Paul Cezanne: The father of modern art | National Gallery
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Paul Cezanne’s ‘Bathers’ has hung in the Gallery since the mid 1960s and conveys how Cezanne would slowly and methodically 'construct' a picture rather than simply drawing one. Rosalind McKever, our Harry M Weinrebe Curatorial Fellow walks you through the history of Cezanne’s practice and how he has continued to inspired artists throughout history.
Subscribe to be the first to know about all our new videos: bit.ly/1HrNTFd
Follow us on social media:
Twitter: / nationalgallery
Facebook: / thenationalgallery
Instagram: / national_gallery
Help keep the museum accessible for everyone by supporting us here:
www.nationalgallery.org.uk/su...
The National Gallery houses the national collection of paintings in the Western European tradition from the 13th to the 19th centuries. The museum is free of charge and open 361 days per year, daily between 10.00 am - 6.00 pm and on Fridays between 10.00 am - 9.00 pm.
Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DN
www.nationalgallery.org.uk
exceptional presentation
Excellent speaker who provokes the audience's thinking and gives an interesting background into the painting and the artist (rather than just describing the work as some do).
😂😂😂
Thank you Ms. McKever. In l LA age 84 I'm unlikely ever to see London's NG again. Your talk hit on so many unexpected points about Cezanne and other painters and even the Tate that I wanted to express my apptreciation. I won't bore you with my list but you forced me to think about so-called familiar painters in a different way. Many thanks for that kindness.
For me, this is a wondeedul lecture, so creative and intelligent. Thank you.
Thank you so much. What an enlightening lecture!
These talks are terrific and so educational. Many thanks indeed.
Listening this woman Is a pleasure she describes very well the painting
I would prefer to see more the painting, instead of the woman....
Absolutely fabulous! I shall reconsider Cezanne in light of this talk. Thank you.
This was incredible! I adore Cézanne and the The Large Bathers!
Great talk, thank you for making this available!
Very interesting. I love this channel, I always feel like I learn so much when I watch your videos. I sincerely hope to visit someday.
Great master...I love you Cezanne
Thank you! Great talk. Her comment about how it related to Picasso's work after seeing "The Large Bathers" was fascinating.
Thank you very much indeed for your informations!! And what a fascinating presentation for Paul Cezannes 'Bathers' !!
Brilliant speaker.wow.much learned and enjoyed.Thanks for the share.
This lecture completely changed my perspective. Thanks!!
As a docent, I would ask the group to silently just look at the painting for a solid minute.
Then, ask them what they see, what they notice.
Thank you for all your comments - they convinced me to keep listening - which I stopped after the first two minutes. I ended up liking what she was saying.
Cézanne était un peintre fabuleux quoique parfois incompris à son époque. Il a su faire avancer son art comme nul autre. Impressionnisme, post-impressionnisme, fauvisme, cubisme, etc... C'est littérallement le père de l"art moderne.
Thank you for a very fascinating and thought-provoking lecture. I’m just beginning my journey into Cezanne and his influence on later art and this lecture has helped me a great deal. Thank you again.
It is rather well known that Cesanne was the father of modern painting. Nothing new.
Wow, so cool this class about this legend of modern art. Thank you! :)
Wow, totally amazing and thank you for your insight, it was just fantastic Bravo 👏 💐
he is my fave artist.
It's magnetic. It makes you want to look at it. As sensible and fascinating as the analysis is, I don't know how much of it bears on why I want to look at it.
She is absolutely fantastic, looking for more
indeed!
clear and informative. thank you!
I came to this lecture as part of my preparation for the great Cezanne retrospective that is opening at the Art Institute of Chicago on May 15, 2022. The vast influence that this painting (which is in the show) had in forming modern art is obvious from the later work of Picasso, Braque, Matisse etc. but I also find it emotionally powerful just because the scene is so mysterious. Why are these women together? Why is the painting titled 'Bathers" if there is no water? At the same time, the group does not strike me as a kind of still-iife in flesh because of the powerful emotional bond among the women who are grouped together and interact with one another-certainly more Poussin than Seurat.
I caught the show on closing day- incredibly profound for myself.
Enjoyed the presentation very much.
Impossible to analyse creativity !
Where is the water!? It's right there bottom left, the woman is stepping out of it, which is why she gets the towel, you can see the bottom of her foot through the distortion of the water. Also I think that's a black dog next to the fruit that the figure has a hand on.
How enjoyable! I am visiting and revisiting the Cezanne exhibition at Tate Modern at the moment.
very good
It was enjoyable. It underlines Cezannne's "frustration" when viewers looked at his earlier works but were not moved sufficiently to comment, or criticise. Was he an artist? Perhaps he said "not" but rather he was a painter, and that needed to be recognised. Better then to provoke strong feelings against his art than that it should simply be looked at, but not seen.
I love that painting!
Marvelous
No mention of the role of Cezannes avoidance of natural light and shadow as cues for the course of time and its substitution through colours as a means to create timelessness.
The speakers cheek bones and jaw line are a greater work of art than anything in that gallery.
Cezanne was analytical and introspective
Moore also said (admiringly) that the back of the woman near to us is like that of a gorilla. The bathers really fulfill much the same role as do the rocks in many of Cezanne's landscapes, and interestingly, the figure on the right IS a stone in that it is "really" a sculpture. Knowing this does things to our sense of scale and recession.
Well...now we know why this painting is important..it gives those who havent studied art history the story behind the work. and why its so influential to the newer artists..
Speaker: "Cezanne made nearly 200 scenes of bathers."
Oranges: "Hold our juice."
The Bathers are his attempt at traditional art. He himself knew that he could not achieve what he wanted due to the lack of training in the particular style. Cezanne was good in still life, landscapes, and he painted very solid portraits. His Bathers, well, is somewhat significant due to a lack of colors, not a very colorful work! It offers a triangular composition, which is a traditional composition. Renoir also painted the subject.
Ya, he doesn't even show the tensor fasciaie lataie in its proper form......
I don’t think Cézanne has never considered this painting “realized” as he intended this term. Neither are mostly his portraits. Still life, especially some jugs are its peaks, and some landscapes. This, if we are talking about the rules of art, the rules of poetry and sensorial perception, of beauty. If we are talking about the progressivism in art, well, I have better things to thinking about.
isn’t the woman on the left coming out of the water? I think her foot is half way out…
Brava!
I am so glad keira knightley found something great to do when she is not doing movies.....
Plus, a little Jennifer Garner mixed in
She did such a good job at brining this painting to life!
I have just visited Muee d'Orsay and seen lots of Paul Cezanne' painting, but couldn't remember all his work. Hopefully she could talk about many Cezanne ' painting, not just talked about a few.
she works for the National galllery
Wow beautiful painting of great artist n beautiful interpretation as well.
Excellent... Really enjoyed this
That was awesome
Fantastic
8 minutes in and we still have heard almost nothing about this particular painting!,,
네러티브 지리네. 다른 그림들도 찾아봐야지
Great Talk ! 😊
I LOVE YOU CEZANNE UNTIL DEATH DO US PART.
Cezanne IS dead.
He's using the principles of byzantine iconography in constructing his composition. Look up Greek iconographers from the 1400s and you will find the same design principles. Despite the trees, sky and clouds, this picture has no depth which means the rules of perspective with vanishing points on a horizon line have been abandoned. The bathers however have volume and they are arranged on a semi circular stage. They look like they are extending forward and could drop off the wall onto the viewer. This means a reversal in perspective where the viewer becomes the vanishing point. He also arranges them in a way that creates a large triangle. This creation of apexes can also be found throughout the composition. This is a design element used in Greek art including iconography since antiquity to create movement, stability but most importantly to reach out and pictorially embrace the viewer. This last part is vitally important in all Greek art and especially in orthodox christian art which aims to destroy human isolation. Here the women have no identity and are completely indifferent as to who is looking, some with their backs turned. Disconnection is the very definition of an object. This is the 19th century French male gaze serving the viewer female bodies like fruit on a platter and using among other influences an old Greek design system to do it with the utmost immediacy. The painting is the text and there is nothing mysterious or deep about this.
“Spiritual Godfather” of modern art might be more appropriate. Those that developed modern art regularly looked to Cezanne, among others, for inspiration and guidance; one would not consider him to have been a member of the modern art “movement.”
...the vast majority of comments of this sort are based on the assumption that first-rate artists are always at their highest, producing homogenous streaks of masterpieces. Paul Cezanne, whose stature as an artist is indisputable, was, nevertheless, struggling with drawing during his whole career, the piece in discussion here being an obvious example. This embarrassing weakness is also impairing his ability to compose with complex, organic structures. Cezanne tried hard to create a rhythmical pattern placing bodies on parallel directions, thus sacrificing the verisimilitude of the bathers' postures. However his obsessive struggle with the architecture of the canvas makes the work stand out, as a heroic, yet clumsy attempt to monumentality.
The painting is not eye-pleasing, so the 1964 uproar is understandable; but it's relevant enough for the artist's role in the outline of painting history.
👏👏👏🌹🌺🌻🌼
Babani’s Gallery: Cezanne Paul/Transcript
This isn't the original large bathers is it?
Who is the mother
Figure on the right, mysterious, pensive, facing inwards but seemingly apart and small (dwarfed by the one on the left). Reminds me of Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, but has more emotion, a sense of melancholy maybe, attached. These are shapes, objects, form is the thing, but we could also project feelings onto others- the two central ones standing with backs turned to us, with most colourful hair tints, maybe alert, gazing with wonder into the landscape and distance. Where is the water? Later we have De Kooning's Door to the River.
It's living.
I wish I was there...Sigh...
And thus, the caps lock was invented.
She was very good
How about a little loyalty here!
JMW Turner is the father of modern art, right? Right!
nope
Art has no father......
I think there's a very simple reason, that none of the "bathers" are interacting (as we may expect), and I an no authority. However, surely Cézanne sketched these women, or just one woman, in multiple poses, then proceeded to paint the women, in the poses he selected, together in one single painting. Just a though.
The technique is quicker than that of the Impressionists, for sure quicker than Seurat, and even someone like Pissaro, and Degas.
She's a very good speaker. Am I the only person (and therefore wrong) who thinks the figures in this painting are NOT all women? I think he was depicting humanity not women. Did Cézanne SAY they were all women and if so was it to sell the painting to men?
Strange you should mention that, because in early Renaissance paintings, nude women were painted like young, muscular men with grapefruits plopped on the sides of their chest for breasts. This painting has some of those qualities, the muscularity of some of the figures, the lack of curves in others, which harken back to centuries-old works. I think, though, that this is a take on those old scenes in an impressionist way, lacking detail, presenting ambiguous and amorphous human shapes.
Traducir al español.
Goya was the father of modern art. Look at his dark works
A lesbian narrative if there ever was one. And not one crotch shot. So modest. Every aspect is awkward and yet it works. Must have been a shocker when premiered. You can think about it forever.
Me: hmmm maybe I should cut my hair, she looks so cool…
She lost me when she said they don't look like they're in the same space, look like they're smashed together, not really there together. I didn't get that impression at all and I think that kind of cheapens the work to me. They're clearly meant to be there together, even if the figures weren't painted at the same time. To also say there's not much of a story there! Who says something like that? Sure, if you're not looking, you won't see much! She said several other things that seemed very off to me. I've seen 10 or more of these lectures, this is the first one I didn't like.
I agree... maybe it's different seeing the picture in person, but I feel like they ARE interacting with each other, in little groups, not all at once. But if you're in a big group of people you wouldn't speak with everybody at the same time, often the group splits up and people talk about different topics. That's the impression I got from this group of women, too.
To me, the figures are not gathered around a central axis and it doesn't detract but it does make me see them as acting independently.
Listening to
Lasted about 6 minutes. Art establishment etc.. (Falutin?). No wonder Marcel Duchamp came out with Fountain.
wonderful art historical discourse/ the part about as if he's assembled a bunch of bodies, yes,,,,but from the louvre/ thats what he said, i go to nature through the louvre and so forth: they do look like a pile up of marble in nature, dont they.
it also strikes me with wonder anyone can see/feel the painting, after hearing cezanne called flat over and over/ flat?
No...just see/feel. Or ponder the great quote near the end...by henry moore, and then ask the sculptor if cezanne is flat, for petes sake
Did she say it took him 10 years to complete this painting????
Here comes Cezanne dudududu
"Who wants to look at some sorry looking apples on a wobbly table?" Sickert.
Shame they can't stretch to a microphone for the lecturer.
7
не правильно понятый сезанн..грязную воду оставили..а ребенка выбросили..
she cute
I still don’t understand?!
I like the Impressionists pretty well Degas was my favorite and post was Van Gogh but Cezanne seemed like a lazy painter to me. I like Renoir's nudes. I neither liked Picasso or Matisse or Braque. I think Pollock and Rothko and that movement was a joke, none of that moved me in anyway.
What is your point exactly?
I see movement
Cezanne said if you would be a painter, you must avoid the literary spirit. Just from the start, you are getting a bunch of story lines being expressed as if he never said this. Just look and recieve without thought. You will begin to experience the music...
😂one comment says if Cézanne is the father of modern art he need to apologize to the world
Please stop saying that! The real father of modern art was Manet, and before him Delacroix. I have studied all these artists in depth, and this title is probably based on what Picasso or Perhaps Matisse said. Matisse himself could be called the father of modern art in the 20th century, and his work does not resemble Cezanne's. Picasso, well, he did emulate and incorporated the blocks and the rectangles in his art. Delacroix was the first major artist of the 19th century who loosened up his brush strokes, thereby leading to some eventual major changes in art. Cezanne, though was a great painter, was not the first to lead the way. Well, the style of Cubism was inspired by him as mentioned earlier, but the other styles of the 20th century artists could not have been due to his influence. We have eyes, and if we open our eyes up and use our knowledge, we could see that Kandinsky started Abstract art, and though others participated, he deserves the title of the father of Abstract art. Van Gogh's brush strokes eventually influenced Expressionists. A combined term of these two styles very clearly gives the credit to these previous styles, and that is Abstract Expressionism. There is not enough space here to explain, but many people jump on a band wagon and do not dare express their own educated point of views about artists.
manet? you crazy..
@@dsmartblack2 There are many art historians who say so. Unless you are seriously into art history, you will not understand it. From your reply, I gather you know very little. Read!
Thanks for this comment. I myself thought that Vincent Van Gogh was the Father of Modern Art and got confused by the title of the video. I'm just an amateur in art history. From your comment I got greater insight in how complicated this term is.
@@tonythomas6847 welcome and thank you. It takes time, and though I have been a practicing artist, I still study and learn about many other artists who are not well known. Good luck!
Cezanne's work I generally like, this one I think rather dull and boring however much the speaker tries to spice it up it still has the feel of a plate of mash potatoes....
compmaturism
Personally I think and feel that Modern art has many fathers.
Dare I say it ...........? Van Gogh is the more powerful painter . But perhaps he is too idiosyncratic in his genius and Matisse and Picasso could not extract as much from his work as they could from Cezanne .
You have to go back to school. If modern art had a father, it would not be Cezanne. Manet and before him Delacroix are the main candidates. If you just talk about Picasso, yes there is a connection between the cubes and rectangular building blocks that Cezanne used in his landscapes. In elevating Cezanne, Picasso, a master of self promotion, helped himself. We have to look at each style of modern art in the 20th Century to find a precursor or the main influencer of it. For abstract art, that figure is Kandinsky. Expressionism has Matisse as its forerunner. The arbitrary use of colors was because of Fauvism, but the broad and violent brush strokes were because of Van Gogh. These art experts sound impressive to their audience, but essentially they regurgitate what they have learned, no serious analysis or critic of already famous artists. "Expromanticism founder."
and you are?.....so if the general school of thought is that cezanne is the father of modern art, critics and artists alike have given him that title. why should i listen to you or anyone
Feel like as usual the speaker is more interested or focused on everything apart from the actual painting itself. It's all very basic. Really nothing of substance.
Yes, many minutes pass before she actually starts to talk in any detail about the actual painting!
!
@@wardenblack9734 She starts off with that, delineating the spaces of painting, audience, and -indeed- us. The lines of sight and the gaze.
Still I don't get it.
A more abstracted and pedantic rehash of the much more interesting painting at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I think the National Gallery is trying a bit too hard here to convince us that this dull mediocrity is a masterpiece. It's not.
ridiculous!
you do realize that was the first of its kind in that time period. thats the point. you have abstract art, cubism, impressionism all in one painting .
Not convincing
not Susan. CéZZZZaNNe
The Woman with the monstrous earrings.
Shithead comment, really. You only show your insecurities
@@paillette2010 Not at all, monstruous earrings indeed... Distracting and unnecessary. Anthony is 100% right
@@creativestudio101 nah. Still a shįthead comment. Misogyny is so revealing of the insecure. Sorry for your tiny precious self. Do you need a pat on your pointed head?
@@paillette2010 if a guy had a monstruous hat, to the point of being ridiculously distracting... that only gets in the way of his own important lecture... this is exactly what I would say: "The man with the monstrous hat". By that I mean nothing else and nothing more. If you make more of it than that then that's your problem, not mine.
@@creativestudio101 christ on a crutch, you are a thumping thick bore. Yawn. Thanks for keeping your puny brain on the superficial and idiotic. Don’t drown in a puddle when next it rains. Yikes.