Apple My Eye
On the "Portraits like Apples" Cliché...
The idea of Cézanne treating his sitters like apples was famously attributed to critic Charles Morice, who wrote in 1905 that “Cézanne takes no more interest in a human face than in an apple”. This statement is cited as a key source for the widely held perception that Cézanne viewed his human subjects with the same detached, object-like scrutiny as his still lifes. The statement that Cézanne had "no more interest in a face than in an apple," with both holding value only as arrangements of tones and forms, reflects a long-standing interpretation of his work. The idea underscores Cézanne’s focus on structure, color, and pictorial balance over subject or narrative. As later interpreted by critics and reviewers, this suggests that for Cézanne, the emotional or social significance of a sitter was secondary to the formal challenge of translating three-dimensional form into painted surface. This perspective has been both celebrated as a revolutionary step toward modernism and critiqued for its perceived emotional detachment.
Paul Cézanne's approach to painting marked a significant departure from traditional academic art, which emphasized historical or literary subjects and realistic representation. Instead, Cézanne focused on the formal qualities of art - such as color, structure, and perspective - developing what is often described as a proto-modernist style that prioritized the underlying geometry of forms and the act of perception itself. He advised Émile Bernard in a 1904 letter to "treat nature according to cylinder, sphere and cone," a statement frequently interpreted as advocating a formalistic, geometric reduction of natural forms. However, some scholars, like Cézanne expert Götz Adriani, argue this was misinterpreted by later movements such as Cubism, suggesting Cézanne was more concerned with the faithful rendering of color and form under varying visual conditions than with abstract geometric formalism.
In 1905, contemporary art criticism largely met Cézanne's work with incomprehension and ridicule, particularly due to his rejection of academic conventions, and his repetitive, exploratory brushwork that emphasized structure over illusionistic depth. His paintings were seen as crude or unfinished by traditional standards. Despite his growing appreciation among avant-garde critics, mainstream academic circles in 1905 still largely dismissed his work. The tension between formalist innovation and academic tradition defined the critical reception of Cézanne during this period, setting the stage for his later recognition as a foundational figure in modern art. Cézanne certainly broke with tradition, while today, his work's departure from tradition needs explanation. His style looks tame by today's standards.
Because of the vista's sweep, it is easy not to see the forest for the trees. Cézanne's main intention was to create a painting -not an image of a sitter, landscape or still life. He treated every subject the same way. The artist conceivably had the commodification of art in view, a new concept at the time, against the traditional commission or competition for prize. Why else would a portrait of the artist's wife be an important part of museum collection? And what does Cézanne's portrait of his wife say about her, other than that she was as staid in life as one of Cézanne's mountain landscapes, his "Montagne Sante-Victoire" (1904-06), at the Kunsthaus Zurich, to cite but one example. Besides the incidental difference of subject matter, Cézanne's portraits look very much like Cézanne's mountains. It's a question of perception.
Certainly, Madame Cézanne was a fine woman and wife. That is obvious from her portraits. The likeness is unmistakable. The portrait is rather dull, as Cézanne's portraits go. I would characterize her pose as dutiful. The husband-and-wife's honeymoon was long past at this point. Cézanne's portraits of his wife as a young woman tell a very different story. If the painting doesn't have what traditional critics look for, it is because that aspect of the portrait was what Cézanne thought dispensible. It's not what the portrait lacks, but what is important to the painter, and what was important to Cézanne was a rock-like central mass in the midst of the overall composition. This is both an academic and a psychological insight, an insight into the personalities of both the husband and the wife -a relationship. It is not a formal criticism. It is structural, an instance of the emerging, new criticism. It speaks to Cézanne's relationship with his wife, a non-formal and (some would say) un-artistic idiosyncrasy, irrelevant to art.
This perception, and other such structural criteria, would become central to the art - and art criticism - of the 20th Century. As proof of the preceding assertion, look closely at Cézanne's "Seated Woman in Blue" (1904), at the Hermitage Museum. To begin with, it is obviously not Cézanne's middle-age wife. It is not my intention to make personal remarks about anyone, however, the young woman has noticeable sex appeal –as well as pretty looks. Is it scandalous to even suggest Cézanne responded to her feminine charm. What is obvious is that she made a great subject (whoever she was). The blue color of the woman's dress is vivid, unlike the drab house dress worn by Madame Cézanne. The young woman's expression is friendly and guileless. Look closely at portraits of Madame Cézanne. She is definitely not smiling. "Stoic" better describes Madame Cézanne's face. She hated sitting for "portraits." She knew she was just a subject for Cézanne's convenience. The woman in a blue dress is clearly eligible. Perhaps Madame Cézanne had seen her portrait -and resented the younger woman?
These are all non-formal criteria, the kind that shocked academic critics. Cézanne's paintings have feeling - contrary to the critics - they are not coldly formal. As a specific example, intended to address the criticism of Cézanne as possibly unfeeling for his treatment of faces as "no more than an apple," look closely at the painting of the young woman's right cup (where it would be under her dress). It looks like "une petite pomme". It is the same size and shape - if not color - as an appetizing Pippin apple. I dare say no true man can resist the thought of fondling the "apple's" delightful contour, or suggesting an after-work meeting, under the circumstances. Knowing human nature, I would bet on that exact thought running through Cézanne's mind as he painted her. If these remarks are deemed inappropriate, consider how inappropriate it would have been for the artist to paint his wife - the respectable Madame Cézanne - as an object of erotic desire. What would the critics have said about that? Given the chauvinism for which the fin-de-siècle French male was notorious, probably nothing; but we may be sure he was thinking it.