Reply to comment | Snapped Shot

At first glance the two pictures are very similar, but if you look at them separately, they are quite different. Matisse's work is bright and cheery. It reminds one of kindergarten work, but is relaxing and fun to look at. I don't know why it makes me happy to see it, whether it is the choice of colors, the shapes, the balance, whatever it is it cheers me. The feeling is similar to what happens if I hold a door open for a stranger and she smiles at me in response. I think I would not get tired of seeing the Matisse work.  The other one doesn't cheer me at all. It seems as exciting as cheap wallpaper. I don't hate it, but it moves me in no way at all. Except for four pieces, the colors are bluish and dull. There are distracting white lines on the edges. There is very little to like in it.

What this tells me is that Matisse really had something on the ball; he could produce something worthwhile, or at least likable with only color and shape, something that apparently can easily be lost by changes in color.

Also, when rotated, the non-Matisse piece looks a bit like a prosaic scene: a lamp on a cherry colored table with a reddish sunset in the upper right and a funny colored chair on the lower right. The subtlely different shapes lack this touch of reality in the Matisse version.

One could easily construct a computer project: take the Matisse work, rotate it randomly and choose random colors for the pieces. How many of them would have greater appeal than the other one here? My guess is that most would!