I want to start out this post by admitting that when I was younger I studied books like The Painter’s Secret Geometry: A Study of Composition in Art by Charles Bouleau - it’s currently out of print and costs several hundred dollars to get your hand on a copy (wish I had saved mine - don’t take good care of books - and had I still had a copy of Charles Bouleau’s book, it would not be worth much in the condition I keep books). I also read Cezanne’s Secret Composition Cézanne’s Composition: Analysis of His Form with Diagrams and Photographs of His Motifs by Earl Loran and some of the Barnes Collection of books and even the Jane Roberts book about the Channeled Cezanne messages.

But, at this point in my life, while all that information is valuable, very interesting, and some of it helpful, none of it really explains the mystery of what makes Cezanne’s paintings great, or Manet’s exquisite feelings - because there are things in Art that can not be explained - Art is a mystery - and if anyone could fully explain it, it would cease to a mystery and not be as interesting to behold and live with.

All these books are useful - and they added to my vocabulary - even Sidney Geist’s book on Interperting Cezanne (I met Sidney Geist at the Vermont Studio School and spent a few evenings talking with him there and in NYC, but 20 years ago) - but none of them truly explain the mystery of his work - even as they try to.

Recently i was contacted by Dewain Boyce; he’s got a site dedicated to Cezanne’s Geometry. We’ve had a spirited exchange of emails - and while I believe Cezanne used geometry as explained in the above sources in a conscious and deliberate way - if that was all he did - his work would not have survived and been as influential as it has.

That’s my belief.

Being an artist myself, sometimes feeling inspiration, sometimes knowing and other times, channeling something beyond myself - I can comprehend and contain that Cezanne knew a great deal - and yet, let himself be guided by forces beyond his own conscious understanding - and it’s the combination of the two that makes his work so great.

But, suppose I totally understood everything Paul Cezanne did in his paintings - intellectually .. what good would it do me? Cezanne is himself and I’m me - I can’t copy someone else - no one should - the answers for one are not for another - each creator needs to find their own path.

So, what I would say to Dewain, and others, so inspired by Geometry, is remember that Art, above all, is still a Mystery - and no system can fully explain it - the best an artist can do is “contain” the self control and mastery along with an openness to unexpected.

And some of the Ghosts in The Forest Dewain Boyce writes about were probably channeled - the effect of being overshadowed by presences and energies Cezanne hardly understood - but was a channel for.

That’s what I believe - but that’s only since I’ve painted and felt presences and known that as much as I can know, there’s things that just “are” beyond understanding.

Edward Winkleman wrote a post today titled: A few thoughts before our flight  on Art as Condensed Life as opposed to a elevator pitch summary that I thought was quite good and often what I have thought myself. 

In Winkleman’s post he compares appreciating the Rembrandt show currently at the Metropolitan with an African Sculpture show that is also up right now:

“…We rush to see Rembrandt’s (with “rush” being the key work here), but we don’t have to take much time to benefit from them because we’re fully prepared/equipped to appreciate them on a summary basis if our schedules don’t permit a slower appreciation of them on a condensed life basis. With work that we’d need to invest much more time to feel we “get,” though, we feel we’re at such a disadvantage that we might as well not bother….“

“…My point is that perhaps there’s plenty of great art about, but many folks are are not well suited to find it. For art to be good, it has to be rich (i.e., more than just a one liner or a one-liner that reveals something more complex than itself). Most of us would agree to that. With our hectic schedules, though, slowing down long enough to appreciate that complexity seems impossible, so we often reflexively don’t even try. That may lead inadvertently to some viewers leaning toward less complex work. Work that they get quickly and perhaps, because they’re not unaware of what’s good, project complexity onto that isn’t there. I’ll include myself in that to avoid it sounding like I’m picking on any particular artist, collector, or gallery.

The African show, being more unfamiliar to many of us, is harder for people in New York to want to spend a lot of time on (maybe, because they’re not prepared for it?) , therefore, they opt for things like Rembrandt, that are familiar to them and less demanding to appreciate.

The only thing I’d add is that Edward Winkleman didn’t come with a suggested solution.   If we accept that Art is Condensed Life how can we figure out the best way to open our selves up to it while we are so busy with all the streams of information coming in that demand or attention.

It even goes farther than this …what if we’re so busy that we don’t have enough time to live?  What if the Artist within doesen’t have a real life, to condense?  

It might seem strange that we could life so quickly that all we’re taking in is “icons” for experiences and not actually having much of an experience of life.  I guess what I mean by “life” is living an experience long enough so you can have a point a view about it.  If all we do is take in other people’s “summaries” do we have anything of our own that’s real?