Talk:Henri Matisse

message: The article shows at least two paintings attributed to the Barnes Foundation of Merion PA.  The Barnes Foundation now houses the paintings permanently in Philadelphia, not Merion, since the Merion gallery closed.   I saw Le bonheur de vivre and Madras Rouge there today.  Should the city identification go with the painting or the city of the Foundation's headquarters?71.230.201.203 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good catch...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnes Foundation paintings moved

message: I'm seeing more than one source online saying that Matisse's parents were in the "grain" or "corn" business.  There is no source on wiki for them owning a flower business, is it actually correct?
http://www.biography.com/people/henri-matisse-9402564
I removed a phrase from the "early life" section pending review.
Phrase removed:
, where his parents owned a flower business; he was their first son.
Elaur (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Parent's Occupation Incorrect?

message: This article really needs to be expanded. How do you flag it as a stub? 137.131.130.34 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: There is nothing here about the extremely influential time that the artist spent in Tanger.  I do not feel confident enough in my artistic background to cover it, but I know that the time he spent there significantly influenced his use of light in paintings.
The Frog 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matisse in Maroc

message: Can't we add all of his pre 1923/2 artwork, because it is in the public domain, to Wikimedia Commons and to all the relevant articles? --Rajah 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, his paintings are only public domain in the U.S. if they were *published* before 1923.  Exhibiting a painting doesn't count as publishing it, so it's not a foregone conclusion that his paintings were published close to the time they were made. —Celithemis 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-1923 artwork

message: I'm not going to add another line to the "partial list of works" as I think most of these stubs are quite useless clutter as they are. (except for the ones with images of course). However if someone would like to add Le Bateau (1958) – which won quite some notoriety in 1961 when it hung upside down at MoMA for several days until someone noticed – here's two useful weblinks about that story:
*http://www.rightreading.com/daybook_pages/october-2.htm#18
*http://www.theapesheet.com/archivefive/newart2.html
--BjKa 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Pages

message: Go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 2 to check it out.  Calliopejen1 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just tagged a bunch of matisse art as possibly unfree

message: The Armory Show of 1913 which marked a milestone in modern art was held in New York City, I believe, not in Chicago as stated in the text.
Jim S.Jimshaw (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It started in NY, then toured 3 cities, including Chicago. Ty 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Armory Show 1913

message: How do you get rid of it? 79.75.152.2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Avril lavigne thing

message: I happened to be idly flicking through the Daily Mail (yes, I know) in a pub earlier today and read this piece by the Glenda Slagg-esque Allison Pearson fulminating over why Lily Cole "agreed to be photographed [for French Playboy] in pigtails, long white schoolgirl socks and with a pink teddy parked up her Henri Matisse". In explanation, a picture of the cover is visible at the website of that other quality periodical, The Sun. I'd never encountered this usage before; has anyone else? Opera hat (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of his name in other contexts

message: Shouldn't there be some mention made of the Yves Saint Laurent auction? Matisse's painting "Les coucous, tapis bleu et rose" was the highest selling item there. It sold for over $45,000,000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.208.117 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Christie's Auction

message: Is "Dumb Kid" supposed to be the title to the image? 8.225.197.131 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been . Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: More needs to be said about Matisse's work outside of painting, especially sculpture and cut-paper. Yes, he's primarily known as a painter, but he worked and experimented a lot with modernist trends in sculpture, and he produced numerous cut-paper works in the last years of his life. Helixer (hábleme) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Beyond Painting

message: Art Since 1945: Bibliography
Cotter, Holland. "Wisps From an Old Man’s Dreams ‘Henri Matisse: The Cut-Outs,’ a Victory Lap at MoMA." New York Times. New York Times, 9 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
Schjeldahl, Peter. "Shapes of Things." The New Yorker. October 20, 2014.
:Another review of the recent MoMA exhibition, which may provide a contrasting view to Cotter's. Aolivex (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So far the section looks good; in my opinion the cut outs coincide with the last years and the Matisse Chapel, and the museum. I am changing the headings, hopefully these will work...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cut-Outs

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Henri Matisse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150117213857/http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/site/pages/uploaded_media/cone/matisse/index.html to http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/site/pages/uploaded_media/cone/matisse/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150117214139/http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Matisse/collection_more.htm to http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Matisse/collection_more.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150702210933/http://arsny.com/requested.html to http://arsny.com/requested.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: Substituted at 17:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henri Matisse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019145733/http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html to http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: The lead section could be improved, but I don't think that what is wrong with it is that it doesn't mention Marcel Duchamp. As far as I know—and our article does not suggest otherwise—Matisse had little or no personal relationship with Duchamp. According to WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Duchamp's importance (apparent mainly in the decades after Matisse'e death) is not a basic fact about Matisse; it's a fact about art history, and about Duchamp.
The source cited for Duchamp's inclusion here is a survey of British art professionals whose top five list puts Matisse behind Duchamp, Picasso, and Warhol. Surely Warhol doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead too? We have seen elsewhere that this kind of ranking in a lead section is contentious. It seems better to relegate it to the Legacy section where the context can be described. 
Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead. Our third sentence—"Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture"—is accurate and sourced. The careful wording does not seem to me to imply that these two stood entirely alone in defining revolutionary developments in the visual arts. If there's any disagreement on this point, let's rephrase to make it unambiguous—or separate Picasso from this sentence, and mention him elsewhere. Ewulp (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Marcel Duchamp should not be mentioned in the lead because he was a very different sort of artist. We are not trying to confuse the reader and we are not trying to write nonsense. Marcel Duchamp opposed "retinal" art. That is a valid or at least well-established stance on art. But Matisse and Picasso did not ever adopt that stance. The difference between these two stances is so radical that a sentence such as "Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture" is nonsensical. We should not foist that on the reader. It is not that it is not true, in some sense, but the lead of the Matisse article isn't the place to spring this particular incomprehensible thought on the reader. Bus stop (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially I agree with the above by both Ewulp and Bus stop especially regarding the fact that Duchamp was not an important factor in 20th century painting and sculpture as were Matisse and Picasso. However regarding Dada, Found objects, the Anti-art movement, conceptual art, installation art, performance art and other 20th century innovations Duchamp along with Matisse and Picasso were the 3 major influences on 20th century art. Although as an afterthought in my opinion, Duchamp's influence has faded while the influence of Matisse and Picasso continues to grow...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, in the lead of the M. Duchamp article, it is written "Duchamp is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, as one of the three artists who helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture." (4 sources are given). There is no mention of Matisse in the main body of text. The quasi-same sentence used to be in the Picasso article, but is no more, following an extensive edit exchange this past January. I'm agnostic either way on keeping or removing this. But if it stays in the lead of either, it should be discussed in the main body too. Coldcreation (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm close to agnostic on it too. The article (in each of the three cases) is on an individual artist. Therefore I ask myself why we should be pontificating about which artists "helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century"? That is not the topic of the article. Information of that nature might more strongly belong in an article on art history or art theory. Adding the three of them (Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp) in one sentence creates a potent contradiction in terms, in my opinion, and it upends what should be a straightforward delivery in an article on one artist. This is because unlike Picasso and Matisse, Duchamp espoused a view that was strongly "anti-art". That view has become accepted and normalized over time but the contradiction remains that Duchamp for instance chose objects for Readymades based on his "indifference" towards them, and he aimed to avoid what he termed "retinal art". I could overlook the statements made by artists about their own work, except if those statements seemed on target, which they do in the case of Duchamp. Therefore the reason given by Ewulp seems correct, that "Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead." The inclusion of Duchamp in the lead would create a logical inconsistency, in my opinion, therefore we should avoid it. Another possibility is to also omit mention of Picasso in the lead, and I don't think this would be a bad idea. This would be precisely because we are omitting mention of Duchamp. It is inarguably a fact that Duchamp has been influential, perhaps very influential. My only objection is that Duchamp has been influential in a way almost diametrically opposed to the way in which Matisse (and Picasso) has been influential. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW The interaction between Matisse and Picasso was undeniably important to both artists and to art history; while the interaction between Matisse and Duchamp was negligible at most, although the interaction between Picasso and Duchamp was clear and relevant to the direction each of them took. Both Picasso and Duchamp approached found objects in their own unique ways...Modernist (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, their ways were unique. Picasso attempted to substitute found objects for things they looked like. For instance a bicycle seat and handlebars to replace aspects of a Bull's Head, and "two toy cars forming the female baboon's head, a pottery jar for its body, and an automobile spring for its tail" in Baboon and Young. The thing is that Picasso's use of found objects is not in opposition to art. Duchamp has said that the word "art" is a "discredited" term. Unlike Picasso, Duchamp presented found objects that seemed to utterly lack value as art. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although to give Duchamp his due he managed to broaden and redefine our definition of art by essentially demonstrating that it is art because I say it is...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore a found object can be an absolutely stunningly beautiful thing. This is aside from the use of found objects by Duchamp or Picasso. Picasso incorporated found objects into more traditional sculptures. Duchamp chose found objects for his indifference towards them; they were neither beautiful nor ugly. But the use of found objects also involves looking for beauty in unexpected places. The history of an object is often alluded to in its appearance, and that in turn is oftentimes unavoidably beautiful. I am looking, right now, at a piece of steel, folded, pitted with rust, entirely corroded along one irregular edge, of a beautiful rust color, having been run over by countless cars on a roadway, and containing a perfectly circular hole near its center—probably somehow relating to its former use, in better times. There is passion in found objects, especially those that have been kicked around. One sees these things when one tunes one's eyes to seeing them. Duchamp's point that it is art because I call it art is very relevant to the point I'm trying to make, because it is not just the artist that makes it art, but the setting in which it is seen. Placing a frame around an object of course underlines its status as art. But even more so, it is the clean, flat walls commonly seen in contemporary art galleries that accentuate the message that the viewer is encouraged to try to see this as art. In conclusion, I would say that art is a frame of mind. I know this diatribe doesn't belong here, but I doubt if any administrator will block me for it. After all, I'm only talking about art. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

text: To be clear - Duchamp is not an important influence on 20th century painting and sculpture; although both Matisse and Picasso were. However that said, Duchamp did influence the notion of Intermedia, as well as the notion that painting is dead (although it is still alive and well). Duchamp is an important influence on 20th century art; his influence is of major import to Fluxus, Found objects, Anti-art, Conceptual art, Installation art, Performance art and various other modernist and post-modernist directions in advanced art...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: Comments from editors requested. The choice is between:
File:Henri Matisse, 1913, photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn.jpg|Henri Matisse, 1913, photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn ‎(1,093 × 1,299 pixels, file size: 647 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
File:Portrait of Henri Matisse 1933 May 20.jpg|Portrait of Henri Matisse, 1933, by Carl Van Vechten (707 × 925 pixels, file size: 157 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Until then the 1913 image will remain in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: Since the previous title was already under the name of Vandalism? I decided to name mime as a second one to disperse between the two. So, there is an apparent vandalism against this talkpage. I can't request page protect but would like to know what will the rest of community think?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism 2?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion