Outlines

Thoughts which have occured after first reading through of 'Cezannes Doubt'. Merleau-Ponty explains through his essay that 'To trace just a single outline sacrifices depth - that is, the dimension in which the thing is presemted not as spread out before us but as an inexhausible reality full of reserves.' Cezanne does not use outlines within his work, rather his us of colour and brushstrokes allows forms to blend. My immediate thought as an opposite to this process is the Julian Opie works of the band Blur. I am just realising the severe irony of this title. Cezannes work is described as having a more correct view of the world, he depicts objects not 2-dimensionally, but records with the depth he views through movement. And yet, if I were to see a Cezanne piece and an Opie piece sat side by side in a gallery, it indeed would be the opie which caught my attention. Does this mean I am choosing t reject the world around me in favour of a simplified, understandable viewpoint? Obviously, there are other factors at work within my attraction, it is not just form, but content, particulatly in the given example which may seem more appealing. But the issues of fame would be put as equal, I could probably argue that Cezanne holds more than either Opie or Damon Albarn (it is his particular portrait of which I am thinking).