Kathryn A. Tuma

Response 2

I feel that Kathryn A. Tuma’s essay on Cezanne’s “Le Rocher Rouge” was somewhat occluded in its description by words that attempted to pinpoint its essence. Further, these almost annoying descriptions devalued her negative commentary on other art critic’s interpretations. The reference to Coleridge was useless and added a pretentious tone to the essay, especially since her goal was to interpret a work in her own words. She tended to deny interpretations and then follow them up with inserted descriptions that she did not make herself. The sentences were formed rather simply, but the inclusion of complicated adjectives and “poetic phrasings” created a sense of irony. Near the beginning of the section, she states, “We may name it, but it is not there. Yes, it is right to say that Cezanne’s painting elicits this misprision, but it is misprision…It is the figural antecedent.” (62) At the end of this very paragraph, she characterizes the painting herself through the Coleridge quote. By the end of the essay, she makes an attempt to describe Cezanne’s work in her own words: “Cezanne’s destabilization of geometry turns painting to emphatic facture….etc…”(65).
The irony is that she says the essence of the paintings, aside from the physical representation of ideology, is indescribable, yet she tries to describe it. No matter how many fancy words she throws around, she never exactly pinpoints it. That is the point. Written art criticism is difficult, as she of course mentions, and it cannot completely describe the essence of painting. I feel that fine arts and writing are two very different things. If she wanted to write criticism, she should have used simpler language and took a different angle. The only thing that seems plausible is going at the artwork from a purely ideological standpoint. Reducing other criticism to dust was unnecessary and contradictory for she attempted to describe it herself. She may have used fancier language than her predecessors, but it was equally ineffective and in addition, the poetic phrasing and literary reference added to it the air of a “pretentious academic.” If she were following anything she was saying, then she wouldn’t have used “old” literature to describe something new.
The most effective part of the essay was when she started deriving interpretations off of Cezanne’s own words (2nd paragraph on pg. 65 – 75 in the reader). Otherwise, I feel that she failed to stick to a firm source analysis (for it seems that she only described the colors in order to negate other critics rather than smoothly integrating it into her own argument) and that her essay was clouded with both deviations and negativity towards other interpretations.