Monday, January 22, 2007

Cinema vs. Art


"Partie de Cartes" both 1895 by the Lumiere Bros.



" Les joueurs de cartes " by Paul Cezane. It is been said that Cezanne was influenced by the Lumiere Bros film. What do you say?

12 Comments:

Blogger Elliot said...

I say "SHIT" and "FUCK"!
What do you say?

2:39 pm  
Blogger Oscar Grillo said...

"Embrasse-moi le cul" as Cezanne would have put it.

2:56 pm  
Blogger Bolivar no es San Martin said...

Lamento preceder a decibeles subidos en tono,
brillante comparativa amigo de otros lares.

Saludos del Sur. Mario.

4:51 pm  
Blogger Matthew Cruickshank said...

I say I say I say, what's all this then?

11:41 am  
Blogger Oscar Grillo said...

A little something to pass the time on our road to death.

11:57 am  
Blogger Ren said...

English?
Why?

Saludos..

4:59 pm  
Blogger Oscar Grillo said...

Porque yo vivo en Londres, Renata.

10:54 pm  
Blogger limbolo said...

Gimme the Lumieres anyday.

At least Cezanne had some feeling for the working stiffs at their cards in the bar. He had no feeling at all for landscape. In fact, I think, he could not see it.
It is Cezanne's impoverished doggedness as a painter that makes him significant.
If he was influenced by the Lumiere movie - which I don't think - then he was too late. De La Tour and Caravaggio predicted the cinematic perception...by centuries. That is fascinating.
Compare these pictures to similar subject matter by Manet. Surely we can see how dull and clumsy Cezanne was.

12:51 am  
Blogger Oscar Grillo said...

Do you say that, Limbolo, because Cezanne didn't paint like an American illustrator, an animation layout artist or a San Diego muralist?
I used to detest Cezanne till I had the revelation in front of one of his paintings in the Courtauld Institute THAT I WAS BLIND!!! I know that Braque and Piccasso understood what I am talking about.

7:37 am  
Blogger limbolo said...

I think I mention Caravaggio, Manet and De La tour. I didn't know they were San Diego muralists or California layout guys.
But then It makes no sense to say that an artist is no good because he doesn't work like another.
Cezanne's high reputation as the father of modern painting is a fascinating fact. For Picasso it may have been important to have a patriarch that could be easily surpassed.
My experience with Cezanne was exactly the opposite of yours, Oscar. I grew up accepting the orthodox wisdom that here was a genius. And then - I think it was at the Thyssen collection on tour - as I stood in front of 2 of Cezanne's dreary dubs when the scales fell from my eyes.
Please don't assume from this that I am proposing a return to Beaux-Art academicism.

10:39 am  
Blogger Elliot said...

I'm still sticking with my original comment.

6:35 pm  
Blogger Kutty Reyes said...

Pienso que cezanne antes de hablar de el hay que estudiarlo como artista he investigador ya que con sus conceptos de que como que algo que tu veías de una forma y luego cuando producías un mínimo de movimiento con la mirada tenía un efecto lineal de movimiento aunque obstinado con sus conceptos producía un efecto en su obra adictiva cargada de una calidad cromática magistral.

Pienso que Cezanne tenía una propuesta de demasiado calidad y genialidad!!

3:53 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home