Art Appreciation/Education "class" #5: Cubism

Time to deal with Cubism and its development. For those who are really intense about all this, there is an excellent book from which many of today’s ideas come from. It’s edited by William Rubin (former curator of the Museum of Modern Art) and is called Cezanne: The Late Work. It’s the essay on Cezannism and the beginnings of Cubism that opened my eyes to how it was not Picasso, but his buddy Georges Braque, who really did the first cubist paintings.

Surprised? I think most of the art world was surprised at that and most of them probably still believe that Picasso began cubism. Anyway, let’s first look at a pre-cubist painting by Picasso that shocked the world in 1907, much as Joy of Life shocked the world in 1906.

So, which looks more shocking now? And how do Matisse and Picasso differ in their basic form and content? What are they trying to say? Remember, in our previous “class,” we looked at the joyful color and line of Matisse. Can the same be said for Picasso? And what is going on here anyway?

Several years ago, Leo Steinberg wrote a two-part academic article on the meaning behind Les Demoiselles D’Avignon. It was fascinating. This was shortly after Picasso’s death, and the archives of his work were open to scholars. Many drawings that were studies for this painting were found. Some of them included a sailor and a doctor (who obviously cured the sailor of what he “caught” at these houses of the night).

So now, as we look at the real painting, what is going on? The sailor, the former client of these “ladies of the night” is no longer there. So who is the client? Gotcha…the viewer is the client. And for you men out there, which one would you select? (Yuck is more like the answer I get in class. Guess they don’t resemble Brittany Spears much, or whoever the new teen idol is….I don’t keep track.)

So what’s new in this painting? First, Picasso is using masks on the women. Three of them are African masks. It was actually the Fauvist Andre Derain (a friend of Matisse) who first “discovered” African masks in the ethnographic part of a Paris museum. All the Fauves and the Cubists (and others to come) were fascinated by the expressive power of these abstracted masks. The artists got all kinds of ideas of new ways to create paintings and sculpture (much like the influence from Japanese art a half-century earlier).

An African mask, probably not one that Picasso saw, but it has similar qualities.

So the women have African masks. Picasso used them so that he would not be under the spell of women, so that he would not be weak in love, but could use these women as he wished. (And we know he was not the most faithful of men, with wives and mistresses and children from both at the same time….) But I also think the masks are appropriate for the prostitutes, for I doubt any “working” woman in that line of work lets her true self be known while she works.

Also, note the central women with their elbows raised and legs crossed. Does any woman (in her right mind) stand like that? Of course not. The raised elbow is a sexual invitation, but the legs would only be crossed when lying down. It was Steinberg’s suggestion that the women have been pushed upwards to be flat against the picture plane. They are thus lying down and standing at the same time. The woman in the far right could be facing us or facing away from us. It is this multiple use of perspective that is brand new with Picasso (and might reflect the world-changing ideas of Einstein’s relativity theories).

I could go on about this one painting, but instead let’s just close with one more observation. There is no real cubism here. There is no subtle shading of planes from light to dark. It is all rather flat, including the “broken glass” effect in the center of the painting in blue and white.

So the world was shocked with this painting was exhibited. Georges Braque tried his own Grand Nu (Large Nude), but it is very clumsy and even uglier than Picasso (IMHO).

But Braque was excited by Cezanne, who died in 1906 and who was granted at least one major posthumous exhibition that year, which was a sensation. So Braque went to L’Estaque, in southern France, where Cezanne had painted. What connections can you see between these paintings?

Note the houses that Cezanne has painted in the foreground. Note how they, too, are flattened in space. (We saw how Cezanne did this with color and broken outline in “class” 3). But look now even more closely at the space and how both side and “front” of the house in the lower left could be facing directly toward us, without the 90 degree change of perspective one would expect.

Okay, so Rubin has noted 5 major aspects of Braque’s painting above and how that is the beginning of Cubism. (In his book, he also has a photograph of the spot Braque painted this, and it is remarkably close to what we see in the painting: the buildings, even the tree going diagonally across the painting.)

The first thing he notes is that the space is now rather shallow, about one “cube” deep. This is not like the deep Renaissance space of the past (and even the quasi-deep space of Cezanne’s work). Rubin calls this a “bas relief,” or low relief (like a sculpture that hasn’t been carved fully in the round.) Secondly, note how so many of the flat “planes” here can be seen as right up against the picture plane. (Okay, time out for definitions. A plane is just like a geometric plane: a flat surface, like a table top or a piece of paper. Secondly, the “picture plane” is that plane closest to us, the one that is the same as the canvas itself. It is this aggressive play of the picture plane that is quintessentially modern.)

So, the space is shallow; many planes seem to be up against the foremost picture plane. So, if that top left part of the tree is really against the picture plane, then the other planes are visually popping out even more. I call this “breaking the picture plane,” but Rubin calls it the “hithering spill.” It is as if the “boxes” are spilling out towards us. In the aggressive age of the 20th century, space assaults us (instead of receding in true Renaissance harmony.)

Also note how nicely modeled the “boxes” are. And the perspective can be seen to be ambiguous. That central house, with the upper central corner; that corner could project out towards us, but it could also recede inward. It is this play of angles and planes that is so cubist.

Finally, note how you can “slip” from one plane to another. Start in the upper right and see if you can visually “slide” between planes until you arrive in the foreground. (This is always much easier to physically point out in a classroom, but we don’t have that luxury on line.)

Okay, so these are the major points of the beginning of cubism. But Braque did not name the movement that. A critic did (naturally). In fact, it was the same critic (Louis Vauxelles) who had named the Fauves the “wild beasts” because of their wild colors and rough shapes. When he saw Braque’s work, he dismissed it saying it was “nothing but little cubes!” And the name stuck (although after this point there are almost no cubes, so I think it should be renamed Planism. But the art world hasn’t agreed, yet.)

Let’s look at what happens next, in blessedly less detail. Picasso is intriqued by Braque’s work and they work together, “chained like mountain climbers” as Picasso would say. They would make daily visits to each other’s studio. Let’s look at the progressive abstraction of cubism.

Notice how much more abstract each of these works has become. Pallares’ portrait still has distinct planes, but they are modeled (or shaded). In the Girl with Mandolin, her left side (our right as we look at it) has become more merged with the background, so much so that we can’t see the line of her shoulder. And if you can see the nude woman in that work, you are better than I.

At this point, Picasso and Braque came back from the edge of non-objective art and added letters and synthetic objects, such as the fake chair caning below.

This became a new kind of cubism, called Synthetic Cubism. How does it look different from the other, Analytical, Cubism? What has happened to color and planes and depth?

Like many of his works, this works on many levels: that of music, that of WWI, and that of sex. Can you tell what kind of music they are playing? Can you see the wolf underneath?

I hope you are noting that the planes are bigger, flatter and unmodeled, the colors are brighter and it is as if the planes are just bits of paper pasted over each other. The space is even shallower than the earlier cubist works.

Braque is doing much the same kind of work, but there are subtle differences between them. But I’ve probably ranted long enough here. However, I think it’s necessary to mention these visual ideas to understand what’s going on inside the head of these artists.

Do you get these paintings now? What do you see that I’ve missed? What are your favorite cubist works?

Thanks much for this lesson, Professor.

Very interesting that this (unknown to me) work appears in a discourse on cubism. I would have thought cubism to have been something of a rebellion against academic work, but this portrait is apparently instead a direct descendant of it.

As you probably know, the academic method of drawing (including painting) relies on simplifying the body and head into basic and uncomplicated geometric forms, rendered with straight lines, catching all the correct angles. Once this is done, the subltleties are searched out and the figure is softened where appropriate. In any case, the above portrait is not much more than the very beginning stage of an academic portrait, only with color added. There are other techniques in the work consistent with the academic style. I am a little surprised.

I tend to like the stuff you posted, esp. the 3 musicians. As always, while I consider it to be good art, I have trouble putting it into the "great" category.

I wouldn't mind if you'd place the work of Jean Cocteau into wherever it belongs in all this. As much as I can be critical of abstract art, my wife and I have a print of a Cocteau, of 2 lovers at Cannes, arms entwined, down by the water, hanging over our bed. We both like it, and of course it goes well with the "50's" look that we have followed to some extent in the house. Which was built in the 50's.

I can't find the image on the web, or I'd post it. Anyhow, Cocteau's drawings remind me more of Matisse than anyone you've posted so far.

"I think the best artists (and whether John O wants to put them over his sofa or not, these include, for me, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso and many, many more) have something to "say" in their works, which I call content."

I know that all great art has had something to say, not only about its subject matter, but about the art that preceded it. Content can be the simple beauty of a landscape or a young lady. But whatever the subject, it is delivered with the unique vision of the particular artist.

My daughter, as I previously related, just graduated from college with her BFA, - one of her pet peeves was the "artist's statements" that were required for everything she produced. Of course, the profs expected those statements to be dripping with political correctness (and feminism, since she is a female). She, OTOH, would rather have just let her work stand on its own merit.

I personally am inclined to like art that tells a story - I guess it's one reason why I appreciate illustrators, and why, in my own work, I have sometimes found myself working on subject matter that is rather narrative.

I think the best artists (and whether John O wants to put them over his sofa or not, these include, for me, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso and many, many more) have something to "say" in their works, which I call content.

You can have all the content in the world but if you don't effectively communicate it that content may as well not be there. Art needs to be visually appealing before any content can be ascertained. (Who's going to look for any possible meaning in something as ugly as a Picasso?).

For example, you say that the portrait of Ambroise Vollard shows that he (Ambroise) is intelligent. I don't even see prove that he's in the picture. How can something that doesn't even look like anything have meaning? I'll never be able to see value in the more modern art styles (cubism etc) as they aren't pretty enough to bother looking at and if I can force myself to look at them they have no meaning. They are content nil. (to my eyes at least)

Further, if the "content" has to be explained to the casual passer-by then that content is only a figment of the artist's (delusional) imagination. Somewhat like a book written totally in punctuation marks. It has no meaning without having the author there to explain it. What good is that?

At least the chimp painting is a good conversation piece. Chimps aren't expected to be good painters so any painting by a chimp looks good

the real measure of great art is "would you buy it if you could afford it?"

I live a short ways from a town in south central indiana that has lots of artists and thus lots of galleries. I've bought (probably) twenty or thirty paintings. A couple are phenomonally beautiful. (stare at them and get lost for a few hours type beauty) others are merely pretty. But all were worth the money. That is great art

I guess my personal standards for great art are that it must show greatness in some or all of these areas: beauty, skill, the ability to communicate or evoke an idea, thought or emotion, the ability to touch one's heart at some fundamental level. I think I'd say that for me, great art has to have any 3 of those qualities.

However, I think time is the real judge. 'Course, on the contemporary stuff, I'll just have to settle for using my own standards.

I'm impressed that you own so many paintings, very cool.

I think time is the real judge.

Sam, you are right in this. I do think this early modern work will pass the test of time. It has already nearly passed the century mark.

As for minimalism and postmodernism, we'll have to wait at least another half-century for that. But I don't think many of those works will pass the test of time.

It took artists a century to understand Giotto's works and to develop from there. So I think the same may be true for Cubism and that the early 20th century may have been the primitivism of the new style.

Giotto Flight into Egypt Arena Chapel, Padua 1305

Masaccio Baptism Brancacci Chapel Florence 1420

By the way, these are more obscure images from these chapels. Masaccio's Tribute Money is more famous from the latter. There is nothing better than seeing these in person.

Now your "sofa" comments have more credibility. But how many sofas do you have??

Three. plus a couple chair groupings and a hallway wall or two. (not to mention above the beds etc) And we try to rotate artwork from time to time. Although my wife still won't let me hang my black velvet mountain landscape which was the first painting I bought. Still love it but it lives in the garage for now. :^(

I'd agree with this but the driving one is beauty. If it's not good to look at why buy it.

I disagree on the time test though. 100 years from now I won't care if it's great art or not. It will no longer be relevant to me. (Nor will my opinion be relevant). I can look at paintings done almost 100 years ago that the art community says are brilliant and they still look like trash to me. Time will not fix ugly art but beauty is forever. If it looks good it will always look good.

"I do think this early modern work will pass the test of time."

I agree.

RE, my hypothetical scenario of it being dug up by future archaeaologists, I think they would be totally fascinated by it and put it in museums.

This is a little ironic, since my personal taste is for the representational, but if I apply John's test of art over the sofa to my own home, there isn't much question that the early modern stuff is what goes best (house was built in the 50's in a deliberate example of the architecture of the time, longitudinal heavy beams, lots of glass, etc).

Also, it is interesting to note that, roughly a century later, higher quality academic work is finally getting some attention. Without arguing over which was superior, the outright disrespect and disdain which the modern art world has accorded even the best academics has always seemed artificial to me.

Yes, one thing about using beauty as the primary test for great art, if beauty is there, then all other criteria are generally there too.

The time test can't be a test for personal taste in greatness of art, as is the sofa test. 'Course the problems involved in trying to figure out who gets to decide greatness is why time will tell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.