AB-GU-1940-010 — Rabeyrette Farm (III) (1940)

Technical information

Title : Rabeyrette Farm (III)
Date : 1940
Technique : Oil on canvas
Dimensions : 50 × 57
Location : Private collection (acquired c. 1947)

Biographical / historical context

This newly rediscovered work completes the group of views of Rabeyrette Farm painted in 1940. Its association with Rabeyrette Farm (I), AB-GU-1940-008, and Rabeyrette Farm (II), AB-GU-1940-009, rests on the recurrence of several elements: the arrangement of the farmhouse and its outbuildings, the plantings, the successive hillsides and the twin-summited relief of the Graveyron.

The discovery makes it possible to understand the motif not simply through two isolated paintings but as a subject revisited through several compositional balances. In this third version, the landscape retains its main landmarks while appearing more strongly structured by overlaps and by the contrast between dark masses and sunlit façades.

Its proximity to version II is particularly significant. It reveals a variation in treatment within a similar framing, without justifying the view that one work is a preparatory study for the other or a later reworking of it.

Formal / stylistic description

A large olive tree occupies the right half of the painting, rooted close to the lower edge. Its dark trunk, marked by reddish-brown accents, divides into branches supporting a broad crown. The foliage is constructed through brushstrokes and blue-green fields, with more pronounced breaks in its outline than in version II. Its density creates a partial screen in front of the buildings.

The farm is revealed in fragments. The low outbuildings on the left present a succession of sloping roofs, pale wall surfaces and dark openings. Higher up, a brightly illuminated yellow façade draws the eye, while another built volume appears behind the right-hand part of the foliage. The architecture is therefore not apprehended in a single glance: it is perceived through interruptions and reappearances.

The foreground consists of green and brown areas of ground crossed by oblique boundaries. Along the lower edge, loosely sketched vegetation, rendered in russet lines, creates a network of angular accents. This rapid handling contrasts with the mass of the large tree and helps bring the painted surface closer to the viewer.

The hillsides rise in successive planes behind the farm, in pinkish greys, dark greens and warmer earth tones. The Graveyron is rendered predominantly in blue-violet, its twin silhouette standing out against a pale sky tinged with pink, yellow and blue. Unlike versions I and II, the summits are not primarily characterised by broad pinkish slopes: their dark mass and outline are given greater prominence here.

The light is distributed selectively. It catches certain façades and stretches of ground, while the olive tree and the hills maintain broad areas of cool colour. This opposition lends the painting a more concentrated tension. The pale sky may suggest early or late daylight, but no evidence allows the scene to be assigned to a precise time of day.

Comparative analysis / related works

This work shares with Rabeyrette Farm (II) a closely framed arrangement centred on a dominant tree placed in front of the buildings. Comparison nevertheless reveals an essential difference: in version II, the olive tree accompanies the farm and allows a relatively continuous reading of its architecture; in version III, its foliage interrupts that perception to a greater extent.

The relationship between background and foreground is consequently altered. The tree becomes a visual filter, while the pale façades appear as sources of light embedded within the vegetation. The successive transitions from dark to light and from near to far thus contribute directly to the construction of space.

The colour range also distinguishes this version. The blue-greens of the foliage and the violets of the hills play an important role, set against the yellows of the walls and the russet accents in the foreground. The light appears less evenly distributed than in version II and less blended into an overall harmony than in version I.

Rabeyrette Farm (I), for its part, offers a more extensive view: the buildings, trees and crops retain more space between them. Version III, by contrast, favours interlocking forms. Its singularity therefore lies not only in a different palette but in a way of making the site denser by bringing its components visually closer together.

These three works show how the same landscape can be varied without losing its identity: the continuity of the property in the first, the balance between tree and architecture in the second, and the concentration of masses and contrasts in the third.

Justification of dating and attribution

The date of 1940 is adopted in accordance with the information supplied for this work’s inclusion in the catalogue. Comparison with the two already known views provides important supporting evidence: the same site, the same principal motifs and affinities in the simplification of forms and the organisation of colour.

Differences in framing and treatment do not permit an internal chronology to be established. The designation (III) reflects the classification adopted by the catalogue, not a demonstrable third stage in the sequence of execution.