![]() But look at the way the arrangement of the elements leads your eye around the painting. It may seem that Matisse plonked things onto the canvas any old place, or that he painted the table first and then had to fill up the rest of the space with something. I believe this is a painting with deceptively simple composition. They are juxtaposed, almost a collage of different views. The chair is in two-point perspective, the table in one, the window also recesses to a vanishing point. It could even be said each element of the painting does experience perspective, but is presented as if the artist were seeing only it. But we read the edge of the large painting as being in the corner anyway. The paintings at the back are clearly propped against a wall (4), even though there’s no separation of the side/back walls (5) in the way there is between the floor and side wall. The furniture may be reduced to outlines, but the table edges still angle in as they get further away (2), as does the chair (3). For instance, there’s a line on the left where the floor and wall meet (1). There's still a sense of depth to the room, created by the arrangement of the elements. Cubism deliberately breaks up perspective, representing a single object from several viewpoints.ĭon’t be deceived into thinking Red Studio is a totally flat painting or style. Chinese and Japanese art forms never have. Western painting styles before the Renaissance didn’t use what we now think of as traditional perspective (e.g. And it's not that Matisse didn't know how to get it "right" neither he just chose not to do it that way.Ī painting is a ultimately a representation or expression of something recreated in two dimensions, it doesn’t have to do it as an illusion of three dimensions. If that's not your aim, then you can't get the perspective "wrong". The question of getting perspective "right" applies only if you're trying to paint in a realist style, that is to create an illusion of reality and depth in a painting. He flattened the perspective in the room, and altered it from how we perceive perspective with our eyes. Matisse didn't get the perspective "wrong", he painted it the way he wanted it. If you look at his earlier paintings, such as Harmony in Red, painted in 1908, you'll see Matisse was working towards the style in Red Studio, it didn't pop up from nowhere. ![]() The elements Matisse included " sink their individual identities into what became a prolonged meditation on art and life, space, time, perception and the nature of reality itself."2 Or put far more simplistically, he painted a personal reality, the world as he perceived and experienced it, in a way that made sense to him. Red Studio gets grouped together with three other paintings Matisse did that year - The Painter's Family, The Pink Studio, and Interior with Aubergines – as standing " at a crossroads for Western painting, where the classic outward-looking, predominantly representational art of the past met the provisional, internalised and self-referential ethos of the future"1. He painted it in 1911, after his exposure to traditional Islamic art during a visit to Spain, which influenced his use of pattern, decoration, and depiction of space. Matisse's Red Studio is important for its use of color and its flattened perspective, his altering of reality and our perception of space. He did things with color no-one had before, and influenced many artists who followed. Matisse gets his place in the timeline of painting because of his use of color.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |