圖像對話：莫里斯‧德尼的《向塞尚致敬》

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學藝術史研究所碩士論文 National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of Art History Master’s Degree Thesis. A Fellowship of Pictorial Dialogue: Maurice Denis’ Hommage à Cézanne. 指導教授：諾斯邦博士 Advisor: Dr. Valentin Nussbaum 研究生：林雅雯 Graduate student: Lydia Ya-Wen Lin. 中華民國 102 年 1 月 January 2013.

(2) TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..ii Chinese abstract………………………………………………………………………..v Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….viii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………x Introduction…………………………………………………………………………....1 CHAPTER ONE: Maurice Denis’ group portrait, the group portraiture and homage painting as subject matter in nineteenth-century France Introduction………………………………………………………………………6 Background……………………………………………………………………....7 Group portraiture in the nineteenth-century France…………………………….16 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....29 CHAPTER TWO: Cézanne’s still life Compotier, verre et pommes Introduction……………………………………………………………………..33 A theoretical circumstance in a dealer’s gallery………………………………..33 Cézanne’s still life………………………………………………………….......35 Gauguin’s appropriation of Cézanne……………………………………………40 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….......49 CHAPTER THREE: The relationship of the chosen figures in Denis’ group Introduction……………………………………………………………………..52 Paul Gaugion, Syntheticism and the foundation of the Nabis..............................53 Odilon Redon…………………………………………………………………...57 The dealer-critic system — Durand-Reul, Vollard and Mellerio……………….65 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….......69 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………75 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….77 Figures………………………………………………………………………………..85.

(3) ABSTRACT Hommage à Cézanne painted by French artist Maurice Denis (1870-1943) in 1900 is a painting that combines a self-portrait, a group portrait and a gallery depiction. The dominant tendency amongst scholars has viewed Hommage à Cézanne as a document of Cézanne’s rising reputation rather than as a painting with its own formal tensions and interests. Cézanne’s significance for the early twentieth-century modernism has led scholars to extract this painting out of its complicated context in which it was appreciated. In my study, I analyse Maurice Denis’ renewed strategy on group portraiture and homage painting, pointing out that he not only adopts the tradition of group portrait to pay homage to Cézanne, but also transforms its composition into an ideology of reconciliation. Denis’ personal intention for staging significant personalities reveals a deeper intention than his title “Homage to Cézanne” might announce. By positioning the figures of the Nabis, Cézanne, Redon, Gauguin, Renoir, and Vollard, Denis constitutes interpersonal relations on his painting. He wove a social connection between his companions and advisors in artistic association. This thesis is divided into three chapters, each centering on a single topic about Denis’ strategy. Chapter one examines the development of group portraiture and homage painting during the nineteenth-century in France. By examining previous important group portraits and homage paintings, such as by Louis-Léopold Boilly, Gustave Courbet, Henri Fantin-Latour, and Félix Vallotton, I analyse the formal tradition of group portraiture and renewed strategy Denis has taken in Hommage à Cézanne. Chapter two investigates the relations and pictorial dialogue in the Nabi group which mainly focus on Cézanne’s still life Compotier, verre et pommes. Positioned in ii.

(4) the center of Denis’ work, Cézanne’s still life Compotier, verre et pommes actually plays an important role in the Nabi circle, since it was approprited by one after another. By making several examples in contrast with the prototype of Cézanne, including the still life of Denis, Gauguin, Sérusier, and Bernard, it is obvious to find that the Nabi circle and their artistic allegiances overlapped a similiar cast of characters for Cézanne’s still life. These connections demonstrate an interest in collective painting that was itself formed collectively, shaped and reshaped in a network of artists and writers, colleagues and friends. Chapter three explores the relationship between artists, writers, dealers and others; they are directly involved in the group and their portraits in Hommage à Cézanne. The representative figures in Hommage à Cézanne such as Gauguin, Redon, Vollard and the Nabis group weaved a complicated relationship in their circle at the end of the nineteenth-century. Examining their relationship and attitude toward Hommage à Cézanne helps to interpret another dimension of the painting. My research argues Hommage à Cézanne is not only a painting that pays homage to Cézanne, but it also pays homage to Redon. This painting also celebrates a moment that the Nabi members were getting together after their generation was reaching an end. It is a pictorial statement of a group of artists as well as a group portrait that memorializes the Nabi group, their guides, and the prospect of avant-garde. Denis even attempted to reconcile his devout Catholicism with the practice of this painting. By forging Symbolism into a new synthesis between sensation and imagination, the individual and the collectivity, as well as between modernity and tradition, Denis presented Hommage à Cézanne as a model reconciliation of intellectual and the Nabi collective aspects.. Keywords: Maurice Denis, Hommage à Cézanne, group portrait, homage painting, iii.

(5) Paul Cézanne, Nabis, Odilon Redon, pictorial dialogue, reconciliation. iv.

(6) 中文摘要本論文主要探討法國十九世紀末那比派 (Les Nabis)畫家莫里斯 ‧德尼 (Maurice Denis) 於 1900 年所繪製的一幅群像畫《向塞尚致敬》(Hommage à Cézanne)。德尼在此幅作品中，描繪了一群那比派青年藝術聚集在畫商沃拉(Ambroise Vollard) 的畫廊內，圍繞在塞尚的靜物畫旁。德尼在這幅群像畫中，不僅描繪了自己與一群那比派藝術家，同時也描繪了畫商沃拉、評論家梅勒西歐(André Mellerio)、象徵主義畫家魯東(Odilon Redon)與自己的妻子瑪莎(Maurice Marthe) 在內共十位對象。關於此作品的討論，目前研究一般認為此張群像畫為提升十九世紀末後印象派藝術家塞尚名聲的主要證據。1近年來研究則傾向於將此幅作品作為德尼本人的藝術轉向或是政治上的表態。2目前學界並沒有學者針對此張作品專書討論，3 大部分關於此幅作品的討論多為研究那比派的專書所零星提及。4. 1 一般認為，塞尚逐漸地從鮮為人知的孤僻藝術家而成為足以代表富有現代性的藝術家，與德尼在此畫對塞尚的大力推崇、與其中終身不斷寫文頌揚塞尚有關。關於此部分之研究，可參閱 Theodore Reff, “Cézanne and Poussin”, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 (Jan. – Jun., 1960), pp. 150-174; Richard W. Murphy, The world of Cézanne 1839-1906, New York: Time-Life Books, 1968; Felix A. Baumann, Walter Feilchenfeldt, Hubertus Gassner (ed.), Cézanne and the dawn of modern art, Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2004 2 關於藝術轉向部分可參閱 Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: earthly paradise, Paris: Musée Nationaux, 2006；政治上的表態則可參閱 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, pp. 683-771 3 主要專文討論可看 Jürgen Schultze, “Maurice Denis Hommage à Cézanne; Meterialeu zu einer Neuerwerbung de Kunsthalle Bremen”, in Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 12, Bd. 12, 1973, pp. 69-78; Udo Kultermann, “Hommage à Cézanne by Maurice Denis”, in Journal of Art History, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1983, pp. 83-87; 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, pp. 683-771 4 此部分以 Robert Jensen, Gloria Groom 與 Claire Frèches-Thory 為主要代表，他們各自從不同的角度切入，如十九世紀末至二十世紀初的藝術市場發展、那比派的歷史與建立等，討論德尼此張作品的意義。相關著作可參閱 Robert Jensen, Marketing modernism in fin de siècle Europe, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994; Gloria Groom, Beyond the easel: decorative painting by Bonnard, Vuillard, Denis, and Roussel, 1890-1930, New Haven: Yale University, 2001; Claire Frèches-Thory and Antoine Terrasse, The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002;其博士論文 Katherine Marie Kuenzli, The anti-heroism of modern life symbolist decoration and the problem of privacy in fin-de-siècle modernist painting, Ph. D dissertation, Berkeley University of California, 2002。其次，作為法國著名的天主教畫家，大部分關於德尼的專門研究多集中在美術館針對展覽所出版的目錄上，其中法國學者 Jean-Paul Bouillon 是目前研究德尼的重要學者，而美國學者 Katherine Marie Kuenzli 由其博士論文發展出對於那比派的研究，對於德尼同樣也有詳 v.

(7) 然而，文獻中亦指出，5德尼在構想此幅群像畫之前，並沒有提及塞尚，而是將魯東作為那比派藝術家的圍繞的對象；更甚者，德尼同時也將此作品連結十六世紀西班牙藝術家葛雷科 (El Greco)的作品《歐貴茲伯爵的葬禮》(The Burial of the Count of Orgaz)。由於德尼的原始構想與結果相差甚遠，與宗教繪畫的連結更是顯示出其特定而不甚明確的傾向，因此本論文極力欲釐清造成德尼改變初衷的原因、以及其對於何以將此作品與宗教連結的態度。同時，塞尚的靜物畫《高腳盤、玻璃與蘋果》(Compotier, verre et pommes)作為德尼此幅作品的主要焦點，不僅取代了群像畫中將被致敬者的肖像作為致意的傳統，同時無疑地也扮演了重要的角色，因此本論文亦著重於探討塞尚靜物畫對於德尼本人的意義與重要性。本論文分為三章。第一章首先探討法國十九世紀群像畫的傳統與發展。此部分希望藉由比較藝術家群像畫的傳統與類型，指出德尼《向塞尚致敬》在構圖與形式上所採取的不同策略，討論此幅作品的獨特性與創新概念。第二章則討論塞尚靜物畫對於德尼的意義，並以塞尚的靜物畫作為一種特殊指涉性的符號角度，揭櫫其如何扮演了德尼與他的同儕們在圖像對話(pictorial dialogue)上的媒介。身為那比派藝術家的精神導師，高更(Paul Gauguin)的肖像畫作品《瑪利亞．黛西昂在塞尚的靜物畫前》(Maria Derrien à la nature morte de Cézanne)為將塞尚的靜物畫挪用至個人作品中的首例，其後那比派理論家塞呂西葉(Paul Sérusier)與塞尚追隨者貝納(Émile Bernard)也同樣地利用了塞尚的《高腳盤、玻璃與蘋果》作為各自的呼應與對比。本章藉由研究此一現象，探討圖像作為一種對話方式，如何應用在那比派的藝術理念表達之上，尤其如何影響了德尼對於選擇塞尚的靜物畫. 細討論。可參閱 Katherine Marie Kuenzli, The Nabis and intimate Modernism: painting and decorative at the fin-de-siécle, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010 5 此部分的材料主要是參考德尼的日記、友人書信與其出版的藝術理論書籍中。詳可參閱 Maurice Denis, Pierre Masson, Carina Schäfer (ed.), Correspondance: 1892-1945 / André Gide, Maurice Denis, Paris: Gallimard, 2006; Maurice Denis, Théories, 1890-1910 du symbolisme et de Gauguin vers un nouvel ordre classique, 1st and 2nd ed, Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Occident, 1912; 3rd ed, Paris: Rouart et Watelin, 1913; 4th ed, ibid, 1920; Maurice Denis, J. Watelin (ed.), Nouvelles théories sur l'art moderne, sur l'art sacré, 1914-1921, Paris, 1922; Denis, Maurice, Journal I, II ,Ⅲ(1884-1904, 1905-1920, 1921-1943), La Colombe, Paris, 1957-1959; Maurice Denis, Jean-Paul Bouillon P. M. Doran (ed.), Conversations avec Cezanne, Paris: Macula, 1978 (ed.), Le ciel et l’arcadie, Paris: Hermann, éditeurs des sciences et des arts, 1993 vi.

(8) 作為代表向塞尚本人的致敬。第三章則探討在德尼作品中出現的十位對象的連結關係，包括德尼的妻子瑪莎(Maurice Marthe)、那比派藝術家們、畫商沃拉、評論家梅勒西歐(André Mellerio)、與象徵主義畫家魯東(Odilon Redon)。藉由探討他們之間在藝術上彼此緊密而相連的關係，本章意在剖析德尼在選擇上所流露出的個人的態度與藝術傾向（包括德尼如何結合天主教的概念），同時也分析德尼從對魯東致敬而轉向對塞尚致敬的深層原因，並藉由此探討德尼在藝術表現上的連貫性。透過對此張作品在題材上、內容上、與特定對象的描繪與分析，本論文的研究顯示，德尼的《向塞尚致敬》不僅僅只是對塞尚致敬，同時也表達了對魯東致敬的意涵；德尼也藉由塞尚的靜物畫《高腳盤、玻璃與蘋果》企圖達到與那比派的同儕們進行關係聯結與圖像對話的方式；同時德尼更具體而微地將他與他的同儕們表現在一個特定而小眾的團體之中，藉以緬懷那比派、並宣示其個人在藝術主張上的轉向與發展（從前衛到追求以文藝復興為藍本的古典樣式）。正是由於這些多重涵意的宣示，德尼的《向塞尚致敬》因此不能一概論定為單純地向塞尚致敬。目前臺灣針對德尼相關所撰寫的論文不多， 6 對於此幅作品討論的篇幅甚少，希望本論文的研究與討論有助於建構德尼藝術表現更為全面性的觀點。. 關鍵字：莫理斯．德尼，《向塞尚致敬》，群像畫，致敬畫，塞尚，那比派，魯東，圖像對話，調和. 6. 依年份排序為吳嘉瑄，《莫理斯．德尼早期繪畫中的宗教特質（1889-1895）》(The religious characteristic in Maurice Denis’ early painting, 1889-1895)，中壢：中央大學藝術學研究所碩士論文，2002；游欣雅，《歐迪隆．荷東晚期裝飾繪畫與當代潮流級贊助之研究》，台北：台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文，2003；趙玲華，《莫理斯．德尼繪畫中的十九世紀末法國精神表現研究》 (Painting of Maurice Denis: presentation of the French spirit in the end of the 19th century)，台北：台灣師範大學美術研究所西洋美術史組碩士論文，2010。 vii.

(9) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the assistance, support, and guidance from a lot of people. I owe a great debt to the members of my thesis committee: Professor Valentin Nussbaum, Professor Shao-Chien Tzeng and Professor Candida Syndikus. In my long study in Graduate Institute of Art History, my advisor Valentin Nussbaum who had deeply constructed my critical thinking and sharpened my argumentation for four and half a year. I’ve expanded a new vision through his patient guidance. His intelligent and innovative opinions always inspire my way of seeing and thinking. Without his continuous encouragement and supervision, I would not have achieved this thesis. I will always remember his informative classes and his generous offer of appointments for me to discuss my research papers. I would also like to express my thanks to Professor Shai-Shu Tzeng. She had taught me how to observe details from painting since I was a college student in Department of Fine Arts at NTNU. From college to institute, her strict insistence on art history has constituted a qualified knowledge for me. Also, the intensive courses from Professor Christoph Hölz, Professor Anne-Marie Bonnet, Professor Sergiusz Michalski and Professor Reinhard Steiner all shape my ideology of art history in many aspects. Their enthusiasm and hardworking attitude toward teaching and research have left an unforgettable impression on me. Furthermore, my sincere gratitude goes to my former teacher in senior high school: Zhi-Ping Deng. His serious attitude and full devotion to fine arts have set a good example for me, and enlightened my critical thinking when I was a teenager. Special thanks to Jennifer Chang, who helped me out of getting the dissertation about group portraiture in University of California, Berkeley. My best friend Q-Ray viii.

(10) Haung and my aunt Mimi Cheng have spent a great deal of time on correcting my English writing. Other friends like José, Amy Chia-Hua Lu and her boyfriend Xavier Capelli all helped me translate French version into English one. I am indebted to them for all the things they have done. Thanks are also due to my dear fellows from Graduate Institute of Art History at NTNU: Yu-Yun Liu, Viola Shieh, Syuan-Yi Chen, Yi-Yi Li, Ann Wu, Stefanie Chi-Yin Chen, Janet Chang, Eric Ming-Yen Wang and Chang-Cheng Liu. Without sharing with them ups and downs, laughter and tears all the way through, I would not have insisted till now. In addition, I appreciate the close friendship of the Mountaineering Club at NTNU. I particularly treasure the friendship with Q-Ray Haung, Chia-Hang Chang, Dong-Yang Long and Hao-Chun Yang. Nature has taught us to be patient and insistent. The days and nights we stayed through on mountains have trained us to adapt all kind of circumstances. I’ve benefited from this training in the solitude of writing. My deepest thank goes to my beloved family and my partner Chang-Wei Su. They have supported me for a long time. I love them as they love me. Last but not least, this thesis is dedicated to my fellows who are still on their way to create good art.. ix.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 1. Maurice Denis, Hommage à Cézanne, 1900, oil on canvas, 180 x 240 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris (RF1977-137) 2. Maurice Denis, preparatory sketch for Hommage à Cèzanne, c. 1898, chalk on paper, 16 x 10 cm, private collection, photo: ©2006 Artist Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris 3. Maurice Denis, preparatory sketch for Hommage à Cèzanne, c. 1900, distemper over chalk drawing on paper, glued onto a canvas support, 180 x 240 cm, Kunsthalle, Bremen, photo: ©2006 Artist Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris 4. El Greco (Doménikos Theotokópoulos), The Burial of the Count of Orgaz, 1586-1588, oil on canvas, 460 x 360cm, Church of Santo Tomé, Toledo, Spain 5. Paul Cézanne, Compotier, verre et pommes, 1879-1882, oil on canvas, 46 x 55 cm, V. 341; Lecomte collection, Paris, photo: The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA/ART Resource, New York 6. Henri Fantin-Latour, Hommage à Delacroix, 1864, oil on canvas, 160 x 250 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris, photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, New York 7. Louis-Léopold Boilly, Une Réunion d'artistes dans l'atelier d'Isabey, Salon of 1798, oil on canvas, 71.5 x 111 cm, Musée du Louvre, Département des printires, Paris 8. Gustave Courbet, L’Atelier du peintre, une allégorie réelle déterminant une phase de sept années de ma vie artistique, 1855, oil on canvas, 361 x 598 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris 9. Eugene Delacroix, Autoportrait, c. 1837, oil on canvas, 65 x 54.5 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris 10. Philippe de Champaigne, Le Prévôt des marchands et les échevins de la ville de Paris, 1647-48, oil on canvas, 211 x 271 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris x.

(12) 11. Henri Fantin-Latour, L'Atelier des Batignolles, 1870, oil on canvas, 204 x 273.5 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris 12. Frédéric Bazille, L’Atelier de la rue La Condamine, 1870, oil on canvas, 97 x 127 cm, Musée d’Orsay, paris 13. Henri Fantin-Latour, Un Coin de Table, 1872, oil on canvas, 160 x 225 cm, Musée d'Orsay, Paris 14. Henry Fantin-Latour, Autour du Piano, 1885, oil on canvas, 160 x 222 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris 15. Félix Vallotton, Les Cinq Peintres, 1902-1903, oil on canvas, 145 x 187 cm, Kunstmuseum Winterthur, Switzerland CHAPTER 2 16. Maurice Denis, Detail of Hommage à Cézanne, 1900, oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay, Paris 17. Maurice Denis, D'Après une nature morte de Cézanne, 1914, lithograph, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Musée Départemental Maurice DenisArtists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris 18. Maurice Denis, Visite à Cézanne, 1906, oil on canvas, 51 x 64 cm, private collection 19. Paul Gauguin, Maria Derrien à la nature morte de Cézanne, 1890, oil on canvas, 65 x 55 cm, Joseph Winterbotham Collection, The Art Institute of Chicago (Joseph Winterbothan collection, 1925.753) 20. Paul Gauguin, Oranges et citrons avec vue sur Pont-Aven, 1889-1890, oil on canvas, Museum Langmatt, Baden, Switzerland 21. Paul Sérusier, Nature morte: l’atelier de l’artiste, 1891, oil on canvas, 60 x 73 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris, photo: RMN (Musée d’Orsay) / Hervé Lewandowski 22. Émile Bernard, Nature morte aux pommes d'après Cézanne, 1904, oil on board, 41 x 52cm, Mme Bardot Bernard-Fort, Beaumont sur Oise, photo: Christie's xi.

(13) 23. Émile Bernard, Autoportrait avec portrait de Gauguin, 1888, oil on canvas, 46.5 x 55.5 cm, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 24. Paul Gauguin, Autoportrait avec portrait de Bernard (Les Misérables), 1888, oil on canvas, 45 x 55 cm, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 25. Paul Cézanne, La Dame à l’éventail (Portrait de Madame Cézanne), 1879-82, 95.5 x 73.5 cm, Zürich, Collection de la Fondation E. G. Bührle 26. Paul Gauguin, Rêverie (La Femme à la robe rouge), 1891, 95 x 68 cm, Nelson Gallery, Atkins Museum, Kansas City 27. Édouard Manet, Olympia, 1863, oil on canvas, 131 x 190 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris 28. Paul Gauguin, Olympia (copie d’après Manet),1891, oil on canvas, 89 x 130 cm, private collection 29. Paul Gauguin, Nature morte à l'esquisse de Delacroix, 1887, Oil on Canvas, 45 x 30 cm, Musées d’Art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg, Strasbourg (Inv. No. 55.974.0.662; 1316) 30. Adam and Eve, plate 40 of Robaut: Delacroix: fac-similés des dessins et croquis originaux, 1864-1865, photo: BNF 31. Paul Gauguin, La vision du sermon, 1888, oil on canvas, 73 x 92 cm, National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh (Wildenstein 2001 no. 308) 32. Utagawa Hiroshige, Plum Estate, Kameido, 1857, No. 30 from ‘One Hundred Famous Views of Edo’, woodblock print, 36 x 23.5 cm, Brooklyn, The Brooklyn Museum of Art (gift of Anna Ferris 30, 1478. 30) 33. Vincent van Gogh, Plum trees in Blossom (after a print by Hiroshige), 1887, oil on canvas, 55 x 46 cm, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 34. Edgar Degas, Musiciens à l'orchestre, 1872, oil on canvas, 69 x 49 cm, Stäldesches Kunstinstitut und Stäldesches Galerie, Frankfurt xii.

(14) 35. Paul Gauguin, La Belle Angèle, 1889, oil on canvas, 92 x 73 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris 36. Hans Holbein the younger, Portrait of Anne of Cleves, 1539, oil on canvas, 48 x 65 cm, Musée du Lourve, Paris. CHAPTER 3 37. Odilon Redon, Maurice Denis, 1903, lithograph, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris 38. Odilon Redon, Paul Sérusier, 1903, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris 39. Odilon Redon, Pierre Bonnard, 1902, litho on chine-collé, 14.5 x 12 cm, signed and dated in pencil on the right, under the image 40. Odilon Redon, Edouard Vuillard, 1900, lithograph, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris 41. Odilon Redon, Black Profile (Gauguin), c. 1906, oil on canvas, 66 x 55 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris 42. Paul Cézanne, Portrait d’Ambroise Vollard, 1899, oil on canvas, 100.3 x 81.3 cm, Musée de la ville de Paris, Petit Palais, Paris, photo: P. Pierrain 43. Ker-Xavier Roussel, Vuillard, Romain Coolus, and Félix Vallotton at Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, at the home of Misia and Thadée Natanson in 1899, collection Annette Vaillant, France / archives Charmet / The Bridgeman Art Library. xiii.

(15) INTRODUCTION My research presents a case study of the nineteenth-century French artist Maurice Denis’ (1870-1943) work Hommage à Cézanne (Fig. 1). In this work, Denis depicts a group of Nabi artists congregating in Ambroise Vollard’s gallery, standing around a still life painted by the Post-Impressionist artist Cézanne. Aside from his Nabi colleagues, Denis also depicts his wife Marthe, the dealer Vollard, the critic Mellerio and the Symbolist painter Redon. This painting combines a self-portrait, a group portrait and a gallery depiction. Most scholars discuss this painting by mainly mentioning the study of the Nabis and their development.7 Currently, most art historians conclude Hommage à Cézanne is designed to emphasize Cézanne’s rising reputation at the end of the nineteenth-century.8 Recent studies tend to view this painting as Denis’ personal transformation into an artistic and political state of mind.9 Although the current study has viewed Hommage à Cézanne as evidence of Cézanne’s early reputation, in his diary Denis mentioned that he initially planned to put Redon’s painting as the centerpiece in the painting. He did not think of Cézanne or. 7. See Jürgen Schultze, “Maurice Denis Hommage à Cézanne; Meterialen zu einer Neuerwerbung der Kunsthalle Bremen”, in Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 12, Bd. 12, 1973, pp. 69-78; Udo Kultermann, “Hommage à Cézanne by Maurice Denis”, in Journal of Art History, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1983, pp. 83-87; Robert Jensen, Marketing modernism in fin de siècle Europe, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994; Gloria Groom, Beyond the easel: decorative painting by Bonnard, Vuillard, Denis, and Roussel, 1890-1930, New Haven: Yale University, 2001; Claire Frèches-Thory and Antoine Terrasse, The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002. In the forward studies, Gloria Groom and Claire Frèches-Thory have given a comprehensive history of the Nabi movement during the 1890-1900. 8 See Theodore Reff, “Cézanne and Poussion”, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 (Jan. – Jun., 1960), pp. 150-174; Richard W. Murphy, The world of Cézanne 1839-1906, New York: Time-Life Books, 1968; Felix A. Baumann, Walter Feilchenfeldt, Hubertus Gassner (ed.), Cézanne and the dawn of modern art, Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2004 9 The French scholar Jean-Paul Bouillon and the American scholar Katherine Marie Kuenzli are the representative researchers on Denis. Their detailed discussions have expanded a new vision and interpretation on Denis’ art. In Denis’ artistic state, see Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: earthly paradise, Paris: Musée Nationaux, 2006. In his political state, see 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, pp. 683-771 1.

(16) Cézanne’s painting in his first draft.10 Moreover, Denis also connected this group portrait of his to the sixteenth-century Spanish artist El Greco’s The Burial of the Count of Orgaz (Fig. 4). Considering the difference between his original project and the result, as well as his relationship to religious painting, my study attempts to analyze and reveal what caused Denis change his mind and to connect his work to Christianity. Also, as a focal point in Denis’ painting, Cézanne’s still life Compotier, verre et pommes (Fig. 5) not only transforms the tradition of group portraiture and homage painting, but also plays a crucial role in Hommage à Cézanne. Hence my study also accentuates the importance of Cézanne’s still life for Denis, while trying to analyze this painting from a different aspect. This thesis is divided into three chapters, each centering on a single topic related to Denis’ strategy, including the strategy of arranging a group, the significance of Cézanne’s still life and the relationships between the figures chosen for Denis’ group. First, to understand the renewed strategy Denis has taken in his group portrait of the genre, I examine the development of group portraiture and homage painting during the nineteenth-century in France.11 To begin with, Boilly’s group was the first example of the genre showing a group of artists assembled in the center of an atelier. His painting developed into a model for other artist’s group portraits at end of the 10. See Maurice Denis, Pierre Masson, Carina Schäfer (ed.), Correspondance: 1892-1945 / André Gide, Maurice Denis, Paris: Gallimard, 2006; Maurice Denis, Théories, 1890-1910 du symbolisme et de Gauguin vers un nouvel ordre classique, 1st and 2nd ed, Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Occident, 1912; 3rd ed, Paris: Rouart et Watelin, 1913; 4th ed, ibid, 1920; Maurice Denis, J. Watelin (ed.), Nouvelles théories sur l'art moderne, sur l'art sacré, 1914-1921, Paris, 1922; Denis, Maurice, Journal I, II ,Ⅲ(1884-1904, 1905-1920, 1921-1943), La Colombe, Paris, 1957-1959; Maurice Denis, Jean-Paul Bouillon P. M. Doran (ed.), Conversations avec Cezanne, Paris: Macula, 1978 (ed.), Le ciel et l’arcadie, Paris: Hermann, éditeurs des sciences et des arts, 1993 11 The subject of French group portraiture in the nineteenth-century has been the focus of a good deal of innovative analysis in Bridget Alsdorf, and I have greatly profited from the work of scholars who have opened and extended this area of research. Alsdorf gives a clear distinction and direction of group portraiture in the end of nineteen-century France. My chapter one is based on her definition on group portrait and its development. See Bridget Abigail Alsdorf, The art of association: Fantin-Latour and the modern group portrait, Ph. D dissertation, Berkeley University of California, 2008 2.

(17) nineteenth-century. So, I start my comparisons with Boilly. Also, critics compared Courbet and Fantin-Latour with Denis when Hommage à Cézanne was exhibited. In particular, Fantin-Latour’s eminent series of five group portraits used a formula that included his colleagues and friends and had an impact on young artists of the next generation. Most importantly, his Hommage à Delacroix (Fig. 6) has been viewed as a main predecessor of Denis’ painting. Therefore, I compare Courbet and Fantin-Latour with Denis in the next step, while trying to figure out the renewed strategy Denis has taken and used to transform the genre. Lastly, in contrast to Denis’ intimate and enclosed group, his companion Félix Vallotton’s group portrait of the Nabis provides a contemporary example that adopts a total different strategy and atmosphere. Thus I conclude by using Vallotton’s example to analyze and compare the different attitudes and intentions of presenting their circle and artistic allegiance. Comparing the tradition and development of group portraiture and homage painting painted by the above artists helps one understand the renewed strategy Denis has taken in this type of group portrait and its formal composition. Second, Cézanne’s still life Compotier, verre et pommes represents Cézanne himself in Denis’ depiction and occupies a dominant position in the center of the work. Unlike his direct predecessor Fantin-Latour, Denis’ arrangement presents a still life instead of Cézanne himself uses a different strategy. However, since this painting was not in Vollard’s collection, why did Denis choose it to represent his respectable master? What resulted in his decision? Also, what is the meaning and importance of Cézanne’s still life for Denis? To understand the above questions, I analyze the importance and meaning of Cézanne’s still life for Denis, indicating that Cézanne’s still life plays a crucial role in the pictorial dialogue between Denis and his circle, especially in the case of Gauguin, Sérusier and Bernnard. Actually, the pictorial dialogue begins with Gauguin’s imitation of Compotier, verre et pommes in his female portrait Maria 3.

(18) Derrien à la nature morte de Cézanne. After Gauguin, his followers appropriated Cézanne’s still life in their paintings. By installing Cézanne’s still life as a mediator of pictorial dialogue in their artistic association, their circle and artistic allegiances overlapped and a similar cast of characters appeared in multiple works. These connections demonstrate an interest in collective painting that was itself formed collectively, then shaped and reshaped in a network of their group. The pictorial dialogue in Denis’ circle is also a crucial factor for him as he attempts to present his ideal master. Apparently Denis’ selection of Cézanne’s still life was influenced by his companions’ decisions. Third, aside from the genre and topic of his painting, Denis’ choice to stage his ideal group in a dealer’s gallery also raises the question of his strategy in painting Hommage à Cézanne. In his project Denis originally mentioned that he planned to position his Nabi companions in a setting with Redon’s painting in Vollard’s gallery. In his final version, Denis placed the Nabis with his wife Marthe, the dealer Vollard, the critic Mellerio and the Symbolist painter Redon in a setting which surrounds Cézanne’s still life in Vollard’s gallery; in the rear wall of his group portrait, he also positioned the style of Gauguin and Renoir’s paintings. Denis seems to imply at least thirteen representative members make up his group. We may wonder why he placed these figures in such a way to pay homage to Cézanne, since not all the members admired the isolated master in Aix. Also, why did he choose to place his group in Vollard’s gallery? Apparently the figures present here weave a complicated series of relationships in their circle. Hence I examine the social connections within this group and their attitudes toward Cézanne, analyzing how Gauguin and Redon played a role of leader at the beginning of the establishment of the Nabi group, how Vollard and Mellerio patronized Cézanne and organized important exhibitions of Cézanne’s one man show starting in 1895, and how Denis’ attitude toward Redon and Cézanne led 4.

(19) him to change his original project, resulting in placement of Cézanne’s painting at the center. My investigation led me to assert Denis’ painting is a moderate reconciliation between personality and interiority, homage and self-promotion, classic conformity and avant-garde rebellion. The visualization of these conflicts in pictorial form reveals the delicate boundaries of artistic identity. Examining several dimensions in Denis’ group portrait helps to prove that Denis’ work is not only a group portrait that pays tribute to the Post-Impressionist artist, but it also shows Denis’ work dedicates itself to his circle as a pictorial dialogue that emphasizes group identity in a moment of crisis and in an attempt to synthesize opposing aesthetic factions. Also, my study not only proposes a different aspect of Hommage à Cézanne, but it underscores the centrality of the pictorial dialogue among the Nabis. The strategy of the pictorial dialogue shapes their connected network, reinforcing their relationship by instilling their dialogue into their paintings. Hommage à Cézanne is not only a painting that pays homage to Cézanne, but it also pays tribute to Redon. It’s a pictorial statement of a group of artists as well as a group portrait. Denis also attempted to reconcile his devotion to Catholicism with the practice of this painting. This painting is a nostalgic group portrait that memorializes the Nabi group, their guides, and the prospect of an avant-garde approach when their circle was reaching an end. By forging Symbolism into a new synthesis between sensation and imagination, the individual and the collective as well as between modernity and tradition, Denis created Hommage à Cézanne as a model reconciliation of intellectual and Nabi collective aspects.. 5.

(20) CHAPTER ONE: Maurice Denis’ group portrait, the group portraiture and homage painting as subject matter in nineteenth-century France 1. Introduction The painting Hommage à Cézanne combines a self-portrait, a group portrait and a gallery depiction. In the composition of this painting, ten figures including nine men and a woman are depicted in full length and dark clothes in a gallery.12 These figures, surrounded at least by four paintings,13 form an isocephalic arrangement as well as an intensive semi-circle.14 They stand around a still life carefully positioned on an easel, staring at a singular, isolated bald man holding both his handkerchief and glasses; supposedly this man had put his hat on the windowsill moments ago. From the window, we can see a small part of the street decpicting a horse pulling an omnibus. These figures seem to be deeply invovled in conversation, especially the bald man who is talking to another standing in front of him. At the same time, one of the bourgeois-like men holds the rear leg of the easel with a strange gesture and distorted body, and he climbs up on the H-frame of the easel, shepherding his watchful eyes to the other figures. We also notice a woman standing at the edge of the composition, smiling and watching as a spectator. She looks different from the other nine figures, not only because she is a woman, but also because she wears a hint of color in an otherwise black and dark. 12. The figures from left to right in Hommage à Cézanne can be identified with their facial features. The first figure who holds a handkerchief is Odilon Redon, he is shown in profile in the foreground on the far left and most of the figures are looking at him; next to Redon, the second figure with a cigarette is Edouard Vuillard; behind Vuillard, the critic André Mellerio is wearing a top hat and looking at the opposite direction of Redon; the dealer Ambroise Vollard is climbing an easel and looking at others with watchful eyes; next to Vollard, Maurice Denis himself is hiding behind the easel; Paul Sérusier is speaking and standing infront of Redon in profile; behind Sérusier, Paul Ranson is wearing a chapeau and a pair of glasses; Ker-Xavier Roussel is standing in contrapposto; next to Roussel, Pierre Bonnard is wearing a chapeau, carrying a stick and smoking a pipe; the last one who is at the edge of the frame is Marthe Denis, the painter’s wife. 13 The subject of these four paintings are a still life, two female portraits, and a genre scene. 14 Isokephalie (from the Greek isos ἴσος, “same” and κέφαλος Cephalus, “head”), also known as direct head height is a pictorial stylistic device. 6.

(21) group. This complex painting is inscribed in a tradition of group portraiture that took place at the beginning of the nineteenth-century in France. Denis’ work installs a pictorial dialogue with the tradition of group portraiture which corresponds with its predecessors and contemporaries. By examining previous important group portraits and homage paintings, in this chapter I would like to analyse the tradition of group portraiture and the way Denis renewed the genre through Hommage à Cézanne.. 2. Background 2-1. To search for an ideal composition In March 1898, French artist Maurice Denis (1870-1943) mentioned in his diary the project of painting a group portrait. He wanted to “create a Redon picture in Vollard’s shop, surrounded by Vuillard, Bonnard, etc.”15 Later, Denis changed his original project into a new idea. He eventually staged a group of Nabi artists and a critic in Ambroise Vollard’s gallery assembled around Paul Cézanne’s still life and replacing Redon’s painting. Denis then gave an explicit title named Hommage à Cézanne (Fig. 1) to his final composition. Based on the artists such as Vuillard and Bonnard which Denis mentioned in his diary, he originally planned to depict the nucleus of the Nabis who gathered together in the shop of the art dealer Ambroise Vollard (1866-1939),16 with Redon’s painting. 15. “Faire un tableau de Redon dans la boutique de Vollard, entouré de Vuillard, Bonnard, et.”, quoted from Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: earthly paradise, Paris: Musees Nationaux, 2006, pp. 208-209 16 Ambroise Vollard was an important art dealer that had promoted avant-garde constantly. He was enthusiastic about helping young artists, and the significance of his role in promoting their art cannot be underestimated. Opened in 1893 at 39 Rue Lafitte, Vollard’s gallery was one of the liveliest centers for modern art, attracting leading Parisian intellectual and artist. For instance, he showed drawings by Edouard Manet in 1893, works by Gauguin from his Breton period as well as paintings by Vincent van Gogh in 1895. His gallery displayed lots of works by Degas, Renoir, Matisse and Picasso. 7.

(22) as the focal position in his group portrait.17 In the first preparatory sketch (Fig. 2) Denis made in 1898, we can only see five figures who gather together in a gallery-like interior. Denis then confirmed Redon’s importance to the Symbolist movement toward the young generation, “It is Redon’s thought, manifested in his lithograph and admirable charcoals, which determined the spiritualist evolution of art in 1890.”18 In 1900, Denis’ second preparatory sketch (Fig. 3) changed his previous arrangement. Aside from turning the direction of the composition, he added five figures, and enlarged the canvas. Denis put Cézanne’s still life in the dominant place. The second preparatory sketch was much closer to the final composition and was undoubtedly his final sketch. As a result, Hommage à Cézanne is a painting that pays tribute to Post-Impressionist artist Paul Cézanne. Though Denis changed his original project to present Cézanne’s painting, he still put Odilon Redon in an important position. In Hommage à Cézanne, Odilon Redon takes a conspicuous place in the left side — he stands in a distant position under the scrutiny of the other artists. Redon faces Paul Sérusier in profile, and he seems to listen to him, while the other men are looking and waiting for his reaction. As mentioned previously, Denis originally wanted to put Redon’s painting at the center of his composition, and he did not think of Cézanne in his first draft. We can thus infer that in the beginning Denis probably intended to entitle his project Hommage à Redon, but he ultimately changed his project. We may wonder, however, why Denis wanted. 17. However, the French term tableau can be interpreted in two meanings here: Redon’s painting or Redon’s portrait. If Denis planned his original project as the final one, it could be possible that he intended to stage Redon’s painting in the beginning. Otherwise Denis could use the term portrait in his journal. Hence I intend to believe that Denis planned to put Redon’s painting in the beginning of his project. 18 “C’est la pensée de Redon, par ses séries de lithographies et ses admirables fusains, qui déterminera dans un sens spiritualiste l’évolution d’art en 1890.” Maurice Denis, La Vie, 30 November 1912, qouted 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 8.

(23) to stage Redon’s painting in the focal position? And why did he eventually change his project to pay homage to Cézanne? What caused him to change? In March 1899, a group exhibition of Post and Neo-Impressionists entitled Les Symbolistes et les Néo-impressionnistes: Hommage à Redon was held at the Durand-Ruel gallery.19 Many of the Nabi artists such as Bonnard, Denis, Sérusier, Félix Vallotton and Vuillard gathered together to celebrate Redon’s influential fantasy on the young generation.20 In the following year, Redon held a solo exhibition in the same gallery,21 the same year when Hommage à Cézanne was completed. Moreover, in December of the same year, Cézanne’s second exhibition was held at Ambroise Vollard’s gallery.22 All these related events might have influenced Denis. Redon and Cézanne were both admired by Denis. In 1907, Denis clearly expressed his thoughts when considering both Redon and Cézanne, pointing out that Cézanne’s art represents a sensation of nature which makes an ideal model of classic style: “Yes, Redon is at the origin of Symbolism, in what concerns the plastic expression of the ideal; and on the other hand, Cézanne’s example taught us to transpose sensation into elements of the work of art. Redon’s subject is more subjective; Cézanne’s is more objective, but both create by means of a method which has its goal the creation of a concrete object that is both beautiful and represents a 19. The nine Nabi artists including Bonnard, Sérusier, Vuillard, Vallotton, Ker-Xavier Roussel, Denis, René Georges Hermann-Paul, Ibels, Ranson took part in this exhibition. Besides, Paul Durand-Ruel was known as the art dealer of the Impressionists, and organized group and one-man exhibitions. In Paris, he arranged exhibitions of Paul Gauguin, Odilon Redon, and the first exhibition of Bonnard. He was also the first one to import the impressionists to New York, where he opened a branch of his gallery in 1886. See Claire Frèches-Thory, Antoine Terrasse, Mary Pordoe (trans.), The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002, pp. 301-302 20 These artists are Charles Angrand, Henri-Edmond Cross, Maximilien Luce, Hippolyte Petitjean, Paul Signac, Théo Van Rysselberghe, Albert André, Georges Daniel de Monfreid, Louis Valtat, Émile Bernard and Charles Filiger, and so on. Claire Frèches-Thory, Antoine Terrasse, Mary Pordoe (trans.), The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002, pp. 287+299 21 Actually, Redon began to display his works in Durand-Ruel gallery through Mallarmé since 1886. Later on, he had his one-man show in Durand-Ruel’s gallery since 1889. 22 Although the depiction of Hommage à Cézanne is not a real-happened event — Denis and his Nabis friends have never exhibited with Cézanne in Vollard’s gallery, but the Nabis have two exhibitions in Ambroise Vollard’s gallery earlier in 1897 and 1899. See Claire Frèches-Thory and Antoine Terrasse, The Nabis: Bonnard, Vuillard and their circle, Paris: Flammarion, 2002, p. 27 9.

(24) sensibility.”23 The main reason for Denis to choose Cézanne to replace Redon in his painting is because Cézanne “has shown the possibility of a classic Renaissance and given works of such nobility of style at a time”.24 In Denis’ final version, Redon’s painting is missing and Redon is only represented by his figure standing on the left side. Also, although Denis chose Cézanne to replace Redon, it was only through his work that he decided to refer to the master. Thus we cannot see Cézanne’s individual portrait; instead, Cézanne’s portrait is replaced by his still life Compotier, Verre et Pommes (Fig. 5). Aside from the consideration of Cézanne’s importance, Denis wrote a mock conversation with Ingres whom he admired greatly in his Journal,25 mentioning his inspiration for his group portrait.26 In his fictional dialogue, Denis related Hommage à Cézanne to El Greco’s The Burial of the Count of Orgaz (Fig. 4).27 If we compare the two works we can see that Greco’s composition leaves a trace in Denis’ painting. 23. “Oui, Redon est à l’origine du Symbolisme, en tant qu’expression plastique de l’idéal, et d’autre part l’exemple de Cézanne nous enseignait à transposer les données de la sensation en éléments d’oeuvre d’art. Le sujet de Redon est plus subjectif, le suject de Cézanne plus objectif, mais tous deux s’expriment au moyen d’une méthode qui a pour but de créer un object concret, à la fois beau et représentatif d’une sensibilité.” Quoted from Maurice Denis, Roger Fry (trans.), “Cézanne-II”, In The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 16, No. 83 (Feb., 1910), p. 275, French version from Maurice Denis, Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Le ciel et l’arcadie, Paris : Hermann, éditeurs des sciences et des arts, 1993, p. 140 24 “Cézanne nous ait fait entrevoir la possibilité d’une Renaissance classique et donnée des oeuvres d’une telle supériorité de style.” Quoted from Maurice Denis, Roger Fry (trans.), “Cézanne-II”, In The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 16, No. 83 (Feb., 1910), p. 276, French version from Maurice Denis, Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Le ciel et l’arcadie, Paris : Hermann, éditeurs des sciences et des arts, 1993, p. 143 25 Actually, in 1901, Denis wrote an essay “Les Elèves d’Ingres” to praise Ingres the academician and to renounce Impressionism. See Katherine Marie Kuenzli, The Nabis and intimate Modernism: painting and decorative at the fin-de-siécle, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010, p. 139 26 During the fictional conversation, Ingres says: “This young man (Maurice Denis), who by pretending his homage to Cézanne, groups half a dozen avant-garde painters around a still life in an arrangement which is reminiscent of Greco’s Funeral of Count Orgaz in Toledo… ” Quoted from Udo Kultermann, “Hommage à Cézanne by Maurice Denis”, in Journal of Art History, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1983, p. 86. The same opinion can see Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: Earthly Paradise, Paris: Musée Nationaux, 2006, p. 208 27 In one of his articles, Denis also mentioned that Greco’s painting inspired him: “Sous prétexte d’Hommage à Cézanne, autour d’une nature morte, dans un arrangement qui rappelle l’Enterrement du comte d’Orgaz du Gréco à Tolède, une demi-douzaine de peintres d’avant-garde.” Quoted from Maurice Denis, “Le Salon de la Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts”, in Théories, 1890-1910 du symbolisme et de Gauguin vers un nouvel ordre classique, 1st and 2nd ed, Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Occident, 1912; 3rd ed, Paris: Rouart et Watelin, 1913; 4th ed, ibid, 1920, p. 60 10.

(25) Greco’s painting was dedicated to the benefactor of the Church of Santo Tomé and the miracle of its entombment in Toledo; this religious painting combines sacred and profane elements in a contemporary group. If we focus on the local mourners in Orgaz’s funeral, it is interesting to find similarities beween Denis’ Hommage à Cézanne and Greco’s painting. In Greco’s depiction, the twenty-four men are all dressed in black and stand around the burial site, observing the funeral of the Count of Orgaz. We may notice the gesture performed by Odilon Redon corresponds to that of the gesture of a Dominican priest in the foreground of El Greco’s painting. A particular point worthy of notice is that Redon holds a handkerchief and stands at the left side in profile, reminding us Greco’s Dominican priest at the left side, bowing his head in deep contemplation. Yet the mock conversations mentioned above in relation to both The Burial of the Count of Orgaz and Hommage à Cézanne did not occur simply because Denis was inspired by the former’s composition, but also by its character — Denis was known to be a devout Catholic. Although his group portrait was not dedicated to Christianity, Denis’ relationship to Greco’s religious painting reveals his choice of combining religious and profane dimensions in Hommage à Cézanne, since Greco was recognized as a great master of naturalistic representation and of spiritual expression at the beginning of the twentieth-century.28 Denis’ attitude toward religion in Hommage à Cézanne can be seen in his career and his fellow colleagues. In fact, as a huge group portrait, Hommage à Cézanne is an unusual work in Denis’ career. He was one of the most important members of the Nabis, and his artistic expression was greatly inspired by his fellow colleagues and his devout religion during this period.29 The word “Nabis” chosen by the group of young 28. Charles H. Caffin, “The art and influence of El Greco”, in Art and Progress, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jan., 1911), p. 80 29 In 1889, a young group entitled themselves as “Nabis” to make further distinctions from the Post-Impressionism. The members of Nabis included such diverse artists as Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis, Henri-Gabriel Ibels, Charles Lacombe, Artistide Maillol, Paul Ranson, Rippl-Rònai, Ker-Xavier 11.

(26) artists means prophets or enlightened ones in Hebrew (from the Hebrew word nebiim), and points to the artists’ interest in art as a form of spiritual enlightenment, stressing the group’s self-designated role as prophets of modern art. As a pure colorist and religious Catholic, Denis was called le Nabis aux belles icônes by his colleagues because he was familiar and fascinated by religious painting that he created many beautiful Christian icons. He once said that through his painting he wanted to convey his goal of sacrificing all of his life to religion. Already in 1885, at the age of 15, Denis wrote in his diary: “I swear to be faithful to the holy Christian religion”, and “Yes, I must become a Christian artist and eulogize all the wonders of Christianity; I feel that this is necessary.”30 He then reconfirmed his belief in 1889: “I believe that Art must sanctify nature; I believe that Vision without the Spirit is in vain; and that it is the vocation of the aesthete to turn beautiful things into undying icons.”31 In 1890, to claim his personal aesthetic value, he defined a famous manifesto on the definition on Néo-traditionnisme in the magazine Art et Critique: “Remember that a painting, before being a battle horse, a nude, an anecdote or another, is essentially a flat surface covered with colors assembled in a certain order.”32 In contrast to the above. Roussel, Paul Sérusier, Féix Vallotton, Jan Verkade, Ambroise Vuillard, and so on. They considered themselves prophets of a new art. See Margret Stuffmann and Max Hollein (eds.), Melissa Thorson Hause and Allison Plath-Moseley, etc (trans.), As in a dream: Odilon Redon, Frankfurt: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2007, p. 104. Besides, the history of the Nabis is part of the more comprehensive and multicoated history of Symbolism. From 1890 to 1900, the Nabis appeared in exhibitions as symbolists. And the group’s early years were marked by simultaneous interests in Dominican theology and Theosophy, which Denis and Paul Sérusier respectively promoted. The contact with Dominican priests marked the beginnings of the Nabi movement. In this aspect, Denis probably tends to make a correspondence with his ideal religious painting and Dominican theory in his group portrait. Katherine M. Kuenzli, The Nabis and intimate Modernism: painting and decorative at the fin-de-siécle, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010, pp. 108-136 30 “Je jure d’être toujours fidèle à la sainte religion chrétienne.”, “Oui, il faut que je sois peintre chrétien, que je célèbre tous ces miracles du Christianisme, je sens qu’il le faut.” Denis, Journal I, on May 4,1885, p.57, quoted from Albert Kostenevich, The Nabis, New York: Parkstone Press International, 2009, p. 178 31 “Je crois que l’Art doit sanctifier la nature; je crois qe la Vision sans l’Espri est vaine; et que c’est la mission de l’esthète d’ériger les choses belles en immarcescibles icônes.” Denis, Journal, Vol. 1, p. 73, qouted from Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Josephine Bacon, Caroline Newman, and Shena Wilson (trans.), Maurice Denis: earthly paradise, Paris: Musée Nationaux, 2006, p. 34. 32 “Se rappeler qu’un tableau- avant d’être un cheval de bataille, une femme nue, ou une quelconque anecdote- est essentiellement une surface plane recouverte de couleurs en un certain ordre 12.

(27) declarations and his usual paintings during this period which often show a group of women strolling around a field with religious and allegorical titles,33 Hommage à Cézanne is much more profane and explicit in its aim, composition, and objects than we might think at first sight. Since Denis connected Greco’s The Burial of the Count of Orgaz with his work, it may be possible that he intended to involve a spiritual aspect in Hommage à Cézanne.. 2-2. Receptions and critics Hommage à Cézanne was completed in 1900. The Salon of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts (SNBA) accepted and exhibited the painting in 1901,34 and it was considered an important watershed work at the start of the twentieth-century,35 not because of the eminent respect and elevation toward Paul Cézanne as his reputation began to develop, but because of the positioning the Nabi group gathering together. Denis’ homage had touched Cézanne deeply. In response to Denis, Cézanne wrote to him with happiness: “I (Cézanne) learned through the press of the manifestation of your artistic sympathy for me exhibited at the Salon de la “Société Natinale des Beaux-Arts”. Please accept my warmest gratitude and give it also to the. assemblées.” Maurice Denis, Jean-Paul Bouillon (ed.), Le ciel et l’arcadie, Paris: Hermann, éditeurs des sciences et des arts, 1993, p. 5 33 Such as Procession Pascale sous les Arbres in 1892, Femmes au Tombeau in 1894, Figures dans un Paysage de Printemps in 1897, and Viginal Printemps in 1899. 34 In 1890, the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts was re-vitalised under the rule of Ernest Meissonier, Puvis de Chavannes, Jules Dalou, Auguste Rodin, Carolus-Duran, Bracquemond and Albert-Ernest Carrier-Belleuse. Since then its annual exhibition was reviewed as the Salon de Champ-de-Mars, traditionally opening a fortnight later than the official Salon de Champs-Élysées. 35 For example, the American journalist James Huneker commented the relationship between Hommage à Cézanne and Cézanne: “Slow grew his [Cézanne] fame as a sober, sincere, unaffected workman of art. Disciples rallied around him. He accepted changing fortunes with his accustomed equanimity. Maurice Denis painted for the Champs de Mars Salon of 1901 a picture entitled Hommage à Cèzanne…this homage had its uses. The disciples became a swelling, noisy chorus, and in 1904 Cézanne’s room was thronged by overheated enthusiasts who would have offered violence to the first critical dissent…” Anonymous [James G. Huneker], “Paul Cèzanne”, in New York Sun, Dec. 20, 1906, quoted from John Rewald, (ed.), Cézanne and America: dealers, collectors, artists and critics, 1891-1921, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 99 13.

(28) artists who have joined you in this matter.”36 A week later, Denis replied 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 your students.”37 Although Hommage à Cézanne had been exhibited in public, the reaction of the audience was indifferent and distant as it was an unpopular and unsuccessful painting at that time. Despite the audience’s indifference, Denis believed that Hommage à Cézanne was welcomed by the young generation. In a letter he wrote to his close friend André Gide who was also the buyer of the work in 1901,38 Denis poured out his heart, stating: “I can't express you how I congratulate myself to have exhibited this painting. I appreciate this experience and I'm really satisfied to see it, for which the audience is still laughing at, but defended by very young people.”39 After the exhibition at the Salon of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts in 1901, critics placed. 36. Hommage à Cézanne in a tradition of group portraiture and. “J’ai appris par la voix de la presse la manifesatation de votre sympathic artistique à mon égard, exposée au salon de la Société Nationale de Beaux-Arts. Je viens vous prier de agrée l’expression de ma plus vive reconnaissance et de vouloir bien en faire part aux artistes qui se sont groupés autour de vous en cette circonstance.” 5 June, 1901, letter from Cézanne to Denis, quoted from John Rewald (ed.), Marguerite Kay (trans.), Paul Cézanne Letters, Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1946, p. 216. In fact, it seems that the sympathy from the young generation can always touch Cézanne deeply. After a visit of Denis and Roussel in 1906, Cézanne wrote to Roussel who had shared the understanding of his art: “I thank you very much for your kind sympathy, which is for me a precious proof of the fact that my efforts toward the realization of art — to which I have always devoted myself — are not altogether in vain since the young show me an approbation that is as disinterested as it is flattering.” Letter from Cézanne to Ker-Xavier Roussel, 22 Feb., 1906, unpublished document, courtesy Antoine Salomon, Paris. Quoted from John Rewald (ed.), Cézanne and America: dealers, collectors, artists and critics, 1891-1921, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 107 37 On 13 June, 1901, Paris. Quoted from Joseph J. Rishel and Katherine Sachs (ed.), Cézanne and beyond, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 21 38 André Gide was a famous writer in France. Maurice Denis and he had maintained a intimate friendship during their life. Gide buy Hommage à Cézanne after the Salon of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts in 1901. 39 “... Je ne puis vous exprimer en quel sens je me félicite le plus de l’avoir exposé. J’en profite comme d’une expérience et d’autre part j’ai la satisfaction de voir que ce tableau devant lequel le public rit encore, est défendu par de très jeunes gens.” On 23, April, 1901, in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Maurice Denis, Pierre Masson, Carina Schäfer (ed.), Correspondance: 1892-1945 / André Gide, Maurice Denis, Paris: Gallimard, 2006, p. 160; English version was translated by Amy Chia-Hua Lu. 14.

(29) commented explicitly on its unorthodox relationship to tradition. The famous critic Gustave Geffroy remarked on its indebtedness to the realist tradition and related Hommage à Cézanne to Courbet and Fantin-Latour’s group portrait and studio painting. 40 Another critic Arsène Alexander compared Hommage à Cézanne unfavorably to Fantin-Latour’s L'atelier des Batignolles. 41 Also, the American journalist James Huneker later recalled this painting, which he also compared to Fantin-Latour’s famous group portrait Hommage à Delacoix (Fig. 6, even though he misattributed the source to Manet).42 Despite unfavorable comments and critical responses, all the critics mentioned the similarities in form and composition between. 40. “(In this painting) Cézanne is one of the representatives of this fugitive and eternal vision, and I commend Mr Maurice Denis for having made visible his admiration and that of the group of artists to which he belongs. Denis did it in a very simple way, in a manner employed by previous artists. To mention only the modern precedents with which this work shares idea and sentiment, there is Courbet’s Studio, in which one could say that the franc-comtois artist paid homage to himself [...] Fantin-Latour also made two materpieces of this order: An Atelier in the Batignolles[...]and Homage to Delacroix[...] ” The original French version: “Cézanne est un des représentants de cette vision fugitive et éternelle, et je loue M. Maurice Denis pour avoir rendu visible son admiration et celle du groupe d’artistes auquel il appartient. Il l’a fait d’une façon très simple, d’une manière déjà employée. Pour rappeler des oeuvres modernes, il y a eu, dans cet ordre d’idées et de sentiments, l’Atelier de Courbet, où l’on pourrait observer que le maître franc-comtois s’est rendu hommage à lui-même[...]. Fantin-Latour a fait, lui aussi, deux chefs-d’oeuvre de cet ordre: l’Atelier des Batignolles[...]et l’Hommage à Delacroix[...]” 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. 692 41 “...for those of us who know and follow with great interest the evolution of this meritorious artist, this canvas is as one failing: apparently realist, it is executed by means wholly discordant with those of realism. To paint such a work, one has to be Fantin and capable of painting An Atelier in the Batignolles. For this painting of a group of friends, painters or those curious of the new school...gathered around at Cézanne’s still life is neither completely decoration nor portraiture. This uncertainty will not fail to disconcert the majority of views. However, this painting is nevertheless of noble intention.” The original French version: “Pour nous- qui connaissons et suivons avec un grand intérêt l’évolution de ce méritoire artiste- le défaut que nous trouvons à cette toile c’est que, réaliste de fait, elle est exécutée par des moyens absolument discordants d’avec ceux du réalisme. Pour faire un pareil tableau, il faut être Fantin et être capable de peindre L’Atelier de Batignolles. Ce groupe d’amis, peintres ou curieux d’art de la nouvelle école, - MM. Odilon Redon, Vuillard, Sérusier, Ranson, Bonnard, Roussel, etc. –réunis autour d’une nature morte de Cézanne, n’est ni tout à fait de la decoration, ni tout à fait du portrait. Cette oeuvre n’en demeure pas moins d’intentions très nobles.” Ibid., p. 694 42 “In 1901 I saw at the Champs de Mars Salon a picture by Maurice Denis entitled Homage to Cézanne, the idea of which was manifestly inspired by Manet’s Homage to Fantin-Latour. The canvas depicted a still life by Cézanne on a chevalet (easel) and surrounded by Bonnard, Denis, Redon, Roussel, Sérusier, Vuillard, Mellerio, and Vollard. Himself [Denis] is shown standing and apparently unhappy, embarrassed.” James G. Huneker, in Unicorns, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917, p. 101; article reprinted from the New York Sun, march II, 1917, quoted from John Rewald, (ed.), Cézanne and America: dealers, collectors, artists and critics, 1891-1921, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 40 15.

(30) Denis’, Gustave Courbet’s and Henri Fantin-Latour’s work. They inferred Hommage à Cézanne contributed in a tradition of group portraiture.. 3. Group portraiture in the nineteenth-century France In a period spanning from the 1850s to the 1880s, a number of French painters adapted the Dutch model to re-imagine the group as a subject for art, representing friends and colleagues as communities sharing the same artistic aims. Composing artist’ group portraiture had been a tradition in France since the end of the eighteenth-century. Bridget Alsdorf in her study on this topic defines the genre as “a representation of distinct, recognizable individuals whose association with each other, as it is represented in the picture, is a statement of solidarity, collective interest, or purpose”. 43 Specifically, a group portrait represents both an individual and a collective vision of the group at a particular time, place, and social milieu.44 As the most vigorous enthusiast to experiment with a series of group portraits, Fantin-Latour’s career and the tradition of group portrait he revived in the nineteenth-century have long held a peripheral position in the history of modern painting. In this respect, Denis might have been influenced by Fantin-Latour’s rediscovery of the group portraiture when he decided to pay homage to Cézanne.. 43. Bridget Abigail Alsdorf, The art of association: Fantin-Latour and the modern group portrait, Ph. D. dissertation, Berkeley University of California, 2008, p. 16 44 Also, Bridget Abigail Alsdorf indicates that Alain Bonnet’s Artists en groupe: La représentation de la communauté des artistes dans la peinture du XIXe siècle published in 2007 examines the proliferation of artist group portraits in the nineteenth-century painting. Bonnet covered a remarkable range of genres: art-historical pantheon paintings representing artists from the ancient to modern period, such as Paul Delaroche’s Hémicycle in the École des Beaux-Arts (1837-41); the studio group portraits, such as Boilly’s Une Réunion d’artistes; modern life scenes in which the artists used other artists as models, as in Renoir’s Moulin de la Galette (1876); paintings showing artists at official, ceremonial functions such as François-Joseph Heim’s Charles X distribuant des recompenses aux artistes à la fin du Salon de 1824 (1824); the dispersion of community in avant-garde painting of the twentieth-century; group portraits conceived as homages or manifestos, such as Fantin-Latour’s Hommage à Delacroix (1864), Paul Cézanne’s Apothéose de Delacroix (c. 1894), William Orpen’s Hommage à Manet (1909), Paul Girieud’s Hommage à Gauguin (1906), and Maurice Denis’ Hommage à Cézanne (1900). Quoted from Bridget Abigail Alsdorf, The art of association: Fantin-Latour and the modern group portrait, Ph. D. dissertation, Berkeley University of California, 2008, pp. 20-26 16.