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.
