They look like any grade school child who was strung out on LSD could do them.
Instead, criticize because you don't like what the artist did to the tree, the nude, the flute, the waterfall because
All of these have the same features and characteristics (with the exception of the Titian which, while not exactly my style is infinitely better than the rest). They all seem to have fallen out of a drug induced haze. The mind rebells at the loudness and unreality of the colors, shapes etc.
These paintings are meant to be enjoyed for their visual pleasure: the contrast of line against color, very much like the sound of a clarinet with a violin. Music is not “representational.”
That's just it, they give no visual pleasure. While music is not necessarily representational (Although the best music is) it does have harmony and structure and flow. Else it is not music.
These paintings have no structure. They are just seemingly random splashes of paint on canvas. (This applies mostly to the later pictures in the post) They have no harmony, the colors and shapes clash more than fit. Compare the Titian where everything seems to fit together with the Matisse where nothing seems to fit (even though all the 'people' are nude). Matisse was obviously tripped out when he painted this and it was a bad trip.
All of these fail the sofa test. In fact, if it were not for the fact that some sucker would pay big bucks for them I'd burn the lot to make the world a better place by removing the ugliness. (get the feeling I don't care for these at all?)
My painting instructor, while no particular fan of modern art, particularly dislikes Matisse's use of color, which he refers to as being "acid."
While I personally am inclined to like and enjoy all of the artists in this thread, I can't get over the feeling that they are almost more like fabric designers.
The Matisse paintings would make wonderful "tropical" Hawaiian type shirts (wouldn't surprise me if you can actually buy a Matisse shirt) while Kandinsky's stuff would look nice on a couch or drapes.
What I do with some students who think like this is to suggest that they create an abstract painting (if it's so simple). Usually they find that the layering of color, composition and freedom of line is not so easy as it looks. (If you like what you do, take a picture and post if for me!)
I have to take issue with another statement of yours(especially since I'm getting involved with the classical music ping list too).
While music is not necessarily representational (Although the best music is) it does have harmony and structure and flow. Else it is not music.
Have you listened to Schoenberg? It does not have harmony nor flow. The woman's voice doesn't even really sing, it kind of slides (it's called sprechtstimme....making up fancy words to justify art?).
Listen to a clip here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000005J07/qid=1119014520/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/104-9133375-0606347?v=glance&s=music&n=507846.
But have your ear plugs ready. Maybe you'll appreciate the paintings better after listening to what the music is doing at the same time. I know all the intellectual rationalization for Schoenberg; I still don't enjoy it. It doesn't pass the "play me at the next party" test. (And even the music professors I know don't race to play Schoenberg at any opportunity.)
But I'd take a Kandinsky to hang in my house any day. I'd take and treasure any of the works I post!! May I win that lottery some day...