Cezanne's "Mont Sainte-Victoire" and Monet's "Vetheul in Summer": A Comparative Analysis

Landscapes can be considered one of the most engaging art motifs, offering the widest range of possibilities in terms of color combination, coordination, depth, contrast, and richness of the pallet. Differences in style, color combinations, and even methods of applying paint to canvas, all of which are aspects of a specific artistic stylistic period, also must be taken into account. This is perhaps why the two paintings under analysis, Paul Cezanne's "Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley" (1882) and Claude Monet's "Vetheul in Summer" (1880) while both representing landscape paintings, produce two completely different visual perspectives.

While both Cezanne and Monet painted at the same time in France, the period in which both worked was characterized by a gradual change in the artistic style from Impressionism to Post-Impressionism and eventually Cubism (Galenson, 1999). This transition was characterized by many artists feeling that the constraints of Impressionism - specifically the use of thick, distinctive brush strokes and adherence to real-life sizing of all the painted elements - did not allow them to express themselves fully. Post-Impressionism, therefore, was characterized by an increased use of geometric forms (eventually leading to Cubism) and arbitrary coloring and sizing of the painted elements (Galenson, 1999).

It does not appear that Cezanne's "Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley" was specifically commissioned; the painter's family lived in view of the mountain at the time the painting was made, and thus served as Cezanne's inspiration on a number of occasions (Lindsay, 1972). While showing the influence of Impressionism in its vivid colors, Cezanne chooses the view from the top, looking down into the valley of Mont Sainte-Victoire, clearly presenting the geometric patterns of a cultivated valley, which is the sign of Post-Impressionism. The river cuts through the valley diagonally, and the foliage of towering trees in the foreground does little to obscure the mountains in the background. Yet with all the usual elements of a landscape, one cannot get rid of a sense that this is not a landscape in the traditional sense. Colors are just as intense in the background as they are in the foreground. In other words, Cezanne ignores perspective. Distance is more imagined by the viewer rather than presented by the artist. To some degree, this painting is nothing more than an accumulation of essential forms. The artist tilts the center part of the painting upward, connecting with the foreground towards the viewer, eliminating any sense that the viewer is looking down into the valley.

Disregarding perspective, Cezanne continues tilting his planes; it almost seems like the artist is trying to fit or balance them so the viewer can take in the full scale of what is on the planes. There is an absence of color variance from the foreground to the midsection of the painting. What changes, however, is the brushstroke, from absolute vertical to horizontal. It is possible that by doing so, Cezanne is trying to generate visual stimulus by overlaying movements. The first movement is the rounds of the tree foliage in the foreground as opposed to the strong verticals of the tree trunks above them. Additional rounds include the arches of the bridge and the rounds of hills in the mountains. The second movement is the horizontal brushstrokes through the midsection of the painting into the horizontal of the white bridge that interrupts the overlapping vertical of the large tree in the middle of the painting. Finally, well-defined mountains are like horizontal cutouts in the negative space of the sky.

The contrast between dark and light colors is also extremely strong, with no transitional areas to separate colors. The colors themselves are quite intense, too, without an apparent light source that, in nature, would shine into the valley and bring out all these colors. Shapes of objects are simple, mostly straight and rectangular. To some degree, it seems that the artist is using sharp contrasts of color to exercise strict control over the painting, meaning that he directs the viewer's eye through the process of viewing.

"Vetheul in Summer" is done in Monet's typical Impressionist style. Like with Cezanne, I could not find any information on the work's patron, although there is a better chance of Monet actually painting this work on commission, since the artist was having some financial difficulties at the time the painting was created (Mount, 1966). Just as with the Cezanne's work, summer appears to be in full swing in Monet's painting. The river shimmers with thousands of reflections of light. Water absorbs the blue of the sky and the white of the stone buildings with red rooftops and reflects the light back up. Moved by the light breeze and defused by the heat of the summer, much like a mirage, trees compete in height with the steeple of the town's cathedral. In this painting, Monet appears to tell a complete story of a landscape without overstating it, like Cezanne does.

There is a single dominant tone in this painting, namely that of coolness, carried by the dominating color blue, and which adds a feeling of tranquility and contemplation. The color appears almost weightless, which contributes to the sense of lightness that the painting projects. Although there is a large landmass in the middle of the painting between water and sky, the viewer still gets the sense that it floats between inverted images of the sky, the trees, and the water on an invisible surface. The immediacy of the moment with which the artist approaches this scene appears almost sketch-like, as if the entire painting was put onto the canvas in a span of just a few minutes. Monet offers a fresh view of nature, painted on the spot. Brush strokes used to put paint on canvas appear to be quick and short, like a flicker of the wrist, which creates a shimmering sensation and a visual sensation of constant movement - exactly what a landscape would seem to one's eye if perceived through a shimmering gauze of heated air rising up from the earth. Monet responds directly to what he sees, faithfully representing effects of light and heat on canvas in an uncomplicated manner. This openness of composition invites the viewer's imagination to extend in any direction it chooses.

The diffusion of light is rendered in fluid strokes, sometimes contrasting with greater amount of paint on the brush. Monet's touch changes every time there is a need to accommodate the slightest deviation of form. Scribbles of various colors connect as one and somehow forms appear and become recognizable. The subject of the painting, so it seems, is its overall effect, not the relationship between separate elements; instead, everything must be subordinate to the light that illuminates the painting throughout.

From this analysis, it is clear that Cezanne and Monet possess different approaches to painting nature. Monet's brushstrokes vibrate the air and create a unique sense of tranquility and peacefulness, accentuating the realism of the moment being depicted without going too deep into the structural details of the art of painting itself. Cezanne's work gives the viewer a sense of gravity and permanency, allowing the viewer to see nature in captivity of an artistic form, so that the moment or vision being depicted can register in one's mind for a protracted period of time.

Bibliography

Galenson, D. W. (1999). Quantifying artistic success: Ranking French painters - and paintings - from Impressionism to Cubism. Social Science Research Network (October): 1-31.

Lindsay, J. (1972). Cezanne: His life and art. New York: New York Graphic Society.

Mount, C. M. (1966). Monet: A biography. New York: Simon & Schuster.