Paul Cezanne

CheHoon Jeong
9/10 Block B Art
Introduction to Artist:
Place of Birth: The Hague
(influential significance)
The Hague was nearby a fishing
village, which sea-animals were
Abraham’s the primary subjects
of art. The luster (light
reflection) in sea life- animal’s
was adequate for realistic
observational drawing.
Sea-animals often appear in his
still-life masterpieces
Was the founder of the
“Painter’s Guild in The Hague
The reflection that the fish has is drawn very
well. The contrast transition with the reflection
and the dark part of the fish is very smooth (a
small layer of lighter gray is drawn between it
to create this effect). Also the shadows are the
darkest and the reflection is the brightest.
“Still Life With Fish” (date: --) by Abraham Van
Technique of Artist:
Personally, although there is
not much “emotion” in this, it
was interesting how he put
sea life-creature that makes
me wonder if it is a different
way of expressing
within art.
• Baroque Art:
•Originated from the Catholic
counter-reformation (artist put more
aspects of Christianity)
• Usually one source of light
•Started to draw subjects more
detailed (realistic)
•Usually have dramatic light and
•Figures showing from dark shadows
•Generally contains cloth
•Put emotion and variety in their
Abraham was influenced by the
baroque technique. There are
evidence in his still-life art with
traits of baroque art.
The use of baroque art is evident in this picture. It was
inspiring to see how Abraham used the baroque
technique into still life. The one source of light is coming
from the left, the objects are bright, which creates a
dramatic difference with the dark background. Also the
table cloth has a dramatic light and dark.
“still life with lobster” (date: --)by Abraham Van Beyeren
Other Information of Artist:
It is interesting how it is easy to recognize
the similarity between two artworks. The
general layout of the picture is similar, with
the background containing a cloth in the
upper left corner, the table in a similar
place and position. Also, there are many
objects that are same, such as the lobster
and the fruits. (compare with left)
Abraham signed his work with canvases with the
monogram: AVB, but failed to include the date. This is
why it is hard to determine/know when was the art piece
Most of Abraham’s still life work is a “oil-on-canvas”.
Some of Abraham’s works contain similar features.
The background is extremely
dark, but the objects are
bright, it makes the object
really stand out. I really like
how different types of objects
are used, this help the viewer
spot how different objects
differ between each other
depending on the shape,
angle, “surface” type, media
type etc.
“Banquet Still Life” year 1667 by Abraham Van Beyeren
“Still life with fruits” date: -- by Abraham Van Beyeren
Introduction to the Artist:
Paul Cezanne is recognized as a
post-impressionist in modern
Paul Cezanne was a French
He was influenced by Camille
Pissarro, an impressionist.
Paul Cezanne has both
characteristics of impressionism
and cubism.
He is quoted as “the solidifier of
Pablo Picasso and Matisse
quoted“[Paul Cezanne] is the
father of us all”
Picture of Paul Cezanne
Technique of Artist:
Impressionism (influential):
•Include small, think strokes
•The brush marks in the
painting is visible
•The painting is drawn only
detailed enough to express
the nature of the object
•Does not contain much
•Colors are mixed as
minimum as possible.
Instead, colors are placed
side by side.
•Cezanne’s Technique:
•Cezanne broke down the
object into simple,
geometric shapes. (Sphere,
cone, cylinder).
•Use of primary colors
This is one of my favorite paintings of Paul Cezanne. Because, the
painting shows how he was influenced by impressionism and his
technique clearly. For example, the brush strokes could be detected
easily, and the colors are placed side to side, with only small mixing
(especially in the apples). Moreover, I could clearly observe how he
could break the objects into geometric shapes.
“Still Life with apples” by Paul Cezanne 1890
The visible strokes help me understand on how he
drew the painting. For instance, I could see the
downward strokes from the skull and could see
that the background was drawn swiftly, looking at
the marks in the top left corner.
It is fascinating how even though there is not
much detail in the painting, the message could
still be sent. For example, it could easily be
recognized that the curtain is a curtain,
although there are only little detail. Also the
color choice was brilliant, the bright apples and
the red color make the object seem to really
“Compotier, Pitcher and Fruit” by Paul Cezanne 1892~1894.
“Pyramid of Skulls” by Paul Cezanne 1901.
As you could see in this two different paintings which has the same object: flowers, you could spot the difference
between the two artists. As mentioned before, Abraham Van Beyeren focuses mainly on the foreground, and the
background is usually dark. Moreover, Abraham expresses as much detail he could draw in the object. Finally, the
contrast between dark and light is very dramatic, as you can see in the flower picture in the left (dark background,
brighter object). On the other hand, Paul Cezanne has a very different style of expressing still life. Cezanne does not
draw as much detail compared to Abraham, but only draw the general shape to express the essence of the object. It is
clearly shown that Cezanne, instead mainly uses color to send across the message and to add details. For instance, the
colors are placed side-by-side, and the contrast between the two colors create the three-dimensional effect (detail).
“Still Life with Flowers” by Abraham Van Beyeren --
“Chrysanthemums” by Paul Cezanne1896~1898
rickz_van_Beyeren/paintings/beyeren034.jpg (Image)
rickz_van_Beyeren/paintings/beyeren014.jpg (Image)
/fruit_beyeren.jpg (image)

similar documents