 Il a procuré un nombre d'exhibitions influentales. Il a éclaté des lectures extensives sur ces artistes. Je pense que l'année dernière, c'était particulièrement impressionnant et productif depuis que Evella a éclaté le catalogue de la Fondation Barnes, mais aussi le premier volume de la résonnaie catalogue de l'Elsworth Kelly, et il est préparé le deuxième volume, je pense, qui va être éclaté cette année ou la prochaine année. Aujourd'hui, Evella va s'occuper de la décoration de Matisse pour la Chappelle de France, et surtout les stations de la Crosse et l'utilisation de la Bamboustique. Je voudrais vous remercier Evella Bord pour avoir accepté notre invitation pour cette lecture aujourd'hui, et pourriez me joindre à l'invité d'Evella Bord. Merci. Merci, Céline. C'est avant, c'est ce que j'ai dit. Oups. C'est ce que j'ai dit. Je suis particulièrement heureux que les designers, qui ont travaillé sur notre publication Mémouth, je veux dire, Matisse et la Fondation Barnes, ont choisi le photographe de Matisse qui a éclaté la première version de l'Elsworth Kelly comme le motif de l'écran. J'ai toujours éclaté l'athlétisme de l'artiste Action. Il n'était pas le seul à ses risques. En comparaison avec la pièce de charcole entre deux oeufs, le weight de la caine et la pression qu'il faut appeler pour attirer à une distance comme celle-ci, sont assez considérables. Il ne faut pas parler de l'amount de contrôle que ça requiert, surtout quand il est en train de rester sur une bench. Je sais aussi qu'il y a des tendances de Matisse, de Casual Bairé. Les portraits photographiaux, comme celui-ci a été fait, sont décendus par Barnes pour la publication, ont tendance à être plus formaux. Le posture de sa main est le poids de sa main en poussant sur son pied. Il faut faire ça en s'assassant d'une balance, mais j'ai vu des défis comme un matador provoquant un boule. Les stances sont observées 17 ans plus tard dans un photograph de Robert Kappa, qui a été fait en 1948. Les droopiers du sac de Marse et les cordes dans les cendres ont répliqué Bairé comme le son de Casual Bairé, mais les défis sont encore rares et l'athlétisme II. Le poids est encore plus long que l'an 1931. Et comme l'adresse, l'adresse qu'il devait être, pour le manipuler quand il était 62 ans, il devait être plus qu'à 79 ans. Par un peu étrange, par exemple, un bon printemps de ce photographe lancé dans mes papiers des années auparavant. Je n'ai pas de mémoire de l'un ou de l'autre. Et depuis, il a été élevé sur une bouche dans laquelle l'office s'occupe. Je le vois tous les jours. Et ça a un effectif confortable, un peu comme un talisman, qui me présente un trait. Pour la question de graisse, ce que j'ai connu avec cet embout, est celui qui m'a préoccupé depuis que j'ai commencé à élevé dans mes jours étudiants. 50 ans dans la ligne, il y a eu le cours d'un essai anglais intitulé « Matisse et l'architecture » que j'ai publié au cours du siècle auparavant. Et ceux qui allaient souffrir de mes propres études, m'ont dit que l'issue de la graisse a obsessivement acheté pour presque tout ce que j'ai écrit sur Matisse, including, bien sûr, mon essai pour le Bouncebook. Ce n'est pas une obsession qui s'est élevé. C'est pourquoi j'ai utilisé un petit pat en bas que la graisse de la graisse s'occupe. Avec le cours d'un essai, je le dis dans le catalogue du Bounce. Avec l'apologies, pour ceux qui l'ont déjà regardé. Donc je le dis, j'ai toujours dénoncé d'avoir une théorie que l'on aimerait éprouvant dans ses premières études du 1906 à 1916 ou encore plus. Il a non plus reproduit ce qu'un appelait un système. Un style de principale et que l'économie est la production entière. Et ici j'ai briefly interprété la défense de mon use du système, qui a récemment réveillé un réveiller. Par système, je veux dire une condition de possibilité dans laquelle tout est lié, pas un méthode systématique où tout est réveillé en avance. Ok, je vais retourner à mon shortcut. Matisse retourne au système dans les années 30 en travaillant sur la commission de la banque. Le coût du système était la couleur. D'ailleurs, si il y avait une action civile sur laquelle le système de Matisse était basé, cela pourrait être étendu par l'affaire. Un centimètre de centimètre de bleu n'est pas un bleu comme un mètre de la même bleu. Ou d'ailleurs, comme Matisse a fait des statements contre le système, la qualité de la couleur dépend, au moins de la saturation de la valeur sur la quantité de la surface. Le bleu est effectué par cette quantité au moins directement que par l'interaction des couleurs. Le fait que les relations de couleur sont sur la quantité de la surface a beaucoup d'implications immédiques pour Matisse. La plus importante, peut-être, c'est que la position traditionnelle de la couleur et l'implication sont cancées. Dès qu'une seule couleur peut être modulée par un changement de proportion, toute la division de la surface est en soi une procédure coloristique. Qu'est-ce qui compte le plus avec la couleur de nos relations, Matisse a dit, grâce à elles, et grâce à eux-mêmes, l'implication peut être intensement colorée sans qu'il n'y ait pas de need pour la couleur actuelle. En fait, c'est ma contention que Matisse a fait cette découverte sur la couleur en travaillant sur une série de couches en noir et blanc au début de 1906 et qui s'est installée pour vérifier dans Le Bonheur de Vivre. Beaucoup de traitements fondamentaux de Matisse, de Matisse, et de poste de cette période, de l'art, ont fallu par l'équation de quantité et de qualité. Tout d'abord, depuis un certain accord et un smooth par la peinture ou le dessin, sans qu'il n'y ait pas de quantité entre les surfaces, c'est impossible de travailler sans immédiatement considérer la totality de la surface à être couvert. Cela constitue un grand point de contention avec le Syniac point de la méthode divisionniste dont Matisse a brouillé dramatiquement quand il a painting Le Bonheur de Vivre. Deuxièmement, quand la question de qualité et de qualité est admettie, c'est impossible de square-up d'aider. Si vous avez une grande composition, le résultat sera complètement différent de l'original. La picture doit être travaillée à sa propre dimension par laquelle, dans les mots de Barnet Newman, peut-être le seul painter qui a fully suivi Matisse sur ce score, l'un sera transversé pour la sake de la scale. Deuxièmement, depuis que la modulation est maintenant une fonction de proportion de la surface, la modélisation traditionnelle n'est pas juste rédondée, elle s'amperde à l'enquête. Je devrais également ajouter que cette équation signifie l'endement des valeurs de couleur comme des entêtements et des entêtements fixés. Maintenant, aucune couleur peut performer dans le niveau des tonalités. Black peut même être l'endement de l'enquête. C'est l'endement de mon premier shortcut. Mais, depuis que j'ai shamelessly engagé la saison je l'ai engagé dans la seconde. Deuxièmement, c'est le passage directement suivi par l'enquête de l'enquête de l'enquête. Ce quote de Matisse a été écrit par le painter de 1908, dans lequel j'insiste que l'équation de qualité de quantité est invoquée à chaque turne. Je me souviens que Matisse veut transporter une composition d'une canvas d'une autre pour conserver une nouvelle pour préserver l'expression. Il faut avoir son caractère et ne pas quitter l'enquête d'une large canvas. Je vois que je vous ai suivi et je vous ai suivi, Matisse a créé le divis de Cignac. Cette rupture comme vous le savez, au cours d'un painter de Beauneur de Ville est la plus large canvas de ce point et pour cette, il a réalisé que, en tant que colorent il pouvait se dispenser avec la usure d'une cartoune. C'est par cette réalisation que Matisse a découvert une mesure vraie. Maintenant, c'était facile d'utiliser du travail fresco spécialement quand c'était possible pour le painter pour visuellement contrôler l'impossible pour le painter pour visuellement contrôler l'immense surface pour être couvert. C'était absolument indispensable quand il était au cours de la usure. Ou c'est servi pour transférer la composition en dessous de dessous de la pensée. Dans laquelle l'idée est sur ce qui arrive ou ce qui arrive les plus. Cela me donne une réponse d'un bon ami David et moi, Maria Loh. Elle a pointé un portrait rare de Michelangelo à travail qui a discuté un livre réellement publié l'année dernière des vies, des vies, et le portrait des vieux masters. La question est ce qui arrive ou ce qui arrive à la fin. Il s'agit d'une phrase qui a été détenue par un portrait qui a été déplacée. Une phrase qui a été déplacée. C'est pas un portrait qui a été C'est Charles Ernest, c'est Michelangelo painting the System Chapel in 1965 film by Carl Reid, entitled Agony and the Ecstasy. The impossibility to have access to a novel view of a work in progress was a usual condition for overall fresco painting, just not that on ceilings. Not only because frescoes were painted bit by bit, with fresh plaster applied to the area to be dealt with on any given day, as David Kim just remarked, but also because of the scaffolding that was overcoming the space and blocking the view. In fact, according to Francis Ames-Louis, this was one of the main reasons for which squaring became such a favorite practice among French painters, except Michelangelo, that is. By the end of the 15th century, it had been realized fully that only the use of square drawings could adequately compensate for the lack of opportunity of seeing the composition as a whole until the painting was finished and the scaffolding had been removed. Now, before I quote this little detour about possible precedence for the Matisse Bamboo, let me add that I learned from my friends, art historians of primordial past, about another past taken by previous artists, which does not concern transfer but distance, not so much a distance of the painter to the surface he paints, the lack of which Michelangelo complains, though it is also involved. But that between the work of art and the beholder, we used to perceive it. I don't want to open this very long chapter in history of western art, especially crucial during the Baroque era, an era when the skill of a painter was often measured by the gap between the apparent chaos of his work when seen up close and the realistic illusion the same work healed when seen from afar. Rembrandt's fame rested for long on this skill. Don't poke your nose into my pictures, his report to have said, the smell of paint will poison you. Immediately after making this quote, which is a very funny one, Ernst Gombrich refers to the biographer of Velasquez, Palomino, According to all the artist paid with especially long brushes to keep his distance from the canvas, so that his portraits were un intelligible from close quarters but miraculous when seen from afar. In term of long brushes, however, only those of Thomas Grenzbauer seem to have matched in length Matisse's bulbous stick, though we should be aware that his biographic detail is due to someone, G.T. Smith, who was a boy at the time of his witnessing, thus with a scale perception of a child. I quote, I was much surprised to see him sometimes paint portraits with pencil on sticks full six feet in length and this method of using them was this. He placed himself on his canvas at a right angle with a sitter so that he stood still and touched the feature of his picture exactly at the same distance at which the viewer is seated. At which he viewed his sitter, sorry, I knew there was something wrong. It is not clear why Grenzbauer did that. Maybe he thought that placing himself at the same distance from his sitter as that between himself and his canvas would, as if by itself, determine the exact degree of finish he had to work in order to obtain the realistic illusion he was after. Perhaps he wanted the future beholders of his portraits to watch those portraits dissolve at their approach, then retrace their steps in gaps of aura back to the point where they would be suddenly rewarded by a miraculous synthesis. And perhaps he wanted that point to perfectly coincide to what had been his own point of view as he had painted the works in question. If so, how coercing this required invocation is. And how completely opposed to the way in which Matisse envisioned the way his dance mural should be seen. The Russian art critic, Alexander Rome, was writing a book about him, noted that the major difference between the most cow dance and the bounce mural was that in the latter, the human element is less pronounced. To this remark, Matisse responded that at least in the mural, the category he preferred to call architectural drawing, I quote, the spectator should not be arrested by this human character with which he would identify and which by stopping him there would keep him apart from the great harmonious living and animated association of the architecture and the painting. In short, the last thing Matisse would have wanted us to do, what I want to do is to stop us as the builders in our track to force us to zero in. On the contrary, he wanted us to feel free to roam in the big gallery and distractedly peep at the dance perched way above at the periphery of our visual field. Now I shall not rehearse here the long and torturous history of the bounce dance, which unfold, it is unfolding in great lengths by Karen Butler in the book and to which I also devote quite a number of pages in my essay for the book. I'll just give you a few talking points. My argument is that together with this malarmy project on which he worked at the same time, the bounce commission reconnected Matisse with his views and working up from a long slumber. A growing paralysis, in fact, that had resulted in what we'd call a total painter's block at the end of the 20s. Needless to say, my take is that this recognition of Matisse with his views had to do with a quantity-quality equation to which he had bid farewell when he returned to traditional modelling in the paintings of his niece period. The enormous surface at bounce put at his disposal and offered him to decorate as he so fit, naturally raised the issue of scale. Like any other artist, Matisse began by making little sketches, which incidentally doesn't seem to be that usual for him. Perhaps because he only felt the need for it when working on a large composition and he didn't have the occasion to realise that many of those. Of course, we'll only be able to assess the percentage quality of strictly speaking preparatory drawings in Matisse's graphic output when a catalogue résumé will see the light of day. But my guess is that if compared with that of Picasso and its countless sketches for every single figure portrait or still lives, Matisse's output on that quantity of preparatory drawing is minute. In his first sketches, Matisse toyed right away with his youth, clearly alluding to the Moscow dance, and threw it to the Bonheur de Vieux, and he continued playing with a number of figures for a few weeks. But soon he realised that he needed to work at true scale, and he rented a garage, more spacious than his current studio, that could accommodate the size of the Marion Mural. To make this life easier, he tried at first to compromise within that intermediate stage, but this didn't work. Later in life, he would specifically recall this moment. When I wanted to make sketches on three sketches, one meter long, I couldn't get it. Finalement, I took three canvases of five meters each, the actual dimensions of the panel. And one day, armed with a charcoal on the end of a bamboo stick, I set out to draw the whole thing at one go. It was in me, like a written that carried me along, and I had a surface in my head. So that's the first photo you saw. As for the small colour studies he had made, they were particularly useless. Once the drawing was finished, when I came to put in the colour, I had to change all the forms I had envisioned. I had to fill the whole thing, and make sure that the whole would remain architectural. As is well known, working in painting at the enormous scale of the Marion Mural, that is testing in paint, various compositions and colour schemes proved impossible, too taxing physically. It is wanting to erase, in part, or even in totality, a canvass that is just a few feet high in order to start anew. It is quite another with a surface that is 11 feet tall and close to 45 feet wide. This was the first version of the dance painted at scale abandoned. Rather, it served as a canvas onto which Matisse would pin his cut-out of coloured paper. The device he adopted in order to be able to continually change his design, which happened daily at times, without having to erase or paint anything until all will be definitely set. In passing, I should note that the implement of the bamboo stick was not discarded by the paper cut-outs, and I hope we can see a little film that was discovered recently tomorrow, maybe. So, this is the first dance, and it's now in the Museum de la Ville de Paris, and it's filled with millions of little holes, because all the time Matisse moved his paper cut-outs to work on the bounce dance painted on the surface of this canvas. The rest of the story is even better known. In February 1932, as Matisse thought his work on dance was almost completed, an incredible error was discovered in the measurement of the penitives on which Matisse had relied all along. He saw they were 50 cm wide, in fact they were twice that. Everything would have to be altered in order to cope with this new bulkier architectural reality, except the palette, which he didn't want to modify. As he wrote, the colours, which are the same, are nonetheless changed. The quantities being different, their quality also changed. The colours are applied in a completely straightforward way, so that it is a quantitative relation that produced their reality. Once again, we see the quantity-quantity-quality equation verified. So, I leave this at that, and the dance there, and focus for doing a few minutes that remained at my disposal on the second time Matisse was caught on photograph using his bamboo stick, to which I alluded on the outset. He was working on his dance chapel, almost two decades after completing the bounce decoration. Given that he considered his dance a splendid success, Matisse was miffed for having been neglected by both the French state and the city administration of Paris at the time of the big Exposition universelle of 1937. Especially since artists utterly despised and even considered pale imitators of his, such as Raoul Dufy, had been commissioned vaste murals for the occasion. He was only slightly consoled by the arrival of the last version of the dance in Musée d'Armonne de la ville de Paris that same year, thanks to the curator Raymond Ochelier. I have a little parenthesis here about the complication. The last version of the dance is here in the middle, which of course shouldn't be so. The first version is the Paris dance, which is now called the unfinished dance. The middle version is the bounce dance, which is on the bottom here, which should be in the middle. And the last version, which was started before the second one, was finished after the Paris dance. We were structured, there were only two, because the original dance was discovered very late, like 20 years ago. The Paris dance was usually called the first, the Mayonne dance was called the second. Now the Paris dance is the third, it's like Raoul. So when the opportunity presented itself for Matisse to work again at a large scale, he readily embraced it. Even if the working question was to design a chapel, which did not really gel, with this well-publicized atheism and anti-clericonism, an inconsistency for which Picasso and his groupies chided him mercilessly. Matisse is concerned for scale, the necessity to work at true scale played in it, as expected, a large role in his work on the chapel. One of the first things he did when taking on the task was to leave his Croy de Villalauré in Vence, with its plentiful flower garden, suite on l'auperflore of the Regina Hotel in Nice. He chose it, he told friends, because the dimensions of its largest room more or less matched that of the space he had in mind for his chapel. It is not here, the occasion, to examine in detail this complex project, which Matisse considered his masterpiece. Now we're going to discuss the ubiquitous presence of the bamboo stick, in all the photographs of Matisse sketching the ceramic rules of the chapel, which I show you a few here, given from his bed. He often mentioned this bamboo stick when writing to first of all Couturier, the Dominican priest who took upon himself to make sure that despite the hostility of a large part of the Catholic clergy, the project would be brought to fruition. Here's what Matisse wrote, for example, on April 7, 1949. Two days ago, with a charcoal fishing rod, a sketch, the station of the cross, I'm happy with this rough sketch, as it came out in the single one long breath of ten hours. So I don't know if it's this one or this one, I think it's probably the previous one, but in order to stress how much the scale issue was then as essential for Matisse as ever, I simply offer you this photograph, showing Matisse designing the bell and spy of the chapel. As first I thought it was bordering on the absurd, why insist on drawing at two scales something that will always be seen from afar, because it's on the roof of the chapel. Architects would never be able to build anything if they had to produce a two-scale model of every building they design at every stage of the design process. This is actually what Sarah bemoons in the whole profession and practice, by the way. Thus, to be told, though, Matisse is not such an absolutist. The letter from the artist to Couturier reveals that on this photograph he is in fact shown correcting the drawing that an engineer had produced with a pantograph from the sketch he had given him. The instrument of the pantograph was invented in the 17th century to mechanically enlarge a drawing, basically squaring up without squares, so to speak. I am giving a little grace to this drawing which Adnan writes. But although it did not himself drawing from scratch, he is still needed to have this huge thing pinned into the world of his studio. A huge thing with ominous tentacles I am sure would have given me nightmares. Now, the literature on the Vence chapel is already quite considerable, with all its aspects commented at various degrees of depth. On the whole, however, I find that the chemin de croix, the station of the cross, is given short change. This is surprising, given all the catnip art historians could mention with regard to it. By this, I mean an unusual number of preparatory drawings for it, and an impressive list of artists of the past whom Matisse mentioned as having been inspired by when working on it. Rubens, Philippe Le Champagne, Greco, Dior, Grunwald, Fouquet, Memling, Montaigne, etc. The reason for this relative silence on Matisse, the station, is that it is a difficult work to swallow. Matisse himself had predicted that it would shock the Vence believers for it does not really correspond to the conception. As he wrote to Couturier after he had completed the mural. But I think it shocked and continues to shock or at least embarrass art historians as well, particularly the Matisse aficionados among them. For one thing, anusually coarse. Especially when compared to the Sunfield glass stained windows and the other two murals. The Virgin Mary and the Saint Dominique. With style is just as expansive and multifluous as that of any line drawings produced by Matisse since the mid-thirties. In other words, Matisse's station across is closer in style to the no primitivism of the work made by the German artists A.R.Pank in the 1970s than to almost anything else Matisse ever produced. I propose that the main reason why it leaves this artist rather silent, is that in it Matisse deals head on with something that radically contradicts a major tenet of his art. His solution is brilliant but it implies the welcoming of a certain awkwardness. Not a future that any of us is accustomed to grow praise in his art. As I remarked earlier ever since his notes on the painter from 1908, Matisse insisted on the absolute necessity for him to consider the whole surface of his support at any time of the painting or drawing process. The condition that matches what he envisions to be that of the beholder viewing the finished work. The expression comes from the colored surface of the spectator PC as a whole he would say to Terriade. In other words, Matisse is utterly opposed to Paul Clay's notion that Paul Clay, the beholder's eyes which moves like an animal grazing, follows past prepared for it in the picture. Sorry, I have to... The fueler. But then, and here's a contradiction. How to deal with a particular genre for which such an itinerary of the eye is mandatory. And quite often the requested movement is at the whole body of the beholder in case of stations in multiple panels or even outdoor sites. Right from the beginning because it's a pilgrimage. Right from the beginning of his discussion with Brother Réseguier, whom Couturier dispatched as his lieutenant to Matisse it is clear that he's preoccupied the artist enormously. The first things Réseguier warned him about is a processional nature of the genre of stations across. Matisse rather quickly came up with the idea of a single mural and several panels distributed in various areas of the chapel. And it seems that it was Réseguier who suggested mentioning medieval examples to the great relief of the artist the rare bouste trophée dans order of the scene. Apologies for this erudite term often used to describe Egyptian paintings. Writing, it comes from the Greek and refers to the way an ox is ploughing a field. What I'm referring to here is a zigzag starting from the lower left corner towards the lower right corner then the middle row going back and then this way. Réseguier would have wanted to end at the upper right corner with a resurrection here. But Matisse as in other cases actually preferred to remain canonical. But even though the mural as a whole would be a compact rectangle how to deal with the necessary succession of the scenes. Was it possible to do away with the numbering? It annoyed Matisse not to be allowed to let go the numbers. On the other hand they would provide him with some ammunition against critics claiming to be lost in the labyrinth of his stations. The main aesthetic problem for him was what he had to work with 14 distinct scenes to be juxtaposed on a single field. This was absolutely unlike anything he had ever done. He quickly scribbled a few sketches of the whole composition to have an idea of the necessary placement of the individual scene and above all to complete the model that was made according to a specification so as to check what would be the special effect of his mural as well as everything else in the general scheme. Then he started to work on each scene one by one making many stories in charcoal some of them almost realistic and certainly much more polished than the final result in ceramic polished in the sense of, you know, realistic. So far, nothing far was unusual in his work process. When looking at the actual mural of the chapel, one wonders why Matisse absolutely had to hire model for the Christ of his crucifixion having posed with a long class and drawing several times. Occasionally borrowing from Dura, though he thought he looked a greco-esque. But this type of question is bound to be asked about any preliminary studies or every drawing series that Matisse ever made. Sometimes Ressiguer dared joking about this with them. Speaking of one of the studies for the encounter of Christ with his mother, the false station which is barely identifiable in the final in the murals in the chapel Ressiguer note that it looks like the meeting of two sweet hearts who had just been engaged. From time to time Matisse pinned a set of studies on the wall in the right order though occasionally he made a mistake at that where he forgot one station. Note that the studies were conceived at two scale, that is, the sheets of paper on which they were drawn is roughly of the same size as the amount of space each scene would be granted on the overall surface of the mural. Why then, might you ask, was this process leaving Matisse dissatisfied? It is faithful to his real scale concept, isn't it? Well, yes and no. Indeed, each individual scene was sketched at true scale but it was not sketched at the same time as all the others on the same surface as all the others. It was drawn onto its own sheet of paper that at least momentarily severed from the whole. In other words, it is thanks to the gimmick of accumulative juxtaposition that the scale of the studies was coinciding with that of the mural. It took a while for Matisse to identify the problem but no time at all to find a solution. He's beloved bamboo stick which allows him one more as he had done in a dance nearly two decades earlier to sketch the whole mural at once. This is what he victoriously announced to Couturier in the letter I quoted earlier. To be more precise, I'd say that the bamboo stick was a technical solution to the process problem but the compositional issue of the sequential and paratactic order the one thing after the other which troubled Matisse from the start that still remained. It would only be solved I think at the very last moment but Matisse finally was able to paint the figures in animal on his ceramic panel. The letter he writes to Couturier two days after completing this extenuering job says it all The chemin de croix is finished. It is no longer the procession of the cartoon but a kind of great drama in which the scenes that each one is identified by a number are interwoven around the crucifixion which has taken on a dreamlike dimension as that of the rest of the panel. Then after his remark about the fear that he would be barely received which I mentioned earlier I have allowed the moral file nevertheless, as it is final it has a order of drama it's a calvary constructed in much the same ways as the Breton calvaries. It's a great achievement for me the drawing is rough, very crude in fact it will dismay most people who see it. You might have noticed that Matisse had expectedly used the word cartoon when speaking of his grand sketch on the wall the one made in one scoop with his bamboo stick. But the term is highly inappropriate Never did Matisse imagine that he would mechanically transfer his composition to the ceramic tiles. For one thing he was acutely aware of the difference in medium and was actually worried about this. The cartoon was vertically and in charcoal, which is hard he says, and the ceramic tile would lay horizontally on the ground and be painted with a brush, which is soft. Sure, he said to Réseguet on a used a cartoon but then he goes on to say that it's not the way it works that he needs to say fresh and improvise his element in fact almost superstitiously so about the need not to rehearse the so called cartoon can be a guide but not much else. So, I was a shift from this Pluto cartoon to the tiles finally done. There were numerous technical setbacks having to do with the firing when he had been amazingly patient up to then the last hiccup, let's set Matisse on edge. I am like a boxer already and fired up for a same championship match we stole sorry pal scheduled for in two months. That's what he writes to Couturier. But when he finally got to start Matisse was as composed as ever. I quote Lidia de Letoskaya whose notes on the processor are as precious as ever. The animal tile were assembled on the floor. Matisse worked for a long time on each of them retouching or having everything completely erased so that he could start again on one go. Once the panel was done and the system carefully cleaned each tile under supervision and erased all traces each tile under supervision of Matisse and erased all traces of previous drawing so as to avoid the creation of gray zones due to the animal dust when the black would be fired. End of quote. It's important to note here that contrary to what Matisse to Matisse desire to keep himself fresh by not rehearsing to cover what this could imply the the paintings of the law was not a la prima. He could correct himself and he took great advantage of that. But how did he negotiate the passage from the vertical pain of the war to the four and what about the bamboo stick where it would no longer be of any help panel on the floor but Matisse found a substitute a long brush corresponding to the distance he could maintain between himself and the film of the description he was painting either while standing or seated as we photograph showing when painting the small medallion to be placed on the wall outside the chapel. I could do the toast kaya again we thought about installing a plank slightly above the tile he could work on it he had a brush with a long handle but one meter long the testimony of sister Marie Jacques Jacques Marie who initiated the whole adventure of the chapel differs on one point she reintroduced the bamboo stick which I see mistakenly but I still like to give her the last word the ceramic tiles were spread on the floor on the large studio Matisse looks at them seated in an armchair at the top of the scaffolding then he comes down armed with a long stiff bamboo stick with a big brush attached to its end dipped in liquid black enamel he draws directly on the ceramic climbs back up to look at the result once more more or less, sorry comes back up to look at the result more or less fontally and that multiple times to Saint Dominique, the Virgin and the Station of the Cross mural were all painted that way freehand when one looks at the pining of crates on top of each other one wonders how this anti-capt old man more than 80 years old could climb and come down from the scaffolding and without weakening, without shaking, draw and redraw this large composition that are today in the chapel thank you would you mind taking a couple of questions please we'll see because there is a little film that was discovered in which I hope we'll be able to see tomorrow, very tiny film of like one minute in which you see he's drawing the last version the Paris one I think it's the Paris one he's drawing actually on the colour paper you can see he trace him with his bamboo stick just like that and there's several photos where there are series of photos not so much for the Station of the Cross but for the Virgin like ten photos in Europe so it's to stage you would have been really more complicated you would have to go and draw, go back from the ladder I don't think so it's staged but it's never less the way it worked that I'm convinced it's okay stun silence with that then I'll thank you