Review of Matisse and Picasso: The Story of Their Rivalry and Friendship by Jack Flam
Criticism of them side by side, riffing off each other in respect and competition
I have enjoyed the work of both artists since our first childhood trips to the Art Institute, indeed their images act like hinges in my imagination. These two geniuses grew side by side for nearly 50 years, studying each other, transforming images by exchange, and yes, competing and jealous, too. I had little idea how much they shared and how close their work was, so different do they appear. You get it all in this book – context, what they were trying to do, even the psycho-philosophical points they were trying to make. It is perhaps the best work of art criticism that I have yet read.
There are a number of very interesting contextual analyses. First, Picasso and Matisse radically pushed the limits of modernism. Painting became less about portraying the subject accurately and more about expressing the reaction of the artist to it, a view into their inner selves. Hence, the grotesque and contorted features and the brilliant colors. Picasso tilted toward Surrealism, Matisse to Fauvism (which was called Expressionism in Austria). This went far beyond the experimentation of the Impressionists in brush technique or the mystical imagery of the Symbolists, becoming wholly subjective and often composed completely from memory rather than using live models.
Second, they were experimenting with Cezanne’s innovations, which had to do with the angles and planes within the painting. I am unsure if I understood it properly – it’s very much like technical descriptions of music – but it led to cubism and the radical reordering of painting composition. While neither of them took the final step into purely abstract painting as they remained anchored to objects, people, and scenes in reality, the innovations enabled them to enlarge expressive capabilities, creating an entire new vocabulary of imagery, in my opinion beyond the darker Kokoschka and Schiele.
Third, they also spearheaded the widening of the parameters of art. Flam argues that Picasso added elements not normally included in painting, including real objects being portrayed as well as manufactured materials such as wall paper. This opened the way, Flam claims, to dadaism and surrealism. At the same time, Matisse enlarged the frame of his art, so that his paintings covered only a portion of the principal scene, implying a larger landscape beyond, a notion incorporated later into conceptual art. In my view, these are heady abstractions that may overstep what the artists accomplished or intended. I need more art history to judge it.
Fourth, both were attempting to make philosophical points about life. Picasso portrayed much of the ugliness in human nature and relationships as he perceived them, while Matisse reached to the light, seeking to transcend sadness and evil. Interestingly, Picasso worked at night while Matisse painted by day. While these kinds of interpretations can become overblown and too intellectualized, Flam’s conclusions are often directly supported by the artists’ written explanations. (There is a great richness of quotations in the book.) The artists also often synched with what they were experiencing in life, both personally and politically. For the most part, while skeptical, I found these interpretations illuminating. For example, estranged from his wife, Picasso found a mistress (Marie-Therese Walter) who was simple and totally adoring, which his portraits of her expressed; as fascism rose, he also got involved with Dora Maar, who came to embody the despair and anxiety of the times – as he brutalized her.
Beyond these analytical points, there was the riffing that went on between them. Often, their works contain direct responses to the other’s recent efforts, which explained many otherwise baffling images to me. They can be respectful copies, playful jokes, even mockery as well as broader themes, such as intimacy and tenderness. For example, there is an oddly proportioned man by Picasso, whose head comes out of his leg; it has always left me completely cold as a work of art. Flam claims it is a satirical echo of a series of dancers that Matisse had just done and demonstrates it. Throughout the book, there are dozens of such examples that are utterly fascinating, placing them in a personal context that is extremely valuable.
As one can see from this review, the ideas in this book are rarified to the point that it might be best for aficionados. Because I pored over books of art images as a child, I am familiar with a lot of the works that are referenced here and described in detail; I lived in Europe most of my adult life and often went to see them in museums. My interest is more naïve than academic and I claim no professional-level knowledge, just love of the imagery. Nonetheless, I believe this book can serve as a solid introduction. It includes many biographical details, though never to excess, and is appropriately critical of their conduct. It does not go on and on to the point of numbness as so many academic studies do, but mercifully cuts off at 2-page descriptions.
There are a number of points that could have been developed further. Beyond the most limited travel experiences and the most obvious international political pressures, the book is focused entirely on France. I would have liked much more on the links with German, Austrian and Russian artists, who worked along very similar lines. Many of the interpretations are also a bit too elaborate for me, claiming for example to know what a specific line or object was meant to represent, etc. The illustrations, while useful, are all in black and white when color plates would have been better in specific instances.
Recommended with enthusiasm. This is great art criticism, written with clarity and brevity for non-specialists. I will no doubt need to research further, a sign of the book’s success.