Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Philosophy Research/ Cezanne’s Ideology
Short Introduction
In the history of 20th century painting, one of the artists considered most influential was Paul Cezanne, who continues to inspire generations of modern artists decades after his death. Cezanne has been categorized as a Post-Impressionist because of his analytical approach to nature and unique method of using color to build form that influenced the art of Fauvists, Cubists as well as successive generations of artists known as avant-garde. Post Impressionism was not a formal style or movement. Post Impressionists were a few artists who were independent during the last years of the 19th century, as they had become rebels against the limitations imposed by Impressionism (Boyle-Turner). Post Impressionists developed a collection of personal styles whose focus was on structural, emotional, spiritual, and symbolic elements that they considered to be missing from Impressionism. The combination of the contributions of these artists forms the artistic roots of what is known as modern art for the decades that followed (Rewald, 9).
One of the initial movements in the modern art canon was Impressionism. Impressionism like many of the revolutionary styles was progressively absorbed into the conservatives. Additionally, the limitations of this original movement became a frustration to the generation that succeeded it. Artists such as Georges Seurat, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, and Paul Cézanne although steeped in the Impressionism’s traditions, they adopted a different style which pushed the boundaries in creative ways which laid the foundations of the 20th century art. Thus, the emergence of the Post Impressionism movement was largely because of the reaction against the concern that Impressionist’s had a naturalistic depiction of color and light (Boyle-Turner). Cezanne extended impressionism with one hand rejecting some of its limitations and on the other hand continued using vivid colors, real-life subject matter and thick application of the paint. Nevertheless, these were more inclined to make emphasis on the geometric forms, the use of unnatural color, and distort form to express the effect.
The artistic works done by Post Impressionists did not go unchallenged as some critics such as John Rewald felt that the term ‘Post-Impressionism’ was not precise but was a convenient one. According to Rewald, the term was convenient when by definition it was limited to the visual arts from France which had been derived from impressionism since the year 1886. The approach that Rewald took in his assessment of historical data was more of a narrative rather than analytical. Beyond this particular assessment, Rewald believed that it was sufficient to have the “sources speak for themselves.” For Paul Cezanne, impressionists had failed to uphold one of the great art’s classical hallmarks: having a structured composition in a manner that visual elements were carefully balanced and refined to work harmoniously with each other (Duchting). This starts to point out what can be referred to as Cezanne’s ideology. Cezanne had the feeling that the technique that was adopted by Impressionists was limited naturally, majorly because they worked quickly to have a glimpse of the atmospheric conditions fleeting effects. Cezanne’s idea was to come up with paintings that had compositions which had a tight organization with the capability of making an impression of something durable and solid such as the art found in museums. Cezanne referred to his pictures as ‘constructions of nature’ where the three dimensional world elements of the sphere, cylinder, and the cone transitioned into patterns of colors and shapes set on a level canvas. It was Cezanne’s artistic work characteristics that made many of his contemporaries misunderstand him and at the same time be a great deal of interest. Based on this background, I have argued that Cezanne’s ideologies were unique and way ahead of his time despite the criticism towards his work.
Formulation of Questions
The question for this research has been based on the conflict that most critics have used on Cezanne which emanates from his paintings and statements. In the last century, much attention has been given to the theories of Cezanne which were expressed in reported conversations and letters (Loran, 7). One of the unnecessary difficulties that the critics find themselves in has been trying to understand the artistic works of Cezanne using the statements that he made. It has been easy for some critics to choose some of the isolated comments that he made and extending their intended meaning to fit concepts which were hardly known to him. Some of the critics known to have done so are the Abstract and Cubist artists. Additionally, some hard fanatics of Impressionism and academicians believe that they follow his words. Nevertheless, the truth has been that there stands a great difference between Cezanne’s intellect, theoretical understanding and his own painting (Loran, 7).
One of the interesting things is that during the time when Cezanne’s art gained some recognition, that is in the 1980’s, the world of art had changed (Orfila). The symbolist movements at the time had ceded to the most recent artistic trends, classicism, and the Latin roots of French culture. This was not the first time that Cezanne’s career had been exposed to extinction. In the beginning of the 20th century, the critical fortune of Cezanne found itself affected by his association with other personalities and artistic movements that had a fluctuating reception. Cezanne involvement with the Impressionists would pose many problems because the particular artistic movement was considered to deviate from the French classical tradition and was more pro-German. Additionally, Cezanne’s association with the cubist painters such as Picasso who had shown appreciation for his art later became a liability after the 1st World War as these artists were considered to be negatively influencing French art having originated from Germany (Orfila).
The believes and stylistic approaches that Cezanne developed during his career in painting would be analyzed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a French Philosopher, primarily known for his existentialism, and phenomenology. In an easy written in 1945 titled “ Cezanne’s Doubt” Merleau-Ponty provides a discussion of how the artist ignored the classical artistic elements like single view perspectives, pictorial arrangements, and outlines which enclosed color just to attempt a “lived perspective” through having all complexities which an eye can observe captured (Toadvine 545-553). According to Merleau-Ponty, Cezanne was more interested in sensing and seeing the objects he painted instead of having to think about them. Merleau-Ponty states that the ultimate point where Cezanne wanted to reach was where ‘sight’ was also ‘touch’. The believe that Cezanne had was that when he was painting, he captured a moment in time and once it had gone, there was no way of getting it back. According to Cezanne, “Art is a personal apperception, which I embody in sensations and which I ask the understanding to organize into a painting (Toadvine).” As the title of Merleau-Ponty’s essay indicate, he was more interested in Cezanne’s “doubt” in other words his lack of confidence, his uncertainty, the tension, and struggle of his life. The anxiety that Cezanne had was deeper than the doubts that he had on his painting abilities. He would openly say that life was terrifying and he feared death to an extent that at the age of forty-six he created a will and began being religious aged fifty. As age caught up with him, Cezanne detached himself more from the people who admired his work, avoided new situations, and became reliant on the established habits of his life (Toadvine, 545).
The assessment of Cezanne’s influence on art is predicated on one critical question. This is:
What are some of Cezanne’s ideologies in the artistic field that influenced the success his works receive today?
This question is interesting to pursue having that Cezanne’s ideologies have proved to be significant because of their contribution to the contemporary art. Many contemporary artists have borrowed from the style adopted by Cezanne. Cezanne’s painting style has existed for decades because of the firm ideologies that he adopted in all his drawings.
Paul Cézanne was born in Aix-en-Provence, France to a wealthy family. Cezanne enjoyed overwhelming support from his parents having that his father had achieved success as a banker while his mother was romantic and vivacious and it was from her that he got the vision and conception of life (Duchting). Nevertheless, in the early years, Cezanne’s father wanted him to be a lawyer but he and his childhood friend, Emile Zola, wanted a career path of being an artist and writer respectively. Cezanne attended law school for two years while at the same time receiving art lessons and it was at this point he made a decision to stop continuing with education and left for Paris. Eventually, Cezanne reconciled with his father and received 400,000 francs as inheritance which got rid of all financial worries (Hoog, & Stonehewr).
It was when Cezanne was in Paris that he got to meet Camille Pissarro an impressionist (Pissarro, Rewald, and Tissot-Delbos). Their friendship grew to that of a disciple and master where Pissarro would become a mentor to the young artist. During his early years in painting, Cezanne used heavy brush strokes that made his early work be referred to as ‘violent’ in nature. Before he met Pissarro, Cezanne painted from his studio through what he imagined (Pissarro, Rewald, and Tissot-Delbos). In addition, his early work was more concerned with the landscape’s figure and included many paintings of groups of heavy and large figures in the landscape. However, after several years of painting, he gained interest in working when directly observing rather than his imagination a trend that gradually made an airy, light painting style. In his mature work also, Cezanne developed an architectural style of painting. Throughout his career, Cezanne found it a struggle to make a bona fide observation of the seen world through the most precise way that he could have it represented in paint available to him (Hoog, & Stonehewr). Because of this, he structurally made an order of his perceptions into color planes and simple forms. Cezanne desire underscored the determination he had to have observation of nature united with an intransience of conventional composition. Nonetheless, many of his compositions were left unfinished because of the difficulty of completing an artwork piece. This meant that it took months for him to complete a single piece (Duchting). Cezanne would build upon each past figure using a new outline. Interestingly, this perpetual lack of satisfaction points to the difficulty, and perhaps the impossibility of the task that Cezanne had set for himself: to imbue the work of art with the structure and permanence of nature. His paintings were first shown in an exhibition in 1863 known as the Salon des Refusés but unfortunately they were not accepted by the Jury up until 1869. He would exhibit through the intervention of fellow artist Antoine Guillemet. Cezanne’s first solo exhibition was in 1895 through the Parisian dealer Ambroise Vollard. Despite the increasing financial success and public recognition, Cezanne made a choice of working in artistic isolation specifically in his birthplace far from Paris. In his career, Cezanne concentrated only in a few subjects and he was successful in genres such as portraits, still lifes, studies and landscape of bathers (Hoog, & Stonehewr).
In his later life, Cezanne as an artist would attract many followers particularly because his work was modern before its time. His first solo exhibition would influence many young artists who liked his geometric fashion style of painting. Despite inspiring many followers, Cezanne was nervous to meet them. Many of his followers such as Emile Brenard, Maurice Denis, and Charles Camoin, saw his work as the father of Cubism, Fauvism, and Modernism. It has been considered that his influence in modern painting cannot easily be subjected to measurement (Loran, 7). Surprisingly, during his life, Cezanne received little critical reception. It was not until his death in 1906 that his work flourished. A good number of artists continued working using Cezanne’s style. In France, for instance, Andre Lhote was obsessed with Cezanne’s gradations of color and “passages” while in German-American Lyonel Feininger kept close the system of intersecting as well as interpenetrating planes with colors suggestive of the style by Cezanne. The work by Cezanne has not only influenced modern art but also created a large academic tradition.
Thesis statement
The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and indirect contribution that Cezanne had on modern artists. The paper will allow readers to appreciate the contribution by Cezanne in shaping the modern art. My argument will be centered on Cezanne beliefs and practices in painting in that they were clearly beyond his time, but critics were ready to pin him down though eventually he emerged the winner because of the strong ideologies he had. I argue to understand why critics such as Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida despite their appreciation of Cezanne’s work engaged with it in a philosophically critical way. Before engaging in this argument, this philosophy research provides an in-depth overview of Cezanne’s ideology commonly referred to as primitiveness approach to painting.
Inter-textual Critique
Cezanne’s Primitiveness
One of the basis in which Cezanne’s critics attacked him was because of his primitiveness approach towards painting. Since the end of the 18th century many theorists, critics, and artists made an argument that, art was better when it is presented to be ‘primitive’ in a way of another. However, arguments of this nature have been considered problematic because they relied on the self concept as an immaterial thing and secondly, they were complicit with the ideologies of colonialists which referred to other cultures as being ‘primitive’ in other words being backwards and the people associated to them as childish. When Cezanne used the word primitive during his career, it could be said to have been quite consistent with use by various contemporary artists and critics to make description of modern art. Notably for instance, in 1886, Pissarro referred to his painting as a one having a modern primitive stamp (Ward 73). In this research paper, I want to argue that the aspect of primitiveness that Cezanne deployed in his painting practice is tenable considering the later success his work enjoyed despite the criticism from Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida and having that it is an ideology which was present in all paintings and his conversations.
First, one of the ways to appreciate what Cezanne meant by primitive in his art is having a look at how he described himself with this word a situation which only happened twice (Marshall 22). According to two artists, Jacques Schnerb and R. P. Rivière, who had made a visit to Cezanne in 1905, the artist told them: ‘I am a primitive, I have a lazy eye’ (Rivière, and Jacques 811). In this situation, it seemed that Cezanne used this word to compared himself with a pre-Renaissance Primitive who drew ineptly, just as the expectations of his visitors would have been if they had read about him in the press. Nevertheless, what was unknown to the visitors was that Cezanne disliked the brittleness of the Primitives’ drawing and his remark at this point was a Provencal blague – in a way that it had been pitched too close to the truth that the irony in it was hard to comprehend. But if this happened to be the case and the irony in his comment was little, Cezanne must have been joking with the idea that he had some similarities with the Primitives (Paul, and Cézanne). In fact, what this meant would emerge in a straightforward way when Emile Bernard gave an account of what Cezanne had told him. According to Bernard, Cezanne had said to 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).” In this context, the meaning of primitive became clear as a pioneer or beginner and it was evident that Cezanne meant suggested that he like many Primitives had started out on a new thing. Cezanne simply was inspiring Bernard to be a follower and a student who would ‘carry his work on’. Clearly, Cezanne had the thought that his work was too good to be worth emulation despite the shortcomings critics saw in it. Therefore, Cezanne’s sense of being a ‘primitive’ meant that he was a beginner of sorts, and at the same time a painter who went back to the very basics.
Cezanne’s artistic maturity allowed him to identify basic primitive qualities in his painting with the basic art-factual processes responsible for its development and the primordial sensations that it embodied. In 1902, Cezanne told Jules Borely of what he had said to Bernard, “I am too old. I have not realized, and will not do so now. I remain the primitive of the way I have discovered.” The remark is a plain recalling the ideologies which Cezanne had been made to believe that he had a vision which resembled that of a child and should be invested with tactility. Nevertheless, remarks of this kind cannot be said to fully represent his work because his intent would be fully seen in his paintings. On the contrary, both Derrida and Merleau-Ponty argued that there is no way to separate the work from the frame and hence impossible to construct a theory which can represent the work of Cezanne. While the actions of Cezanne might not really be acquiescent to a complete explanation, Merleau-Ponty phenomenology does to some extent put what he achieved into words. For instance, there is a suggestion that Cezanne’s art embodied a ‘primordial perception’ inside which ‘sight’ and ‘touch’ cannot be distinguished for a ‘body-subject’ having a ‘primitive’ contact with the universe (Quinn 9-30). In a later language, Merleau-Ponty would depict Cezanne as a kind of seeing which provided an expression of his ‘chiasmatic’ and reciprocal relationship with the ‘world’s flesh.’
Merleau-Ponty and Cezanne
Merleau-Ponty referred to Cezanne as an artist with much uncertainty, many failures, and so much labor aspects that puzzled why he achieved success. Merleau-Ponty uses the childhood friend of Cezanne, Zola, to portray him as a failure. Zola was the first person to describe Cezanne as a “genius gone wrong.” Merleau-Ponty says that the painting by Cezanne was paradoxical in that he pursued reality while remaining with the sensuous surface with no pictorial arrangement, with no outlines enclosing the color and without following the contours. In relation to this, Bernard referred to this as Cezanne suicide in that he aimed for reality while at the same time lived in denial of the method to attain it. Merleau-Ponty alludes that the Cezanne’s approach to painting in the 1870s and 1890s was the reason for the distortions and difficulties in his pictures. For instance, saucers and cups on a table seen from side ought to be elliptical, but what Cezanne paints seems to have two the two sides of the ellipse expanded and swollen. In his worktable of Gustave Geffroy portrait, Merleau-Ponty says that Cezanne stretched it, something that went contrary to the perspectives of law in particular the lower part of the picture. At one point, Bernard referred to the art of Cezanne as” submerged his painting in ignorance and his mind in shadows.” The point that Merleau-Ponty wanted to drive at this particular point was that it is not possible for one to close their eyes on the outcome of Cezanne’s pictures and open their mind on his theory towards painting.
Merleau-Ponty further argues that it was clear from the discussions between Cezanne and Emile Bernard that he sought to avoid ready-made alternatives which were presented to him; judgment versus sensation, composition versus nature, and primitivism rather than tradition. Nevertheless, the point that Merleau-Ponty may have missed was that in his primitive approach to painting Cezanne never thought that there was need to choose between thought and feeling as if he was making a decision between order and chaos. Cezanne approach to painting was that of a man who did not want to separate the things which we see as stable and the shifting way of their appearance. Cezanne made a distinction of not between the ‘understanding’ and ‘the senses’ but the human organization of sciences and ideas and the spontaneous organization of things human beings perceive. The aim of Cezanne was painting from a primordial world where his art would show the purest nature while the photos of the same landscape depicted a man’s conveniences, work, and imminent presence. There is no contradiction of Cezanne’s wish of wanting to “paint like a savage.” His aim was to put intelligence, sciences, ideas and perspective in touch with the nature of the universe. As he said, he wanted to face up to the sciences with nature “from which they had come.” The aspect of remaining faithful to what he believed in during his career in painting, Cezanne was able to make discoveries of what today’s psychologists have formulated as a lived perspective which people perceive is not photographic or geometric one. Those objects that are seen from close range appear smaller while those in far places appear larger than in a photograph. For instance in films, a train which is approaching appears bigger faster compared to a real train in normal circumstances.
Despite referring himself as being lazy and lacked talent, Cezanne’s had the believe that learning to paint was a journey and as part of the learning process was the geometric study of forms and planes. During his career, Cezanne made inquiries of the geological structure of the landscapes he painted. In his brush, the rules of design and anatomy are evident in each stroke just as a games rule underlies each stroke during a match of tennis. Nevertheless, what motivates the movement of a painter cannot be simply geometric, perspective or the laws that govern the breakdown of color or in this case, any knowledge.
Derrida and Cezanne
Not only Merleau-Ponty questioned the ‘primitiveness’ or ideologies that Cezanne had instilled during his career in painting. Another renowned figure who questioned the truth between his words and art was Derrida in his book, The Truth in Painting. In 1905, October 23, Cezanne had written to Emile Bernard a letter titled, “I owe you the truth in painting and I will tell it to you.” This statement was chronologically positioned within the trajectory of Cezanne’s career and life as it was only a year before he died. The letter depicted both confessional symbolism and phraseological commitment. Cezanne was confiding to his friend and make everyone aware of what only can be known as the “tools of trade” just like a magician would go on stage to expose all his secrets. Nevertheless, the question would remain whether he fulfilled his self-imposed deed and told the world his ‘truth?’ Would today people retrace the truth in painting based on what Cezanne confined to his friend? It has been argued that Cezanne did not help in exposing the truth in his art and actually that no pictorial secrets were exposed or disclosed. Th secret being disclosed here is perhaps that there was no secret to reveal. It is stripping away of the magic trick to show it for what it is: an illusion. Thus, there is no doubt that Cezanne owed us the truth in painting but he was unable to give it to us and precisely it was the secret which was not a secret after all. The letter to Bernard has been said to have protected, concealed, sealed, and enhanced the real of authorship which is considered a privilege and it was what the his words were supposed to reveal (Costache). It is important to note that what Derrida did in her book as deconstruct the proposition made by Cezanne in regards to the truth. The destruction that has been associated with Derrida has not been that of breaking up or the act of destruction rather it is an act of performance or an activity. Destruction is keenly reading a text and leaving a mark. It is a form of critical analysis but it only happens from the insider rather than the outside. The major target during his criticism was the hierarchy between writing and speech. Speech had been considered to precede writing.
Derrida’s book was a direct quotation which was later turned into an appropriation written in the 1970s and translated to English ten years later. The cover of the book’s English edition is known to many students of art did not even make a visual acknowledgement of Cezanne. Instead, it makes emphasis on the layers of meaning which were derived from visual and textual appropriations and attributions (Costache). This text by Derrida provides a perfect example of the post-modernism ontological quest and widely exposes the shortcomings of modernism. Derrida used textual collage with occasional references to images, interestingly none of Cezanne work appeared in his book provides a reinforcement of the complex links established between visual and the norms which made them coherent and accessible. The dynamic between Derrida and Cezanne, between a philosopher and an artist, while the book inscribes them in a series of models that have been validated, constructs a narrative that is of equivocal authorship and fragmented dissonances. Nevertheless, there is a homogeneity in the disjunctive dialogue. Moreover, both Derrida and Cezanne control an authoritative position accounting for their legacy in the different fields. The approach which Merleau-Ponty used to describe Cezanne’s response was one sided and still begs where the truth lies, in the text or in the painting. Nonetheless, for 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.”
So far, the analysis I have provided has neither detailed whether the key is finding the truth in text or painting, nor has it significantly provided an understanding of Derrida’s theoretical approach or Cezanne’s art. The above analysis was intended to make acknowledgement that the use of theoretical jargon could become a hindrance or obstacle to the same subject which it intends to make clarification on. Nevertheless, must the terror of words which are not familiar and interpretative strategies that are new prompt people to adopt simplification of our methodologies and vocabulary when there is a straightforward critique of the art? For instance, the painting by Cezanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire, shown below, can be considered to be critical in holding key to the ‘truth.’ This is a familiar image but also considered hardly a simple one.

Source: Costache
In this painting, the central motif is the mountain which is a visible mark in the Southern France and a lifelong pictorial and theoretical challenge for Cezanne. This is an artwork that has been explored many times as it displays the difficulty of having to find the ‘truth’ in text or painting. If there was need for looking for epistemological origins, would they be found in the work of Cezanne, his extensive writings, his life story, the multitudes of texts which have analyzed and evaluated his art including Derrida’s, in the original paintings or should one go to as far as the Provence to see the mountains themselves? Which is the more essential path or meaningful experience that could lead into the right direction and which out to prevail? Should people grab their dictionaries’ and compliment it with the art theory which is of the latest version or should individuals turn into galleries, museums, artist studios, and computer screens? How should art defined? Where does the truth lie? In all of these things and in one of them (Costache)?
In Cezanne’s, Mont Sainte-Victoire the restrained color palette provides a beauty which reveals reality and at the same time acknowledging the interpretation of the artist. The painting has a geometrical defined pictorial space that has been repeated severally and enhanced using the visible strokes of brush which the artist manipulated in great control and ensured that emotions were restrained during this work. Nevertheless, the question based on Derrida’s book is whether there are a lot more on this painting that requires to be discovered beneath the descriptive and overt stylistics attributes. The essence of Cezanne’s chromatic and formal choices was his concern for learning and getting knowledge from nature to ensure that a viable relationship had been established between imitation and abstraction. Cezanne’s search for a visual language novel that would exceed superficial perspective impressionism value turned out to be a complex journey which valued and combined theoretical and visual experimentations of the 21st century. The abundant literature on Cezanne’s life and work in addition to the astounding number of exhibitions have for the longest time tainted the way people think and look at his art as influenced by philosophers such as Derrida. How can people find the truth? Can Cézanne’s canvases combined with subtle textures and idiosyncratic brush strokes, his creative processes and writings be incoherent from the textual analyses and lengthy inventory of exhibitions of his paintings?
Cezanne’s world in an Apple
Having explored the primitiveness which was in Cezanne’s style and ideology of painting throughout his career and the criticism from Derrida and Merleau-Ponty, it is important to explore one of his art-work which provides a summary of a successful artist who influences the modern art many years later.

Figure 1 Still Life with Fruit and Glass of Wine (Nature morte avec fruits et verre de vin). Source: Duggan
Just as the Poet William Blake asks people to see the globe in a grain of sand in the poem titled “Auguries of Innocence” artist Cezanne wants people to look and see the world in an apple in the numerous still lifes which spanned his long career. In the painting, The World Is an Apple: The Still Lifes of Paul Cézanne which is currently in Philadelphia at the Barnes Foundation, visitors are invited into a world of “the apple painters” and emerge with a pair of new eyes that are able to see what Cezanne referred to as the “ambient penetration” of entire things. During his career as a painter Cezanne would set a the rules which are governing modern art which happened to follow him while he forged a naïve and simplistic persona that the real philosopher using paint had hidden. Viewing world as an apple provides one with an opportunity to make a judgment between the real painting and what the critics such as Derrida said on Cezanne’s approach to art. While it is true to say that Cezanne was not perfect, it is wrong to say that one cannot be able to distinguish whether the truth was in his words or paintings. It is clear that Cezanne’s art-work was beyond his time (Duggan).
Cezanne’ mastery of painting must has been from the fact that he did his work slowly. This made his deliberation when working on something legendary. All of his paintings, the better subject was when Cezanne used inanimate objects such as mountains, apples, skulls, and pottery as he believed of the inner life of objects that man saw every day. This is because these objects are able to disperse themselves in a natural way and around one another through reflections that were intimate just as human beings do through gazes and words. Cezanne primitive believe was that things had the capability of talking to each other and his aim was capturing a conversation through painting specifically still lifes. For instance, in the Still Life with Fruit and Glass of Wine (Nature morte avec fruits et verre de vin) which was painted between 1877-1879, the rounded lip of the glass in addition to the bulbous shapes of the pottery that is visible in the rear ‘talk’ to the fruit plumpness. Although from the painting the fruit glows brightly in orange and yellow, the green touches converse with the plate, bowl, and pitcher. On the other hand, the warmer colors of the fruits have made them pop-up of the painting as the browns of the table and its cooler grays recede from the background. What Cezanne has tried to do in this painting is create an illusion of a movement which shows the mastery that he had when painting.
Eve and Adam discovered in the Garden of Eden that apple was a fruit which would pass knowledge, referring it as the ‘Tree of Knowledge’. On the other hand, Cezanne in a clever way turned this fruit and its central role in his painting career using it as a knowledge delivery system in particular the knowledge about him and the goals that he motivated for consumption by the public (Duggan). Admirers and followers of Cezanne described him using many different words. For example, Leca states that the still life that Cezanne adopted during his career provided him with multiple stages that developed an assemblage of meanings. In addition, Leca argues that using the paintings by Cezanne and some of his theory it is possible to remember his image using past and at the same time be able to provide a narration of how he came to discover himself (Duggan). Nevertheless, Leca acknowledges that while this was true of this talented artist, how he portrayed himself to the world and other professionals might have attributed the sharp criticism from various quarters. Being a devout student of the science of seeing and art, Cezanne would present himself as a naïve artisan often wearing rustic clothing who was painting by natural intuition rather than putting into use hard-earned intellect (Duggan).
According to Nina Athanassoglou-Kallmeyer who wrote a catalogue essay on Cezanne pointed that his still life props were products of the region which he came from in France (Duggan). Cezanne studio demonstrated stark simplicity when contrasted with the more established artists who had lavish studios back in Paris. Young artists in the contemporary art such as Maurice Denis have since elevated Cezanne to a hero’s status. Among young guns in the modern art have considered Cezanne as a passionate subject to discuss because of his ability to instill life in what he touched. In many of the paintings that Cezanne prepared in his life, the interplay between shapes and color was evident a strategy that he adopted to allow people to crack the code themselves. Often, in many paintings, one is left looking at the art-work, reading the text, going back to looking for connections, and at times taking even more time to make connections between one work’s content in addition to the between the various works. In one of the discussions that Cezanne had with a friend, he asked, “Why do we divide the world?”According to him, “There are days when the universe appears to me as one single flow, an aerial river of reflections; of reflections dancing around man’s ideas.” Cezanne’s modernity was evident in his restless, nonstop and an almost multi-tasking approach with an aim of capturing the truth that was evident from his eyes.
Limits
This research has largely been limited to Cezanne and his two major critiques Derrida and Merleau-Ponty. The evidence in this philosophy research shows how Cezanne was talented artists who choose to be primitive when compared to many painters who were successful at the same time. While the research has depicted how Cezanne’s ideologies influence the modern art, this aspect has not been significantly covered. Additionally, as part of the evidence, the research concentrated on some of Cezanne’s work which prove his ‘naivety’ despite creating excellent paintings.
Challenge
While in this research Cezanne has been portrayed as an artist who achieved success as seen by the influence he has on many young artists, he had his flaws. Both Derrida and Merleau-Ponty have pointed some of the aspects which they used to question the statements and paintings by Cezanne. Interestingly, their philosophical critique of Cezanne does not in any way depict that he was not talented. However, I would say that Cezanne was majorly criticized because people were not able to understand his ideology of art at the particular time because he lived beyond it. This is seen through the influence he has on modern art. Thus, there is agreement that that Cezanne was one of the most influential painters of his time considering that evidence from his paintings as well as the followers globally.
Summary
In summary, this philosophy research has extensively reviewed Cezanne’s ideology during his career as a painting artist. Cezanne is among the few painters in history who have been able to influence contemporary art in the most significant manner. While he achieved success in his career, Cezanne was not short of challenges some personal and others common in the industry at the time. Nevertheless, Cezanne was able to maneuver his way through in a clever way which attract many critics who thought he had no talent. This research has been organized into four main sections. These sections include short introduction, formulating the question, identification of a thesis statement and finally developing an inter-textual critique. In the introduction part, largely the research discusses impressionism and post-impressionism highlighting artists that defined these periods and the difference between artistic approaches and techniques that they practiced. The short introduction also provides an overview of Cezanne and how he transformed from impressionism to post-impressionism. Some of the limitations or reasons which made Cezanne and others adopt the post-impressionism approach to painting have been provided in-depth. The second part is the formulation of the question where the research provides a background into the life of Cezanne. In formulating the research question, it was critical to understand who Cezanne was, where he got his education, the struggles before being an established artist and who influenced him during his career journey. This section was critical to develop the thesis statement that is the basis in which arguments have been made in this philosophy research. The final section in this research is the inter-textual critique. This section has mainly dwelled on Cezanne’s primitiveness as he portrayed himself to the public. Later, the section has been subdivided into three, Merleau-Ponty and Cezanne, Derrida and Cezanne and finally Cezanne’s world in an Apple.
Conclusion
Cezanne has been categorized as a Post-Impressionist because of his analytical approach to nature and unique method of using color to build form that influenced the modern art. Post Impressionists developed a collection of personal styles whose focus was on structural, emotional, spiritual, and symbolic elements that they considered to be missing from Impressionism. Cezanne’s early work was more concerned with the landscape’s figure and included many paintings of groups of heavy and large figures in the landscape. Before Cezanne would get to showcase his first exhibition it took many years and would take the intervention of a fellow artist. Cezanne’s first solo exhibition was in 1895 through the Parisian dealer Ambroise Vollard. Despite the increasing financial success and public recognition, Cezanne made a choice of working in artistic isolation specifically in his birthplace far from Paris which depicts his primitiveness ideology during his career. In his later life, Cezanne as an artist would attract many followers particularly because his work was modern before its time. Two of the most renowned critics of Cezanne are Merleau-Ponty and Derrida. In this research I argue to understand the philosophical critique of Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida saw Cezanne. Merleau-Ponty’s was more interested in Cezanne’s “doubt” in other words his lack of confidence, his uncertainty, the tension, and struggle of his life rather than his ideologies in painting. On the other hand, Derrida states that Cezanne did not help in exposing the truth in his art and actually that no pictorial secrets were exposed or disclosed. The various works of Cezanne described in this research shows he was a talented artist, and it is how he portrayed himself to the world and other professionals attributed the sharp criticism from various quarters. My position in this philosophy research is that Cezanne primitiveness was more of a natural phenomenon which influenced the ideologies he had throughout his painting career. Despite the philosophical criticism, Cezanne was a legendary artist.

Works Cited
Bob, Duggan. 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.
Boyle-Turner, Caroline. Post-Impressionism, History and application of the term, MoMA, From Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press, 2009
Duchting, Hajo. Paul Cezanne. Taschen GmbH, 2009
Hoog, Michel & Stonehewer, Rosemary. Cezanne: The First Modern Painter. Thames & Hudson, 1994
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.
Loran, Erle. Cezanne’s Composition: Analysis of His Form with Diagrams and Photographs of His Motifs – 3d Ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. Print.
Marshall, S. “David Bloor, Wittgenstein: a Social Theory of Knowledge.” Basingstoke: Macmillan (1985).
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Cézanne’s doubt.” University of Massachusetts Lowell (2013).
Orfila, Jorgelina. Paul Cézanne and the making of modern art history. Diss. University of Maryland, College Park, 2007.
Pissarro, Camille, John Rewald, and Christine Tissot-Delbos. Camille Pissarro. HN Abrams, 1993.
Quinn, Carolyne. “Perception and painting in Merleau-Ponty’s thought.” Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy 2.1 (2009): 9-30.
Rewald, John. Cezanne: A Biography. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. , 1996
Rewald, John: Post-Impressionism: From Van Gogh to Gauguin, revised edition: Secker & Warburg, London, 1978, p. 9.
Rivière, R. P., and Jacques Félix Schnerb. L’atelier de Cézanne. l’Echoppe, 1991.
Smith, Paul, and Paul Cézanne. Interpreting Cezanne. London: Tate Publishing, 1996.
Smith, Paul. “‘Real primitives’: Cézanne, Wittgenstein, and the nature of aesthetic quality.” (2007): 93-122.
Toadvine, Theodore A. “The art of doubting: Merleau-Ponty and Cezanne.” Philosophy Today 41.4 (1997): 545-553.
Ward, Martha. Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-garde. University of Chicago Press, 1996.