 Thank you, Ellen, and Helen. We're running late, but we have time for a few questions and discussion. This does sound like a really exciting exhibition, and it's going to be so interesting to see the paintings next to these actual objects that he painted from. And as you say, to see the liberties that he took in transforming them into paint. My question is about do you see, and this is for both of you, do you see any difference between the way that he translated objects into paint that he collected versus objects that he made himself? Like for his own paintings when he paints or sculptures that he made when he does a painting of these things that are physical things in the world? Is there a difference in his approach? That's a good question. I mean, immediately thinking of how many times the sculpture reclining nude appears in his paintings. And we have a little group in the exhibition that's focused on how his own sculpture appears in his paintings, because obviously the objects in his studio were also his own. I would say that he probably, if I had to kind of sum up a general principle, I mean, he's probably more comfortable depicting his own works directly. I mean, the painting that Ellen showed us, the still life with the African statuette, that has the Vili figure in it, one of his first acquisitions, is really rare in his work. There's another one here in the Barnes Collection has the Baman on the shingne on the mental piece. But he very rarely directly depicts African sculpture in his work. Sometimes, obviously, in the Nice periods, you see much more kind of direct transcription of the objects. And it's my feeling, and this is Jack Flam who said this. I think he's sort of suspicious of using the power of African art in that kind of literal way. And it could be one of the reasons why the painting was left unfinished. But he's much more comfortable, obviously, depicting his own works in that literal way. And I think with the African objects in particular, he doesn't want to be overwhelmed by their presence in his work. And so he sort of uses the concepts from them instead. Can you buy that, Ellen? Questions? Yes? Can you shed any information on the process of the paper cutting? What kind of paper was used? Did he paint on it before he cut it? How was it hung? Oh, you mean like a summary of the whole cutout project? I mean, anything. OK. I feel like a Pez dispenser. All right, so I mean, there are other people who are, well, so far more versed here in the audience about Matisse's cutout projects that I have. It's Kara Bookman here. Judi Hopman is going to be talking about it tomorrow. If you come tomorrow, you are going to get a lovely overview. But the cutouts, did we show any cutouts? We showed cutouts, yeah. Largely paints with gouache. Hey, is it an N cut? Yep. Yes. Yvonne? Oh, sorry. Go. OK. All right, why don't you do it? Cezanne had, of course, his fetish with his objects. To what extent, and painted the same things over and over and over again, to what extent do you think that perhaps this practice on Matisse's part was emulative of the man he believed was the father of us all? Sure, I mean, I think, in general, just a sort of deep and sustained meditative looking at things, not just objects. Cezanne is a primordial example of that for Matisse. I mean, this is something that all artists do, right? Right. Yeah, so I'm sure that he is, Cezanne is one of many artists that he is thinking of with the engagement with objects. To follow up on one of the questions that I always put, pardon me, which is scale, it's just a question for the two of you, actually. When Matisse uses some of these objects and transposes them, the textile from Africa or his own sculptures or all these parts that he seems to like so much, I'm just wondering to know the consistency of scale between paintings. Because I was very surprised to see the, for the first time, I saw this image of the, I think it was, I never saw it before, at least I don't remember, of the Egyptian curtain, the real one, to see actually how big it was. So there is a consistency of scale. He kept, he was true to the size of the Egyptian curtain in the painting, which actually, I didn't, I didn't know that this textile was so big. So I was just wondering, is he moving, is he changing the size of this object or is he staying basically true to them? Or does he use the object to play with scale and whatever? I'm just, I'm curious about it because I never really saw much of the object himself. So that's a good question. I mean, I think that, I think that there's a difference when he uses objects and kind of appropriates design principles. And I think he gets ideas about scale from certain objects. Certainly, you know, that stunning Simone Tapa that Ellen showed us in the sort of ways in which like, you know, size is different than scale, right? And how it affects sort of the space around it. But then when he's depicting objects, which is a different thing, by and large, he pretty much stays to the, quote unquote, correct proportion of the object. I have a vague memory of an ecocché that he just shrank. Oh, yeah. He was still out of his room. Yeah, yeah. And then there's the lilacs from the Metropolitan where you see the little crouching nude, you know, like dwarfed, you know, by this amazing still life. Well, there's also the, what do you call it, the big huge portrait of the family upstairs, the music lesson, where he blows up the sculpture. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good question. Mine is just an observation that I really never picked up with Matisse when you mentioned the object and how it's related to the otolisk. It's just reflects back on how Dr. Barnes with his furniture and his pottery and his ironworks is reflected in his paintings that he hangs next to him. Barnes got many of his African pieces from Paul Guillaume. Was Matisse also buying from Guillaume or did he get his African pieces from another source? I should be thinking about it. We don't know exactly where Matisse have bought his pieces, but we have some indications. He bought his first African sculpture by Amy Le Man called Per Sauvage in Paris, in the Goodran, it's written in the letters. So there is no doubt. But there is close ties with Paul Guillaume in 1917. He laid his Bamanas sculpture for this book entitled L'Esculteur Negre. It was first book who showed African sculpture as works of art. And there is some indication in the letters from the Barnes Foundation in the archives. We can read that Matisse and Guillaume met them in Nice and Guillaume spoke about a big collection of African art and Guillaume may have bought sculptures to Matisse. It's possible. Promo too, Promo was a major dealer for Parisian market. We have some information. One more question? Okay. One more. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Sorry, there's Margaret. One more. This is just a question, I guess, for Ellen probably. I'm just trying to tie together some of the ideas that have been discussed today. And I was thinking particularly of Cameron's talk and your talk. And I'm wondering, there seems to be such an incredibly deliberate process, especially with the indirect bargains of some of the textiles, but also the arrangement of the objects that he's, you know, collecting. And I just, I'm trying to figure out what the balance is between this very deliberate manipulation of objects and translation of them into pictures and this other kind of manipulation of objects and this other kind of movement towards something that's more dream-like or like automatic drawing, which is what Cameron was talking about, or some sort of more instinctual kind of way in which Matisse really talks about what he does. So I think that also might even speak to some of your thoughts about where your exhibition is going to end up in terms of, you know, how do you think about this? How do you think about the fact that objects are now put in a much bigger cultural context? And what exactly is he doing with these things if he's not continuing, you know, a kind of orientalist exploitation of them? Or however you want to think about that. So I'm just wondering about that balance between instinct and improvisation and very deliberate collecting and arrangement and quotation. That's a really good question. I would want to think more about it, but I guess my quick answer is that it has always struck me that Matisse's very deliberate working methods is the foundation for his abilities to be instinctual. Thank you to all of our speakers.