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

Top area shows faint clusters of leaves in pale green and gray against a light background. Moving down, loosely defined trees and shrubs fill the left and right, with a larger, darker green tree arching from the right side toward the center. In the lower half, a wide light-brown path curves from left to right, edged with soft patches of pink, yellow, and green. Elements are spaced with the path in the foreground and foliage receding into the middle and upper areas.
Cat. 6

Road in Provence
c. 1885
Watercolor and graphite on tan wove paper; 50.2 × 50.4 cm (19 13/16 × 19 7/8 in.)
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1933.1221
FWN 1144

To capture this view, Cezanne stood on a wide path, which spreads out in the foreground over almost the entire width of the paper and recedes through dense vegetation into the unknown. A vague allusion to Montagne Sainte-Victoire appears in the background. The work was thus carried out from a spot near Aix-en-Provence, but the precise location is impossible to identify. Although there is no other work on paper, nor any painting, depicting the exact same bit of landscape, the motif is typical of Cezanne’s oeuvre, as he devoted numerous works to sous-bois (underbrush) and paths or roads, frequently in combination.1

It may have been Camille Pissarro who aroused Cezanne’s interest in roads. The two artists often painted together side by side in the Oise Valley, north of Paris, in the 1870s.[1] Pissarro’s works tend to have more evidence of civilization: His roads are more often lined with buildings, and they are usually peopled (fig. 6.1). At the same time, the two artists’ works reveal distinct compositional and stylistic parallels. For one thing, Pissarro frequently used the shadows of trees or people to structure the surfaces of his roads. This is also seen in Cezanne’s Road in Provence, as two horizontal shadows traverse the path. The one closer to the foreground is so prominent that it is unclear at first whether it is a steplike drop in the terrain or, perhaps more likely, the shadow of the verdant tree at the right edge. As indications of bright sunlight, these shadows support an observation made by the art historian Barbara Reise, who commented, in connection with an exhibition of Cezanne’s watercolors in New York in 1963, that what made Road in Provence so captivating was its unusual “sunniness of coloring and gentleness of the predominant curves, creating an exuberant warmth, an affirmation of nature’s splendor.”[2]2

Top shows a blue sky with scattered white clouds. Across the middle, dense green trees and shrubs line rolling hills behind a small village of stone houses with brown and gray roofs; a white house near center has dark shutters and a thin wisp of smoke from its chimney. In the foreground, a pale tan dirt path curves through green grass where two adults with light skin stand beside a small light‑skinned child, and nearby two seated figures, one in blue and one in brown, face each other. Smaller figures walk along the path toward the houses, showing increasing distance from foreground to background.

Fig. 6.1


Camille Pissarro (French, 1830–1903). The Hermitage at Pontoise, c. 1867. Oil on canvas; 150.3 × 200 cm (59 3/16 × 78 3/4 in.). Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, Thannhauser Collection, Gift, Justin K. Thannhauser, 1978, 78.2514.67.

Also like Pissarro, when Cezanne set about depicting a road, he often chose a spot where it curved. While Pissarro occasionally included its further course into the distance, Cezanne tended, throughout his career, to confine himself to a more limited range of vision. His scenes, moreover, often exhibit an almost deliberate obstruction to perspectival depth. In a painting dated to about 1870–71 in the collection of the Städel Museum in Frankfurt am Main, for instance, a tree growing in the middle of the road not only blocks the view into the distance but would also hinder physical passage (fig. 6.2). In several paintings dated to the 1890s and later, the road or path disappears abruptly in dense undergrowth.[3] Art historian Joseph Rishel’s description of one such composition applies aptly to Chicago’s watercolor as well: “The most curious thing is the way the road, so ample and broad at the bottom of the canvas, is brought to such a resolved point just as it enters the forest. It is as if, in fact, it need not proceed any farther than what we can see, its form completely absorbed into the composition. There is no sense of movement into deeper space, nor for that matter, any relief or escape.”[4]3

Top area contains dense dark-green trees against a dark, nearly black background. Across the middle, a light tan path curves from left toward the center, bordered by medium to dark green bushes and small trees; the right side is dominated by a large gray and tan rock face occupying roughly a third of the width. The bottom foreground is mostly dark, with broad shadowed bands on the path; no people or animals are present.

Fig. 6.2


Paul Cezanne (French, 1839–1906). Landscape: Road with Trees in Rocky Mountains, c. 1870–71 (FWN 56). Oil on canvas; 54 × 65.2 cm (21 1/4 × 25 11/16 in.). Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, SG 458.

The sheet on which Road in Provence was painted shows signs of trimming. Cezanne primarily used drawing papers in the standard French Raisin or (rarely) Jésus format (approximately 48 × 63 cm and approximately 55 × 72 cm, respectively), usually cutting the sheet in half, or sometimes in quarters. When his watercolors have irregular dimensions, as in this work (50.2 × 50.4 cm), it can be assumed that someone else trimmed the paper later. Early dealers, for example, had drawings trimmed in order to center the composition on the sheet’s surface.[5] This intervention may well have slightly altered the depiction itself. Road in Provence is (unusually for Cezanne) nearly square, and brushstrokes on the left and right edges have been cut off (see Support in the Technical Report). Only small parts of the drawing seem to have been removed, however, as borders that Cezanne made in pencil around the composition are still intact (see Compositional Development in the Technical Report). The trimming shifted the landscape slightly on the surface of the sheet but does not appear to have had an adverse intrinsic effect, as the vanishing point remains in the middle of the shrubbery. 4

The faded and (in the case of the emerald green, of which the artist made liberal use) browned pigments further complicate the spatial orientation (see Condition Summary in the Technical Report).[6] In this work, compared to many of his other watercolors, Cezanne was relatively restrained in his application of paint, which is for the most part in a single layer, and never more than two. All the more deliberate is his distribution of the various pigments. The yellows and reds seen almost exclusively in the foreground (although all but completely faded) would have originally made this area stand out far more prominently. And while today the zones of color look isolated from one another in places, in Cezanne’s time they would have tied the pictorial elements together more distinctly. The yellowed paper, moreover, lends the color composition an evenly subdued look. Faith Zieske, a former paper conservator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, provided striking evidence of how much the present-day appearance of Cezanne’s watercolors differs from their original state due to the combined changes in the paper and the pigments brought about by age and exposure to light.[7] In her pioneering research on Cezanne’s choice of watercolor pigments and paper supports, she elaborated on the poor quality of some of the artists’ papers introduced during the late nineteenth century. The industrialization of the French paper mills earlier in that century led to a significant rise in production, which resulted in a shortage of rags that was compensated for by the addition of non-rag, such as softwood, fibers that had a stronger tendency to yellow with age. Zieske demonstrated how in Cezanne’s watercolors this discoloring of the paper sometimes “caused a dramatic tonal shift in the large areas of unpainted paper within the composition and has masked the subtle nuances of transparent color washes.”[8] Chicago’s watercolor would thus have appeared far more luminous to anyone visiting the artist’s studio right after he had returned from his plein-air painting excursion (see Condition Summary in the Technical Report). 5

The work’s present state may account for the fact that it has hitherto received less notice than the other watercolors in the Art Institute of Chicago’s collection. Yet it also presents us with an opportunity: Thanks to the faded pigments, the underlying pencil drawing is much more prominent, creating favorable conditions for a thorough analysis of the working process.[9] In his catalogue raisonné of the watercolors, John Rewald observed of this work that, apart from laying out the composition, Cezanne used the pencil primarily to define the shadows, hence preparing “for the next step, that of adding color.” Rewald continued: “Since he applied rather light tones, he achieved the desired darker areas wherever his pencil had already provided shadings, so that even with a slight touch of watercolor the sensation of shadow could be conveyed.”[10] But the artist did not limit the pencil to preparatory purposes. On the contrary, a reflected-infrared image (see fig. 6.5) shows evenly distributed hatching, which suggests that he assigned the graphite a pigment-enhancing “color value” of its own. In view of the close interplay between the drawing mediums, Matthew Simms aptly referred to Cezanne’s watercolors as a “hybrid medium,” and Carol Armstrong likewise described two equivalent components: “Instead of separate layers, they [the pencil marks] suggest a threading of pencil through and through, and a reiterative, intricated, dialogic relation between graphite lines and watercolor veils.”[11]6

To a degree, the superimposition of pencil and brushstrokes in Road in Provence is reminiscent of the etching medium. We know of only five instances in which Cezanne carried out a work on a copper plate.[12] They date from the years 1872–73, when he, Pissarro, and Armand Guillaumin experimented with the printing press belonging to their shared friend and patron, the amateur artist Dr. Paul Gachet, in Auvers-sur-Oise.[13] Pissarro, for his part, became immersed in a wide range of printing techniques. A juxtaposition of the second state of his Wooded Lane at Pontoise (fig. 6.3) with Cezanne’s watercolor proves highly instructive. In a manner comparable to our work, a path nearly as wide as the image itself spans the foreground before curving into the trees and bushes. Two figures in the middle ground (further elaborated in later states) merge with their surroundings. Through the combination of etching and aquatint, needle and brush, Pissarro achieved a haziness that draws the viewer’s attention back to the materiality of the medium. Richard Shiff similarly referred to the isolated, accentuated brushstrokes in Cezanne’s landscape paintings as “fuzz” and compared their effect to the graininess of early photographs: “Cézanne’s touch thus blurs the image by approximating contours and also by compressing the space between foreground and background.”[14] In the transparent watercolor medium, pencil lines and brushstrokes—the adjacent ones and especially the superimposed ones—serve not to condense the spatial layers but to blur them in an aquatint-like manner. For the viewer, however, the sense of being “pulled into” the landscape remains as strong as ever. 7

Top: black-and-gray foliage and tree branches fill the upper area. Center background: a small cluster of buildings with rounded domes and one tall spire is partly hidden by trees. Left and right: large tree trunks and a steep, wooded slope border a winding road, with rocks and shrubs along the edges. Bottom foreground: a wide, light-gray dirt path begins near the viewer and narrows as it leads toward the distant buildings.

Fig. 6.3


Camille Pissarro. Wooded Lane at Pontoise, 1879. Aquatint with etching in black on ivory laid paper, second state of six; image: 16.1 × 21.3 cm (6 3/8 × 8 7/16 in.); sheet: 20.3 × 27 cm (8 × 10 11/16 in.). The Art Institute of Chicago, John H. Wrenn Memorial Collection, 1960.723.

Cezanne’s use of watercolor and graphite also provides the only clue as to when he might have executed Road in Provence. After all, the broad identification of the motif as in the vicinity of Aix is hardly helpful, since the artist repeatedly spent time in that area throughout his life. But his loose handling of the pencil and brush exhibits a freedom based on the kind of certainty that only comes with time. Nevertheless, the pigments have been applied in shorter strokes and more compact patches than in later watercolors.[15] These stylistic attributes may have been the determining factors in dating Road in Provence to around the mid-1880s, as suggested by Lionello Venturi in the first Cezanne catalogue raisonné, published in 1936, John Rewald in his 1983 catalogue raisonné of the watercolors, and Walter Feilchenfeldt, Jayne Warman, and David Nash in the online catalogue raisonné that has included the works on paper since 2019.[16]

Fabienne Ruppen
8

Technical Summary

Road in Provence is primarily a study of light and shadow. Cezanne painted shadows extending across a road at regular intervals, receding into the distance, as bright sunlight shines through trees from the right. At left, Cezanne extended the shadows up onto bushes and foliage along the roadside bathed in light. He applied individual strokes of watercolor over an extensive graphite drawing, leaving a large portion of white paper in reserve both to indicate reflected light and as a framing device around the perimeter. Originally vibrant in color and contrast, the watercolor washes have faded and the paper has darkened, diminishing the work’s intensity over time.9

Cezanne began with a graphite drawing, which is revealed in an infrared image (fig. 6.4). The drawing emphasizes shadow passages with minimal contour lines to indicate major forms. Cezanne began sketching lightly. With intermittent, broken lines, he defined the contours of the tree at right, the road, the bushes at left, and the shapes of long shadows, then returned with more assertive marks to emphasize select contours. He worked slowly to build up the composition and, as was typical for his practice, did not use an eraser to make adjustments in the graphite sketch.[17] The drawing seen in the infrared image can be compared with the watercolor in the layered image viewer (fig. 6.11).10

Top to bottom: the upper half shows scattered rounded tree canopies in light gray, with a large, darker canopy on the right. The middle section has clustered trees, and on the right a curved trunk connects to the large canopy. The lower half features a wide, pale path that sweeps from the lower right toward the center, bordered by darker, uneven ground and bushes; all tones are shades of gray and white.

Fig. 6.4


Reflected-infrared image (Sinar rePro, 0.9–1.05 μm) of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing Cezanne’s graphite drawing. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

Cezanne used energetic zigzag and looping marks throughout (figs. 6.5–6.6), drawn rapidly without lifting pencil from paper. Cezanne made these marks using the broad side of the pencil tip. He drew very lightly to pick up a slight surface texture. In Cezanne’s oeuvre, such marks have been categorized as “loops and spirals designating foliage, and scribbled patches indicating shadows.”[18] In the tree at right Cezanne overlapped his loops and zigzags densely, as shorthand for the tree foliage seen in shadow. 
11

Figs. 6.5–6.6

Top area shows scattered medium-gray smudges and short diagonal strokes on a light gray background. Moving left to right and downward, clusters of small, repeated gray marks overlap with several curving lines, including a darker arc that sweeps through the lower right. Bottom left has a pale, blocky patch, while the lower center to right features lighter smears with fewer marks.

Fig. 6.5


Reflected-infrared image (Sinar rePro, 0.9–1.05 μm) of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing looping and zigzagging pencil marks used to shade the tree. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

At the top left, a large soft gray blotch sits on a light background. From upper center toward the right, a set of medium-gray looped lines runs diagonally, with faint scratchy lines and two small rounded smudges near the lower left and lower center. A faint loop appears at the lower right, and the marks are small compared to the wide, mostly blank area.

Fig. 6.6


Reflected-infrared image (Sinar rePro, 0.9–1.05 μm) of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing looping pencil mark drawn quickly in the sky without lifting pencil from paper. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

To model his forms with light and shadow, Cezanne layered colored washes over the graphite drawing, using painted line minimally. In the tree at right, Cezanne layered transparent cobalt blue, emerald green,[19] and red madder washes over his drawing, concentrating the watercolor in areas of deepest shade. The wash and graphite together function to convey the rounded, lower side of the canopy of leaves.[20] White paper and thin emerald green washes signify light reflected off the leaves above. Cezanne applied thin lines of deep indigo blue and purple (the latter mixed on the palette from indigo and madder) along the left edge of the tree trunk, the main branches, and the leaf canopy, helping to solidify the edges shaded from the light. The tree’s long shadow extends across the road in a horizontal band of yellow ochre, red madder, emerald green, and cobalt blue, following Cezanne’s looping pencil marks. At the left, the shadow falls onto bushes along the roadside. At the juncture of light and shade, conveyed through white paper and colored washes, the edge of the shadow articulates the bushes’ organic, curving forms. Single, arcing pencil lines guide Cezanne’s watercolor applications here (fig. 6.7).12

Top-left and most of the background are light tan with faint specks. Across the middle, running diagonally from upper center to lower right, is a cluster of soft gray shapes with uneven edges. To the right of the center are small patches of green and light blue, and near the lower right are touches of purple and pink. These colored areas are small compared to the large tan background.

Fig. 6.7


Detail of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing arcing graphite lines guiding the shadow placement at the center of the left edge. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

Cezanne applied his watercolor primarily in discrete patches of wash, as seen in the lower left quadrant (fig. 6.8). The uneven or jagged edges of the color patches indicate that he brushed repeated strokes of color side by side, allowing the wash to spread laterally and merge into one larger patch of watercolor. He did so with one dip of the brush, working from left to right, so the color is strongest at the left and most dilute at the right. Cezanne let the patches of watercolor dry before overlapping with another color. This precaution prevented contaminating one wash with another and preserved vivid, transparent hues while generating color variation through overlap and optical mixing. 
13

Top area shows a light beige surface with scattered, irregular patches of pale pink and tan. Moving downward and left-to-right, larger soft shapes in green, teal, peach, and gray overlap, with muted mauve areas near the center. The lower portion has more concentrated, layered bands of teal and gray along the bottom edge, with small pink segments interspersed; shapes range from small spots to medium blocks of color.

Fig. 6.8


Detail of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing patches of transparent color at lower left. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221. 

In the center of the composition, Cezanne painted a patch of (once) bright chrome yellow (23 cm from left, 21.5 cm from top) (fig. 6.9), a pigment that appears nowhere else in the work. Cezanne placed the yellow patch strategically among the blues and greens of the trees to guide the viewer’s eye inward, in the direction of the receding road. Cezanne used the same color device in his oil painting Quarry at Bibémus from 1898–1900 (fig. 6.10), placing a single, isolated patch of yellow at the center of the composition. In Road in Provence the effect has diminished over time, as light exposure has caused the chrome yellow to fade and the paper to darken.[21]  Against the fresh, initially white paper, the yellow patch would have stood out strongly. 14

Light tan background with faint, scattered marks. Top area has light gray squiggles and small tan and soft orange spots. Middle area shows a pale yellow diagonal patch with nearby light gray smudges; the left side has small green patches and short gray strokes, and the right side has a small lavender-pink patch. Bottom area includes darker gray scribbles and a beige smudge.

Fig. 6.9


Detail of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing a single stroke of (now faded) chrome yellow at center. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221. 

Top area shows a blue sky with soft patches of lighter blue. Centered below, a tall, slender tree with a rounded green canopy rises above a band of mixed green foliage. Mid to lower sections feature orange-brown rocky walls and sloping shapes extending left to right, with darker green bushes in the foreground; the tree is the tallest element, while the shrubs are smaller and clustered around the rocky forms.

Fig. 6.10


Paul Cezanne. Quarry at Bibémus, 1898–1900 (FWN 318). Oil on canvas; 65.4 × 54.6 cm (25 3/4 × 21 1/2 in.). The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri, Gift of Henry W. and Marion H. Bloch, 2015.13.7.

Due to the transparency of the watercolor, it cannot always be determined which color is over or under another. One cannot determine whether Cezanne worked sequentially, applying one color at a time across the composition, or back and forth between colors. There is little variation to Cezanne’s paint application; he did not manipulate his washes through blotting, wiping, or dripping, nor did he pursue expressive or atmospheric effects through the medium. Instead, he achieved his desired “sensations,” or emotional and expressive outcomes, through a limited range of wash applications. 15

Layered Image Viewer

cez 1933 0001 Background
Natural light
At the top, light gray clusters of rounded shapes made with short strokes fill the space. Across the middle, the right side shows a large darker gray mass bordered by a curved arching line, while the left side has smaller grouped shapes and scattered marks. Toward the bottom, a broad pale area stretches left to right with darker gray shading along its edges; no people, buildings, or text are visible, and tones range from white to dark gray.
Reflected infrared (0.9–1.05 µm)

Fig. 6.11

Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221. Interactive image. Use the icons at lower right and the slide bar to compare conservation images and overlays.

Signature

None.16

Media and Support

Media: Cezanne drew with a medium-hard, medium-black graphite pencil similar to today’s standard No. 2 pencils.[22] For this watercolor Cezanne used a palette of six pigments, including red madder lake, yellow ochre, chrome yellow, emerald green, cobalt blue, and indigo.[23] He created a purple hue by mixing indigo and madder together on his palette. The distinct blue and red pigment particles are clearly visible under magnification (figs. 6.12a–b).[24] Several of these pigments correspond to those identified in four watercolor palettes owned by the artist.[25]17

Figs. 6.12a–b

Top section shows a beige surface with dense dark gray specks and streaks running mostly left to right. In the middle, clusters of light blue and pink specks appear, intersected by thin pale lines crossing diagonally. The lower right has a lighter beige area with fewer colored spots and some dark patches, while the lower left mixes blue and pink specks on beige. A red scale bar labeled 120 µm is positioned at the bottom right.

Fig. 6.12a


Microscope detail at 500× of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing a purple mixed from pink madder lake and indigo blue, over black graphite. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

Top-to-bottom: the upper area shows soft patches of pale green, blue, and gray forming tree canopies against a tan background. The middle to lower area is dominated by a wide, light tan path that curves from left to right, bordered by clusters of green and gray foliage. At the right edge, a dark, tall tree shape stands near the path, with a small red square mark beside it. No people or buildings are visible.

Fig. 6.12b


Map showing where photomicrograph was taken.

Cezanne concentrated bright red madder lake washes (now faded) across the foreground as seen under ultraviolet illumination (fig. 6.13). Microscope examination of the heaviest applications shows a dense red medium with a granular, lighter pink layer on top. It appears this top layer of colorant has begun to fade. In a Hirox photomicrograph taken of the pigment, round white particles (either a substrate used in the production of lake pigment or an extender added during watercolor manufacture) are visible (figs. 6.14a–b). 
18

Top half contains many scattered dark gray and black patches on a tan background. Right side shows a curved vertical dark brown band with dense dark patches nearby. Center has a wide, pale tan band that curves from left to right, bordered by darker brown and gray areas. Bottom edge features layered dark shapes in black and brown with small touches of red.

Fig. 6.13


Ultraviolet-induced luminescence image of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing the orange-pink luminescence of madder lake. The darkest passages represent emerald green applications, now partially faded. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221. 

Figs. 6.14a–b

From top to bottom, a pale beige surface shows many pink, rounded patches and clusters, with scattered tiny black and brown specks. Larger, denser pink clusters appear near the center-left, while smaller spots are spread across the right and lower areas; thin pale lines run across the background. In the bottom-right corner, a red measurement bar labeled 120 µm provides scale.

Fig. 6.14a


Microscope detail at 500× of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885) showing madder lake pigment particles clustered within the paper fibers and round, white particles that are either the substrate or a commercial extender. The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

Top portion shows scattered patches of pale green, blue, and gray on a tan background. Across the middle, a wide tan path curves from left center toward the right, bordered by clusters of green and gray foliage; on the right, a large rounded patch of green and gray forms a canopy over the path’s edge. The lower area is an open, flat ground in tan and beige with small touches of pink, yellow, and green, and thin darker lines tracing the path’s edge.

Fig. 6.14b


Map showing where photomicrograph was taken.

Support: Cezanne employed a sheet of very slightly textured, moderately thick cream wove paper.[26] There is no watermark. The top, left, and right edges are cut straight. The lower edge is unevenly hand-torn. The support was originally wider; the right and left edges were trimmed after the painting was completed (unknown by whom);[27] microscope examination shows washes on both sides have been cropped. The original sheet size is unknown.[28] Current dimensions are 502 × 504 mm. Microscope examination at 80× indicates fine brown shives throughout, indicating some wood pulp or lesser-grade additive in the furnish.19

This paper type is consistent with papers Cezanne used over the course of several decades and into the 1900s.[29] The relatively smooth surface facilitated quick drawing and allowed watercolor washes to flow uninterrupted. Because Cezanne’s watercolor technique involved little to no manipulation of wash on the sheet and no scraping or other subtractive methods, he did not require a thicker, stronger paper, such as the rough, textured Whatman paper favored by many specialists in the medium at the time. 20

Pinholes at all corners suggest Cezanne pinned the paper either to a board while painting or to a wall after completion, or perhaps both. 21

Compositional Development

Cezanne executed this landscape in graphite and watercolor. In all likelihood, his working methods were not strictly sequential, and he alternated between the two media as he progressed, sometimes adding more graphite over colored washes.[30] In most areas it is impossible to determine whether graphite lines are over or under watercolor applications due to the transparency of the washes. 22

Cezanne established compositional borders at the top, bottom, and right edges using repeating, fine graphite lines. He defined the horizontal edge of the foreground with two lightly indicated lines, the lower of which he more closely followed when applying the watercolor. Multiple graphite lines along the right edge indicate the design boundary. Close examination reveals fine lines at the top edge as well. Cezanne left 5 cm of unpainted paper below his graphite border at the top and 3 cm of unpainted paper at the bottom edge, creating a visual border of white paper around the subject. A short, straight, bold graphite line just in from the center of the left edge is dissimilar to Cezanne’s other composition boundaries. It is likely a framer’s mark. There are no artist’s boundary marks along the left edge, but these may have been removed when that edge was trimmed.[31]23

Conservation History

Treatment was carried out in May 2021 to address a range of condition issues.[32] The support was cleaned to reduce surface soil and discoloration. Edge tears were cleaned, realigned, and mended on the verso. The support was relaxed and flattened overall to eliminate hard creases and handling dents. Treatment allowed for the blue and gray washes at far left to be revealed in a new, wider mat window that emphasizes the horizontal compositional format. 24

There are no records of conservation treatment at the Art Institute prior to 2021, yet evidence indicates the watercolor was at some point removed from a brown wove-paper backing, and edge tears were repaired.25

Condition Summary

The sheet was originally whiter. In some areas on the verso, the top layer of fibers has been skinned, revealing much lighter fibers on the interior of the sheet, closer to the original tone. 26

The support has darkened and yellowed and, consequently, dulled the appearance of the vibrant watercolor washes brushed over it. Analysis suggests the presence of alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) in the paper fibers. Alum, an acidic compound commonly used in late nineteenth-century papermaking as a sizing component and processing additive, together with the wood-pulp content, accounts for the sheet darkening and yellowing over time.[33]27

The support was originally wider; the right and left edges were trimmed after the painting was completed (unknown by whom); washes on both sides have been cropped. Loose, repeating, vertical graphite lines just inside the right edge are Cezanne’s marks indicating the composition edge, so it is unlikely that any portion of the design was lost on this side as a result. Creasing and tears along the right edge suggest that damage prompted the trimming along that edge. Remnants of a brown wove paper formerly used to back the work remain on the verso (fig. 6.15). 
28

A large tan surface fills the frame, scattered with small darker tan scuffs and marks. Along the top edge, small white rectangles sit near both corners, and the left edge has a faint gray scribble. In the lower right area, faint gray numerals and short lines are visible, while the bottom edge shows lighter worn patches.

Fig. 6.15


Verso of Cezanne’s Road in Provence (c. 1885). The Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.1221.

Some of the washes have faded from light exposure, in particular the most dilute emerald green and madder lake washes, further altering the original appearance. An ultraviolet-induced luminescence (UV-L) image shows Cezanne’s extensive use of emerald green across the composition (see fig. 6.13). These washes, which appear darkest (nearly black) in the UV-L image, would have originally appeared brilliant green.[34] Madder lake washes, which exhibit a bright orange pink luminescence in the UV-L image, would have had a vivid pink color when first applied but now appear pale pink. In the UV-L image, the left edge of the paper appears lighter because it was covered and protected from light exposure in the past. 29

Kristi Dahm
30

Eugène Blot (1830–1899), Paris.[35]31

René Pottier (1879–1907), Paris.[36]32

S. Lézin, Paris.[37]33

Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson (Martin Ryerson [1856–1932] and Caroline Hutchinson Ryerson [1859–1937]), Chicago;[38]34

Bequeathed to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1933.[39]
35

Chicago, Renaissance Society, University of Chicago, Exhibition of Pure Line Drawing: From the Greek to the Modern, Feb. 26–Mar. 7, 1933, no cat.36

San Francisco Museum of Art, Paul Cézanne: Exhibition of Paintings, Water-colors, Drawings and Prints, Sept. 1–Oct. 4, 1937, cat. 41, as Road (Route), 1883–87. 37

Dallas Museum of Art, French Moderns, Nov. 5–Dec. 2, 1939 (no cat.).38

San Diego, La Jolla Art Center, Post Impressionists: Watercolors, Drawings, Lithographs, Etchings and Pastels by Toulouse-Lautrec, Van Gogh, Bonnard, Cezanne, Renoir, Redon, Pissarro, Gauguin and Degas, Aug. 7–Sept. 25, 1955, cat. 42.39

New York, M. Knoedler & Co., Cézanne Watercolors, Apr. 2–20, 1963, cat. 16 (ill.), as La Route.40

Art Institute of Chicago, Cezanne, May 15–Sept. 5, 2022, cat. 89 (color ill.); London, Tate Modern, Oct. 5, 2022–Mar. 12, 2023 (Chicago only). 41

Lionello Venturi, Cézanne: Son art, son œuvre, 2 vols. (Éditions Paul Rosenberg, 1936), 1:261, no. 970; 2: pl. 294, no. 970 (ill.). 42

Barbara Reise, “La Route,” in Cézanne Watercolors, ed. Theodore Reff, exh. cat. (Knoedler Galleries, 1963), 30, cat. 16, pl. 13.43

John Rewald, Paul Cézanne: The Watercolours; A Catalogue Raisonné (Little, Brown; Thames and Hudson, 1983), 145–46, no. 249 (ill.).44

Achim Borchardt-Hume et al., ed., Cezanne, exh. cat. (Art Institute of Chicago, 2022), 160 (color ill.), cat. 89.45

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=1229, no. 1144 (color ill.).46

Inscriptions and Distinguishing Marks

Recto

Upper right corner (rotated 90 degrees clockwise), in graphite: 15 (European hand)/ v[?] (fig. 6.16).47

A tan surface fills most of the frame, with its top and right edges meeting to form a corner. Near the top-right corner, there are small dark smudges and a faint mark. A narrow lighter band runs along the right edge, and a flat gray area is visible beyond the top and right edges. The edges look slightly worn or uneven.

Fig. 6.16


Inscription, cat. 6.

Verso

Lower center, in graphite, framer’s calculations: 46 x 43/16 16/ 62 59 (fig. 6.17).
48

Top center shows faint gray pencil numerals reading “46 x 93.” Below, two separate entries “16” and “16” appear side by side with a long gray line drawn underneath. At the bottom, “62” sits on the left and “59” on the right; the background is light tan with scattered darker tan speckles.

Fig. 6.17


Inscription, cat. 6.

Left edge, center, in purple pencil: 5 [sideways] (fig. 6.18).
49

At the top-left, a faint translucent triangular shape sits near the edge with a small green streak nearby. Near the center-left, two light gray curved lines form two connected loops, small compared to the overall frame. A narrow darker vertical strip lines the left edge, and the beige background is mottled with scattered tan patches throughout, more concentrated in the lower half.

Fig. 6.18


Inscription, cat. 6.

Entry by

Notes

  1. On this conjecture, see Barbara Reise, “La Route,” in Cézanne Watercolors, ed. Theodore Reff, exh. cat. (Knoedler, 1963), 30, cat. 16. For a detailed discussion of Cezanne and Pissarro, see Joachim Pissarro, Pioneering Modern Painting: Cézanne and Pissarro, 1865–1885, exh. cat. (Museum of Modern Art, 2005). 
  2. Reise, “La Route,” 30, cat. 16.
  3. See, for example, Walter Feilchenfeldt, Jayne Warman, and David Nash, eds., The Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne: An Online Catalogue Raisonné, accessed June 1, 2025, http://www.cezannecatalogue.com, nos. FWN 339, 340, 346 (hereafter FWN). 
  4. Joseph J. Rishel, “Bend in the Forest Road,” in Françoise Cachin et al., Cézanne, exh. cat. (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1996), 516, no. 227 (describing FWN 340).
  5. On Cezanne’s paper supports and formats, see Fabienne Ruppen, “Tackling Cezanne’s Paper: On the Reconstruction of Loose Sheets,” in Walter Feilchenfeldt, Yuval Etgar, and Fabienne Ruppen, Reconstructing Cezanne, exh. cat. (Ridinghouse; Luxembourg and Dayan, 2019), esp. 20–22. 
  6. John Rewald recorded in 1983 that the pigments had already faded substantially. See John Rewald, Paul Cézanne: The Watercolours; A Catalogue Raisonné (Little, Brown; Thames and Hudson, 1983), 146, no. 249.
  7. See Faith Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors: His Choice of Pigments and Papers,” in The Broad Spectrum: Studies in the Materials, Techniques, and Conservation of Color on Paper, ed. Harriet K. Stratis and Britt Salvesen (Archetype, 2002).
  8. Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors,” 95.
  9. For a detailed description of the superimposed layers of pencil and watercolor, see Technical Summary in the Technical Report.
  10. Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249.
  11. Matthew Simms, Cézanne’s Watercolors: Between Drawing and Painting (Yale University Press, 2008), 199; and Carol Armstrong,Cézanne in the Studio: Still Life in Watercolors, exh. cat. (J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004), 108.
  12. On Cezanne’s etchings, see Douglas Druick, “Cézanne’s Lithographs,” in Cézanne: The Late Work, ed. William Rubin, exh. cat. (Museum of Modern Art, 1977), 119. For the catalogue raisonné of Cezanne’s prints, see Jean Cherpin, L’œuvre gravé de Cézanne (Arts et Livres de Provence, 1972).
  13. For more on Pissarro, Guillaumin, and Gachet, see cat. 1.
  14. Richard Shiff, “Cézanne’s Blur, Approximating Cézanne,” in Framing France: The Representation of Landscape in France, 1870–1914, ed. Richard Thomson (Manchester University Press, 1998), 73; see also 68–70, 75.
  15. See, for example, cats. 12 and 14, particularly fig. 14.5.
  16. Venturi gives the date as 1883–87. See Lionello Venturi, Cézanne: Son art, son œuvre (Éditions Paul Rosenberg, 1936), 1:261, no. 970. In a never-completed revised edition in the Lionello Venturi archives at Sapienza Università di Roma, he adjusted the date slightly to 1886–88. Rewald gives the date as c. 1885. See Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249. See also FWN 1144. Venturi’s revised edition later served as the basis for Rewald’s catalogues raisonnés. For more on Venturi’s catalogues raisonnés, see Michela Bassu, “Cézanne: Son art, son œuvre: Birth of a Catalogue Raisonné and a Critical Reception” (PhD diss., Sapienza Università di Roma, 2016).
  17. Marjorie Shelley, “Cézanne as Draftsman: Sketchbooks and Graphite Drawings,” in Dita Amory et al., Madame Cézanne, exh. cat. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2014), 118–19.
  18. 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), 202. 
  19. 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.
  20. For further discussion of the interplay between graphite and watercolor, see the curatorial essay.
  21. Analysis of nine Cezanne watercolor papers at the Philadelphia Museum of Art found soft- and hardwood pulp and grass-fiber additives, which make the sheets prone to darkening from light exposure. See Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors,” 89–101.
  22. Shelley, “Cézanne as Draftsman,” 118.
  23. The presence of the pigments was inferred using the following methods: madder lake (HSI), yellow ochre (XRF, HSI), chrome yellow (XRF, HSI), emerald green (XRF, HSI), cobalt blue (XRF, HSI), and indigo (HSI). See Clara Granzotto and Maria Kokkori, “1933-1221_Cezanne_ARP_XRF,” Dec. 4, 2023; and Giovanni Verri, “1933-1221_Cezanne_FTIR_HSI,” Jan. 8, 2021, on file in the department of Conservation and Science, Art Institute of Chicago.
  24. For pigment analysis of Cezanne watercolors in other collections, see Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors”; Elisabeth Reissner, “Transparency of Means: ‘Drawing’ and Colour in Cézanne’s Watercolours and Oil Paintings in the Courtauld Gallery,” in The Courtauld Cézannes, ed. Stephanie Buck et al., exh. cat. (Courtauld Gallery; Paul Holberton, 2008), 49–71; and Neufeld, “Belle Formule,” 203–4.
  25. Maria Kokkori, “Cezanne’s Materials,” app. 2 in Cezanne, ed. Achim Borchardt-Hume et al. (Art Institute of Chicago, 2022), 228–29.
  26. For standards for texture and thickness, see Print Council of America, The Print Council of America Paper Sample Book: A Practical Guide to the Description of Paper (Print Council of America, 1996). 
  27. See the curatorial essay for discussion.
  28. Fabienne Ruppen, technical notes, “Cezanne Works on Loose Sheets at the AIC,” unpublished manuscript, Nov. 4, 2020.
  29. Zieske, “Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors,” 95–98.
  30. Similar observations are made in Reissner, “Transparency of Means,” 52.
  31. Art on paper was often trimmed at a later date to remove unsightly damage or to “center” the composition on the sheet.
  32. Mary Broadway, conservation treatment report, May 20, 2021, on file in the department of Prints and Drawings, Art Institute of Chicago.
  33. The presence of alum was determined using XRF and FTIR. Granzotto and Kokkori, “1933-1221_Cezanne_ARP_XRF”; and Verri, “1933-1221_Cezanne_FTIR_HSI.” For a discussion of alum, see Irene Brückle, “The Role of Alum in Historical Papermaking,” Abbey Newsletter 17, no. 4 (Sept. 1993): https://cool.culturalheritage.org/byorg/abbey/an/an17/an17-4/an17-407.html.
  34. For further discussion of emerald green’s properties and characteristic fading, see Zieske, “An Investigation of Paul Cézanne’s Watercolors,” 108–9.
  35. Reise, “La Route,” 30, cat. 16; Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249; and FWN 1144.
  36. Reise, “La Route,” 30, cat. 16; Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249; and FWN 1144.
  37. Reise, “La Route,” 30, cat. 16; Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249; and FWN 1144.
  38. Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249; and FWN 1144.
  39. Venturi, Cézanne, 1:261, no. 970; Reise, “La Route,” 30, cat. 16; Rewald, The Watercolours, 146, no. 249; and FWN 1144. FWN 1144 provides year information only.

How to Cite

Entry by Fabienne Ruppen; Technical Report by Kristi Dahm, “Cat. 6 Road in Provence, 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/10.53269/9780865593251/11. © 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