REVISED EDITION 7 CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART

PAVEL MACHOTKA TABLE OF

1 PREFACE TO INTRODUCTION: NARRATION THE REVISED THE TENACIOUS AND VISION EDITION PRESENCE IN CÉZANNE’S 6F 17 OF THE MOTIF WORK 18F25 26F33

5 6 7 ACHIEVEMENT LANDSCAPES THE LATE OF A CONSISTENT OF MATURITY: LANDSCAPES: TOUCH: 1885 '1894 1895 '1906 1875 '1884 10 6F 153 15 4F 207 74F 105

Concept & text © Pavel Machotka, 2014 Photo © Émile Bernard, Didier Bonfort, Christian Crès, Erle Loran, Pavel Machotka, Gertrude Osthaus, John Rewald, Ker-Xavier Roussel, 2014 Graphic design © Belavenir, 2014 © Arbor vitae, 2014

ISBN 978-80-7467-049-7 CONTENTS

2 3 4 PERCEIVING RECONSTRUCTING EARLY OBJECTS THE MOTIF LANDSCAPES: AND LOOKING ON CANVAS 1865 '1874 AT PAINTINGS 40F 51 52F 73 34F 39

LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX PAINTINGS 21 4F 218 22 0F223 20 8F 213 6 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION

Cézanne outside his studio Photo Gertrude Osthaus, April 13, 1906 CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 7 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION 8 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION

The young painter Émile Bernard visited Cézanne in 1904 and 1905, occasionally went to the motif with him, and witnessed both his oil and his watercolor techniques. At present, we know no better candidate for the authorship of the photograph.

Fig. 1a La Route tournante en haut du chemin des Lauves Probable photo Émile Bernard, 1904 CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 9

A photograph of the subject of a well-known landscape painting will preserved, the light at the same time of day, the scene framed as unavoidably reshape the way we see it. It will break open its sealed, Cézanne had done – and the whole photographed in color. Without timeless world, and take us momentarily into the place and the moment color, the photograph will admittedly reveal the solid forms, the in which it first came to exist. It will inevitably remind us that before the palpable textures, the identities of things, and the painter’s touch. But painting was completed and began its progress toward enshrinement a color record will also reveal the local hues and the color relationships on a museum wall, it was a work in progress: the artist was faced with that give the painting balance and emotional life; it will document the choices, chose well or badly, made corrections, and eventually (perhaps resonances between things that connect with each wherever they may even reluctantly) declared the work done. In painting a landscape happen to be on the canvas. And it will reveal the paradox that the he might have chosen to attend to its texture and color, or instead paintings by themselves are incapable of suggesting: that Cézanne’s to emphasize space, clarify structure, and balance the composition; originality, complexity, oneness of form and color, and rigorous unity of he might have even attempted to achieve some workable equilibrium canvas surface, were all deeply connected to the process of seeing itself. of all these intentions. When the photograph succeeds in showing us The very first photograph taken of a Cézanne site fulfilled all this, it connects us with the painting’s origins, it raises questions that all the conditions save that of color, and if we miss the color, we can at we might not have asked, and it nurtures in us the hope that we might least be assured of the photograph’s absolute authenticity. It was taken better understand the painter’s purpose, vision, and craft. by someone who stood essentially in Cézanne’s footsteps. Everything Not all photographs of landscape sites fulfill the hope, in the photograph is as the painter had seen it: the recession of the however. The style of some painters is so close to the photographic road, the profile of the crest, the houses just slipping behind the hill, image that the creative process remains hidden; the canvas and the the relation of the trees to the background, the direction of light. photograph appear only as alternative visual records. We will have Whether the photographer snapped the shutter over Cézanne’s proof of the artist’s commitment to his subject, of course, but little shoulder or came back later is immaterial; Cézanne’s exact standpoint evidence of the painting as a process of selection, of emphasis, would have been familiar to anyone who had gone with him to his site. of incorporation into the painter’s way of seeing. Our admiration We can be sure that the painter returned to the site several times, for the painting will not be affected; we will still note its balance because the painting’s complexity and elaborate integration required or complexity, color consonance, or the mastery of representation. considerable time – and because he took the trouble to paint a large, But we will have learned little that we could not see in the painting equally complex watercolor from the spot as well. alone. 1 With other painters, the canvas and the photograph are too The photographer was probably the young painter Émile distant – perhaps just close enough for us to recognize the site – and Bernard, who visited Cézanne in 1904, and the photograph certainly we then fail to see how the one depended on the other. The site looks carries a kind of authority that later photographs can only approxi - only as a pretext for painting, not as an invitation or an incitement. mate. Many sites were well preserved thirty, forty, and even ninety The painting continues to exist as an independent thing, not as the years after Cézanne had seen them, but no photographer working fruit of close observation and analytical thought. 2 later had seen him paint. With Bernard’s impeccable evidence, we Photographs of Cézanne’s sites, however, occupy a space in can immediately see the attraction of the motif: it offers the painter a between; they are pregnant with suggestions of the painterly process naturally concentrated composition, with a focus in the partly hidden, at work. They are most revealing, of course, when they reproduce bright house, and with lines radiating from it to the right and then as much as possible what the painter had seen: with the site well downward. 10 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION

These movements offer a kind of invitation to paint, and the the other. Each is in an obvious way convincing as a representation invitation seems all the more irresistible as the composition is already of the site, yet each is also a reconstruction in a different system, one balanced; two trees anchor it in the lower right. Cézanne responds of Cézanne’s own devising. The watercolor relies on a limited palette with a relentlessly dynamic picture: he magnifies the inclination, gives of transparent colors laid down patiently in overlapping facets; each the radiating movements a push downwards and outwards, and paints new facet is set down on a fully dried surface. In this way, yellows, the road with vertical touches so that it will dip down and accelerate greens, pinks, ochres, blues, and violets – and nothing else, unless them. Above all, he creates a painting that is fiercely independent one counts the white reserved areas – are superimposed in different and self-contained in spite of its profound connection to the motif: its proportions to indicate hillsides, houses, trees and sky (or merely blues, greens and corals can be seen in every part of the canvas and all to suggest them). Soon one forgets that one has seen the site: it is the its surfaces have the same rhythm and density. The painting is a record sheet that is alive, with unceasing movements, ubiquitous correspon - of a motif, but it is also more: a revelation of its character. dences, a sense of unity – and of course with the traces of the painter’s When we come close to a scene as Cézanne saw it, then, we will hand, which pivots at the wrist in short movements. see that the painting’s principal structure, balance, and color relation - The oil shares with the watercolor the same radical, centrifu - ships were present before his eyes. Rather than inventing objects or gal composition (which is arrested and restrained at the bottom right changing the intervals between them, he accepted the configurations he by the trees), and it shares Cézanne’s conception of painting as seeing found and remained close to them as he reconstructed them. Of course, nature through a veil of interpretations by colored patches. Yet how so did many of the painters of his time; this is clearly illustrated in radically different the patches are when painted in oil. Being opaque, Reidemeister’s history of the sites of the region around Paris. 3 But we they do not make a third color when superimposed, nor do they hover would have expected this from earlier painters, if only on grounds of in some indeterminate space where one can be above another, or be - history; with Cézanne, however, the master of the analytic touch and the low, at the same time. In oil, if one paints one patch on top of another, complex composition, we might have supposed the paintings to have been it will remain on top; if one places a green patch on top of a blue one, largely independent constructions. Looking at Cézanne’s motif, we are it will remain green. Striving for unity – as Cézanne does here with faced instead with a paradox: with the artist’s equal attachment to vision greens in the sky and blues in the hillside – one will achieve it, but it and to painting, or better put, with his equal commitment to intense will be tangible rather than ethereal. It is a mark of Cézanne’s great - gazing and to coherent yet sensuous constructing. Attempting to recon - ness that both ways of achieving a picture are unshakably convincing. cile the paradox, we turn to the photographs to see both what Cézanne There are relatively few known sites that have been depicted had seen in the site and how he had converted his vision into pigment. in both media, or depicted more than once in the same medium. Doing this, we inevitably become aware of the devices by which the site But even this one example (and the few others discussed in this book) became a Cézanne painting, by which landscape became art. serves to remind us that as we look at a site photograph next to Nothing is more helpful (or breathtaking) than comparing a painting, we are looking both ways: at the photograph for evidence two different constructions inspired by the same site. Whoever saw of what mattered to Cézanne to represent, and at the painting for testi - Cézanne paint the Route tournante painting may have also watched him mony of his search for ways to represent it. Even black and white pho - paint the watercolor; the photograph could be the record of either. tographs are helpful in this regard, but color elicits more penetrating We do not know which Cézanne painted first, since each version is questions (and provides some answers). It can indicate the sources of a consummate example of its medium and one cannot be reduced to Cézanne’s color harmonies in the sites – in the colors already present CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 11

Fig. 1b La Route tournante en haut du chemin des Lauves c. 1904, R946, 65 × 81 cm, Fondation Beyeler, Basel 12 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION and seen in a specific, pervasive light – and point directly to the the best of what is new by taking out some of what was least interesting subtle adjustments Cézanne performs in the paintings for the sake about the old. The second edition is nevertheless more comprehensive. of compositional balance. Such was Cézanne’s sensitivity to color that We owe our knowledge of the sites principally to the photo - one would not think of discussing the paintings apart from it; color graphs taken by Erle Loran in about 1927 and the more complete always constituted composition, as did solid objects, and like them, survey of the sites done by John Rewald in about 1935. In black and it occasionally needed to be pushed and prodded. white, their work documented most of the sites that are now known, We might have wished to have a similar record of Cézanne’s and it did so before the inexorable pull of entropy or push of develop - still life arrangements and of the sitters as they sat for his portraits. But ment had done too much destructive work. Loran used his photographs we shall never have it, and perhaps this is not to be regretted. I am not for a critical analysis of Cézanne’s relationship to Cubism; 8 but given clear whether we would have learned from it as much as we do from what we know now, his dependence on black and white photographs the landscape record. The challenge of a still life is first of all to com - encouraged the connection unduly. In mere black and white, Cézanne’s pose it, and Cézanne assembled his objects so thoughtfully that, when paintings seemed to record only space and its transformations, some - he came to paint them, he had already set up on his table what in land - what in the manner of the early Cubist paintings. Whatever the truth scape he had to extract through intense looking: the complex relation - of that comparison, the new color documentation will show that black ships of things to each other. A portrait, like landscape, was also a giv - and white photography was not quite capable of sustaining it. Rewald’s en, but it had to meet the challenge of achieving a satisfactory likeness aim, on the other hand, was documentary rather than interpretive, and (which Cézanne could accomplish without difficulty); on the other his many photographs do in fact accompany his entries in his catalogue hand, it also offered an easier solution to the problem of integrating raisonné and tell us precisely where Cézanne had painted; 9 there, the colors, which Cézanne could realize by manipulating the color of the black and white format is perfectly sufficient. Nevertheless, in spite of background as he wished. 4 In neither case would the paintings have re - their different aims, Loran and Rewald assembled a permanent record quired the intense scrutiny of the visual field to which his young friend of the sites and laid the basis for all further research. 10 Gasquet was witness on the motif 5 and which we can deduce from the photographic evidence ourselves. Our analytical questions of them would have concentrated on composition in the first case and on the The search for color in Cézanne’s relationship of the painter to his sitter in the second, 6 and photographs motifs (at the time of the first edition) would have been of little use in answering them. Ultimately it cannot be denied that photographs of the It was Loran’s analysis that aroused my curiosity originally. I wondered painter’s sites are fascinating in their own right. It is easy for me to about the present appearance of the motifs in the flesh and wanted to recall my excitement at having found an unknown site, and equally understand the role that color played in Cézanne’s visual experience. gratifying to be shown discoveries made by others since then. It might I began searching out the known sites in 1976. When I found one of have been tempting to devote a book to an encyclopedic enumeration them, seeing it before me in its full depth, breadth, and color, was over - of all the known sites, but the emphasis here must be upon the painter’s whelming. It was more compelling than the photographs I had seen work; any inclination to be complete must give way to the need to be or could imagine taking: its material reality and its relentless change in clear and coherent. 7 As in the first edition, where I presented only the appearance during the mere course of a day, posed much more complex most interesting of the sites that were available, I have made room for challenges to the painter than any photograph. Search ing out the angle CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 13

Fig. 1c Maison près d’un tournant en haut du Chemin des Lauves 1904, RW629, 48 × 63 cm, Pearlman Collection, Princeton University Art Museum 14 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION of view that Cézanne had selected for his composition, I would begin southern France as had been thought – and indeed I found it readily, to grasp how one composition might be better than another, how, and had only to settle in until the shadows were right and all the for example, a turn in a road, or a congested group of buildings, parked cars were gone ( l’Eglise St-Pierre à Avon , RW327). As it was, one when placed near the center, could hold a composition together. of the three guides later showed me his collection of paintings in which The painter’s task of creating a satisfactory, internally resonant and there was a landscape of another nearby church vaguely resembling balanced representation on a flat surface appeared more taxing when one that I had been searching for; I looked it up the next morning, I gazed at the site than when I studied a photograph, and the need to just to be sure I did not miss it, and discovered Fig. 69b, now called do so, more insistent. L’Eglise de Montigny-sur-Loing . Eventually I came to see my response to the sites as the begin - At other times I was helped by a detailed map. Since Rochers ning of a critical study, and over several summers I set out not just to à l’Estaque (Fig. 32b), already named but never found, was obviously record the known sites in color, but to find as many unidentified sites painted from a high point of view with two hills interposed between as I could. Such a record, I was sure, would encourage a subtler view the painter and the bay, I searched a topographic map for locations of Cézanne’s relation to the data of vision. As I worked, I began to which might present this view. I discovered two, picked one at random see an unexpected, scrupulous respect on Cézanne’s part for observed and after a short climb into the hills knew that I would not have to try light and local color and a gift for using it expressively. In the Ile de the other: the rocks in the motif were above me, in reverse, and climb - France, for example, he invariably recorded a cooler ambient light ing further I stood on the only spot from which Cézanne could have (and the corresponding cooler colors in the architecture and vegeta - worked – a small, flat earthen shelf on the sloping hillside offering tion) than in Provence; in the Bibémus quarry near Aix-en-Provence the very view and a secure platform to stand on (Fig. 32a). he would let the light of the late afternoon intensify the natural The successes – new identifications and sometimes new warm/cool contrasts. His motifs, seen in the flesh, seemed like insistent dates – were of course balanced by failures. But the search itself, invitations to respond, and made vivid the transition between con - even when unsuccessful, compelled me to think about the differences struction and vision that the early photographs had barely revealed. between perceiving reality and looking at paintings. These thoughts Working in regions that were unfamiliar to me – around Paris inevitably inform all that I discuss here – and I thought it useful also and in and near Aix-en-Provence – I had no intuitive acquaintance to set them down in an organized way in the Introduction and the with my surroundings (the kind that later researchers whom I cite here two chapters that follow. had in abundance). To find new motifs, I had to take the time to learn and remember the geography, to ask questions, to consult maps; I also had to be ready to respond to the unexpected. For example, in The new discoveries (second edition) Fontainebleau I visited M. Antoine Terrasse, a distinguished art histo - rian and at the time also the city’s Vice Mayor, who introduced me to When the first edition of this book went to press, in 1996, it seemed three guides from the forest of Fontainebleau; they, he was sure, would to many of us that little could be done to find any of the sites that re - find the rocks I was searching for if they still existed. Having warned mained undiscovered; the important ones had at least been identified, me that the search might be fruitless (it was not; see the similar group and the ones that remained would be harder to find, and if found, in Fig. 58a), he said he had a gift for me – the identity of a small they would disappoint. But neither assumption turned out to be true; church which was located in the neighboring town, Avon, not in a number of important sites have in fact been found, either still in CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 15 a state to be photographed or on postcards from Cézanne’s time. The others). The new discoveries are all of capital importance for identify - methods for finding them have changed in relation to the sites’ rarity. ing the subjects of the paintings and dating Cézanne’s movements, In nearly every case the recent researcher was a person who knew and several of them illustrate some aspect of Cézanne’s work that his region intimately. He could be guided to the site by his memory had escaped notice; those have been added to this book. All of of buildings once glimpsed or by his sense of the region’s topography. the researchers invited me to photograph their discoveries and gave Or he might have an aptitude for archival research which would help me permission to publish the images if it came to that, but credit him check old city maps for the layout of buildings and the names of for the discoveries remains in each case theirs. old streets and squares; these might identify the site even when it was With the invention of digital photography, color has become no longer worth photographing. He might have a penchant for con - a matter of course; it has replaced black-and-white as the medium sulting collections of old postcards, some of which could lead him of archival record, which has become rare and is most often reserved near a site or even – perhaps by coincidence – to the very place where for art photography. This change, and the passage of time, have made Cézanne had stood. Finally, using present methods, he might know arguments for the importance of color less urgent. In 1996 it seemed how to identify a site, or verify its identification, through aerial photo - important to redress an imbalance in the conclusions that had been graphs available on the internet. drawn by Loran by pointing out that the black and white photographs None of these efforts were coordinated, nor were the results presented a distorted view of both the sites and the paintings and drew shared until recently, yet the results were always unambiguous. attention only to the portrayal of space. The evidence appeared either Thus in Cézanne’s native Aix-en-Provence, Denis Coutagne, working inconclusive or inadvertently misleading. With color as the new stan - sometimes by himself, sometimes with me, identified new sites both dard for recording vision, it is perhaps no longer necessary to dwell on in the Bibémus quarry and in the countryside near Gardanne (Figs. 37 the matter at length. The earlier edition in fact took pains to point out and R573, Maison devant la Sainte-Victoire, vue de La Barque ). In nearby the myriad devices by which Cézanne’s vision was communicated, and l’Estaque, Xavier Prati and Georges Reynaud discovered several sites this, while seconding Loran’s emphasis on the role of craft in painting, which had escaped notice, some from the turbulent year 1871 and relegated the concern with space to a minor role. some from the mid-1880s 11 (Figs. 13, 29, 30 and others); they contacted me and took me to see them. In Auvers and Pontoise, Alain Mothe identified a number of Organization of the book houses and turns in the road that were the subjects of paintings in the 1870s and 1880s, 12 with Cézanne painting either alone or in Pissarro’s The principal chapters of the book (chapters 4 through 7) look at company (Figs. 19, 23 and others). Working closely with him, François about 70 of the most illuminating site photographs and analyze the Chédeville identified a new site in the region of Melun (and locating way Cézanne approaches the motif before him. To trace his develop - Cézanne’s exact standpoint) by a detailed search of old maps and con - ment and connect it to his work with still lives and portraits, I order temporary topographic Google maps. At the other end of Paris, near the paintings chronologically. In four brief chapters that precede them, Maisons-Alfort, Raymond Hurtu, using his knowledge of the history however, which include the Introduction, I address a number of ques - of the banks of the river Marne, deduced the sites of several Cézanne tions of prior concern. In the first, the one that follows immediately, views; some have changed beyond recognition, but all could be quite I discuss the vital importance of vision – of the close study of the motif accurately illustrated with period postcards (Figs. 48, 50, 51 and – for Cézanne’s landscape work, and I critique the purely formal view 16 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION of Cézanne’s art represented by the well known works of Erle Loran Acknowledgments E “ and Roger Fry. To illustrate the vital role of the motif, I offer a detailed analysis of a picture whose site is still beautifully preserved, the 1880 I welcome the opportunity to express a deeply felt affection and grati - painting, Le Pont de Maincy (Fig. 2b). tude for the help and criticism I have received with the first edition. In the second of these chapters, I look at the opposition in Several colleagues and friends were good enough to read the entire Cézanne’s work between the paintings with a narrative intent and manuscript at one or another of its stages and offer me suggestions those based on observation – an ultimately creative opposition that from which I profited greatly. Their time, interest, and thoughtfulness reflected conflicting aims and culminated in paintings of sometimes were generously given, and I wish to thank them: Daniel I. Alevy, varying distinction – and in the third, I discuss the processes of per - Wayne Andersen, Reyner Banham, Caesar L. Barber, Bonnie Baskin, ceiving, specifically concentrating on the differences between everyday, André Corsy, Cheryl Doering, Louis Frey, Eli Hollander, Nilo Lindgren, utilitarian looking and the kind of looking required by works of art. Nina H. Machotka, Laura Marello, William J. McClung, Michael And immediately preceding the principal chapters, I present a brief Miovic, Joan Osborne, Graham Parkes, Theodore Reff, Elizabeth Rentz, catalog of the kinds of motifs that Cézanne favored and the technical Jasper Rose, Richard Schiff, Antoine Terrasse and Judith Wechsler. devices by which he transformed vision into painting. The late John Rewald, on whose research most writings about Since my focus is on oil paintings, I present the watercolor Cézanne and Impressionism are based, was, as all scholars have discov - motifs only rarely, and primarily to show their connection to oils ered, unstinting with his help. Beside inviting me, without knowing or to demonstrate specific technical points. Where both a new color me at the time, to present my research to the seminars introducing photograph and an older black and white one are available, I prefer the exhibit Cézanne: The Late Work , which was all the encouragement to present only the more informative one unless both contribute I needed to see my work through to its conclusion, he offered me something distinct. And I caution the reader that there is a bias here photographs, references, recollections, and above all incalculable time in beyond anyone’s control: the later paintings outnumber the earlier correspondence answering questions and, when asked, communicating ones. Their sites are better preserved and easier to identify, and this his sharp judgment. Sir Lawrence Gowing supported this work in a will inevitably seem to lay greater stress on Cézanne’s later work. different manner: by the example of his profound attachment to paint - The book is intended as a contribution to analysis and criti - ing and his ability to “look hard” at it and extract its richness, reso - cism, not art history. Yet for its analysis of the paintings and its subjec - nance, and rhythm. A fellow painter, I share his passion for painting tive judgments to be credible, it must be accurate in the facts to which and looking, and remember our conversations on art, and Cézanne, it refers and scrupulous in its citings, so I have been careful to footnote with great pleasure. His rich perceptions could also effloresce into all citations and quotes, and in the reference section to list the works evocative yet precise prose, and this is a gift that one can only admire. that I have consulted. The watercolors are identified by the numbers Between the first and second editions, I have learned much from Rewald’s Paul Cézanne: The Watercolors, and the oils are identified from the new work done by others equally interested in discovering by the numbers from Rewald’s catalogue raisonné finished under the where Cézanne had worked, and profited from conversations, outright editorship of Walter Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman. critiques, and much material help from Philippe Cézanne, François Chédeville, Denis Coutagne, Raymond Hurtu, Nina H. Machotka, Alain Mothe, Xavier Prati, Georges Reynaud, Richard Shiff, Ted Silveira, and Jean-Pierre Silvy. To all of them, my warmest thanks . CÉZANNE: LANDSCAPE INTO ART 17

Even the clearest sense of an artist’s gift to painting and “But it must always be kept in mind that such analysis halts vision may prove elusive when put into words; at the end we may before the ultimate concrete reality of the work of art, and perhaps be left with a humbling feeling of not having said what we had wished in proportion to the greatness of the work it must leave untouched to say. Roger Fry, who had less to fear on that score than most, a greater part of its objective. For Cézanne, this inadequacy is particu - at the end of his study of Cézanne put it succintly: 13 larly sensible and in the last resort we cannot in the least explain why the smallest product of his hand arouses the impression of being a revelation of the highest importance, or what exactly it is that gives it its grave authority.”

1 For example, a modern photograph of the Chartres cathedral can essentially reproduce the view that Corot had of it in 1830. It will confirm his extraordinary eye for proportion, composition,

and the ambient light, but it will add little to our already ample grounds for admiring him. See Leopold Reidemeister, Auf den Spuren der Maler der Ile de France, Propyläen Verlag, Berlin, 1963, p. 16.

2 A photograph of the church at Auvers, when compared with Van Gogh’s 1890 painting of it (Reidemeister, p. 167), will add little to our understanding of the painter’s style; we will still see

his sinewy forms as deriving from his passionate commitment to the canvas’s substance and rhythm rather than from an analysis of its appearance.

3 Leopold Reidemeister, see note 1, passim.

4 At least in simple, head-and-shoulders compositions. See R. P. Rivière and J. F. Schnerb, “The Studio of Cézanne”, in P. M. Doran, Conversations with Cézanne ,

Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001, p. 88. Two late portraits are, however, as complex as the landscapes: Le Portrait de Gustave Geffroy of 1895 –1896,

and Portrait d’Ambroise Vollard of 1899. Photographs of these sitters in their setting would have been invaluable.

5 Joachim Gasquet quotes Cézanne as having said that his eyes can be so glued to his site that they might bleed; with allowance for Gasquet’s flair for the dramatic,

one can certainly accept that Cézanne studied his motif intensely. See John Rewald (preface), Joachim Gasquet’s Cézanne , London: Thames and Hudson, 1991, p. 121.

6 Pavel Machotka, “I ritratti di Cézanne: il volto umano della grande pittura (Cézanne’s portraits: the human face of masterly painting)”, in Cézanne: Les ateliers du Midi ,

exhib. cat., Milano: Palazzo Reale, 2011, pp. 79 –93.

7 An on-line catalogue raisonné is being prepared by Walter Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman, which will contain a more complete collection of site photographs.

8 Erle Loran, Cézanne’s Composition , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985 (first published in 1943).

9 John Rewald, The Paintings of Paul Cézanne , New York: Abrams, 1996 (edited by Walter Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman).

10 Reidemeister, cited earlier, had photographed many of the sites painted by Cézanne near Paris, but because his book was focused on the region

and documented the work of seventeen other painters, his contributions to Cézanne scholarship has not received the notice it deserves.

11 Xavier Prati, L’Estaque au Temps de Peintres , 1870 –1914 , Marseille: Association Collège-Quartier, 1985.

12 Alain Mothe, Ce Que Voyait Cézanne , Paris: Editions de la Rmn-Grand Palais, 2011, and Alain Mothe, Cézanne à Auvers-sur-Oise , Saint-Ouen-l’Aumône: Editions du Valhermeil , 2006.

13 Roger Fry, Cézanne: A Study of his Development , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989 (first published in 1927).