Skip to Content

Cat. 1 Auvers, Panoramic View, 1873–75 Cat. 2 The Plate of Apples, c. 1877 Cat. 3 Standing Bather, Seen from the Back, 1879–82 Cat. 4 The Bay of Marseille, Seen from L'Estaque, c. 1885 Cat. 5 Montagne Sainte-Victoire, c. 1885 Cat. 6 Road in Provence, c. 1885 Cat. 7 Madame Cezanne in a Yellow Chair, 1888–90 Cat. 8 The Vase of Tulips, c. 1890 Cat. 9 A Study for the Card Players, 1890–92 Cat. 10 The Basket of Apples, c. 1893 Cat. 11 The Bathers, 1899–1904 Cat. 12 Pistachio Tree at Château Noir, c. 1900 Cat. 13 The Three Skulls, 1902–6 Cat. 14 Man Wearing a Straw Hat, 1905–6

Across the top, dark brown branches with green leaves extend horizontally, with a tall tree trunk along the far left edge. In the center background, a large pale blue-gray mountain rises above a wide tan valley; to the right, a long structure with repeating arches spans the distance. The foreground and midground show patchy green fields, diagonal paths, small trees, and a few small tan buildings, one near the left and several clustered toward the center-right. Colors are mostly light tan, green, and soft blue, with greens concentrated in the fields and along the branches.
Cat. 5

Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley)
c. 1885
Watercolor with graphite, heightened with opaque white watercolor, on cream wove paper; 35.4 × 53.7 cm (13 15/16 × 21 3/16 in.)
The Art Institute of Chicago, gift of Marshall Field, IV, 1964.199
FWN 1130

In this watercolor, Cezanne captured a view of the Arc River Valley from an elevated spot outside his native city of Aix-en-Provence. Ball-shaped olive trees, rectangular fields, and freestanding houses scattered like building blocks dot the hills and plain. The horizontal line crossing the land somewhat above the center of the sheet is a viaduct. The Plateau du Cengle is visible behind it to the right, and to the left are the foothills of the Montagne Sainte-Victoire, which towers majestically over the scene, the apex of both the landscape and the composition. The trunk of a pine tree frames the panorama along the length of the left edge, its branches reaching across the upper edge of the work. There they connect seamlessly with the branches of a second tree whose trunk is unseen, beyond the right edge of the paper, the lines of its foliage loosely echoing the silhouette of the Sainte-Victoire and the Cengle.1

Denis Coutagne identified the artist’s precise vantage point for this work as on the south side of the Colline de Valcros on the Montbriand estate, where Cezanne’s sister Rose lived following her marriage to the lawyer Maxime Conil in 1881.[1] The ochre-colored house with a red roof prominently placed in the left middle ground is the Bastide Vieille, situated not far from Montbriand.[2] From the Jas de Bouffan, his father’s estate in Aix, Cezanne could reach his sister’s home in less than a half an hour on foot.[3] As Coutagne has shown, he was already familiar with the site from painting there in 1878–79, although he worked on the property largely between 1882 and 1887 and again in 1890.[4] It was there that he became intensely preoccupied with the Montagne Sainte-Victoire. Nowhere else did he produce a greater number of views of this landmark, apart from the area around his studio in Les Lauves, where he devoted himself to rendering the mountain repeatedly between 1902 and 1906.[5]2

Cezanne united the three core elements seen in Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley)—pine tree, viaduct, and Sainte-Victoire—a total of eight times in “pure” pencil drawings, watercolor and graphite depictions (including the Art Institute work), and paintings.[6] Chicago’s watercolor is thus part of a larger group of works in which these landmarks appear from different angles, alone or in various combinations.3

A painting in the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC, and one in the Courtauld Gallery in London both depict nearly the exact same section of landscape (figs. 5.1–5.2), and thus bear a close connection to Chicago’s watercolor.[7] To be sure, both differ from it slightly: In the Washington canvas, for example, the pine trunk at right leans partway into the scene, while the collar of the left-hand pine’s bough is missing. The London version, for its part, shifts the gaze upward a bit, leaving only the uppermost edge of the olive grove in the foreground visible. The similarities are nevertheless so striking that we can assume that Cezanne executed the three works in close succession. Art historians such as Lionello Venturi and John Rewald, the authors of the first catalogues raisonnés of Cezanne’s paintings and watercolors, have unanimously estimated the date of the group to be sometime between 1885 and 1887.[8]4

Foreground: two tall tree trunks stand at the left and right edges, with dark green branches extending across the top. Middle ground: patchwork fields in green and tan contain small, boxy buildings and winding paths, including a diagonal road from the lower left toward the center and a long arched bridge running across the mid-distance. Background: pale blue-gray mountains stretch behind the fields under a light blue sky. The trees are the largest elements, the houses are small and widely spaced, and the bridge is narrow but spans much of the width.

Fig. 5.1


Paul Cezanne (French, 1839–1906). Mont Sainte Victoire, 1886–87 (FWN 234). Oil on canvas; 59.7 × 72.4 cm (23 1/2 × 28 1/2 in.). The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, Acquired 1925, 0285.

Across the top, dark green tree branches extend from a tall trunk on the left against a light blue sky. In the center, a broad gray-blue mountain spans the scene with tan and bluish slopes. Along the bottom, a patchwork of green and yellow fields includes small tan and white buildings, narrow roads, and clusters of darker green trees. The branches are the largest elements in the foreground, the mountain sits behind them, and the buildings appear small and scattered across the valley.

Fig. 5.2


Paul Cezanne. Montagne Sainte-Victoire with Large Pine, c. 1887 (FWN 235). Oil on canvas; 66.8 × 92.3 cm (26 5/16 × 36 5/16 in.). The Courtauld Gallery, London (Samuel Courtauld Trust), P.1934.SC.55. Photo © The Courtauld.

The watercolor has often been interpreted as a preparatory study for the two paintings, or as an “intermediate stage” between the Washington version—to which it bears the most notable similarities in terms of both composition and coloration—and that in London.[9] In fact, scholars have hitherto discussed the sheet above all with respect to its position vis-à-vis the paintings. As Matthew Simms has vividly observed, however, “the watercolor cannot be understood to have operated as a dry run for either painting and instead represents a separate, unique rendition of the view in its own right.”[10] What is more, in view of the fact that Cezanne hardly ever dated his works, and we can therefore only speculate about the (not necessarily linear) sequence of these three, it seems more productive to explore the interplay between them. For this exercise, we can take as our starting point three aspects on which the discourse on the triad has focused to date.5

First, there is the compositional function of the pines in the foreground. Like a raised theater curtain, they grant a view of the stage, in this case the landscape.[11] This repoussoir (frame)—here the trees edging the panorama—sparks associations with Japanese art, otherwise rarely connected to Cezanne.[12] Hidemichi Tanaka has convincingly demonstrated the multifaceted affinities between Cezanne’s views of Montagne Sainte-Victoire and Katsushika Hokusai’s series Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji (c. 1830–33)—for instance, the combination of prominent mountain in the background and tree in the foreground. Taking the London painting as an example, he compares Cezanne’s decision to move the tree aside while retaining “the branches which cover the sight of Sainte-Victoire” to “the pine trees in Hokusai’s Kōshū Mishimagoe [Mishima Pass in Kai Province]” (fig. 5.3).[13] The compositional device of the repoussoir, with branches that “carefully frame the contour of the mountain,” also contributes to a pronounced “surface coherence,” as John House has termed it when describing the many separate, recurrent formal elements that add up to a tightly entangled whole.[14]6

Top area shows a gradient sky from deep blue to white, with dark green leafy branches hanging down. A very large vertical tree trunk in pale green and blue dominates the center, and a blue triangular mountain sits in the background to the right, surrounded by puffy white clouds. In the lower section, rounded pale green hills and shrubs border a curving path where several adults in blue clothing and pale circular hats stand, walk, or touch the trunk, some carrying dark bundles; the trunk is much wider than the people nearby.

Fig. 5.3


Katsushika Hokusai (Japanese, 1760–1849). Mishima Pass in Kai Province (Koshu Mishimagoe), from the series Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji (Fugaku sanjurokkei), c. 1830–33. Color woodblock print; oban; 26 × 38.4 cm (10 1/4 × 15 1/8 in.). Art Institute of Chicago, Clarence Buckingham Collection, 1925.3281.

Second, thanks to their well-structured distribution of pictorial elements, the watercolor and the two paintings have repeatedly been cited as exemplary for comparisons between Cezanne and Nicolas Poussin.[15] The works of both artists are distinguished by a similar intrinsic order, even if Cezanne did not portray imaginary arcadian landscapes but transcribed “the natural subject into a composition of great order and monumentality.”[16] Stemming from his specific approach to the translation of physical reality into pictorial reality, the view of the valley of the Arc from Montbriand appears “as ordered and pondered a construction as a Greek temple,” as Duncan Phillips remarked on the painting in his collection (see fig. 5.1).[17] In this sense, Richard Verdi juxtaposed the London painting with Poussin’s Landscape with the Body of Phocion Carried out of Athens (fig. 5.4), in which a tree, also functioning as a repoussoir, frames the temple of Jupiter.[18]7

From foreground to background: at lower right, a tall tree and stone steps border a dirt path where two adults in red and yellow clothing carry a large white cloth; nearby, sheep graze beside a narrow stream and a cart pulled by a white ox moves left to right with several adults. In the middle ground, green hills lead to a town with tan and gray buildings, a columned temple, and a round tower, with small figures walking and gathering near a blue river. In the distance, low mountains rise under a blue‑gray sky with large pale gray clouds. The people are small compared to the large trees and buildings.

Fig. 5.4


Nicolas Poussin (French, 1594–1665). Landscape with the Body of Phocion Carried out of Athens, 1648. Oil on canvas, 116.8 × 178.1 cm (46 × 70 in.). Amgueddfa Cymru – Museum Wales (National Museum Cardiff), NMW A(L) 480.

And finally, as various authors have pointed out, for viewers in Cezanne’s time, this supposedly timeless scene included a contemporary structure.[19] To whatever degree the viaduct resembles an ancient aqueduct, it was in fact a newly erected railroad line that, from 1877 on, permitted the first direct train travel from Aix to Marseille.[20] Within Cezanne’s oeuvre, the views from Montbriand thus bear special status: After all, apart from a few smokestacks, he rarely incorporated specifically contemporary elements into his works. Thus, it is all the more noteworthy that, in the works under discussion here, Cezanne harmoniously integrated the industrial-age structure into a landscape scene charged with historical significance.[21]8

These observations apply as much to the watercolor as to the two paintings. Within the repoussoir of the former, however, Cezanne introduced the rhythmic order of the viaduct to much different effect. Even if this composition is as thoroughly structured as that of the paintings, the transparency characteristic of the watercolor medium and the many areas where the surface of the paper has been left unpainted combine to make the view appear less hermetic and solidly “built,” lending it instead a quality of lightness. The color of the paper highlights the formal interrelationships—for example, between the curves of the pine branches, viaduct arches, and olive trees, or between the parallel diagonals, horizontals, and verticals defined by the fields and architecture. As in a tapestry, the individual landscape elements thus appear densely but delicately interwoven.[22]9

The color scheme, which when first completed would have been more vivid and covered more of the paper’s surface, originally played a greater role in this inner unity. In the work’s current state, it is primarily the green watercolor pigments, and in particular an abundance of emerald green, that stand out on the loosely sketched graphite drawing. Once, however, this hue formed a well-balanced whole with what are now faded shades of yellow and red (for example, the yellow that has now almost completely vanished in the trunk of the pine tree). The sky, for its part, was colored a light blue that is today all but invisible to the naked eye (see Technical Summary in the Technical Report). The changes in pigment result in a compartmentalization of sorts aptly described by Joseph Rishel as “[a] sense of miniaturization, at once charming and a little perplexing… . as if the huge vistas … are here seen through the wrong end of a telescope.”[23]10

When Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) was first presented to the public in 1907, however, its inner pictorial coherence would presumably still have been pronounced. This first posthumous retrospective—which took place in October, a year after Cezanne’s death, in the framework of the Salon d’Automne at the Grand Palais in Paris—encompassed forty-nine paintings and seven watercolors, the latter all on loan from the artist’s son. The accompanying catalogue listed the Chicago work as Sainte-Victoire et l’arbre.[24] Its inclusion attests to its great importance, as the exhibition was conceived as an homage that would unite just the “highlights from Cézanne’s oeuvre.”[25]11

During the artist’s lifetime only his gallerist, Ambroise Vollard, had assembled a larger number of drawings and watercolors, in an exhibition he staged in 1905. Together with an extensive presentation of watercolors at the Galerie Bernheim-Jeune in June 1907,[26] the Salon d’Automne thus offered the broader public one of the very first opportunities to see works on paper by Cezanne. The international visitors included the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, the art historian Julius Meier-Graefe, and the art collector Harry Graf Kessler. All three went on to distinguish themselves with early publications on Cezanne and Impressionism; Meier-Graefe, for example, wrote the first monograph on the artist in 1910, even before Vollard.[27] Chicago’s watercolor was therefore among the works that helped shape the conception of Cezanne’s oeuvre for these early authors and their readers.

Fabienne Ruppen
12

Technical Summary

For this landscape, Cezanne chose a sheet of cream wove paper manufactured by Canson & Montgolfier with a slight texture and moderate thickness. He used a palette of eight transparent and opaque watercolor pigments and a semi-dark graphite pencil to render the Arc Valley economically through a combination of graphite drawing, carefully placed zones of watercolor, and paper reserves. Working in transparent washes, Cezanne left his initial graphite marks visible throughout the entire work, and a significant amount of drawing remains uncovered. Cezanne alternated color with areas of unpainted paper, introducing light, atmosphere, and ambiguity. These areas suggest the continuation of the landscape despite being void of detail.13

An infrared image shows that Cezanne began with a graphite sketch, drawing with light pressure in precise, fine lines made with the pencil tip (see fig. 5.5, reflected infrared image). The gray marks delineate built structures and landscape zones with almost no shading to connote volume, the exception being the trees at lower right, where a few parallel lines drawn with the broad edge of the pencil tip catch the broken grain of the paper surface and convey the mass of the trees’ foliage. Cezanne drew the overall shape of Montagne Sainte-Victoire with up to six repeating, overlapping contour lines, as if searching for their final placement. In combination with the watercolor washes, these imprecise, layered outlines communicate the mountain’s undulating topography as seen at a distance.
14

Natural light
Reflected infrared (0.9–1.05 µm)
Ultraviolet-induced luminescence

Fig. 5.5

Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (c. 1885). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199. Interactive image. Use the icons at lower right and the slide bar to compare conservation images and overlays.

When applying watercolor throughout the composition, Cezanne followed his drawing closely. For example, in the valley floor, he applied small touches of wash within drawn boundaries (fig. 5.6). Notably, this differs from his later practice of applying watercolor in repeating, rectilinear patches. Cezanne painted wet-over-dry, allowing one stroke to dry before layering another on top. This gave him the control needed to preserve the shape of his brushstrokes, build up forms, and prevent colors from bleeding. Emerald green predominates in this work.[28]15

Top section shows thin, broken dark gray lines running left to right, with scattered patches of pale green and a small blue‑gray spot near the upper right. Center area contains larger irregular shapes in light green and tan, outlined by gray lines that create angular forms. Lower section continues with pale green patches and gray lines, ending with a darker blue‑gray blotch near the bottom right.

Fig. 5.6


Detail of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing emerald green fields painted within precisely drawn boundaries. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

Beyond the fields, the railway viaduct is represented almost entirely by the white of the paper. Cezanne drew the structure in graphite (fig. 5.7), then added individual touches of blue, green, or purple wash to represent shadows beneath the arches. With the tip of a fine brush and blue wash, Cezanne reinforced the pencil line marking the top of the bridge.
16

At the top, pale green and gray bands sit above a long horizontal structure with a row of rounded openings that spans nearly the full width from left to right. In the center, a small rectangular form with a yellow area appears just below this structure, with faint lines marking adjoining sections. Toward the bottom, irregular patches of green and light gray rest on a beige ground.

Fig. 5.7


Detail of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the economically rendered railway viaduct, using the white of the paper bounded by graphite outlines and watercolor shadows beneath the arches. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

Cezanne’s technique is most complex in the tree branches along the top edge. Here the artist employed emerald green—pure and in mixtures with cobalt blue, indigo, and chrome yellow—to represent foliage as light shines on and through it. For example, in the lower branch at right, he used pure emerald green, with its characteristic vivid hue, to accent the leaf groupings (fig. 5.8). Then, he mixed and layered cobalt blue and darker indigo with emerald green, applying short strokes side by side to indicate leaves in shadow below the extended branch. To convey reflected sunlight he added strokes of a bright chrome yellow and emerald green mixture at left. Small patches of white paper visible between adjacent strokes of wash serve to break up the clusters of leaves and lend buoyancy to the branch structure. With a fine brush loaded with dark blue, he outlined each branch to evoke its thickness, then added individual strokes of the same blue below the bough, creating precisely tapering branches. The wispy graphite strokes clearly seen through the green and blue washes lend texture to the bundles of pine needles. Cezanne added a stroke of vermillion red along the underside of the branch at right, capturing the warm tone of the tree bark and subtly tying the branch to the red roads and rooftops in the landscape below.
17

Beige background with several wavy bands and soft patches of color. Near the top, faint blue‑gray strokes curve left to right with small areas of green and teal. Across the middle, a darker gray horizontal band is interspersed with medium green and light yellow patches and a thin red accent toward the right. Toward the bottom, pale blue and gray curves continue; no distinct objects or figures are present.

Fig. 5.8


Detail of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing custom mixtures of blue, yellow, and green layered over a graphite armature to capture light shining on a bough of pine needles. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

Pigment analysis combined with ultraviolet (UV)-induced luminescence (UV-L) examination shows many of the areas that appear as reserves of plain paper—including in the sky, the mountain, the hills, the large tree trunk, and the valley floor at lower left—were originally painted using fugitive pigments, which have faded. While the faded pigments are not visible under normal light, they absorb and reflect in the ultraviolet range, yielding a clear map of Cezanne’s original brushwork in these regions. An image taken under ultraviolet illumination (fig. 5.9) shows that Cezanne initially covered the entire mountain peak as well as hills on the right half of the sheet with multiple wash applications. In addition, the pale-blue washes describing the sky are more legible in the UV-L image, appearing as brushstrokes between the pine branches across the top of the paper.
18

At the top, dark brown cloud-like forms stretch across a tan sky, with a large mountain shape centered below them. In the middle area, scattered dark brown blocks and short lines sit across a light tan plain, with a row of small round shapes toward the right. On the left, a tall vertical trunk with a curved branch appears, and the foreground shows broad diagonal bands and patches in brown crossing from lower left to lower right. Colors are primarily tan and dark brown, with lighter brown areas.

Fig. 5.9


Ultraviolet-induced luminescence image of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the presence of fugitive watercolor washes, now faded, across the mountain, foothills, and sky, as well as occasional strokes in the lower left quadrant. The darkest passages map the predominance of emerald green washes. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

Two closely related oils portraying the same view, Mont Sainte Victoire (Phillips Collection, Washington, DC; see fig. 5.1) and Montagne Sainte-Victoire with Large Pine (Courtauld Gallery, London; see fig. 5.2) provide clues to the lost colors. In the Phillips oil, Cezanne used a range of blues and grays to describe the mountain and the hills, and white with touches of bright blue to paint the sky. In the Courtauld painting, Cezanne painted the sky with a more intense blue and the mountain in grays and blues with patches of red. Analysis of the watercolor detected a mixture of cobalt blue and lead white, with and without vermillion, in the mountain peak and an indigo and lead-white mixture in the sky. These light blues correspond with colors in both oils, suggesting the faded watercolor hues closely paralleled those in the paintings. Indigo is known to fade with excess light exposure and would have been especially vulnerable in a pale wash.19

The UV-L image also shows the presence of faded washes below the yellow building at left, in the tree trunk, and in the empty portions of the path just above the lower edge. These three areas appear almost completely free of color under normal light; under stereomicroscope examination (80×), however, indications of pale-yellow wash were observed in each region (figs. 5.10a–b). In the road just above the lower edge, red pigments mixed with the yellow wash can be seen, revealing that the area was originally orange. The pale yellow did not provide enough material for definitive identification, but we can infer that an organic yellow, probably gamboge, a fugitive colorant, was most likely used in these areas, as it was observed in other regions of the work (see Media and Support below).
20

Top edge shows a narrow band of pale green with uneven edges; below it are layered horizontal areas of light tan and beige on a rough, textured surface. Across the middle and lower area, there are scattered tiny dark specks, a faint thin line, and a small round brown stain near the bottom right. A scale marker at the upper right reads 2 mm, indicating these features are very small.

Fig. 5.10a


Photomicrograph detail of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the edge of a pale-yellow wash at lower left, which extends below the red and green washes above. This yellow watercolor has faded and is revealed in the ultraviolet image. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

At the top, dark tree branches stretch across a pale sky with a large light-gray mountain centered in the distance. Below, a broad valley contains small tan buildings, green fields, and a road that runs diagonally from left center toward the lower right; a row of arches sits in the middle right. In the foreground, a tall tree trunk lines the left edge, with low bushes and patchy grass in light green and beige across the bottom.

Fig. 5.10b


Photomicrograph map showing where the image was taken on the overall sheet.

The colors observed in all three areas are akin to those in the Phillips painting. Comparing a detail from the watercolor in normal light and under UV illumination with a detail from the same region of the oil painting shows that the brushstrokes below the yellow building and in the large tree trunk at left visible in the UV-L image (no longer visible in the watercolor) correlate to yellow passages in the oil painting. Comparing another detail showing the top portion of the road along the lower edge shows the loss of yellow and red watercolor due to fading in the foreground (figs. 5.11–5.12). There is not the same color alignment with the Courtauld oil due to a slight shift in vantage point. As the colors faded, details from Cezanne’s nuanced rendering of the tree trunk and his descriptions of the yellow hillside and orange road were lost.
21

From left to right, there are three side-by-side panels. Left panel: a small tan, box-like structure with a peaked roof and a dark doorway sits just left of center, with soft green and gray patches around it and a wide beige area below. Middle panel: a tan background is covered by large, irregular dark brown shapes across the middle and top, with a darker vertical band along the left edge. Right panel: a small yellow structure with a rounded roof appears near center-left, bordered by dark green on its right and lighter green and tan rectangular patches below and to the right, with more green areas and a small pale shape farther back.

Fig. 5.11


Normal-light and ultraviolet-induced luminescence details of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the faded yellow watercolor beneath the building and along the tree trunk. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199. Detail of Cezanne’s Mont Sainte Victoire (1886–87) showing yellow paint in related areas. The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, 0285.

Three horizontal panels show the same landscape arranged foreground to background, with wide bands of fields and small trees in the middle distance. Top panel: pale tan and light green bands run left to right, with two small, forked trees near the center. Middle panel: the scene appears in dark browns, with tree silhouettes clustered near center-left and layered field bands below. Bottom panel: bright greens and orange-tan stripes curve across the fields, with several rounded trees spaced in the middle, each small in scale compared to the broad bands of land.

Fig. 5.12


Normal-light and ultraviolet-induced luminescence details of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the faded yellow and red watercolor from the top portion of the road in the foreground. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199. Detail of Cezanne’s Mont Sainte Victoire (1886–87) showing yellow-orange paint in related areas. The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, 0285.

Remarkably, despite this select color loss, the watercolor retains an impressive presence thanks to the strength of Cezanne’s compositional design, his incorporation of the graphite drawing, his reinforcement in several areas with blue linear wash, and his use of more permanent pigments.22

There are multiple pinholes in all four corners of the sheet, suggesting that Cezanne either pinned the paper to a board while painting, pinned the watercolor to the wall after completion, or both. They could also reflect the artist re-pinning the watercolor for multiple working sessions.[29]23

Signature

Unsigned.
24

Media and Support

Media: Cezanne employed graphite pencil and both transparent and opaque watercolor. His palette included eight pigments: three blues (indigo, cobalt blue, and ultramarine), one green (emerald green), two yellows (chrome yellow and an organic yellow, likely gamboge), one red (vermillion), and lead white.[30] Lead white, emerald green, chrome yellow, and vermillion are inherently opaque pigments, but through dilution one can achieve relative degrees of transparent color, the least transparent being lead white, used here in the sky and the mountain.[31] Several of these pigments correspond with those identified in four watercolor palettes owned by the artist.[32]25

Cezanne selected a midrange pencil, semi-dark and medium hard, similar to today’s No. 2 pencils, despite the availability of pencils in a range of gradations, from soft and deep black to hard and pale, silvery gray. This choice is consistent with Cezanne’s pencil selection for his sketchbook drawings.[33]26

Support: The paper support is slightly textured, moderately thick cream wove paper measuring 354 × 537 mm. It is a machine-made paper. Along the right edge there is a partial impressed watermark: CANSON & MONTGOLFIER VIDALON (fig. 5.13). The watermark dimensions are 6 × 210 mm. The full watermark might have been CANSON & MONTGOLFIER VIDALON-LES-ANNONAY ANCNE MANURE, or it could be the (very rare) CANSON & MONTGOLFIER –– VIDALON – LES – ANNONAY. The first watermark is similar to those in many of Cezanne’s watercolor supports from the 1880s and the 1890s, suggesting that Cezanne frequently used Canson & Montgolfier papers and favored their characteristics.[34]27

Top center has a small white torn spot on a tan, textured paper surface. From left to right across the middle, faint indented lettering runs horizontally; many characters are hard to read, and some on the right are backward. The composition is a long, narrow horizontal strip of brown paper with no people or additional objects.

Fig. 5.13


Raking-light detail of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885) showing the impressed watermark CANSON & MONTGOLFIER VIDALON (in reverse) on verso, right edge. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

There are many dark-brown shives and inclusions throughout the verso of the sheet (fig. 5.14), indicating some non-rag fiber content.[35] These either settled to one side of the paper during manufacture or darkened from contact with a deleterious backing, or both.
28

Top area shows a tan background with scattered, irregular light beige shapes. Moving downward, similar light beige patches fill the center and lower half, with a few small translucent rectangles attached near the left, right, and top edges. Bottom right has faint gray numerals “69 x 51,” and the lower center has a small gray mark; no people or distinct objects are visible. Single rectangular surface with mottled patterns throughout.

Fig. 5.14


Verso of Cezanne’s Montagne Sainte-Victoire (The Arc Valley) (c. 1885). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.199.

For practical and economic reasons, Cezanne purchased his paper à la main, that is, in quires of twenty-five sheets, and cut them down to size as needed.[36] Close examination reveals the lower edge is slightly jagged where Cezanne hand-trimmed a sheet of the standard size Jésus (70.2 × 52.5 cm) in half before painting.[37]29

Compositional Development

Cezanne started with a graphite sketch that delineated the built structures and landscape zones. He then applied the watercolor, which followed the drawing quite closely, allowing one stroke to dry before layering another on top. This allowed him to preserve the shapes of the brushstrokes and to build up forms without the colors bleeding. This differs from Cezanne’s later practice of applying watercolor in repeating, rectilinear patches. Cezanne alternated color with areas of unpainted paper. His transparent washes allowed his initial graphite marks to remain visible throughout the work; he also left a significant amount of his drawing uncovered.
30

Conservation History

The drawing was conserved in 2021 to reduce surface soil and discoloration, revert darkened lead white, and replace discolored corner fills. While there are no records of treatment prior to 2021, evidence of earlier treatment—including mended tears, filled corners, and reduced adhesive accretions—indicate the watercolor was conserved at an unknown date.[38]31

Condition Summary

The sheet was originally whiter and has darkened from light exposure and contact with a deleterious backing. The verso is significantly darker than the recto, except in places associated with emerald green application on the recto, which remain much lighter, possibly protected from a light-induced reaction with an acidic backing (see fig. 5.14).32

On the recto there are two subtle white outlines in the center of the sheet, measuring 3–4 cm in size, which relate to aqueous or solvent contact. Abrasion is evident along the right edge.33

Thin, translucent watercolor washes have faded throughout, most significantly from the top portion of the composition, and are now evident in a UV-L image (see Technical Summary, fig. 5.9). This fading, combined with the darkening of the paper support, has affected the original vibrancy of the composition.

Kristi Dahm
34

Paul Cézanne fils (1872–1947), Paris, to at least 1943.[39]35

Otto Wertheimer (died 1972), Paris.[40]36

Knoedler and Company, New York, until 1959;[41]37

Sold to Henry T. Mudd (died 1990), Los Angeles, Mar. 1959–Mar. 1964.[42]38

Sold, Knoedler Galleries, New York, 1964.[43]39

Marshall Field, IV (1916–1965), Chicago;40

Given to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1964.[44]41

Paris, Salon d’Automne, Grand Palais, Exposition rétrospective d’œuvres de Cézanne, Oct. 1–22, 1907, cat. 33, as Sainte-Victoire et l’arbre. 42

Paris, Renou & Colle, Aquarelles et baignades de Cézanne, June 3–17, 1935, no cat.43

Paris, Musée de l’Orangerie, Cézanne, May 20–Oct. 11, 1936, cat. 122 (ill.).44

Basel, Switzerland, Kunsthalle Basel, Paul Cézanne, Aug. 30–Oct. 12, 1936, cat. 72, as Montagne Ste. Victoire.45

New York, Valentine [Dudensing] Gallery, Cézanne Water-colours, Renoir Drawings, Jan. 4–30, 1937, cat. 2.46

Paris, Société des Artistes Indépendants, Grand Palais, Centenaire du peintre indépendant Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906, Mar. 17–Apr. 10, 1939, cat. 33, as Vallée de l’Arc.47

Lyon, France, Musée de Lyon, Palais Saint-Pierre, Centenaire de Paul Cézanne, May 7–June 18, 1939, cat. 49 (ill.), as La vallée de L’Arc, 1883–87. 48

London, Tate Gallery, Paul Cézanne: An Exhibition of Watercolours, Apr. 11─May 12, 1946, cat. 18, as The Valley of the Arc, 1888; Leicester, England, Museum and Art Gallery, May 18–June 8, 1946; Sheffield, England, Graves Art Gallery, June 15–July 6, 1946 (organized by the Arts Council of Great Britain). 49

Washington, DC, Phillips Collection, Cézanne: An Exhibition in Honor of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Phillips Collection, Feb. 27–Mar. 28, 1971, cat. 41 (ill.); Art Institute of Chicago, Apr. 17–May 16, 1971; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, June 1–July 3, 1971.50

Tübingen, Germany, Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, Jan. 16–Mar. 21, 1982, cat. 28 (ill.); Kunsthaus Zurich, Apr. 2–May 31, 1982.51

Düsseldorf, Germany, Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf, Alfred Flechtheim: Sammler, Kunsthändler, Verleger, Sept. 20–Nov. 1, 1987, cat. 22 (color ill.), as c. 1883–87; Münster, Germany, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Nov. 29, 1987–Jan. 17, 1988.[45]52

Aix-en-Provence, France, Musée Granet, Sainte-Victoire: Cézanne, June 16–Sept. 2, 1990, not in cat.53

Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland, Cézanne and Poussin: The Classical Vision in Landscape, Aug. 9–Oct. 21, 1990, cat. 42 (color ill.).54

Paris, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Cézanne, Sept. 25, 1995–Jan. 7, 1996, cat. 94 (color ill.), as La Montagne Sainte-Victoire, c. 1890; London, Tate Gallery, Feb. 8–Apr. 28, 1996, cat. 94 (color ill.), as The Arc Valley; Philadelphia Museum of Art, May 30–Sept. 1, 1996.55

Art Institute of Chicago, Cezanne, May 15–Sept. 5, 2022, cat. 111 (color ill.); London, Tate Modern, Oct. 5, 2022–Mar. 12, 2023 (Chicago only).56

Georges Rivière, Le maître Paul Cézanne (Floury, 1923), 215. 57

Élie Faure, Cézanne (Éditions Braun, 1936), n.p., fig. 12 (ill.). 58

Gino Severini, “Cézanne: A proposito dell’esposizione parigina,” Emporium 84, no. 502 (Oct. 1936): 197 (ill.).59

Lionello Venturi, Cézanne: Son art, son œuvre, 2 vols. (Éditions Paul Rosenberg, 1936), 1:253, no. 914; 2: pl. 284, no. 914 (ill.).60

Fritz Novotny, Cézanne und das Ende der wissenschaftlichen Perspektive (Anton Schroll, 1938), 11, 43; 203, no. 84.61

Lionello Venturi, Paul Cézanne: Water Colours (Bruno Cassirer, 1943), 27, 29; 33, fig. 20; 51, no. 20.62

Alfred Neumeyer, Cézanne: Drawings (Thomas Yoseloff, 1958), 59 (mentioned in connection with cat. 79).63

Robert William Ratcliffe, “Cézanne’s Working Methods and Their Theoretical Background” (PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, 1960), 17.64

Ellen Johnson, “Cézanne and a Pine Tree,” Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 21, no. 1 (Fall 1963): 22, fig. 7.65

Art Institute of Chicago, Annual Report (1963–1964), 21.66

“[Acquisitions des musées du monde entier],” La chronique des arts et de curiosité: Supplément à la Gazette des beaux-arts, no. 1153 (Feb. 1965): 63, no. 248 (ill.).67

Frank Elgar, Cézanne (Éditions Aimery Somogy, 1968), 248, 249 (ill.).68

John Maxon, The Art Institute of Chicago (H. N. Abrams, 1970), 163 (ill.).69

Adrien Chappuis, The Drawings of Paul Cézanne: A Catalogue Raisonné, vol. 1, Introduction and Catalogue (Thames and Hudson, 1973), 215 (in connection with no. 893).70

Anna Barskaya, Paul Cézanne (Aurora Art, 1975), 172 (ill.).71

Albert C. Barnes and Violetta de Mazia, The Art of Cézanne, 4th edition (Barnes Foundation, 1977), 94n88, 422, no. 199.72

Götz Adriani, Paul Cézanne: Das zeichnerische Werk, exh. cat. (Kunsthalle Tübingen, 1978), 331 (in connection with cat. 85).73

Harold Joachim, French Drawings and Sketchbooks of the Nineteenth Century, comp. Sandra Haller, vol. 2 (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 12, no. 1C2.74

Götz Adriani, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle, exh. cat. (DuMont, 1982), 64, 65, cat. 28.75

Serge Fievet, “Le mystère Cézanne,” in Musée Saint-Georges en Feronstrée, Cézanne, exh. cat. (Crédit Communal de Belgique, 1982), 46 (ill.).76

UP [Ursula Perucchi-Petri], “Paul Cézanne—Aquarelle. 2. April bis 31. Mai 1982,” Kunsthaus Zürich—Mitteilungsblatt der Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft, no. 2 (1982): 8 (ill.), as 1885–87.77

Anna Barskaya and Evgenia Georgievskaia, Paul Cézanne: Bilder aus Museen der Sowjetunion (Aurora Art, 1983), 135 (ill.).78

John Rewald, Paul Cézanne: The Watercolours; A Catalogue Raisonné (Little, Brown; Thames and Hudson, 1983), n.p., color pl. 28; 142–43, no. 241 (ill.).79

Joseph J. Rishel, “First Series of Mont Sainte-Victoire,” in Françoise Cachin et al., Cézanne, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1996), 255, 263–64, no. 94, 262 (color ill.).80

John House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire au grand pin,” in Stephanie Buck et al., The Courtauld Cézannes, exh. cat. (Courtauld Gallery; Paul Holberton, 2008), 87, fig. 49 (color ill.).81

Matthew Simms, Cézanne’s Watercolors: Between Drawing and Painting (Yale University Press, 2008), 102–3, fig. 70.82

Mark D. Mitchell, “A New Tradition: Cézanne, Demuth, and the Invention of Modern Watercolor,” in Joseph J. Rishel and Katherine Sachs, Cézanne and Beyond, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2009), 286–87, fig. 10.8 (color ill.).83

Martha Tedeschi, “A Departure—Freedom: The Impact of Europe, 1905–10,” in Martha Tedeschi with Kristi Dahm, John Marin’s Watercolors: A Medium for Modernism (Art Institute of Chicago; Yale University Press, 2010), 80, 81, fig. 70 (color ill.).84

Louis-Antoine Prat, Le dessin français au XIXe siècle (Somogy Éditions d’Art, 2011), 609, fig. 1459 (color ill.).85

Denis Coutagne, P. Cezanne, sur la colline de la Constance—Valcros (SPLA Pays d’Aix Territoires, 2015), 54 (color ill.), 57, https://www.paca.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/F09316P0073_dossier_coutagne.pdf. 86

Christopher Lloyd, Paul Cézanne: Drawings and Watercolours (Thames and Hudson, 2015), 210–11, 225, fig. 152 (color ill.).87

Didier Bonfort, ed., Dans les pas de P. Cezanne, Valcros—Bellevue—Montbriand (Sauvegarde des Paysages de Cezanne, 2016), 15 (color ill.), 18 (color ill.), http://paysagesdecezanne.org/Monographie_Valcros.pdf.88

Bettina Kaufmann, Paul Cezanne: Die Bilder seiner Ausstellung Paris 1907, besucht, betrachtet und beschrieben von Rainer Maria Rilke, ed. Lothar Schirmer (Schirmer; Mosel, 2018), 191, no. 33, fig. 33 (color ill.).89

Achim Borchardt-Hume et al., eds., Cezanne, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 2022), 36, 38, 52, 179 (color ill.), cat. 111.90

Walter Feilchenfeldt, Jayne Warman, and David Nash, eds., The Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne: An Online Catalogue Raisonné, accessed June 1, 2025, https://www.cezannecatalogue.com/catalogue/entry.php?id=1221, no. 1130 (color ill.).
91

Inscriptions and Distinguishing Marks

All confirmed May 15, 2023.92

Recto

None.93

Verso

Upper left corner, in graphite: 12 (fig. 5.15).
94

Across the top runs a horizontal off-white strip with a soft, frayed lower edge. Below it on a tan surface, a small gray mark resembling “12” sits slightly left of center. The surrounding area is mostly empty, showing faint lighter patches and tiny speckles in tan and gray.

Fig. 5.15


Inscription, cat. 5.

Top edge, center, in graphite: covered by hinge.95

Lower edge, center, in graphite, upside down: 1 Bis [estimated], European hand (fig. 5.16).
96

Light tan paper fills the frame, with lighter areas at the top and a mid-tone brown horizontal band across the center. Near the center-right, gray pencil handwriting reads “1 Bis,” with the “1” on the left and “Bis” continuing to the right. Small brown specks and faint smudges appear across the surface, especially toward the middle and lower areas.

Fig. 5.16


Inscription, cat. 5.

Lower right quadrant, in graphite, framer’s marks: 69 × 51 (fig. 5.17).
97

Top to bottom: light brown paper fills the frame, with subtle lighter bands and small specks. Across the center, gray handwritten text reads “69 x 51,” with the characters spanning the middle area left to right. The lower portion continues the same light brown paper with a lighter horizontal band. No people or other objects are present.

Fig. 5.17


Inscription, cat. 5.

Entry by

Notes

  1. Denis Coutagne, P. Cezanne, sur la colline de la Constance—Valcros (SPLA Pays d’Aix Territoires, 2015), 74. Coutagne includes numerous photographs of the site, showing how significantly the view had changed over the decades. See also Denis Coutagne, “Cezanne sur la colline de la Constance—Valcros,” Société Paul Cezanne, Nov. 25, 2016, https://www.societe-cezanne.fr/2016/11/25/cezanne-sur-la-colline-de-la-constance-valcros/.
  2. Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 57.
  3. Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 35.
  4. Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 41–62. For two examples painted on this earlier occasion, see Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 36–39 (nos. 126 and 127 in Walter Feilchenfeldt, Jayne Warman, and David Nash, eds., The Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne: An Online Catalogue Raisonné, accessed June 1, 2025, https://www.cezannecatalogue.com [hereafter FWN]).
  5. Coutagne (P. Cezanne, 100) counts a total of thirty-seven paintings of the Montagne Sainte-Victoire, of which twelve were painted on the Valcros–La Constance hill and fourteen in Les Lauves. Only a single painting from the artist’s earlier years depicts the mountain as seen from the Jas de Bouffan. For this earlier painting, see FWN 54.
  6. These are FWN 184, 185, 234, 235, 273, 1129, 1130, and 1131. Other closely related works are FWN 1128 (taken from a slightly lower vantage point than the others, which explains the missing pine) and FWN 1126-TA (a detailed study of the pine branches).
  7. For a detailed comparison of the three works, see Joseph J. Rishel, “First Series of Mont Sainte-Victoire,” in Françoise Cachin et al., Cézanne, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1996), 263–64; John House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire au grand pin,” in The Courtauld Cézannes, ed. Stephanie Buck et al., exh. cat. (Courtauld Gallery; Paul Holberton, 2008), 87; and Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 49. For comparisons of the palettes of the two paintings and the watercolor here under discussion, see Technical Summary in the Technical Report.
  8. Venturi dates the watercolor 1883–87 and the paintings 1885–87; see Lionello Venturi, Cézanne: Son art, son œuvre (Éditions Paul Rosenberg, 1936), 1:253, no. 914, 1:162, no. 454, and 1:163, no. 455. As Rewald points out in his entries, Venturi had planned in his never-published, revised version to adjust the dates for all three works to 1886–87, whereas Rewald himself dates the watercolor to c. 1885, the Phillips painting to 1886–87, and the Courtauld painting to c. 1887; see John Rewald, Paul Cézanne: The Watercolours; A Catalogue Raisonné (Little, Brown; Thames and Hudson, 1983), 142, no. 241; and John Rewald, The Paintings of Paul Cézanne: A Catalogue Raisonné (Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 1:398, no. 598, 1:399, no. 599.
  9. On “intermediate stage,” see House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire,” 87. See also Matthew Simms, Cézanne’s Watercolors: Between Drawing and Painting (Yale University Press, 2008), 103; and Louis-Antoine Prat, Le dessin français au XIXe siècle (Somogy Éditions d’Art, 2011), 609. On the watercolor as a preparatory study for the paintings, see Rewald, The Watercolours, 142–43, no. 241; and Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 55.
  10. Simms, Cézanne’s Watercolors, 103. With regard to the works executed in this region—which frequently exhibit close similarities even in different mediums—Rishel stresses that drawings and watercolors cannot simply be classified as preliminary stages. See Rishel, “First Series,” 259–60.
  11. See Rewald (The Watercolours, 142), who calls this an “almost ‘scenic’ device.”
  12. On repoussoir, see Götz Adriani, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle, exh. cat. (DuMont, 1982), 65; and Rishel, “First Series,” 263. On the accompanying decorative quality, see Lionello Venturi, Paul Cézanne: Water Colours

    (Bruno Cassirer, 1943), 27; Adriani, Aquarelle, 65; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; and, with regard to FWN 234, Richard Verdi, Cézanne and Poussin: The Classical Vision in Landscape, exh. cat. (National Galleries of Scotland; Lund Humphries, 1990), 145. On Japan, see Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; and Rishel, “First Series,” 263.

  13. Hidemichi Tanaka, “Cézanne and ‘Japonisme,’” Artibus et Historiae 22, no. 44 (2001): 216, as well as 218, figs. 23 and 24. My thanks to Paul Smith for referring me to Tanaka’s article.
  14. House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire,” 87.
  15. For a detailed discussion of Cezanne and Poussin, see Theodore Reff, “Cézanne et Poussin,” Art de France 3 (1963): 302–10; and Verdi, Cézanne and Poussin. On the composition here under discussion, see Verdi, Cézanne and Poussin, 145; Rishel, “First Series,” 259, 263; House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire,” 87; and Coutagne, P. Cezanne, esp. 49.
  16. House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire,” 87.
  17. Duncan Phillips, “The Collector’s View,” in Cézanne: An Exhibition in Honor of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Phillips Collection, exh. cat. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1971), 30.
  18. Verdi, Cézanne and Poussin, 28–29, figs. 11 and 12.
  19. House, “La Montagne Sainte-Victoire,” 84.
  20. See Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 21, 48.
  21. On this aspect, see also Coutagne, P. Cezanne, 48.
  22. For more on the relationship of Cezanne’s paintings to tapestries, see cat. 8.
  23. Rishel, “First Series,” 264.
  24. Salon d’Automne, Grand Palais, Exposition rétrospective d’œuvres de Cézanne, exh. cat. (n.p., 1907), 249.
  25. Bettina Kaufmann, Paul Cezanne: Die Bilder seiner Ausstellung Paris 1907, besucht, betrachtet und beschrieben von Rainer Maria Rilke, ed. Lothar Schirmer (Schirmer; Mosel, 2018), 10.
  26. This exhibition at Bernheim-Jeune traveled in part to the Galerie Paul Cassirer, Berlin, later that year (Sept. 30–Oct. 18), which helps explain why so few watercolors were on view at the Salon d’Automne. I am grateful to Jayne Warman for pointing this out.
  27. Julius Meier-Graefe, Paul Cézanne (R. Piper, 1910); and Ambroise Vollard, Paul Cézanne (Ambroise Vollard, 1914).
  28. Though the techniques used to analyze the pigments cannot discriminate between the two types of copper-arsenate pigments available in the nineteenth century—emerald green and Scheele’s green—the former is more likely, since the use of Scheele’s green is rare and emerald green has been confirmed in Cezanne’s paintings at other institutions. See Francesca Rosi et al., “A Non-Invasive XRF Study Supported by Multivariate Statistical Analysis and Reflectance FTIR to Assess the Composition of Modern Painting Materials,” Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 71, no. 5 (2009): 1655–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2008.06.011; and Faith Zieske, “An Investigation of Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors with Emphasis on Emerald Green,” Book and Paper Annual 14 (1995): 105–15. However, recent investigations have further highlighted the complexities related to the identification of copper-arsenic compounds. See Leonardo Pantoja Munoz, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Revisiting the Synthesis, Characterization, Degradation and the Intricate Relationship Between Scheele’s Green and Emerald Green,” Heritage Science 12, no. 94 (2024): https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01192-7.
  29. “Multiple pinholes in the corners—there are seven of them in the top right corner alone—suggest that Cezanne created the picture in several successive sittings.” Fabienne Ruppen, catalogue entry for The Coach House (La remise á Château Noir), in Cézanne in the Barnes Foundation, ed. André Dombrowski, Nancy Ireson, and Sylvie Patry, exh. cat. (Rizzoli Electa; Barnes Foundation, 2021), 346.
  30. The presence of the pigments was inferred using the following methods: indigo (HSI); cobalt blue (XRF, HSI); ultramarine (HSI); emerald green (XRF, HSI, FTIR); chrome yellow (XRF); organic yellow, likely gamboge (inferred from the absence of inorganic elements in the XRF spectrum that could be providing the observed color and visual observation of a brittle yellow film characteristic of the colorant); vermillion (XRF, HSI); and lead white (XRF, HSI, FTIR). See Clara Granzotto and Maria Kokkori, “1964-199_Cezanne_ARP_XRF,” Dec. 4, 2023; and Giovanni Verri, “1964-199_Cezanne_FTIR_HSI,” Jan. 8, 2021, on file in the department of Conservation and Science, Art Institute of Chicago.
  31. For pigment analysis of Cezanne’s watercolors in other collections, see Faith Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors: His Choice of Pigments and Papers,” in The Broad Spectrum, ed. Harriet Stratis and Brit Salvesen (Archetype, 2002), 89–101; Elisabeth Reissner, “Transparency of Means: ‘Drawing’ and Colour in Cézanne’s Watercolours and Oil Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery,” in Buck, Courtauld Cézannes, 49–71; and Laura Neufeld, “Belle Formule: Materials and Methods in Cézanne Watercolors,” in Cézanne Drawing, ed. Jodi Hauptman and Samantha Friedman, exh. cat. (Museum of Modern Art, 2021), 203–4.
  32. Maria Kokkori, “Cezanne’s Materials,” app. 2 in Cezanne, ed. Achim Borchardt-Hume et al. (Art Institute of Chicago, 2022), 228–29.
  33. Marjorie Shelley, “Cézanne as Draftsman: Sketchbooks and Graphite Drawings,” in Dita Amory et al., Madame Cézanne, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2014), 118.
  34. For the former watermark, see Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors,” 95–97. Information on the latter watermark was provided by Fabienne Ruppen, email message to author, May 10, 2024. For more on these papers, see cat. 14.
  35. Analysis of nine Cezanne watercolor papers at the Philadelphia Museum of Art found soft- and hardwood pulp and grass-fiber additives. See Zieske, “An Investigation of Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors with Emphasis on Emerald Green,” 98.
  36. “It stands to reason that he bought his drawing paper à la main, that is in batches of twenty-five sheets, since it would have been significantly less expensive and more efficient than purchasing single sheets.” Fabienne Ruppen, “Mapping Cezanne Drawings and Watercolors on Paper from Émile Desloye,” in Actes des journées de’étude “Les Filigranes, une marge á explorer” (organisée le 20 Octobre 2018) et “Histoire de papier et de la papeterie—Actualités de la recherche” (organisée le 11 octobre 2019), ed. Claude Laroque, Valérie Lee, and Maryse Pierrard (Site de l’HICSA, 2020), 216, https://hicsa.pantheonsorbonne.fr/sites/default/files/2023-09/livre_laroque_2020_05.pdf.
  37. My thanks to Fabienne Ruppen for identifying the standard size used for this work. As Ruppen states, “standards for French paper formats … varied dependent on region, mill, or brand.” See Fabienne Ruppen, technical notes, “Cezanne Works on Loose Sheets at the AIC,” unpublished manuscript, Nov. 4, 2020. See also Fabienne Ruppen, “On Margins and Versos: The Hidden Interrelationships Among Cézanne’s Works on Paper,” in Cezanne: Metamorphoses, ed. Alexander B. Eiling, exh. cat. (Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe; Prestel, 2017), 96n36. The standard dimensions certified by the King’s Council for Canson & Montgolfier for the format Grand Jésus were 70.2 × 52.5 cm in 1741. Marie-Hélène Reynaud, Une histoire de papier: Les papeteries Canson et Montgolfier (Papeteries Canson et Montgolifier, 1989), 117.
  38. Mary Broadway, treatment report, May 20, 2021, on file in the department of Paper Conservation, Art Institute of Chicago.
  39. Salon d’Automne, Exposition rétrospective, cat. 33; Georges Rivière, Le maître Paul Cézanne (Floury, 1923), 215; Élie Faure, Cézanne (Éditions Braun, 1936), n.p., fig. 12; Gino Severini, “Cézanne: A proposito dell’esposizione parigina,” Emporium 84, no. 502 (Oct. 1936): 197 (ill.); Venturi, Cézanne, 1:253, no. 914; Musée de l’Orangerie, Cézanne, exh. cat. (Musée de l’Orangerie, 1936), cat. 122 (ill.); Kunsthalle Basel, Paul Cézanne, exh. cat. (n.p., 1936), cat. 72; Fritz Novotny, Cézanne und das Ende der wissenschaftlichen Perspektive (Anton Schroll, 1938), no. 84; Joseph Billiet, Centenaire de Paul Cézanne, exh. cat. (Musée de Lyon, Palais Saint-Pierre, 1939), cat. 49, pl. 16; Société des Artistes Indépendants, Centenaire du peintre indépendant Paul Cézanne, exh. cat. (Société des Artistes Indépendants, 1939), cat. 33; Venturi, Paul Cézanne: Water Colours, 27; Phillips Collection, Cézanne, 30; Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, exh. cat. (Kunstalle Tübingen, 1982), cat. 28; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Françoise Cachin et al., Cézanne, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1996), 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130.
  40. Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Cachin et al., Cézanne, 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130. Likely acquired between 1943, when Venturi mentions the watercolor as still in the possession of Cezanne fils, and 1946, when it is listed as “Lent anonymously” in Tate Gallery and Arts Council of Great Britain, Paul Cézanne: An Exhibition of Watercolours, exh. cat. (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1946), cat. 18.
  41. Phillips Collection, Cézanne, 30; Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, cat. 28; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Cachin et al., Cézanne, 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130 (for date).
  42. Phillips Collection, Cézanne, 30; Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, cat. 28; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Cachin et al., Cézanne, 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130.
  43. Phillips Collection, Cézanne, 30; Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, cat. 28; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Cachin et al., Cézanne, 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130 (for date).
  44. Phillips Collection, Cézanne, 30; Kunsthalle Tübingen, Paul Cézanne: Aquarelle 1866–1906, cat. 28; Rewald, The Watercolours, 142, no. 241; Cachin et al., Cézanne, 255, cat. 94; and FWN 1130.
  45. The catalogue identifies the Chicago watercolor as cat. 14 (Montagne S. Victoire I, lent by Private Collection, Berlin) or 16 (Montagne S. Victoire II, for sale) in the exhibition Cézanne: Aquarelle und Zeichnungen; Bronzen von Edgar Degas, Berlin, Galerie Flechtheim, May 19–June 16, 1927. Since this work was at that point still in the possession of Paul Cézanne fils, Paris, at least the first option seems unlikely.

How to Cite

Entry by Paul Smith; Technical Report by Kim Muir with Giovanni Verri, “Cat. 5 Montagne Saint-Victoire, c. 1885,” in Cezanne Paintings and Watercolors at the Art Institute of Chicago, ed. Gloria Groom and Kim Muir (Art Institute of Chicago, 2026), https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865593251/10. © 2026 by The Art Institute of Chicago. This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Download printable PDF

Sign up for our enewsletter to receive updates.
Learn more

Image actions

Share

Suggested Terms