Book Review: In Living Color: Matisse the Master by Hilary Spurling

Commentary ^ | 12/03/05 | Steven C. Munson

[Republicanprofessor]

A fascinating review of what looks to be a wonderful book on Matisse.

[Republicanprofessor]

Images:

Barnes Collection with Matisse's Dance in upper left

Decorative figure on an Ornamental Ground

Unfortunately, I have to post and run, so I'll let others post what images they want and discuss Matisse. I thought the insights to his marriage and the influence of his children upon his work was intriguing.

[Republicanprofessor]

Art Ping list.

Let Sam Cree or me know if you want on or off this ping list.

[Republicanprofessor]

Art Appreciation/Education ping.

Let me know if you want on or off this list.

[MinuteGal]

Do you have a picture of the "violet-coloured woman"?

Leni

[Sam Cree]

"What Matisse recognized, and taught others to recognize, was the critical importance for a modern painter of finding a mode and means of artistic expression that would enable him to be true to his own sensibility and experience."

I'm wondering if that isn't another way of saying that a modern painter must hit upon a lucky accident of style that can be repeated?

[Sam Cree]

That being said, there is a copy of Elderfield's tome on Matisse in my library, searching through it, I do find a couple things to like. I believe his dancers are universally liked. OTOH, can't figure out how that book got there!

[Republicanprofessor]

a modern painter must hit upon a lucky accident of style that can be repeated?

Believe it or not, it takes a great deal of work and intuitive knowledge to develop a unique style of abstraction. So many people settle for a slight variation of what has gone before. Matisse may have been able to be more unique as he was one of the first to delve into abstraction. So it is doubly hard for us following him to be more unique.

[Republicanprofessor]

Do you have a picture of the "violet-coloured woman"?

Leni,

I just changed violet to purple for a google image search, and this is what turned up. I don't know the work off-hand, and I don't know if this is what they referred to in the article. But it has his great balance of lively shapes and color that usually conveys deep contentment if not outright happiness.

What I also appreciate about his work is his appreciation of daily details, which are enhanced in his paintings. We thus see his regard for things that we may overlook in our headlong twenty-first century rush to get things done.

[MinuteGal]

Oh, my....if you posted a picture, nothing showed up but the name of the hosting service. Don't worry about it, I'll do a search. Thanks mucho,

Leni

[Republicanprofessor]

I try again. [I hate it when it does that (and when I'm in too much of a hurry to check).]

[MinuteGal]

Excellent, my dear Professor. I just HAD to see what was in that painting that "stupified" and "astounded" some people so much.

Matisse used a lot of colors in this piece which we might consider "clashing", but he pulled it off brilliantly. The composition is perfect. I love it.

Thanks so much for always going the extra mile for us art lovers.

Leni

[Sam Cree]

I don't know, it might take even more work and intuitiveness to appreciate abstract work!

I'm partially kidding here, I for one think that the art world is absolutely enriched and enhanced by the presence of abstract work. It makes it an altogether more interesting and free place. Sad would be the day when all art had to be kept within tight borders of any kind.

But as always, even though I like abstract work, I sometimes wonder how the term "greatness" gets attached to some of these folk - Matisse for instance. Not for his line work or use of color, I don't think. And that the art world thinks him great seems more of an offhand compliment. Anyhow, I do actually like his stuff well enough.

'Course, I am always the first to admit that the standards that really determine the greatness of art are also the most elusive to pin down. The abstract ones.

Seriesly though, while all artists build on what others did before, if it was any good, everyone's work will automatically be original, as long as they aren't consciously copying the style of someone else. I don't think the possession of skill should disqualify one from producing "good art."

[Republicanprofessor]

Sam, I want to push you to post some Matisse images that you like and those you don't and tell me why you feel this way. Sometimes he has messy sections in his paintings that I would have smoothed out, and yet I think those very sections give his paintings that modern sense of a work in progress. (Also evident in works from van Gogh to Henry Moore's sculpture to Pollock, but we've already been to Pollock's work in earlier posts.)

I'll go first with ones I think are strong and not as strong.

This Harmony in Red from about 1911 shows the quintessential reduction of line and color to emphasize the quiet, daily pleasures and rhythms of life. Would that I had more time to arrange fresh flowers and fruit on my tables!

These are only two examples of works that Matisse reworked until the forms, colors and rhythms were right. I do think the figures are a bit awkward in the left one (but isn't our life filled with awkward moments and poses?). I saw that left one at the recent MOMA Picasso/Matisse show (in the Brooklyn temporary warehouse museum) and the blue-green color in the lower body blew me away. One gains so much by seeing the works in person with the real size, color and impact the artist intended.

Of course, when you work in the studio every day, some works are bound to be less good than others. Picasso sure had a great deal of less attractive works, such as Weeping Woman below.

I think Picasso here is relying on his skill and style in a more superficial level. He is just whipping out works that will sell, the same way that some realists repeat their successful styles again and again for easy sales. In both cases, they don't go below the surface for a deeper truth.

I agree that both abstraction and realism, and all kinds of works in between, liven the art world today. But the best artists dive deeper to really explore new forms and content and are not satisfied with what has gone before. It is often harder to understand these works, so they are not readily accepted.

[Sam Cree]

I like the above as well as any Matisse paintings. The colors actually work well, and the dancers seem both primitive and happy, the nudity is a pleasant aspect as well in this case. Anyhow, the figures are wonderfully alive and in motion. Plus, it's very decorative, looked good on a shopping bag I once saw. Otherwise I have seen a couple female faces from Matisse that I found attractive, they managed to catch something of the ever fascinating female expression. They caught a little bit of truth, in other words.

But I think maybe the important aspect of what we are discussing here is the self expression in art. IMO, all great artists have gone for that, whether their work was representational or purely abstract. Even in realism, it's not the accuracy of representation that carries the day, but the truth captured by the artist, and what he gives of himself to the work. So I think great (fine) art must both capture a truth of one kind or another and must show us a little bit of the soul of the artist.

Great commercial art, or illustration art, does the same thing, plus serves the purpose to which it is assigned. I haven't looked in "Communication Arts" magazine in quite a while, but there is usually some really eye opening stuff in that publication.

"But the best artists dive deeper to really explore new forms and content and are not satisfied with what has gone before. It is often harder to understand these works, so they are not readily accepted."

RP, I don't really think any of the great representational artists have ever thought they were not treading new ground. I don't think one must do abstract to blaze a new trail. Of course not everyone is really interested in blazing new trails, whether they be abstract or realists. One thing about new trails, they are kind of like finding new fishing holes, not easy to do. But playing someone else's game rarely works well either, an imitation is always just that. Master what skills may be appropriate, but it's best to be oneself.

These kinds of discussion always bring to my mind the question posed by Jacques Barzun (I have his book by my bed, it keeps putting me to sleep, though), if the art of the old masters was realism, how come it all looks so different? I think one of the ironies of "realism" is that the more abstract you can make it, the more "realistic" it gets.

Apologies if all this seems obvious and shallow. I'm having fun figuring it out, though.

[Samwise]

Thanks for the ping.

[Republicanprofessor]

I don't really think any of the great representational artists have ever thought they were not treading new ground. I don't think one must do abstract to blaze a new trail.

I didn't mean to imply that only abstract artists braved new form and content. Art history is full of great names who are realists: from Piero della Francesca to Michelangelo to Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Monet. In the twentieth century, Alice Neel bucked the abstract expressionist trend and just persevered in her own kind of expressionist portraits (that were pretty realistic compared to Pollock and his colleagues).

Alice Neel of Andy Warhol and her daughter-in-law in the last week of pregnancy (with husband in the background) and then with daughter Olivia.

[Sam Cree]

How well do you like Lucien Freud's work, RP? I admire it for the technical virtuosity and the feeling, but confess that I don't really like it.

[Republicanprofessor]

I basicially agree: he is very skilled. But as a woman, I am offended by how he treats women as objects. I also find his work self-indulgent and needlessly shocking, perhaps purposely politically so. Does that really look like Reagan? What an unflattering and uncentered image! If anything, Reagan knew who he was and what he was doing.

But he is conveying what he wants to convey, in a strong, personal style, which means that he is a strong artist, whether you and I agree or like his work or not.

[Sam Cree]

Yes, I concur with your entire post. I think Freud paints people ugly. I may be something of a misanthrope myself, but you've got to be a loser mentally to make that be what you're about as an artist and what you're thinking about all the time. IMO.

Also, Reagan may have been the only president of the century, of either party, to have understood our founding ideals of individual liberty. I always figured that's why the Left zeroes in on him so much.

I've read that Degas was considered by some to have painted the less attractive side of females. I hadn't really thought so myself, but wonder what your take is on that.