In his work, Denis stages the members of the Nabi group as well as their friends and supporters gathering in Vollard’s gallery around a still life painting. In the background of this group, there are at least four paintings visible. In the center is a
34
still life entitled Compotier, verre et pommes (Fig. 5) painted by Cézanne in the 1880s.
The other three paintings hung on the rear wall are not easy to recognize, but they might be painted by Paul Gauguin, Auguste Renoir and Edouard Vuillard. It seems that Denis painted recognizable traits rather than quoting specific canvases.107 Denis’
strategy to cite his group on a dealer’s premises gives a direct tribute to Vollard’s patronage.108
As I mentioned before, the focus of Denis’ painting, Cézanne’ s still life ocupies a dominant place in the composition, which he chose to position in a centerpiece of a gallery to represent his repectable master rather than staging Cézanne’ s indivisual portrait. However, if the paintings displayed in Vollard’s gallery may document Vollard’s taste,109 and the painters he patronized during this period,110 it appears that the only recognizable painting Compotier, verre et pommes was not in Vollard’s collection. Instead, it belonged to a private collection. We may wonder why Denis chose a work from a private collection as a representation of his admirable master in Vollard’s gallery. Why did he not choose Cézanne’s other available works in Vollard’s
107 Although fragmentary of the canvases are partly hidden by the figures. But scholars have identified the two paintings hanging on the wall from left to right respectively painted in the style of Gauguin and Renoir. See Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: earthly paradise, Paris: Musée Nationaux, 2006, p. 208; Katherine Marie Kuenzli,
“Aesthetics and cultural politics in the age of Dreyfus: Maurice Denis’s Homage to Cézanne”, in Art History, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, p. 687
108 The Nabi artist’s progress during their first ten years or so was followed closely by their first supporter Le Barc de Boutteville from 1891 to 1896 and Ambroise Vollard. Vollard moved his shop into rue Laffitte in about 1895, supporting Bonnard, Cézanne, Denis, Redon, Renoir, Sisley,
Toulouse-Lautrec, and Vuillard for their artistic careers. See Claire Frèches-Thory and Antoine Terrasse, The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002, p. 354. On the other hand, placing a group of artists assembled in a dealer’s gallery reveals Denis’ different arrangement from a tradition of group portrait. This strategy demonstrates the transformation of the site for artist to stage their group in cabinet of curiosity, the salon, the studio and the gallery.
109 Based on the study of Victor Stoichita, the painting-within-the-painting is a strategy that presents a certain view point from the artist. In Denis’ case, he especially assumes his group in a dealer’s gallery, which coincides with Stoichita’s discussion that he concludes the-painting-within-the-painitng originates fom the idea of cabinet of curiosity (cabinets de curiosités) or kunstkammer in the
seventeenth-century. Victor I. Stoichita, Anne-Galsheen (trans.), The self-aware image: an insight into early modern meta-painting, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997
110 Ambroise Vollard opened his first gallery at 37, rue Laffitte in 1893 and within a decade had introduced to the public many artists of the avant-garde. Vollard had played an important role in promoting the avant-garde in the end of nineteenth-century and twentieth-century.
35
collection?
3. Cézanne’s still life 3-1. Cézanne’s importance
Apparently Cézanne’s Compotier, verre et pommes meant a lot to Denis. He selected this painting rather than any of those Vollard might have put at his diposition, and copied it in George Viau’s private Parisian collection in 1899 (Fig. 16).111 Later, he even executed a lithograph of Cézanne’s composition in 1914 (Fig. 17).112
There are at least three reasons that may explain Denis’ motivation. First of all, Denis’ growing fascination with Cézanne in 1898 and 1899 accounted for his decision to revise the subject of his homage from Redon to Cézanne. However, he did not meet Cézanne until 1906. After achieving his group portrait six years later, Denis made a trip to visit Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence (Fig. 18).113 This account explains why Denis put Cézanne’s still life instead of an individual portrait of the painter, since he did not know Cézanne’s appearance before they met.114
Secondly, in 1899, Denis and Vollard mentioned in a conversation that Cézanne’s Compotier, verre et pommes might bring Redon and Sérusier to resolve their methodological differences.115 For Denis, the importance of Cézanne’s still life was not only related to its form, technique, and composition, but also to the spirit of
111 Denis, Journal, I: 157, quoted from Katherine Marie Kuenzli, “Aesthetics and cultural politics in the age of Dreyfus: Maurice Denis’s Homage to Cézanne”, in Art History, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, p. 710, note 69
112 Bernheim-Jeune’s Cézanne published in 1914, which was a masterly black-and-white lithographic transcription of Cézanne’s still life.
113 In January 26 to February 9, 1906, Denis traveled to Provence with Ker-Xavier Roussel, visiting Paul Cézanne, Henri-Edmond Cross, Paul Signac and Auguste Renoir.
114 Although Cézanne was interested in his self-portrait, and painted dozens of this subject matter, but he had lived far away from Paris, keeping the distance from the artistic circle. Hence his self-portrait was not familiar with other young artists. Besides, although Denis could use photograph to replace Cézanne’s portrait, the photograph probably cannot not express the “sensation” and spirituality of Cézanne.
115 Katherine Marie Kuenzli, “Aesthetics and cultural politics in the age of Dreyfus: Maurice Denis’s Homage to Cézanne”, in Art History, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, p. 701
36
the artist himself. This still life embodied Cézanne’s spiritual expression in sensation, and became one of the main reasons why Denis chose it as the representation of Cézanne. As Denis wrote down later to point out the importance of Compotier, verre et pommes standing for Cézanne himself and his spirit: “… [This painting] constitutes a work of art, it’s not the artist’s taste, it’s his willpower, life, and also his life that he puts into it. This effort must not be brought to bear solely on the totality of the painting, on the general arrangement, the game of brushworks, the distribution, etc., but on each parts (details furnished by nature, in general) must be the same, one and exactly realized.”116 For Denis, Compotier, verre et pommes is like a personification of Cézanne.
Moreover, Compotier, verre et pommes was exhibited at the Centeenale in Paris in 1900,117 gaining great success from critics, such as André Mellerio (he is also one of the figures in Hommage à Cézanne). In 1900, Mellerio repeated his praise of Cézanne in his Vollard review, complimenting Cézanne was a true painter and his art was “original and pure”.118
Thirdly, in the 1890s, Symbolist artists and critics emphasized the way Cézanne broke with the principles of narrative and painterly illusionism, treating the canvas as an expressive surface. Cézanne was considered a representative of the early history of Symbolism and praised as a decorator who created subtle harmonies through spatial
116 Quoted from John Rewald, in collaboration with Walter Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman, The paintings of Paul Cézanne: a catalogue raisonné Volume I, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996, p. 278
117 The Centennale exhibition of 1900 in Paris had exhibited three works of Cézanne, including Compotier, verre et pommes, Paysage, and Mon jardin. See Nina Maria Athanassoglou-Kallmyer, Cézanne and Provence: the painter in his culture, Chicago & London: The university of Chicago, 2003, pp. 247-248. The Centennale was organized by Roger Marx, the modernist and the skilled mediator between the divergent worlds of official culture and the independent avant-garde. He had interceded with Antonin Proust, the minister of fine arts, who in favor of Cézanne. See Nina Maria
Athanassoglou-Kallmyer, Cézanne and Provence: the painter in his culture, Chicago & London: The university of Chicago, 2003, p. 297. No. 4
118 “Cézanne, temperament original mais inégalement réalisé. Peintre integral, d’une peinture pure et largement établie.”André Mellerio, L’Exposition de 1900 et l’Impressionisme (Paris : Flourt, 1900, p.8), quoted from ina Maria Athanassoglou-Kallmyer, Cézanne and Provence: the painter in his culture, Chicago & London: The university of Chicago, 2003, pp. 248+303
37
flattening and rhythmic deployments of line and color.119 This connection relates to the early development of the Nabi group and their follower — Gauguin and Sérusier.
In Gauguin and Sérusier’s cases, they both quoted Cézanne’s still life as their early experiment to search an ideal expression and collective interest. Their tribute to Cézanne had influenced Denis’ selection to carry on a dialogue with his companions.
3-2. Cézanne’s painting as a prototype
As we mentioned, Denis’ selection and appropriation of Cézanne’s still life was not his own idea. He was influenced by his fellow colleagues. In fact, Cézanne’s paintings played an important role in Gauguin’s and Sérusier’s formulation of a Symbolist aesthetic during the late 1880s and early 1890s.120 Gauguin’s female potrait Maria Derrien à la nature morte de Cézanne painted in 1890 (Fig. 19) was the first painting to quote Cézanne’s still life. As the owner and admirer of Compotier, verre et pommes in 1880s, Gauguin used it in his female portrait’s background, and even copied its original size as well as Cézanne’s constructive style.121 Meanwhile, Gauguin also painted Oranges et citrons avec vue sur Pont-Aven (Fig. 20) in direct response to Cézanne. Later on, in 1891, Paul Sérusier, one of the leaders of the Nabis followed Gauguin’s lead, painted his own series of still life after Cézanne entitled Nature morte: l’atelier de l’artiste (Fig. 21). It was evident that Gauguin’s Oranges et citrons avec vue sur Pont-Aven influenced Sérusier’s work. These two close friends both painted the still life on a table with a compotier and white tablecloth, as well as a window opened in the background, dominating an exterior city view. Moreover,
119 Katherine Marie Kuenzli, “Aesthetics and cultural politics in the age of Dreyfus: Maurice Denis’s Homage to Cézanne”, in Art History, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, p. 703
120 Ibid,, p. 702
121 Actually, Gauguin initially owned Cézanne’s Compotier, verre et pommes in the 1880s, and based a number of compositions on it, he painted two paintings Maria Derrien à la nature morte de Cézanne (1890) and Nature morte avec pommes, poires et cruche Portrait Céramique (1890) to imitate Cézanne’s style.
38
Cézanne’s follower Émile Bernard’s Nature morte aux pommes d'après Cézanne (Fig.
22) painted in 1904 also attempted to appropriate the form of Compotier, verre et pommes.122 But Bernard’s still life is different from Gauguin, and he did not intend to make an imitation from Cézanne. Unlike Gauguin, Bernard used a pointillist technique instead of the constructive strokes in composing his work, and replaced Gauguin’s lively colors with darker ones. Nevertheless, he chose the composition of Cézanne’s still life as his self study, since he also regarded Cézanne as a great master.123
As we can see, more than four paintings painted by three different artists of the same circle used the composition of Cézanne’s famous still life. It seems that the work became a kind of icon for these artists. It was no longer a pure still life. By quoting the same painting from Cézanne, the collective interest of this circle formed a dialectic conversation for expressing their interest on their respectable master, sharing their common enthusiasm and sympathy on the subject, as well as relating the fellowship of their group.124 It is clear that the great affection Gauguin and Sérusier had toward Cézanne inspired Denis’ choice in his group portrait, since they once
122 Bernard was a precocious man of twenty when he began to work with Gauguin in 1888. His great enthusiasm for new ideas served him well in the early years of Synthetism. These two close friends worked closely together only in 1889 and 1890. Latter, in 1891, Bernard accused that Gauguin
plagiarized the idea and the original style of Synthetism. They broke up their friendship since this event.
On the other hand, Bernard had a close contact with Cézanne, they wrote to each other very often. In this respect, Bernard’s Nature morte aux pommes d'après Cezanne may solely influenced by Cézanne, or gave a direct respect to Cézanne.
123 Bernard had a close relationship with Cézanne after he broke up with Gauguin. Like Gauguin, he also admired Cézanne, and both Bernard and Cézanne had kep up regular correspondence with each other. The same year of the painting Nature morte aux pommes d'après Cezanne, Bernard visited Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence. Actually, as a diligent young student, Bernard adopted several of Cézanne’s advice on painting. The most famous one was that Cézanne told Bernard that he should
“treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere, he cone, everything in proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central plane.” See John Rewald (ed.), Marguerite Kay (trans.), Paul Cézanne letters, Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1946, p. 234
124 However, Cézanne’s reaction expressed extreme attitudes to them. He was delighted to write to Denis, using his “warmest gratitude” toward Denis and other young Nabi artists, and he wrote in 15 April 1901 that “he was touched by the expressions of artistic sympathy expressed by Bernard” the same years that Bernard appropriated his still life. On the other hand, he became angry about Gauguin’s female portrait, complaining that Gauguin was a kind of thief to steal his art. One can interpret that despite Denis’ appropriation of Compotier, Verre et Pommes, he did not ultimately mean to imitate Cézanne so much as to use this painting as a means rallying the group of artists.
39
maintained a very close relationship and artistic allegiance for several years. All in all, since Gauguin was the first person to quote Cézanne’s Compotier, verre et pommes, and he was also regarded as a influential leader to the Nabi group, then the mutual quotations from Sérusier, Denis and Bernard demonstrate the collective interest they adopted from Gauguin as their pictorial dialogue. In this aspect, Compotier, verre et pommes became a medium among these artists to carry on a confidential conversation.
The reasons above explain the importance of Cézanne’s Compotier, verre et pommes for Denis. They also explain why Denis chose to position his circle as a group of “students” rather than a group of professional artists gathered around Cézanne’s still life as a presence of his fellow master.125 For Denis, Compotier, verre et pommes is an ideal model in many aspects. It not only stands for Cézanne’s spirit, but it also operates a pictorial connection to their fellowship. At the same time, we can observe that the pictorial dialogue between the different members in the group obey the similar strategy of sharing their collectivity. Before breaking up their friendship in 1891, both Bernard and Gauguin painted their self-portrait with each other in the background of their paintings in 1888. At Vincent van Gogh’s request,126 Bernard painted his Autoportrait avec portrait de Gauguin (Fig. 23) in Brittany, sending the painting to Arles when it was finished. Bernard painted his self-portrait at the left side in three-quarter profile with a hat, and in the background of the right side put a scrawl with Gauguin’s portrait and part of a seascape from a Japanese Ukiyo-e in an enclosed
125 Denis wrote to Cézanne: “Perhaps you will now have some idea of the place you occupy in the painting of our time, of the admiration you inspire, and of the enlightened enthusiasm of a few young people, myself included, who can rightly call themselves you students.” See chapter one
126 Vincent van Gogh had written to Gauguin and Bernard requesting that the two artists paint portraits of each other and send the finished canvases to him in Arles. In a letter to his brother Theo in
September 1888, he mentioned this idea: “…I would very much like to have here the portrait of Bernard by Gauguin and that of Gauguin by Bernard.” However, Bernard replied that he did not feel confident enough to paint Gauguin’s portrait; therefore, he painted the painting to him instead, inscribing with the text “à mon copaing Vincent”. See Debora Silverman, Van Gogh and Gauguin: the search for sacred art, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000, pp. 27-35
40
interior. Although Bernard is looking at the spectator, the two intimate friends seem to face each other, as if they are carrying on a dialogue. Gauguin’s Autoportrait avec portrait de Bernard (Les Misérables, Fig. 24) finished in the same year used a similar strategy and responded to Bernard’s painting. Like Bernard, Gauguin painted his self-portrait at the left side in three-quarter profile, looking at the spectator with melancholy. In the floral background is a scrawl with Bernard’s profile (interestingly, Bernard’s portrait is holding a palette, and this arrangement may intend to indicate his profession). Even though Gauguin is looking at the audience, Bernard and he are still facing each other. Vincent van Gogh’s request for the portraits expressed the ethos of fellowship and interdependence he projected for the group, prefiguring the goals of complementarities and interchange to be practiced by the community of artist-brothers.127 The case of Bernard and Gauguin’s self portrait explain the strategy of a pictorial dialogue installed and executed in their artistic community.128