This week I visited Matisse’s exhibition at RA, the main focus of this exhibition is (in my view) how Matisse interprets with objects to his paintings and also treats the studio as a painting subject, which triggered my thinking of the relation between object and painting.
Matisse’s painting mainly depict the objects he sought out that can stimulated and provoked him, he once stated:
“The object is an actor. A good actor can have a part in ten different plays; an object can play a role in ten different pictures.”
However in my opinion, if the objet is an actor, then Matisse is the director, it is Matisse’s ingenuity that motivated the “actor’s”diversity.
On the other hand, I think Matisse painting the objects this action is also an artistic recreation. The objects in his studio, whether from their design, colour or pattern, originally possess aesthetic value, through his portraying and deforming, these objects are endowed another layer of beauty. They are not only as decoration, as commodity, but we sublimed to fine art sphere and could be appreciated by public in a different position.
Matisse’s painting is a tran formation of 3D objects to 2D painting, what about my painting? I think my painting essentially is also a depiction of 3D objects( though usually from photo)( but a question should be driven here: is the image seen by eyes considered as 3D or 2D?) I transform objects existing in real life to 2D canvas, but I simultaneously add 3D material to my painting. So am I using a kind of 3D object to depict other kinds of real objects?..