1848 – 1907
Industrial Revolution II

Cézanne's Turning Road at Montgeroult

Paul Cézanne, Turning Road at Montgeroult, oil on canvas, 1898 (Museum of Modern Art)

Cezanne, Turning Road at Montgeroult, 1898 (MoMA) Turning Road at Montgeroult
Here is a painting recently acquired by The Museum of Modern Art. It was considered one of the few great cavases by Cézanne still in a private collection. It was given to the museum by Mr. and Mrs. John Hay Whitney along with six other masterpieces by Van Gogh, Matisse, and Picasso. Some gift. Still, the painting is a bit difficult to understand. At first, the structure of space is straight-forward. As expected, there is a foreground (the green foliage at the bottom), a middleground (the road and houses) and an area of deep recession (the sky).

Each of these zones are largely defined by color; green for the bushes in front, a warm ocher for the middle plane (road and houses), and blue for the sky. It is here that Cézanne begins to play tricks. Having rejected clear linear or atmospheric perspective as a means of constructing recessionary illusion, Cézanne relies on the clues afforded by scale, overlapping, and color. Yet for all this, the space in Turning Road at Montgeroult seems awkward.

Spatial distortion
Even as we see the three zones of space in relation to each other, the painting seems oddly flat, as if the sky were pulled forward and the foreground were pushed back. Of course we still see the illusion, but even as we see the space that Cézanne's line insists upon, the painting looks too much like three flat planes resting atop each other and the painting begins to remind us that it is, in fact, a vertical curtain.

There are two means by which Cézanne has sabotaged the space of this canvas (unfortunately the effect is muted in reproduction and even more so on the computer screen--so trust me on this). The first is brushwork. In an Old Master landscape, the greatest detail and the most delicate brushwork exist in the foreground. The movements of the brush get broader and more generalized as space moves back. Here, however, the artist has treated the entire canvas with a consistent level of clarity, or lack there of, leveling the sense of near and far.

Secondly, Cézanne has understood the potential of color, as opposed to chiaroscuro and linear perspective to structure or destablize space. Have you noticed that in the middle of the sky, just to the left of the church steeple and the tree, there is a small smudge of brown paint. It is the same ocher used to render the shadows in the road and on the roofs. What is this?! Have you ever seen a dense brown smudge just floating in the sky? I don't think so.

Mistakes on purpose
So what are we as the viewer to make of it? Is it a mistake? Was Cézanne a dottering old man by 1898, who accidently hit the canvas as his arms flailed about and then was too lazy to wipe it out and repaint that section? No. So what is it then? Well, when you look at the ochre smudge, what happens to the deep space of the sky? Do you notice how the ochre smudge refuses to sit back in deep space but instead pushes forward toward the middle plane of the houses?

When seen in person, the brown paint that hangs in the sky actually brings the sky with it, denying the illusion of deep space entirely. Also, note the bright sky blues in the foreground bushes. Just as the ochre spot in the sky forces the sky forward, so the clear blues that oddly appear within the viewer's reach, punch holes in the solidity of the foreground. The brown in the back pushes forward and the blue in the front pushes back. The result is a flattening of space or perhaps a more honest expression of the true flatness of the canvas.

 

Your Comments (2)

Previous Comments

Anne wrote on Wednesday, August 18, 2010

A simple, helpful description of how Cezanne uses warm and cool colours - I will refer students to this

Julia wrote on Thursday, April 07, 2011

I want to say thank you for helping me see.. for helping me fall in love with Cezanne,today :) although i do always wonder if all of this analysis was truly intended, or whether we as viewers over interpret the possible meanings and take it a new place the artist may not have intended? this is why i like to document everything i do in written word- i don't want people to be confused about my intentions after i'm dead. or do i? clearly, i am the confused one! p.s. is it possible to overinterpret?

Add Comments

We think Smarthistory works best when it prompts discussion. Please post (on-topic) comments.*

*All comments are moderated

To post a comment, you need the Adobe Flash Plugin. Download it from here.
This work is an open educational resource and This work is licensed under a Creative Common Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license.