Much of the conversation surrounding R.B. Kitaj’s work focuses on the interaction between his Jewish heritage and his love for Cezanne’s artistic style. According to critics, these two interests seem to conflict with each other and place Kitaj’s work in a peculiar place of vulnerability. My question is: To what extent must we examine the theological themes behind Kitaj’s paintings? Are his paintings incomplete without an understanding of his complex beliefs or can we appreciate them for their form alone just like Cezanne paintings?
I think this question will lead me to investigate Cezanne’s subjects and whether they have a deeper, perhaps philosophical meaning. I will also look into which specific aspects Kitaj drew from Cezanne’s work and determine whether Kitaj’s works sacrifice aesthetics for the philosophical substance.
Below are two works: “Whistler vs. Ruskin” and “The Wedding”
Michael I think this is an interesting question to explore, one that touches upon the deeper philosophical debate in art between form and content. I think Kitaj already gives a verdict on the debate as he depicts Ruskin being knocked out of the ring by Whistler. Therefore, it might be even more interesting to explore how Kitaj was unconsciously affected by his Jewish heritage and its philosophies. How, despite his conviction toward form, the philosophical contents of his upbringing manifests through his art.