne, in his later works, had come to identify with the painting itself as a flat plane and attempted to represent the complexity of the subjects he painted as the planes that they presented which were facing the viewer--as if rounded or receding shapes were flat forms when brought to the surface of the painting. This meant that the painter should forget about trying to create an illusion of reality and focus instead upon seeing what was before him/her as a complexity of flat interlocking planes on the surface of the canvas. He was also intrigued by the use of warm and cool tones to create a sense of balance and depth. No doubt Cezanne used all sorts of compositional techniques, including the geometrics. One he really was expert with was creating harmony and balance with color. I'm sure I'm about to learn a lot more.

I too am one of those painters forever fascinated by the works of Rio Grande Estate
oil on canvas
11 x 14 inches Cezanne. One of my favorite quotes comes from a Cezanne scholar, Lawrence Gowing , in The Logic of Organized Sensations, a chapter in the book edited by William Rubin, Cezanne, The Late Work. He states, "One might write the history of that order of originality which this century identifies as the essence of art—and eventually it must be written—as a history of inveterate misunderstanding. We cannot claim that the view of Delacroix that inspired Cezanne represented a true evaluation of him. The guiding star that Cezanne followed shone far more steadily than the flawed jewel of Romanticism ever did. And Delacroix himself, how shallow his interpretation of Rubens ! Then Rubens—was not his merely sensuous appreciation of physical rhythms as the basis of style a gross misconstruction of the philosophical meaning that the human body held for Michelangelo ? And so on... Yet this succession of creative misunderstandings was as nothing by comparison with the way that the twentieth century used Cezanne. The interpretations to which his example was subjected in the years after 1906 converted art into something new, something he would certainly have accepted even less than he accepted Gauguin , an order of image and a function of style neither of which had ever existed before." So I say, more power to those who continue to draw from tradition and the work of other artists. May their misunderstandings also add new energy to our contemporary body of work we call ART.

I'm a long-time student of Cezanne's work. He did have a color approach to his
Apples Peaches Pears and Grapes
Painting by Paul Cezanne work and did talk about reducing things to their basic shapes: spheres, cones, cylinders and cubes... which he did do so well. Master painters throughout history have been great spatial designers and Cezanne carried on that tradition. His own vision of that tradition uses strong warm and cool colors contrasted with neutralized colors, the reduction of objects into their solid geometric forms and, importantly, the control of the "planes" on those massive objects, by the control of the play of light... that is his magic. I looked at Mr. Boyce's analysis and, as a painter, totally disagree with his findings. Any artist examining and studying composition throughout the history of art would find Mr. Boyce's analysis alien to the construction of paintings. In the overall pictorial design of paintings we find the very deliberate use of closed or open forms such as triangles, rectangles or sweeping "C" or "S" shapes, "X" shapes... these are not small imbedded "hidden" forms but gross design schemes within which other movements take place. In the great works you'll find successful two dimensional design overlaying "3" dimensional space. It is true that certain old masters used the Greek's Golden Rule to partition space, and also true that you find 3rd rate painters who used these same proportional rules exactly, to no avail, producing dead work, work without that magic. Rather than looking for hidden ovals and cones in Cezanne's work, Mr. Boyce should allow himself to be swept through the non-hidden forms that perform symphonic movement of masses, planes, and color, so solidly perceived and executed.

The "genius" of Cezanne has always eluded me. I understand from reading White Shawl
oil on canvas
18 x 16 inches volumes on the Impressionists of the time, he was the granddaddy of painters to those who painted during his period. I've looked at his work and I don't see a "genius" lurking there. Your comments about hidden circles, cones, rectangles is amusing at best. Every artist from childhood started drawing circles, cones and rectangles. My first drawing experience 55 years ago was from a morning television show by the artist John Negy, who started everyone with these shapes. He spent many sessions telling us about core shadows, reflected light and all this IS the basis of all objects every artist paints since the caveman. Artists from Michelangelo to Velazquez to Andy Warhol have painted images all based on circles, cones and rectangles. Without being mundane, a head is based on a circle, an arm is based on a rectangle. In a previous email response I commented on the basis of sound drawing technique. Fundamentally, all good drawing is based on these shapes in one form or another. Good design is based on these shapes. Enough of Cezanne "hiding" these shapes within his paintings. We are all hiding these shapes within our paintings. So, having established this, let's move on to "seeing beyond the image." I believe Cezanne falls short here again. While I find his "technique" interesting, I don't find it satisfying or earth shattering or groundbreaking in execution. Many of his still lifes are wonderful to look at but I feel he may have been experimenting and never quite got it right. These paintings are what we see today and have come to think are an approach or method and see something that is simply not there. Whenever anyone today questions a noted "master" of the past, we are vilified. It's slander to question artists that have reached a level of note. But life and art is about questioning. All we do today is based on the past and artists that have come before. New art movements have been created because of artists questioning their peers. The Ashcan artists rebelled against the past. The Impressionists rebelled, The Renaissance happened because artists rebelled. Russian art today is a rebellious response to the oppression of Communism. I believe artists in particular have been brainwashed. Many have stopped thinking and have succumbed to being told what and who is a genius. In fact the words "master" and "great" are so overused as to be meaningless. Cezanne's contribution to art will be debated ad infinitum and that is a good thing. I just want to add my two cents into the pot for the other side. As much as I have incalculable respect for the artists of the past, I don't consider Cezanne to be among the uppermost crust. If we are to look at Cezanne, we have to do so without rose colored glasses and examine truthfully not what history tells us but what our eyes and hearts and knowledge and experience tell us. Every artist should be appreciated and understood for their contribution to art itself. Without art, life would be a dark shadow of a hollowed out tree.
Website Email