Cezanne: Still Life with Carafe, Milk Can, Bowl and Orange, 1879–80

The way in which the common objects of a household composed into arrangements of the utmost grandeur, which in the course of thirty–five years effectively redefined the content and form of western painting, is among the mysteries and miracles of art. 

Lawrence Gowing, Cezanne: The Early Years 1859–1872. Royal Academy, 1988 / Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London

I came across this painting quite by chance – on Google Images. I was immediately attracted to it, and only secondarily noticed that it was – by Cézanne’s exacting practice – ‘unfinished’ (as the folds of cloth on the right are sufficient to illustrate). The painting almost looks like the kind of preparatory sketch that an artist like Constable would frequently do. Yet – given the attention Cézanne has given to the can, the milk bowl, the orange, and the carafe – this is not a free sketch in the Constable mode. There is a bond between the elements of the composition that is, I think, unique in the history of painting before Cézanne. Imagine this still life painted by Zurbaran. As here illustrated, it would be magnificent. Yet, although the objects are compositionally balanced to perfection, they remain individual – and the space (or division) between the three groupings is such that you will never find in Cézanne. Zurbaran has decided on his composition, and he has painted it: there is nothing, strictly, explorative about it. It is a painstaking work, but it is to an extent arbitrary in the choice of its still life objects: others would have served equally well. The left hand curve of the fruit basket and the handle of the cup are beautifully painted but scarcely related.

Still Life with Oranges, Lemons and a Rose, 1633. Norman Simon Museum

I remarked above that Cézanne would never have separated the essential components of his still lifes in so neat a manner as Zurbaran. Zurbaran places his objects; Cézanne connects them – draws them together (in both senses of that word), as is particularly well illustrated in the watercolour below (where even the solitary bottle on the right is connected by the sienna tile to the corner of the tray).

Bottle, Carafe, Jug and Lemons, c 1904  

  

Still Life with Carafe, Milk Can, Bowl and Orange, 1879–80

I think that one of the most significant elements of Still Life with Carafe, Milk Can, Bowl and Orange (1879 – 80) is the handle of the can. It is not quite a circle, and it is not quite an ellipse; its oblique ‘angularity’ is not precisely echoed in any other part of the composition; its ‘skewer–headed’ left side moves from brief concavity to full convexity, before becoming lost in the shadow of the right facet of the can; it then elided for a short section before beginning its ascent on the right side. What is the reason for Cézanne’s deliberate omission of this short section of the handle? Tentatively, I would suggest that there are three reasons. Primarily, I think that it is to prevent the formation of a too prominent (and unrelieved) area of white within the bowl; secondarily it prevents the viewer from noticing the unrelieved contrast between the side of the can and the bowl: the eye is carried from the can’s side to the beginning of the handle; and thirdly, it allows the shadow of the bowl to join freely with the shadow of the can: the impact of the bowl’s rim being otherwise too abrupt. Before Cézanne, I doubt that any such elisions were made: the ‘hold’ of the object’s integrity being too strong.

On first looking at this painting I wondered if it was an early work. But it is not, because by 1872 – seven years earlier – Cézanne had already produced a self–portrait that unequivocally demonstrates his genius: Portrait de l’ artiste, c. 1872. Musée d’Orsay, Paris. However, I am still slightly puzzled by this painting. It is well known that, when Cézanne started a painting, he worked on all parts of the canvas, distributing his darks, lights, and colours, and establishing the broad relationships before attempting a deeper and more complete realisation of his motif (as is perfectly demonstrated by Still Life with Water Jug). Yet Still Life with Carafe, Milk Can, Bowl and Orange is, I think, decidedly a sketch, and seems to have been deliberately left at this stage. And yet, what are we to make of the painting below? It is quite extraordinary, and is markedly unlike Cézanne’s typical still 

Still Life (Bowl and Jug) 1873

lifes, which are usually much more object–filled and complex in their arrangement. The turquoise green and the steel–blues seem equally untypical. I love the ‘shore–line’ of rich yellow–orange ochre, brushed tide–like up to the base of the strangely misshapen bowl that seems to be straining towards the milk can. 

This painting too, is I think a sketch. I thought at first that it was a small masterpiece, but have since seen a Google Image of it that is so lacking in strength of colour that I wonder if this image has not enhanced the work to the extent of fooling me into believing it to be a far better work than it is. Unfortunately, it is in a private collection, so I cannot attempt a truer judgement. I am not sure that I do not anyway prefer Cézanne’s more complex still lifes, as Still Life with Apples and a Pot of Primroses.     

Still Life with Apples and a Pot of Primroses. c. 1890