Pictorial Space throughout Art History: Cézanne and ... - ARAS

ARAS Connections Issue 2, 2012
pre-Renaissance artists did not understand perspective; perspective led to
“progress” in painting. This view has created much confusion about the problem
of space. In fact, pre-Renaissance painting in Europe and also in many non-
European traditions was based upon structural unity and pictorial space.
Renaissance devices such as anatomy, perspective, and the use of light and
shadow all tended to obscure and weaken pictorial space. Cézanne, and after him
Picasso and Braque, sought to restore its primacy (see Braque).
What about subject matter? Is it of no value? Its value is that it adds
interest to the painting. But a scene, a person, a symbol, a story, or a concept can
be illustrated by a commercial artist who would not pretend that the illustration
was a work of art. What distinguishes a great work of art from an illustration?
Part of the answer, in my opinion, is that a great work of art is a living universe,
complete unto itself.
Does this mean that painting is only a matter of pictorial space? What
about the artist's personality or temperament? Inevitably the artist's personality
is expressed in his or her art; if the artist is passionate, then the painting will be
passionate. Unless the artist has an artistic temperament the painting will seem
sterile even if it is well structured. A playwright must have an artistic vision: the
play must express something vital in his or her own temperament. But to be a
work of art the play must also have structure. In fact the problem of pictorial
space provides a rich medium within which the artist's temperament is
expressed. It adds greatly to the artist's other resources for self expression, such
as color, drawing, texture, composition, and subject matter.
The images in this paper are strictly for educational use and are protected by United States copyright laws. 37
Unauthorized use will result in criminal and civil penalties.