The cubists and, after them, various movements of Non-figuratisme were useful of the name of Cézanne to justify their standpoint against the imitation of nature in art. Made indignant by this recovery which it estimated intellectually dishonest person, Leon Gard wrote several articles on the painter inhabitant of Aix. Here are three appeared in the newspaper "Apollo": "the Cézannien Misunderstanding" (October 1946), "In connection with Petunias painted by Cézanne" (April 1948), "Apelle and Cézanne" (November 1952).

                                    (Paul Cézanne, self-portrait)

                                                    - I -

       The Cézannien Misunderstanding

   Since long years, one strikes us of a theory whereby Cézanne would have prepared the way with the most advanced inventions current painting. This theory, through the terms of an admiration grandiloquente for Cézanne, however gives to understand that it was only one clearer, and that the greatest interest of its painting is at the bottom to have only made it possible to its successors to do another of them that his. The conscientious commentators sometimes accomodated this perfidious and absurd opinion. Moreover, a subtle spirit like Picasso, skeptic at the point all to deny, like many impotent not to have to recognize the genius of the others, strongly contributed, with his/her literary friends, to accredit this way of seeing. Picasso, indeed, denies the radiation, the intrinsic quality of the work of art, properly terrible position in an artist because it is the negation of art even. Picasso dares to declare that "a painting exists only by its legend and not by another thing". It says the same thing in other words when it ensures that a painting of Cézanne would not interest it if it knew that Cézanne had had the  life of Jacques Emile-Blanche.

   Under these conditions, it should be understood that a great number of alleged admirors of Cézanne, are it only in words and that in imagination, since, if they met a table of Cézanne in some attic, without to have ever intended to speak about Cézanne, they would not admire it.

   Sophism lasted enough, and it should well be said high that the aphorism picassien which wants that "a painting exists only by its legend and not by another thing", is only one stupidity whose credit is explained at one time when all that fleurait absurdity and the paradox was accomodated with eagerness.

A painting exists only by itself, by its quality, its radiation own and not by another thing: here is the aphorism of all times and that Mr. Picasso will not change that as much as the false doctor of Molière can place the time on the left and the heart on the right.

   Admittedly, which supported the most distorts it legend of precursory Cézanne of certain modern tendencies, it is what one called extremely slightly his " deformations ".

   Let us say it firmly: there never were deformations cézaniennes. One observes only in his works, certain exaggerations of the character of the subjects which it combed, and which its perspicacious and hard trade rather carried it to accentuate that to attenuate. As for the abrupt and left aspect, often painful of his naked, one knows the reason of it: it had a mystical fear of the flesh which prevented it from conceiving the presence of naked women at his place, and as it had little visual memory, its paintings the naked ones always felt this insufficiency of information on nature, for which it could not compensate by imagination. That for of shows only more eloquently its need to imitate literally, directly and even stupidly, will say certain pretentious modern school.

   One could not insist too much, one sees it, on the passion of Cézanne - passion which had it until its last sigh, since he died of the continuations of a cooling contracted while combing in a landscape during a storm - for the study in front of the " reason ", and in addition on its horror of literary painting. These two tendencies at his place if are marked, so constant, that they do not leave really any place for the deliberated deformation. How can one better conclude than by these reflexions written about Emile Bernard whose works had disappointed it: " ... the good man absolutely turns the back so that it develops in his writings, it makes in drawing only old-fashioned things, which feel its dreams of art suggested not by the emotion of nature, but by what it could see in the museums, and more still by a philosophical spirit, which comes to him from the too large knowledge of the Master that it admires ". And always on Emile Bernard: " It is an intellectual congested by the memories of the museums, but which does not see enough on nature, and it is the great point, that to leave the school and all the schools ".

   This refrain of worship for the nature which returns unceasingly in the remarks of Cézanne ends up becoming moving, imposing, because it is that of Léonard de Vinci, Chick, Constable, Ingres, Rodin, of Renoir, as it was probably the refrain of Phidias, Praxitèle, Michel-Angel, Van Eyck, Holbein.

   Cézanne, after having been as a painter scorned during all his life, even by his friends, tested some softness, in its old age, to see young people visiting him admiring and to listen to it respectfully. It said naively in a letter to his son: " I believe the young painters much more intelligent than the others, the old men can see in me only one disastrous rival ". Cézanne was done much illusion still there. In spite of the deferent and subjected attitude young neophytes, it of is necessary well that they all were understanding and sincerely enthusiastic. It is to realize it, only of reading what publicly today of Cézanne Chirico says, for example: " One makes still great case of Cézanne. The poor one! It did not know anything. It did not have a talent. It often said it to me itself ". One feels invaded sadness by reading similar abominations. Thus make confidences with young people, let you go to modesty, even to the doubt, by saying to you that youth is generous, honest, enthusiastic, and forty years afterwards, you will be said that you do not have a talent and that besides were appropriate to you about it yourself!

   Poor Cézanne however had, in spite of its exquisite frankness, some returns to perspicacity, and believing to understand the uselessness of its councils, he wrote: " I end up believing that one is used of nothing for the others ".

   Cézanne, by the commercial profit that one drew from his works and by the way in which one makes the flag of theories of it that it had certainly vomitted, was used for many people.

   But as for being useful, for the example of its works, and of a whole life religieusement dedicated to art, it is extremely to indeed fear, that it touched of it only very little of this way.

                                                             *

                     (Paul cézanne, "Fruit dish, glass and apples")

                                                  - II -

    In connection with Petunias

   UN of my friends has a small painting of Cézanne representing (eh! Yes, it something, it is quite old play, isn't this represents? ) some pots of flowers containing of the petunias pink-pale.

   Nothing is imitated any more nature, in all its parts, than this painting. Admittedly, one would seek vainly the ladybird, the caterpillar, the fly, or the dewdrop which is the triumph of the virtuosos of the Dutch nature-dead of the 17è and it is rather painted like thread herring, in its broadest manner that like David de Hein or Metsu, except for this difference, however, that Cézanne, contrary to Chardin, flees  the effects of the chiaroscuro rather. But if the details are not there, if all is presented there by rather massive indications, the form and the tone are defined there with an accuracy such as it are not more only of the right forms and the tone, but of the forms and the tone bathed of air, phenomenon that marvellous Dutch does not have, seems to me it, expressed. I believe that it still has this superiority on them of admirably knowing to make feel the various matters of the elements which compose its paintings. One extremely well thinks the finger meeting a hard matter while being posed on the sandstone of the pots and being inserted in the foliage, froissant the tender and fragile flowers. It is not to the " killer " who does not contrast, by his rigidity of stick without life, with the alive branches.

   This painting is all, except an interpretation of the thing; it endeavours on the contrary to give the most literal appearance of it, but with a particular technique cézannienne, which wants to solve the problem of painting without resorting by means of the drawing-line, nor with that of obscure light. As he said itself, he wanted, by diaprures to combine the problems of the drawing and of modelled, thus joining the old painter of the " unknown masterpiece " of Balzac which exclaimed: " the drawing does not exist! ", wanting to say by there that in a work of painting all must be expressed, drawing and values, by the only modulation of the color. This design, which is contrary to a free interpretation or of a transposition of the real objects, precisely consists in trying to express them while proceeding like nature itself, i.e. without other means that the color and the light. Practically, it is almost a dream to want to apply to the letter this formula, because one always runs up against the imperfection and the limit of the material, with which one always needs ruser. Nevertheless, if it is embarrassing to follow this imposing theory when one does not have exceptional gifts, it is obvious that a painter like Cézanne, of which the eye was able to weigh the tone, the values as with the milligram, can create masterpieces, and even lead to failures which remain higher than the successes of the majority of the other painters.

   But that one considers or not his paintings been successful, it does not remain about it less than no painter, more than Cézanne, was not, did not want to be a more direct imitator of nature. If it did not propose to imitate by the accumulation of the marvellous details of Van Eck or Holbein, it less did not seek any to astound by its way with him of imitating, i.e. to produce at a given distance the miracle at the same time of the form, tone, value, weight, atmosphere.

   Also one is extremely astonished by the imprudence with which the cubistes, these fruit-dry, claimed to be connected in Cézanne. Admittedly, it is understood that the cubists, not having anything in the belly, seized, as always do it this kind of people, large a death to support their poverty on his richness. But one is confused little of analogy, even apparent that there is between the design cézannienne and theirs. Cézanne first of all, aimed at goals difficult to wait but extremely simple to define. It wanted, for example, plenitude in the atmosphere, the actual weight of the objects, things simple to conceive as much as difficult realizing. The cubists are all the opposite of that. Inexhaustible chatterers, manufacturers of incoherent and contradictory dogmas, their works, by the absence of problems arising -- or understandable problems, which returns to same -- are of a facility of childish realization. having eluded all that makes the difficulties of the visual arts, namely: the form, volume, modelled, the values, the harmony, and having replaced these problems by no other which they are able to define, i.e. having removed in fact any species of difficulty, one understands that they look with commiseration those which try hard some, because the immense advantage of the cubism, but it is as its tare, it is as everyone can make some. Everyone can trace geometrical figures, graffiti stripped of direction, compartments of colors posed flat, the duly tangled up whole. If one wants to observe well that Cézanne had horror of the chatterers and of the theories and that, moreover, untiring worker, it has toiled all his life in front of the " motif " and that it died there, one will agree that it is difficult to find something of anti-cézannien, in all respects, letter and spirit, that a cubist.

   That means, in my opinion, that the cubists and all those which followed their traces, are not only weak painters endeavouring to mask their smallness by hubbub and scandal, not only of the parasites which are useful of famous of the others like springboard, but still of people which do not understand absolutely nothing in Cézanne and sees it, the bottom, as the middle-class men of Aix saw it or even those of Paris. With proof, the example of derisory Chirico which dared to declare publicly that it thought that Cézanne did not have any talent, and that, moreover, it was appropriate about it itself: it is necessary to be in truth not very intelligent to take with the word the cry lassitude and of doubt of the distressed and scrupulous researcher. In the same way, when some make spread with its horn that they are large draughtsmen, one should not either take it with the letter, and it is necessary to prudently make the share of the rules of modern publicity, that good Cézanne was unaware of.

   Admittedly, one recognizes with each one the right not to admire the painting of Cézanne, and to say it as it thinks it. But it is allowed, on the other hand, to find excessive to claim itself of an artist whom one actually mistakes. But the truth -- it is not beautiful -- is that, obscure and impatient to arrive, one starts by holding up the flag of a resounding name, then, when one believes to need some more, one tramples it, for showing its superiority well: there is not often large thing of other in much of admirations grandiloquents.

   But what imports ugliness of the intrigues, of the false attitudes, which the noisy mediocrity of this one or that one is essential. The question is that: I° Cézanne had only one religion in painting: nature, and that, consequently, it made, in the absolute direction of the word, of the painting of imitation; 2° the cubists preached the distance of nature and rejected the painting of imitation; 3° the cubists recommending itself to horns and cries of Cézanne, one wonders what they can quote in the work of Cézanne justifying their theories?