Talk:Henri Matisse

Barnes Foundation paintings moved
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)
 * Yes, good catch...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Parent's Occupation Incorrect?
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)

1
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)

You're right about the inadequacy of this article given the importance of its subject, but it doesn't qualify for a stub tag. Rule of thumb for a stub is an article 3-10 sentences long--for more info on this see WP:STUB. To answer you question: You can always tag a stub by typing the word stub between doubled curly brackets. Ewulp 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The part that lists Matisse's influences strikes me as grossly inaccurate. Not the people, but the movements they're said to belong to. Poussin and Watteau had nothing to do with Post-Impressionism, or even Impressionism. Manet crossed the bridge into Impressionism but that's still a huge stretch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.45.55 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2
"in the Musée Franciscain-Eglise et Monastère de Cimiez, in the Cimiez neighbourhood of Nice, Alpes-Maritimes in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region of France."

What's that inflation ! I can also tel you it's near the arena if you come by the highway, leave the highway at "Nice-Nord" you drive to the Hôpital Pasteur you should turn on the right to take the "Avenue de la Voie Romaine" etc....

Ericd

God I was blind ! Matisse is not buried in the "in the Musée Franciscain-Eglise et Monastère de Cimiez" but in the cemetery near the "Monastère de Cimiez" like most people do. By the way Cimiez is in Nice not near Nice. Ericd

Matisse in Maroc
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)

Pre-1923 artwork
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)
 * 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.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish
That is my favorite painting by Henri Matisse

Melissa D.

Influenced by Matisse
The following line seems better left out:
 * He is also the great influence of the last living student of Picasso, Marcel Mouly.

Matisse was a huge influence on a lot of 20th century artists; Mouly is not an especially notable one compared to say De Kooning, Appel, Diebenkorn, Joan Brown, Purrmann, Carles, Bearden, Avery, Motherwell, or many others. The claim "last living student" can't be proven; did Picasso have formal students? Paloma Picasso is a designer and probably got pointers from her dad...Ewulp 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In 2004 L'Atelier Rouge came in at No.5 of a poll of 500 art experts voting for the most influential modern art work of all time.
 * Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm
 * Might be worth mentioning in the article... --BjKa 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture Pages
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: --BjKa 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.rightreading.com/daybook_pages/october-2.htm#18
 * http://www.theapesheet.com/archivefive/newart2.html

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

Armory Show 1913
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)
 * It started in NY, then toured 3 cities, including Chicago.  Ty  18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Use of his name in other contexts
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)

Link addition

 * Henri Matisse at State Hermitage Museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groz (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the official site.  Ty  09:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Henri Matisse at State Hermitage Museum Unofficial - Yes, it is not the official site, but I found it useful (much more useful than official one) for myself and wanted to share. Keep your bureaucracy away from here please. Groz (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply making an observation of fact. We can proceed from that. The initial post could have been misread.  Ty  05:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you say I am a spammer? I do not make any money from my edits, I do it just for fun. This says my edits are OK: they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked Groz (talk)
 * Spamming is the term used on wikipedia when the only or main interest of the edits is to add a specific external link, which in your case is arthermitage.org. Whether this is for profit or "fun", it is not in the interests of the project, and you should desist. You presumably have some connection with this web site, and should leave it to non-involved editors to make the decision for its inclusion or otherwise. There does not appear to be any support for including it.  Ty  16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Christie's Auction
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)

Vandalism?
Is "Dumb Kid" supposed to be the title to the image? 8.225.197.131 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been . Thanks. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis
The sentence, " Where Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and Picasso's works dominated Leo and Gertrude Stein's collection, Sarah Stein's collection emphasized Matisse." seemed to lack point, insofar as it is saying, essentially, that Matisse, among others, dominated the Stein collection and dominated, as well, Sarah Stein's collection. What's the difference between "dominated" and "emphasized?" Hence I added "particularly" to the line.

Beyond Painting
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)

The Cut-Outs
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)

Elderfield, John, and Henri Matisse. The Cut-Outs of Henri Matisse. First ed. New York: George Braziller, 1978. Print.

Matisse, Henri, Henri Matisse, Karl D. Buchberg, Nicholas Cullinan, Jodi Hauptman, and Nicholas Serota. Henri Matisse: The Cut-outs. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014. Print.

I added the section "The cut-outs" and, following the outline in my sandbox, started filling in the introduction (influence, process, origin). I will work on adding information about the key works and the recent exhibitions at Tate and MoMA. I am still not sure where to place the cut-out section in the article/what would make the most sense. Currently, it is between "The war years" and "Last years," but the the overlap makes the reading a little confusing. I am thinking I might want to delete a section (or both), and rework the information into mine, creating one cohesive section? Or just edit the sections for any repetition/rename the headings to clarify. Sjs1994 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified
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)

Lead section
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

To say that it is just about the artist and not where they stand in art history is exceedingly myopic. History reads as history reads and the reversal of what was or is deemed to be art is historic. To write someone out of history where they belong and make your own rationalized assessment is wrong. The reader can just click on the link and figure it out. Do we expect nothing of our readers? Tp learn is it just supposed to be that simple learning is not that simple you are altering the truth.Masterknighted (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * All I have say now as you introduced that second sentence to include Duchamp and then removed him from it is that you have committed a stupendous act of politically expendient hypocrisy glossed over with a veritable glossary, this is a battle for another day I surrender for now.Masterknighted (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol I'm just telling the truth...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not the truth its an inaccurate accounting of what occurred. A sentence you composed to include Duchamp (who by the way I am not an acolyte of ) as a very fair solution to the problem now stands without him and mirrors the earlier one, so this riffs of some kind of deal that was made.  He clearly belongs in the second statement which was entered so as to explain to clarify and now just stands as if those were the only two whose radical work changed the state of art when we all know Duchamp is an important part of the story but i cannot win this argument but the way in which you switched sides is very puzzling indeed.Masterknighted (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image
Comments from editors requested. The choice is between:

Until then the 1913 image will remain in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should use both of them. I added or rather switched the Van Vechten with the other Van Vecten that wasn't as good...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism 2?
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Costumes dHenri Matisse pour le chant du rossignol (les Ballets russes, Opéra) (4550388400).jpg