Seeing Cezanne

In Seeing Cezanne, Shiff discusses the dichotomy between representation and expression, making and finding, style and nature. He states that these concepts oppose each other and very often stand in “reciprocal relation” to one another. He explains that as one tries to represent, the painting loses its expressiveness as technique becomes the primary concern of the artist. As such, Cezanne’s ingenuity lies in his ability to place finding and making in equilibrium.
In my opinion, this method of evaluating a painting is questionable. Cezanne’s art is being celebrated for his lack of intention, the unconscious ability to produce this effect of merging two contesting concepts together. Yet, perhaps we are glorifying his achievements without considering what his intentions really are. Moreover, defining unconscious ability as better than deliberate technique is flawed. It seems as if analysts are molding the argument to better fit their perception of Cezanne’s talent. This is not to dismiss his art but to point out that perhaps our need to prove this has distorted what it is. Perhaps it is impossible to only find or to only make. In every creation, an element of the artist’s unconsciousness will inevitably bleed onto the canvas. Shiff talks about finding distortion and not artificially distorting works. Perhaps there is already an inequality that exists when we perceive. As we create based on these perceptions, we are placing making and finding in equilibrium as well. This is to say that representation and expression may not necessarily be in a reciprocal relation in the first place. As we represent something, our understanding of it is already departs from unconscious and distorted perceptions that we have chanced upon. As such, although Cezanne’s art has its own value, we may be romanticizing it by placing the value in his unconscious abilities.