The Potato Eaters: A physical distortion or an artistic perfection?

Good day mates! I am back, and this time its more Van Gogh. I hope you enjoyed my last post because I am sure you will enjoy this one even more. After talking to you last time, I decided to look for a Van Gogh painting that reflected his artistic characteristics of his early years. As I searched websites online, I came across his first famous painting, “The Potato Eaters”.

This oil on canvas consists of what seems to be a family of five peasants in their residence eating at their dinner table. The room is dark but with an oil light lamp which allows us to analyze the painting. It dates back to 1885 and it is known today as his first masterpiece. Here is a picture of the painting:

After seeing this painting, I looked for an article relating to it and actually found one rather interesting. This article by an unidentified student from Princeton, who discusses the structure of the painting, the physical characteristics of the characters painted by Van Gogh, and the reasons why this painting was not accepted as a masterpiece in the early years of its creation.

According to the author, The Potato Eaters is an impressive work of art that today is rendered as one of Van Gogh’s masterpieces. However, back in 1885, critics saw the painting as too stiff and unrealistic, containing awkward looking people with deformed extremities. Again, the author’s main point is to explain why the critics in 1885 did not appreciate the painting and the reasons Van Gogh used the techniques he used.

At the time of its creation , people argued that the painting was too superficial. One critic was highly skeptical of the painting. “Why haven’t you studied their movement? They look so posed. That genteel hand of the woman in the back is completely unrealistic!”, he said. Many people argued that Van Gogh’s figured were not pretty; there was something off about them. They had strange, gawky features and looked awkward- not the type of people a potential buyer would want hung on his wall.

To debacle this argument, the author explains that Van Gogh purposely painted the work this way to portray the hardship and survival this family had to go through every day. Had he painted them correctly positioned and comfortable, this message could not have gone through. He conveyed the physical and mental wear and tear on the peasants in his paintings through slightly contorted anatomy: their strangely bent over bodies show the work load that was pressed upon them and thus weighed down their lives literally and figuratively.

I think the article does a wonderful job analyzing the physical aspects of the characters and refuting the statements made by the critics one hundred years ago. It clearly explains the reasons Van Gogh portrayed the characters the way he did. However, it fails to analyze the surroundings of the characters and the expressions of the characters themselves, which is something I would like to talk about.

To start off, even though the characters are awkward looking and this is purposely done to portray a sense of poverty and hard work, the expression on their faces are extremely vivid and allows the viewer to delve inside the characters minds. One can see the hardship and the sadness in these characters expressions.

Another important aspect is that this painting was created way before Van Gogh began extensive use of impressionism and other painting techniques, but the mixture of dark and lightness in the painting make it unique and adds to the sentiment of hardship and survival.

Something that the author fails to talk about is the array of detail in the surrounding areas of the painting and in the dinner table. Some of these include:

-The rafter boards in the back of the piece.

- The lines forming a window in the darkness.

- The picture frame hung on the wall.

- The large plate of potatoes, and the fingers stretched out to obtain them.

- The woman pouring something that looks like coffee.

- The torn and worn down edges of the table.

Now that I have explained to you some of the things that were absent in the author’s article, I think that you can gain a full understanding and appreciation of the painting “The Potato Eaters”. Hope you enjoyed the post, good day mates!

SOURCES

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/potatoindex.html

http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/f05/michalak/conclusion.html

Is Analyzing Art Superfluous? What About the Painting The Last Supper?

Some people believe that avidly criticizing art is unnecessary. Those people may find themselves embracing other aesthetic forms, such as music or dance. However, I find it offensive and irreverent for someone to criticize someone else for possessing a different passion or interest. Analyzing art is an individual process and people should not be disparaged for being “nit-picky,” as Shelley Esaak refers to it as. Shelley Esaak’s satirical blog addresses the controversy over Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.

The blog sarcastically attempts to explain why the controversial figure in Leonardo’s, The Last Supper is not Mary Magdalene, but a male disciple. She does not even address why some people would consider the figure to Jesus’ right a female, even though the figure has female qualities. Instead, Esaak attacks those people that may look more into a painting that what is transcribed in a paragraph to the right of the painting. A critique can effectively state their opinion without offending or judging other people.

Shelley Esaak references the Biblical account of Mary Magdalene at the last supper. She explains that Mary was the only person there to wipe the disciples’ feet, which she refers to as a minor task. This is no minor task! Wiping and washing feet symbolized much more in Biblical times than it would today. However, as I scanned through the bible, I could not find concrete evidence that Magdalene attended the last supper. Instead, I read that Jesus was the one who washed his fellow disciples’ feet.

If Mary was truly at the last supper, I believe it is completely relevant for people to question if Leonardo painted a questionable figure to resemble her. Even if he painted such a figure, that does not mean that he thought she was at the table. He could have painted the figure to spark interest and controversy. The best art is controversial.

Esaak admits that Leonardo was been known for “stirring the pot” every now and then, but “was not stupid.” The fact that Da Vinci painted a questionable figure with feminine traits does not question stupidity at all. It is clearly evident that the figure resembles a female.

For one, the questionable figure possesses a lighter complexion than the other disciples, which is referred to as high key. The other disciples possess defined and dark facial ascents. The painter accomplished this look by using a method called hatching. To address color, the questionable figure wears bears a pink toga while the remaining disciples wear more masculine attire. The disciple’s hand placement on the figure sparks curiosity. Leonardo does a great job of making the hand seem to lightly graze on the figure’s shoulder. The figure’s face direction towards the touch appears feminine. Jesus obtains the other disciples’ attention, except for the figure to his right, the figure possessing the feminine qualities. The fact that the figure chooses not to look towards Jesus may symbolize that the figure at the table is unlike the other disciples.

I think it is very debatable that Leonardo painted this figure to resemble Mary Magdalene. I am not even addressing whether Mary sat at the table or not. I just find it a bit absurd that Shelley Esaak would dismiss the theory altogether. Analyzing art is interesting and thought provoking but Esaak feels otherwise.

The support that Shelley Esaak uses is weak. One of her main points is that Leonardo is known for painting and drawing effeminate-looking males. If this is so, why did he not paint all of them all feminine or a few? Why one? Just because he gave the figure painted in Angel in the Flesh feminine qualities does not mean he randomly makes men look like females.

Shelley Esaak. “Is that John or mary Magdalene in the Last Super? About: Art History. http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_supper/f/john_v_mary.htm

Equally Artistic and Then Some

G’day reader! Back for more opinions, eh? Glad to hear it—because I sure have them! My stacks of old magazines are endless mates and I keep finding old articles to tell you about! This time I found an article reviewing the work of John William Waterhouse. Waterhouse is one of my favorite artists. I am sad to say, this review of his work really didn’t capture a very positive feeling towards his work though. There was one point in the argument that really tangled my seaweed, while I agreed with another whole heartedly! Let me tell you a bit about those points. Then I can share my reasoning behind why I think Waterhouse earned a bad rap from the article.

First, it is important to note that Dorment did not tear Waterhouse’s work to shreds—he just scratched at it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion—after all, that is why I have a blog, right? Right. So, with that preamble out of the way, let’s dive in a bit here. Dorment’s thesis states: “Without for a moment denying that his work is both accomplished and appealing, the visitor emerges from the exhibition with a feeling that most of his pictures teeter on the edge of the sweetly derivative” (p. 868). Dorment gave reason for his differing opinions of Waterhouse by addressing two variations of Waterhouse’s work, heroines and storytelling art.

In the way of heroines, Dorment commended Waterhouse’s Isabella and the Pot of Basil, but said it lacks. “Waterhouse’s combination of perfect technique applied to certifiably interesting subjects seems rarely to have resulted in paintings that breathe, live, and fascinate” (869). To prove his opinion, Dorment compared Waterhouse’s work to other artists addressing emotion, but did not comment further on other elements comprising the paintings. “… heroines… of an earlier generation of Victorian artists, reappear here as teenage models dressed and posed like their mature predecessors, perfectly drawn and beautifully painted, but bleached of frustration, lust, and despair that made Hunt or Millais want to paint them in the first place” (869).

For his second round of criticism, Dorment elaborates on Waterhouse’s storytelling art. In a somewhat condescending compliment, Dorment wrote, “I found the picture haunting and even, rare for Waterhouse, moving…” in reference to Nymphs Finding the Head of Orpheus (869). Without truly analyzing either piece, Dorment again compared Waterhouse to other painters who painted the same scenario. Despite his compliment, Dorment did reflect on Waterhouse’s achievement in storytelling not achieved by other artists. “[I] also found in it no question of a seriousness deeper than the simple narrative details reveal, such as we instinctively feel in Gustave Moreau's or Odilon Redon's Symbolist versions of the same subject” (869).

I believe that Waterhouse’s work is merely a contrasting and equally artistic interpretation of the stories he chose to tell in his work. As a rebuttal, and unlike Dorment’s analysis, I will compare Waterhouse to the artists referenced by Dorment to support my opinion.

In the first case of heroines, let’s compare Waterhouse and Hunt’s work, both titled Isabella and the Pot of Basil. In Hunt’s piece, the artist’s talent is undeniable.

Hunt’s use of warm colors creates an inviting tone to the piece. The background differentiates from the foreground, creating a soft but recognizable dimension. The use of light appears high key in the bottom left of the painting and fading to a lower key lighting as the eye wander to the upper right corner. This creates in the viewer’s mind a source of light without being obtrusive. The subject is set to the right of the canvas with her eye line down and right. I agree with Dorment that this painting fascinates, but I do not feel that it breathes or lives. In fact, I do not perceive continued or unfolding action.

In Waterhouse’s version of the same painting, the colors are cool, and in fact a bit cold to the point that tone reflects disparity. Dimension is focused in the foreground of the painting, and Waterhouse allows for a softer line of dimension in the background. With this approach, the viewer focuses on the figure rather than background because the foreground is what is more intriguing. The source of light appears to be coming from behind the viewer in a sense as it washes over the subject and foreground and dissipates in the background. The subject is set to the left of the frame with an eye line drifting up and in front of the subject, though she does not open her eyes. After considering the different elements of these two paintings, it is clear that both artists have a different image of the same Isabella. I personally find Waterhouse’s interpretation more intriguing. I feel that his Isabella reflects a different emotion, but that emotion is just as clear and intriguing as the emotion conveyed in Hunt’s depiction. Therefore, I disagree with Dorment’s critique that Waterhouse’s heroine, in comparison to Hunt’s, lacks emotion.

Onto the story-telling art. In particular, I will focus on Odilon Redon’s Orpheus and Waterhouse’s Nymphs Finding the Head of Orpheus. Dorment stated that Waterhouse delves further into the seriousness of the story he told in his work while other artists, as Redon, tend to float on the surface of the narrative. First, let’s look at Redon’s work.

In this piece, Redon used warm colors with an apparent soft tactile element. Looking at the painting, one may be inclined to believe it feels like velvet because there is not an implied second dimension to the piece. There is low key lighting, reflecting a somber mood. The placement of the subject is in the left of the frame, and the nymph hold an instrument off some type, upon which the head is mounted. The head itself looks peaceful and slightly feminine.

In Waterhouse’s depiction of the same tale (Nymphs Finding the Head of Orpheus), there differences are obvious. Waterhouse used cool colors and again evokes a cold tone in this piece. This tone forces the audience to consider the piece as not a reflective snapshot but a more in depth survey of the story, encompassing the shock, horror, and dismay the nymphs felt as they watch the head of Orpheus float. The lighting is remarkable. I would characterize the lighting as high key, attributing the darkness of the painting to the color scheme rather than lighting. If you look closely, you may see that the skin on the right nymph’s back is bright and nearly glowing from a light seemingly positioned above the scene. The nymphs are placed to the right and center of the frame and the head floats slightly left of the center, indicative of it drifting away. The head itself looks more masculine than in Redon’s piece. The armor floating around the head also presents the warrior legend of the deceased.

In the element of storytelling as referenced by Dorment, I agree that Redon’s piece captures a moment rather than the story as does Waterhouse. I also agree with Dorment on the point that Waterhouse’s painting is haunting and moving indeed.

In conclusion, I hope that you, my mates, will take a look at some of the art displayed here and that is whets your appetite for further exploration. In the mean time, I am off to buy a Waterhouse print for the bar to add a touch of class.

Dorment, Richard. “The J.W. Waterhouse Exhibition: Sheffield and Wolverhampton.” The Burlington Magazine 120.909 (December 1978): p. 866, 869, 871. JSTOR. Wilson Library, Chapel Hill. 2 April, 2007

Van Gogh: His depression and his art

Well Hello again mates! Today and for the rest of this month I will be talking to you about the beautiful world of art. I have been painting since I was a youngster, and the walls surrounding my bars are covered by an overwhelming collection of paintings. Late last night as I was surfing the web, I came across an interesting article about my favorite painter, Vincent Van Gogh.

Van Gogh was a painter that lived during the 1800’s and is recognized as one of the world’s most fascinating artists, portraying his talent through the oil on canvas painting method. After reading the first article however, I came across another article which happened to basically contradict everything the first one said and left me thinking about the whole issue for a while. Anyways, lets analyze both of the articles.
The first article is by Art Review and it is titled “Van Gogh: The last painting”. The author acknowledges Van Gogh’s fabulous artistic ability and his high degree of intelligence throughout the article. The main argument however, is that he never wished to portray his depression and sadness through his artwork because he deeply cared about his family, and had no intention of letting anyone know about his feelings. The author has several sources of evidence to demonstrate this.

First, his self-portraits do not clearly show a man in depression or in sadness so it would be wrong to say that he was in fact trying to show something. In fact, in one of his self-portraits in 1889, he painted himself from his right side so that he could hide the left side of his face that was missing an ear he had cut off a few weeks earlier. Many of his paintings are live and full color, and if he had wished to portray his depression he would have certainly painted with darker colors.

Second, his letters to his mother before his death shows that “he deeply loved and admired her” and that in no way did he want her to see his sadness and melancholy. The author argues that through his writings one could tell that he was an emotional and intelligent human being. So basically mates, this author admires Van Gogh a lot and thinks that he should be admired for his artwork rather than the psychological problems he had, because these were not being portrayed through his paintings.

The second article, by Laura Miller is titled “Van Gogh on Prozac”. Here the author argues that the only reason Van Gogh’s paintings are so praised and admired to this day is because of the fact that he was crazy, and if Prozac had been available to him a hundred years ago, his artwork would never even have been known to exist. She states that his depression, epilepsy and suicide largely contributed to his success as an artist.

This author provides very little evidence throughout her article and bases her arguments or statements on personal belief. That is the reason mates that I do not agree with any of her arguments.

The first one, is that Van Gogh was in a state of deep depression and enjoyed showing this through his paintings; hence all of the personal portraits he did during the two years prior to his death. Her second argument, based on the fact that the first one is correct, is that people loved his paintings because everyone tends to have a natural tendency of liking art because of the artist’s personality, especially if he is crazy and unstable.

The second argument, or well I do not really think I can call this argument, is that “had Prozac been available back then, no one would have wanted him to take it” because he would of stopped painting such incredible art. This basically means that people like to see others suffer because they receive a benefit from it (a good painting). This statement is totally outrageous and portrays normal people as some sort of monsters. I have to say that I strongly disagree with this author and believe that her comments are completely out of line.
Well mates I hope you enjoyed this, ill see you all soon!

"Van Gogh:The last self-portrait". The Art Review. London, England. 2006

Miller, Laura. "Van Gogh on Prozac".
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/05/23/kramer/index.html

The Work of Otto Dix

Being a free thinker, I sometimes look at many types of art. One that is particularly striking is expressionism, which aims to convey certain emotions visually in art.

The expressionist movement in the visual arts became mainly popular in the early 1900’s, partially as a result of the first and second world wars. One of the most prominent, and the one who happens to be my favorite expressionist, is the German artist Otto Dix.

Firstly you need to have a little bit of background information on the life of Dix in order to understand the intentions of his work. Otto Dix was born and raised in Germany. The most significant part of his life (in relationship to his art) was his service in World War I. Dix continued to reflect on his experience in the first Great War and the tragedy of living during the Second World War, using this to infuse his work. Being an expressionist, much of his war related paintings and drawings (seem to) deal with negative feelings and emotions.

However, in the article “Confronting Postwar Shame in Weimar Germany: Trauma, Heroism and the War Art of Otto Dix” Paul Fox makes the case that Dix’s motivations and intentions can be easily misinterpreted by anyone who doesn’t have insight into Dix’s life.

Overall Fox feel completely certain that Dix’s work is void of any pro or anti war claims and focuses solely on personal emotional experiences rather than generalized tragedy.

Fox begins by explaining a commonly held theory in war related art, fashioned most notably by Linda McGreevy. This theory is that an artist will choose his or her war related material by prescribing to either the reactionary or pacifist camps. McGreevy specifically describes Dix’s intentions as pacifistic. A deeper analysis of Dix’s work, believes Fox, shows that this view shallow and that Dix’s meaning my have been incorrectly determined.

Being a veteran of the military Otto Dix has had lasting emotional imprint placed on his mind during his service. In light of this and of various drawings and writings he has created Fox believes it is apparent that Dix’s work on war revolves almost solely around the psychology and emotions of the soldiers during the war.

Fox gives evidence from “The Trench” a peer reviewed article that examines war related art, especially Dix’s. The article explains how Dix addresses his intended audiences, that is the veterans of war and the witnesses (militants that did not reach the front lines). Most of Dix’s expression seems to be accounting for the trauma of the veterans rather than make a statement or movement against war all together.

While it may seem that these experiences such as fear and tremendous pain (such as seen in some of his gory drawings) he also includes (some) images of better characteristics such as resilience. Dix only includes graphic images of war in ways that show how the soldiers saw or were affected by these stimuli.

Rather than making a point against war, as McGreevy describes, Dix instead is using his appeal and talent to highlight veterans issues, mainly those of (what we call now) post-traumatic stress disorder and the strength required by the soldiers to mentally survive what they have been presented with.

Fox, Paul. “Confronting Postwar Shame in Weimar Germany: Trauma, Heroism and the War Art of Otto Dix.” Oxford Art Journal. 2006. http://oaj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/29/2/247

Michelangelo's Influences

Well hiya mates! It’s been quite a while since you were here; guess you were out enjoying the snow that spring has brought to some parts of the world. Even though we never get snow down here, I really thought that winter was over. In any case I didn’t get up here to discuss the weather; I actually wanted to talk about one of my favorite artists. I’m going to let you guess, this artist was responsible for a colossal sculpture known as the David, as well as the magnificent ceiling painting in the Sistine Chapel. If you guessed Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, you are correct. Michelangelo was phenomenal Italian painter, sculptor, architect, poet, and engineer of his time. Today, Michelangelo is recognized world wide as being one of the founders of what is known as the High Renaissance.

It is no secret that every good artist must have inspirations. However great artists such as Michelangelo must be inspired as well as have outside influences. As of late, there has been much adieu as to what influenced Michelangelo to create such masterpieces. One particular article entitled On How to Listen to High Renaissance Art written by John Onians claimed that the works of individuals such as Michelangelo brought about the recognition of such arts as painting, sculpture, and architecture that cause the surpassing of previously recognized arts such as music and poetry. Furthermore Onians goes on to state that Michelangelo as well as other founding artists of the renaissance were influenced from written works that focused particularly on each artist’s area of interest.

Despite having a rather interesting thesis, John Onians was not able to provide nearly as much evidence for Michelangelo that would have supported his theory as he did for the other artists. In fact it seemed as thought Onians was some what unsure about Michelangelo. Onians was able to conclude however that Micheangelo was influenced by poetry because of his contact with Pohitian. However that one piece of evidence was not convincing enough support his original thesis stating that it was music and poetry that Michelangelo used as inspiration for his artwork.

Interestingly enough another article had an entirely different take on what influenced Michelangelo. The Influence of Neo-Platonism on Michelangelo written by Dr. Deborah Vess is smothered with evidence in order to support her thesis. Dr. Vess maintained that Neo-Platonism had a great influence on the Renaissance and that it was the very thing that influenced Michelangelo as well. Neo-Platonism is a term coined for schools that thrive based on religious and mystical philosophy. Such schools first appeared around the 3rd Century AD.

Dr. Vess was able to support her theory with evidence from several sources in which most were direct quotes that were said by Michelangelo himself. Dr. Vess stated that the artist in Michelangelo’s eyes was like God, which no doubt comes from neoplatonism. Dr. Vess also provides interpretations of his artworks in a rather vivid manner that again supports her thesis. Art historians are aware of Michelangelo’s obsession with the body, but Dr. Vess takes the opportunity to explain the reason for such was that Michelangelo felt as though the human body was “a reflection of the beauty of the soul.” Thus it provides not only an explanation for Michelangelo’s obsession with the human body but also links it directly to Neo-Platonism.
Dr. Vess concluded her article with the following, “only divine inspiration could have created the David and the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and it was to the divine that Michelangelo wished to appeal.” There is no doubt that the divine mentioned are the ideas, beliefs, and values that were instilled in neoplationism during that time period.

To that end there is no doubt as to which author provided the better article. Clearly it was Dr. Vess, because unlike Onians, she actually took the time to do some detailed research on Michelangelo whereas Onians only had two or three short paragraphs on one of the greatest artists of all time.

Inspired-- but by what?

‘ello everyone! So glad you stopped in for another piece of my mind. My focus has shifted to art mates. I had a buddy stop in the other day, rattling off on how she saw an exhibit of Matisse and Picasso at MoMA. One, ahem, beverage after the other just propelled her through this rant on how Matisse was inspired by fabric. Now, how can a painter be inspired by fabric, you may ask. I wondered the same thing. As I looked at some of Matisse’s art, I began to see fluidity and reasoned that this must be what critics are talking about. Then I found these two articles. One says the Matisse was solely influenced by fabrics while another says that the fabric argument is only the surface—his true inspiration was modernity. Interesting theories—so I looked a little deeper. Here is what I found.

A professor of philosophy and aesthetics, Maureen Egan makes the argument that Matisse drew his inspiration from fabric alone in her article titled Matisse: Fabric of Dreams. In her article, the author’s thesis is ““Throughout his life, as Spurling notes, Matisse felt the strong influence of textiles and incorporated them into his paintings, often in radical new ways” (Egan p.3) Egan embellishes her argument with references to Matisse’s biographical information and his four stages as exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) exhibit in 2003. Egan’s mention of Matisse’s biographical information is limited to location where he grew up and briefly explains the significance of this town. “A descendent of four generations of weavers from French Flanders, Matisse (1869-1954) spent his childhood in Bohain- en-Vernandois, an area famous for handwoven luxury fabrics…” (Egan p. 1) Egan delves further into details as she discusses the four stages of Matisse’s art. According to Egan, stage one “opens with artifacts from his beginnings in Bohain and his time as a young art student in Paris, then moves on to the period before World War l.” (Egan p. 2) During stage two, “one particular piece of flowered cotton toile de Jouy became a powerful inspiration to him and began to appear prominently in his paintings” (Egan p. 2). As Matisse continued his career, stage three manifested changes made to Matisse’s creative environment—changes sure to impact his work. “Matisse's move to Nice in 1918… His studio came to resemble a small theater replete with backdrops, carpets, screens, props, and a variety of ethnic costumes.” (Egan p. 2) Fourthly, and finally, Matisse’s fourth stage took a cultural turn, perhaps another step towards the ethnicity he sought in the transformation of his space in stage three. “African fabrics that captivated Matisse and a set of religious vestments that he designed for the Chapelle du Rosaire in Venice, France, to represent the fourth period” (Egan p. 2). In summary, Egan supports her argument that Matisse was strongly inspired by fabric by making reference to his upbringing and the four stages of his work as exhibited at MoMA. In Alan Powers’ article, Pattern and Painting, the author argues that though Matisse was inspired by fabrics, but that fabric was just an element of an entire cultural movement that was the true stem of inspiration. Without the existing conditions, the fabric would not be important. Powers’ thesis states, ““The textile 'story' in Matisse's life is there for anyone to see… This affinity was not merely a biographical accident, however. It was a symptom of a wider cultural movement within Modernism, one whose significance has still to be fully acknowledged” (Powers p. 1). To support his argument, Powers draws his evidence from Matisse’s biographical information, as did Egan. However, Powers does not stop at mentioning that the young artist grew up in a fashion town. According to Powers, Matisse grew up in a “town whose economy of textiles soon went into an overdrive of productivity to feed the fashions of a Paris recovering from the bitter aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war” (Powers p.1). With this evidence, Powers says that the people of Paris turned to modernity to relieve themselves of grief caused by war. He continues along this track saying, “…the young artist's principal visual stimulus in an otherwise grim upbringing would have been these extraordinary untutored flowers of the industrial wilderness” (Powers p. 1). Translation to more digestible terms: if Matisse hadn’t been in this town, perhaps his talent would not have been cultivated. In essence, Powers’ article argues that the influence of fabric in Matisse’s art is merely a tip of the iceberg. Though he was influenced by fabrics, Powers states that the influx of modernity in the local culture surrounding Matisse as he grew up was the true seed from which his art stemmed.
Egan & Powers agree that Matisse was inspired by fabric and that he was exposed to fabric as a child. However, Egan says that Matisse was inspired by fabric. Powers makes the argument that fabric was just a product of Matisse’s true inspiration: modernism. In my opinion, I believe that if these two opinions were fused together, the product would be a more all-encompassing argument. At first glance, the texts seem to feud over Matisse’s source of inspiration—was it fabric or modern culture? Both arguments provide factual information drawn from the artist’s biographical history while also examining his art. One author chooses to focus on the art (Egan) while another focuses on biographical history (Powers). I do not believe either is wrong. I believe both are correct in their theories. In my view the opinions do no necessarily counter one another. Matisse is critically acclaimed for having been inspired by fabric, as exhibited in his four stages. History also tells us that not only Parisian culture, but worldwide, after the tragedy of war, citizens look for something new to embrace. For Parisians in the time of Matisse, that new, fresh hope was modernity.
The work of Matisse is truly fascinating. I encourage you to ponder some of his work to draw your own conclusions. Was he truly inspired by fabric? Modernity? Perhaps he was inspired by a tasty, tropical indulgence? I am off to attempt inspiration with a pina colada. Cheers, mates!

Egan, Maureen. “Matisse: Fabric of Dreams.” Fiberarts vol. 32 no. 1 (Summer 2005): pages 8-9. WilsonWeb Art Full Text. UNC Libraries, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2 April 2007. < _requestid="4263">

Henri Matisse and the Fauves. 2007. The National Gallery of Art. 9 April 2007.

MoMA The Museum of Modern Art. 2007. The Museum of Modern Art. 9 April 2007

Powers, Alan. “Patterns and Painting.” Crafts (London/England) no. 193 (March/April; 2005): pages 26-31. Wilson Web Art Full Text. UNC Libraries, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2 April 2007. < _requestid="4406">