Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Code
Date
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is providing an insight into Cezanne’s ideology of self-deception which he manifested during his painting career. The thesis statement used in developing the argument is that the ideology on self-deception has similarities with the aspect of ‘primitiveness’ that Cezanne deployed in his painting practice, which enjoyed late success despite criticism from scholars and researchers. I hope to show that this ideology was present in all his paintings and conversations. In doing so, I used three pieces of evidence.
First, the paper relied on some of the paintings by Cezanne such as Mont Sainte-Victoire and Still Life with Fruit and Glass of Wine. Secondly, I used an account of criticism by various scholars and researchers across the world has been provided to show the ‘primitiveness’ Cezanne portrayed both in his artworks and normal life. Thirdly, the paper uses Cezanne’s account on his ‘primitiveness.’
In building this argument, the paper examines some critical thinkers among them his bibliographer Joachim Gasquet, his old friend Emile Zola, and scholars Derrida, and Merleau-Ponty. These thinkers have been crucial in confirming Cezanne’s right ideology because they criticize him justly without letting their judgment have a negative influence.
These three pieces of evidence have been critical in showing Cezanne’s ‘primitiveness’ which largely contributed to him achieving almost zero recognition when alive. Cezanne’s self-deception shows a man who less cared about money and recognition. Nonetheless, today, Cezanne’s art is admired far and wide. Evidently, the finding from this text shows that Cezanne’s ideology was more natural rather than artificial and his influence on modern art cannot be challenged.
Shorter Version of Cezanne’s Ideology
The aim of this paper is providing an insight to Cezanne’s ideology of self-deception as manifested during his painting career. My argument has been that this ideology corresponds to the aspect of ‘primitiveness’ that Cezanne used in his painting practice, which enjoyed late success despite the criticism from many scholars and researchers.
For decades, Paul Cezanne has been considered by many as the father of modern art and a misunderstood genius. The question remains whether Cezanne was really misconstrued or was he an artist well-known whose significance in history has been unclear to the latter-day scholars. The paper allows the audience to get a precise description of what Cezanne considered ideal during his career in painting. To achieve this, the paper has to rely on some of his work in addition to available records of people who knew him well. Through the observations of individuals close to the life of Cezanne, it becomes easy to understand his ideology and place in the art history. Like many artists, Cezanne faced a phenomenon posthumously which can only be considered as directly opposite of other individuals who are in the public life. In other words, it is the tendency to eulogize, and aggrandize the artist’s works and significance in a manner far above his status when alive. Nonetheless, Cezanne suffered many years of obscurity and sarcasm in spite of the popularity and fame he enjoys today. Thus, this provides a clue to the reasons why Cezanne was maligned or ignored most of his life and how he eventually ended up in the books of history as an individual who provides a link to development of the modern art.
The paper provides an in-depth analysis of Cezanne’s ideology of self-deception. Self-deception is the process of rationalizing or denying away the significance, relevance, or importance of logical argument or opposing evidence. Moreover, it involves convincing oneself truth or lack of it with an aim of ensuring that the person does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception. Therefore, what makes Cezanne an exceptional character in art is not simply the ability to create or produce beautiful paintings that were isolated, but the way he was able to create an original style that is admired by many. Cezanne’s originality is part of what he was able to achieve and it is similar to the way the various paintings he developed yearly contribute to understanding each image. To appreciate Cezanne’s artistic achievement it is important for us to place each image in the context of the entire output. Thus, the argument put forth in this paper is that Cezanne’s self deception contributed to the ‘primitiveness’ in both his works and private life making up his ideology.
To show this argument, the paper looks at some of the paintings by Cezanne in particular the Mont Sainte-Victoire and the extensive use of apples as Still Life, the criticism he received from across the world and how he exhibited ‘primitiveness’ when alive by way of behavior and through word of mouth. All these aspects provide an insight to the self-deception this artist had. Thus, the argument here is to show that the aspect of ‘primitiveness’ Cezanne deployed in his painting practice is tenable considering the later success his work enjoyed despite the criticism from many scholars and researchers.
Evidence
Cezanne and his paintings
Two of the most significant paintings that portray Cezanne’s self-deception are Mont Sainte-Victoire and using apples to describe the world. Below is an example of an image where Cezanne used an apple named Still Life with Fruit and Glass of Wine.

Picture1Still Life with Fruit and Glass of Wine (Nature morte avec fruits et verre de vin). Source: Duggan
For many times, Cezanne used an apple to astonish Paris. Interestingly, using an apple in his images was an ideal subject for a man considered as both private and shy. According to him, using models as subjects of his images was freighting compared to using crisp white linen, a table, a china bowl, a glass of wine and some apples. Cezanne believed that in the presence of these items, the painter had the ability to unleash his eyes. Moreover, beneath his gaze, even the apples had the capability of dropping their timidity and turn to planets, children, mountains meteors and voices. Cezanne would use apples in a group of twos and threes or more just like the knots of gossips present in a busy market place… in a sober congregation of eight and six, often rising from a white cloth’s turmoil similar to the flames…mounting gold/red consequently from a China bowl just like a monument to an early morning. Cezanne explained that his eyes was so struck to the point of view he was looking and hence convinced that they were going to bleed…since his painting and him were one. Cezanne and his painting were iridescent chaos as sunshine would invade him like a distant friend to warm his laziness and ‘impregnate’ it. It is considered a test of an artist’s craft to use visual deception by depicting a three-dimensional thing on two-dimensional plane. Nonetheless, slowly, Cezanne abandoned this test and replaced it with a scene’s spirit by carrying a vision’s layer onto black canvas. From the above image, while the vase and apples are full bodied and rounded, they are curiously thin. There is depth in the still life but not a realm life’s true depth. In this painting, Cezanne ensured that the fruit, table, commode, vase all rushed upon each other. In addition, he removed the breathing room while the placement is a composition of the eye rather than the order of nature. Everything that Cezanne had explored and seen was transferred to the image surface. The choice of the title of this image; Still Life also shows some in-appropriateness for a vision that in normal circumstances cannot sit still. The shapes are gliding across each other while the boundaries that are between the objects easily dissolve. In many of Cezanne’s work, the depth, weight, value of the brushstroke is considered similar to a woman’s shoulder, mountain, and a red fruit.
In the painting, Mont Sainte-Victoire, shown below, we can have our minds clear on what Cezanne considered as the truth. Here, the motif is the mountain, a landmark easily visible in Southern France.

Picture 2 Mont Sainte-Victoire Source: Costache
The unique style to painting adopted by Cezanne as demonstrated in these two images provides an opportunity for us to understand how deception influenced his ‘primitiveness’. One of the aspects that Cezanne observed impressionists failed in upholding was having a structured composition in a manner that visual elements were carefully balanced and refined to work harmoniously with each other (Duchting). In other words, Cezanne believed that the approach towards painting adopted by impressionists was naturally limited. Usually this was because they opted to work quickly with an aim of having a glimpse of the fleeting effects of atmospheric conditions. The idea of Cezanne was to develop paintings with compositions with a tight organization and has an ability to make an impression of something solid and durable just like the art in museums.
When starting a career in painting, Cezanne used brush strokes that coined past work as ‘violent’. Moreover, he used his imagination to paint. However, this would change after meeting Camille Pissarro, in impressionist who guided the young artist. Cezanne later became interested in painting through direct observation instead of using imagination. As part of his ‘primitiveness’ style, Cezanne struggled in making a bona fide observation of the universe using the clearest method he could adopt in representing through paint (Hoog, and Stonehewr). As a result, many of his images would remain unfinished for a long time. Cézanne would take months before a single piece of composition would be complete. He painted and repainted because of a perpetual lack of satisfaction and his believe in imbuing artwork with permanence of nature and structure.

Criticism
Cezanne’s style of painting has been scrutinized and criticized by many people among the notable ones being Derrida and Merleau-Ponty. Besides, Cezanne’s old friend, Emile Zola is critical in highlighting his real character. Many of Cezanne’s childhood friends regarded him as a great disappointment but at the same time respected his passion for painting. Few or none would publicly defend his brush’s outcome. Pissarro, the impressionist who mentored the young Cezanne by spending painstaking hours together tried unsuccessfully to find ‘his method.’ Ultimately, the collaboration bore no fruit as they experienced constant ‘fighting.’ While Cezanne painted a lot in his adult life, one time during his sixties he wrote, “I am on my way to learn to draw.” Cezanne’s biographer and friend Joachim Gasquet stated that he turned the act of painting into a religion (Cushman). Also, Gasquet said that Cezanne was tormented by his perceptions of failure and rejection which made him barricade in studio…haunted, strange, half-god, half-beast in pain producing atrocious studies, sketches and paintings. Cezanne admitted, “I am the primitive of my own way (Cushman).” What this meant was that if he had a certain style or way, he was the innovator and hence a ‘primitive’ beginner of the particular style. Gasquet unlike Zola interpretation of Cezanne was through a filter of sentimentality and romance. The bias is much reflected in his biography (Cushman). However, while Gasquet was idealistic, he was blunt on the artwork of Cezanne and his feelings about it. Many art historians were determined to believe that after Cezanne’s death he would not be remembered. Nevertheless, in due time Cezanne was lifted from living hell, and his works became delivered to shores that he would have never imagined. Cezanne saw many of his paintings as mere exercises and hence felt no need of pilling them in a corner as they would never be considered again, except maybe as studio floor mat. Gasquet had concluded that each of his paintings, was another, “inarticulate leap towards the formula that he was never to complete.” When Cezanne became more frustrated, the outcome was wilder and regrettably as Gasquet noted, “he exaggerated his lack of ability by exaggerating his methods (Cushman).”
According to Merleau-Ponty, Cezanne’s style of painting was paradoxical as he pursued reality and remained with a sensuous surface which had no pictorial arrangement and no outlines that enclosed the color while having not to follow the contours. Bernard would refer to this as ‘Cezanne’s suicide’ which meant that while he aimed for reality, he lived in denial of the ways used to attain it. Merleau-Ponty was of the view that how Cezanne approached painting in the 70s and 90s caused difficulties and distortions in his images. For example, cups and saucers seen from a table from one side were supposed to be elliptical, but the outcome from his paintings seemed to have two sides of the ellipse swollen and expanded. In the Gustave Geffroy portrait, Merleau-Ponty singles it out to have been stretched, an aspect that was contrary to the law’s perspective specifically when looked at the bottom of the image. Bernard would at one time refer to the Cezanne’s artwork as “paintings submerged in ignorance with his mind in shadows.”
According to Derrida, “The truth, if there is such a thing, does not lie either in the painting or the text, but in the continual back and forth between them.” Derrida would extensively expound this in his book The Truth in Painting. Derrida deconstructed Cezanne’s proposition on matters the truth specifically on the hierarchy between speech and writing.

Cezanne’s primitiveness in his own account
In real-life, Cezanne described himself as a primitive individual and whether knowingly or unknowingly, his actions when alive depicted so. Duggan notes that Cezanne portrayed himself to the world as a naïve artisan who wore rustic clothing and painted by natural intuition instead of using the hard-earned intellect. The observation emanated from having that Cezanne was a devout student of the science of art and seeing. Therefore, Cezanne tried building an illusionistic persona of himself and hence the self-deception. His lifestyle was of a simple human being concerned more about the outcome of his paintings instead of the portrayed non-verbal message. While he wanted to add a layer of meaning to his images, it was not intentional rather than a coincidence. The use of imagination in his paintings shows how natural his ‘primitiveness’ was. The Still Life props by Cezanne were a product of the region he was born in France. For instance, his studio showed stark simplicity when compared to some of the established artists whose studios were lavish in Paris.
Cezanne only described himself to two artists, R. P. Rivière, and Jacques Schnerb who had visited him in 1905. According to Rivière, and Jacques (811) Cezanne said to them, ‘I am a primitive, I have a lazy eye.’ Later Emile Bernard would say that he told him “I am too old. I have not realized, and will not do so now. I remain the primitive of the way I have discovered (Smith 95).” At first, the meaning or context of ‘primitiveness’ was vague but when he used it the second time it became more precise as to mean a beginner or pioneer. These and other conversations which Cezanne had inspired young artists to be followers as he considered to be adopting the basics of painting.
Conclusion
In this research paper, I examined the aspect of ‘primitiveness’ that Cezanne deployed in his painting practice considering the later success his work enjoyed despite the criticism from many scholars and researchers. Therefore, while if indeed Cezanne was ‘primitive’ when it came to art, he was a savage in matters to do with social skills. Many of his failures lead him to become paranoid of individuals who might be seeking to take advantage. There was no love lost between his public and Cezanne but at the same time, in particular, after he passed, his works would become precious and admired by many across the world. Many young artists who wanted a mentor became an audience that closely followed his work. Interestingly, as would be considered ‘primitive,’ money was not something he admired and nor was recognition. Cezanne was a ‘primitive’ painter having a ‘primitive’ behavior. He was petty and times vengeful. The significance of this argument is to describe a man whose ‘method’ in painting was hard to understand. He once pronounced, “The world does not understand me, and I do not understand the world.” Some of the questions which easily come up include; why would one seek not to defend his work against the critics? Why was it hard for him to be appreciated when alive and what changed when he died? Where does the truth lie in art, the text or speech?

Works Cited
Costache, Irina. `The Truth in Painting’ or In Text? The Dialogue Between Studio Art And Theory In Education. America Society for Aesthetics.http://aesthetics-online.org/?page=CostacheTruth. Accessed 20th Nov. 2017.
Cushman, Russ. Cezanne “The Primitive of His Own Way”. Dec. 2016. http://oldartguy.com/Cezanne_%22The_Primitive_of_His_Own_Way.html Accessed 20th Nov. 2017.
Duchting, Hajo. Paul Cezanne. Taschen GmbH, 2009
Duggan, Bob. How Cézanne Saw a World in an Apple.BigThink. Nov. 2016. http://bigthink.com/Picture-This/how-cezanne-saw-a-world-in-an-apple. Accessed 20th Nov. 2017.
Hoog, Michel and Stonehewer, Rosemary. Cezanne: The First Modern Painter. Thames & Hudson, 1994
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Cézanne’s doubt.”University of Massachusetts Lowell (2013).
Rivière, R. P., and Jacques Félix Schnerb. L’atelier de Cézanne. l’Echoppe, 1991.
Smith, Paul. “‘Real primitives’: Cézanne, Wittgenstein, and the nature of aesthetic quality.” (2007): 93-122.