塞尚與柏格森（國際英文版‧新版）

About Cézanne
“I have nothing to hide in art.” — Cézanne
Section 1: Introduction

This book is based on an interpretation of Bergsonian philosophy, so it is different from most discussions of Cézanne literature. However, the fruits of all distinquished scholars are very helpful in discovering problems, avoiding mistakes, and finding possible solutions. “Cézanne literature” generally refers to the interviews, memoirs, and research findings on Cézanne accumulated since 1889. The studies include various discourses, and sometimes even contrasting ones. Two kinds of general yet complementary literature are: one, historical facts, and the other, knowledge used to interpret those facts. The former stresses observations of facts from a historical perspective; the latter focuses on giving theoretical interpretations. Yet the purpose of this chapter is definitely not to give a complete and detailed account of Cézanne literature in its broad meaning. My selective discussions will be chronological and representative in presenting the main ideas and issues. After a short summary of respective theories, I will bring out my stance to criticize their value. Illustrations and diagrams will be used to compare different interpretations. Discussions of Cézanne’s artistic successors’ views will be included in Chapter Five on Fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism to support my stance and to point out the trend in the artistic developments.

This chapter ranges from 1889 to 2001, a span of one hundred and twelve years. Although the two kinds of literature mentioned above are included, for the sake of convenience, three time periods: 1889-1925, 1926-1956, and 1957-2001 will be discussed in three different sections. The periods will be categorized into two; the interviews of the first period of people who had direct contact with Cézanne will be categorized according to the dates of their happening, instead of their publication; the literature of this period is more like narratives. The second and the third period in which no direct contact had been made with Cézanne will be based on the publication date; these two periods are more interpretive. The goal of this categorization is to look back on the first period and to depict Cézanne in history; in organizing the later two periods, different theories will be understood and different literatures of varying nature will be included.

Of course, theories differ in dealing with literatures and the problem of authentication. This is because the records of people who had contact with Cézanne are often repeating other materials or are mixed with individuals’ opinions, lacking in commentaries and annotations. For example, Joachim Gasquet (1873-1921) had contact with Cézanne from 1896 to 1900. His memoir Cézanne was written in 1912 but published in 1921. It might have mixed other people’s earlier materials and the author’s own viewpoints. Moreover, the stark contrasting view points of Bernard’s early and later writings and stances are obvious: “Paul Cézanne” was written in 1904 and was stressed as a record to present the interactions with Cézanne; and “Une conversation avec Cézanne” in 1921 is highly interpretative and critical, with a purpose in establishing Bernard’s own aesthetics. These two contrasting writings cannot be treated in the same way.

In sum, historical facts and theoretical interpretations must be complementary and one cannot be overlooked over another. The credibility of historical facts needs the effectiveness of interpretations to be revealed, whereas, interpretations need historical facts as a basis to avoid being groundless and vague.