Replies

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."

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.