What is it with Matisse?

You know the way it goes… an art browser says “But I could have done that…!”. To which the cheeky response is usually, “Then why haven’t you?“.

One step along, and it becomes “But a child could have done that…!”. Well - have you seen any of Matisse’s stuff? I mean, those goldfish! Oversimplistic is an understatement. And are those dead ones floating on the water? The perspective - that table couldn’t possibly stand up. And it looks like one of the goldfish is growing out of the other like they’re glued. Conjoined goldfish! “And he sells for how much?!”

Okay.

It’s kind of the same as the Mark Rothko problem. “But I could have…!” Yes, we know - but you didn’t! And that’s really the nub of it. Fame in art is as much about timing and your position in society (who you mingle with), and knowing the expectation of the times, as it is about technical virtuosity. And then, of course, there’s luck - having one or more of those factors in your favour, but not knowing why it happened that way.

So what’s the point I’m making? Great art can be appreciated for what it is now as well as for what it was at the time it was made. And a lot of the great artworks went against the expectations of their time, broke a mold, you could say they extended the prevailing paradigm of what constituted art.

Matisse? Well, it seems he pushed against the constraints of composition, colour, form and perspective that were dictating what art was supposed to look like. And the same can be said over and over for so many of the big names - it’s not like inventing a technology or finding a cure for a disease, it’s incremental - bit by bit, and over the years art moves cumulatively forwards.

Are there artists today as skilled as he was? Undoubtedly, as there are compared to almost any old master you’d care to mention, I’m sure. But they did it first, at a time that was ripe for seeing what they had to offer.