The Essence of an Object

Throughout the modern era of art, many artists have sought to delve beyond or beneath what is immediately apparent to our sense. In doing so, they do not constrain themselves to naturalistic representation, but use color, composition, texture, and brushwork to get at the essence of any object. They are more interested in what makes a mountain or a pair or shoes what they are than what they look like. These artists are attempting to express the inexpressible, something that neither science nor reason, but only art can do. Sometimes it takes many tries to get it right, or perhaps it is the process of repeatedly returning to the same subject that slowly builds up a comprehensive image of what a thing really is. Paul Cézanne took the approach of a process. Throughout his life he painted the nearby Mont Sainte-Victoire more than sixty times. He slowly built up a body of work that expressed the many facets of a unique, living geological structure.
This is to be contrasted with Impressionism, typified by Monet. The impressionists are concerned merely with how a thing appears, particularly how light affects our perception of it. Monet often returned to the same place, like Cézanne. He painted the Rouen Cathedral more than thirty time, but he did so for very different reasons. He was not interested in finding or showing what lay behind his impressions, but rather in exploring how the light at different times of day affected how a thing appeared.
This curation aims at showing how artworks can present more to us than a representation of what the artist sees. These paintings are examples of artists' quests to break free of the sense of sight in order to show what it is that we experience, not merely what we see.

Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire, ca. 1902–6, oil on canvas, 57.2 x 97.2 cm, 1994.420

Mont Sainte-Victoire, though rather small compared to the famous mountains of the world, nevertheless holds a commanding presence over the countryside of Aix-en-Provence, France, the place where Cézanne grew up. He spent a significant amount of time on this particular artwork, extending the scene to the right and in the foreground. He puts the mountain in a context: a solitary peak reaching high above the fields and forests of the French countryside. The large, rough brushstrokes show that Cézanne is not concerned with precision or naturalism. Instead, he focuses on color and form to capture the mountain and the surrounding landscape. 

Vincent van Gogh, Shoes, September-November 1886, oil on canvas, 38.1 x 45.3 cm, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam

At first glance, a pair of worn, dirty shoes makes for a somewhat unusual subject of a painting. Vincent van Gogh obviously saw something worthy of a painting. He captures something that is not merely some old shoes. By placing them against an indistinct background and rendering them with large, deft strokes, van Gogh draws out their character, that which makes these shoes what they are: weathered workshoes that have spent countless hours on the feet of some peasant out in the fields. 

Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire, 1902-04, oil on canvas, 73 x 91.9 cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art

In 1901 Cézanne bought a small piece of land on top a nearby hill, on which he built a studio. A short walk up the hill led to the very spot where Cézanne painted this scene as well as several others. The large, rough brushstrokes disrupt the perspective, giving the canvas the quality of flatness. Consequently, it is difficult to gauge how far away the mountain actually is. It could be miles away or it could be close enough to touch. Here we receive a nearly dimensionless view of the mountain, where our sense of sight nearly becomes a sense of touch. 

Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire with Large Pine, c. 1887, oil on canvas, 66.8 x 92.3 cm, The Courtauld Gallery, London

This artwork displays a far more naturalistic representation of Mont Sainte-Victoire than we have seen thus far. A close examination reveals rough brushstrokes barely covering the initial sketch. Nevertheless, there is a sort of naturalism that characterizes Cézanne’s early paintings of Mont Sainte-Victoire. Art historians identify two periods where Cézanne produced a flurry of images of this mountain: the 1880’s and the early 1900’s. This particular painting comes from the first period. While there are obvious compositional and stylistic differences between the two periods, Cézanne shows throughout an interest in color and form. See how the branches follow the slope of the mountain, as well as the balance of color and value throughout the work. Cézanne literally frames the mountain within its surroundings. The fields, buildings, and trees are as much a part of the mountain as the very stone of which it is made. 

Vincent van Gogh, Mountains at Saint-Rémy, July 1889, oil on canvas, 72.8 x 92 cm, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York

Vincent van Gogh, like Cézanne, is not interested in mere appearance. He is not content to paint what he sees. He paints what he hears, smells, and feels. This piece breaks from naturalism even more than the later artworks of Cézanne, yet we learn more about the character of the mountain than we ever could through the most photorealistic painting. We see a mysterious, and wild, though not unfriendly peak rise far above our heads. 

Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley, 1882–85, oil on canvas, 65.4 x 81.6 cm, 29.100.64 

The locals of Aix-en-Provence associated Mont Sainte-Victoire with an ancient Roman victory. The bridge cutting across the painting through the middle suggests a Roman viaduct, a nod to the history and traditions surround the peak. However, the bridge is the result of modern technology, simultaneously distancing the mountain from its past. The mountain is a dynamic entity that pervades through time, yet remains perfectly still within the confines of the painting. The naturalism and composition of this artwork are typical of Cézanne’s early renditions of Mont Sainte-Victoire. 

Claude Monet, La Corniche near Monaco, 1884, oil on canvas, 75 x 94 cm, Schilderijencollectie Rijksmuseum, Holland

Like Cézanne, Monet often returned to single location to paint a single object many times. The mountainous coast of Monaco was one such place. Unlike Cézanne and Van Gogh, Monet was not interested in what a thing was beyond what it appeared to be in an instantaneous impression. Monet only attempted to represent a thing as it appeared. He uses loose brushwork and bright colors to capture the effect of light in our eyes. Monet strives to capture a sense impression, not the essence of an object. The brightness and fanciful colors gives this scene the sense that it belongs in a fairytale, not reality.