Your Thoughts On Art

[Alan V]

It's just that unusual styles are rather hit and miss when it comes to producing great art.  For instance, Cezanne's style produced some really beautiful landscapes, but his paintings of people made them look like they were made of stone.

To me, Cézanne's figures don't look as if they're made of stone -- I think they are intentionally made to look as if they were made of paint. Because they ARE made of paint, and there's no reason to say otherwise.

Should a successful work of art NOT look as if it is made of paint? Because a painting is, after all, not a person, but a thing made of paint. 

Or does "realism" demand that a painting NOT look as if it is made of paint, as in a sort of trompe l'oeil? 

For centuries (i.e. before Magritte) artists made their paintings look as if they are made of paint in order to show that the thing depicted is not the thing, but something made of paint. Brushy late Titians, impossibly pure Bellinis, thinly-applied Tiepolos.

Good points, and I have heard them or thought of them all before.  You can certainly look at Cezanne's works and enjoy them that way.

But I was talking about my individual perspectives and tastes.  I really do think that portraits should be about the persons being portrayed, and not about the artists.  Cezanne was not only a stylist but also a figurative painter.

If I was giving a lecture on Cezanne, I would say the kinds of things you just pointed out. The success of an artwork should be judged in accordance with the artist's intentions. But that doesn't mean we have to support those intentions. In fact, this is a major problem in the art world. The artist may intend anything at all he wants, or I suspect rationalize his intentions after the fact by the results of his efforts. When an artist can sign a urinal and call it art, and some people actually believe him, there is a problem. I am no longer that someone.

So yes, there is a reason to "say otherwise."  Pluses and minuses.