 I'm going to open it up to questions from the audience. But first, I want to ask a question to Kate and maybe to both of you. Kate, you talked a lot about, obviously, about how Barnes wrote about Matisse. And I'm wondering how much Barnes's writings on Matisse, his opinions on Matisse, how much they influenced our later understandings of him. So in part, that's the topic Claudine took on in her essay in a way. I mean, you talk about, in some ways, the reception of Matisse. It's a good question, I mean, more than. And in some ways, you know, so in the essay, there's a little bit of contemporary criticism, discussed contemporary criticism, so Barr, of course, and his 51 book on Matisse. You can't hear me. Oh, OK. I'll try to talk into the mic. So I was saying Barr's 1951 book on Matisse that corresponded to the major exhibition that he did at MoMA at the time, he mentions Barnes's book. And it is very complementary at the same time that he's acknowledging it's sort of over-the-top quality of excessive description. There's another critic who comes out and says, he's very negative about the book, but he says, oh, it's John Dewey and Leo Stein and Barnes. I mean, there are people who really understand, I think, where it comes from, although they find it hard going. In some ways, I suppose, I mean, you know, for a long time it was one of the only books in English on Barnes. But I don't actually know very well. I mean, do people, Alastair, did you read, I mean, as a graduate student, did you read Barnes and think, I mean... I think I dipped into it very briefly. I had a little look and I noticed it. I don't know that the book itself had that much influence on later understandings. It's a good question. And in fact, if someone has a better answer from the audience, I take it. Thank you. Cameron, a question for you. I thought it was really interesting, your point that the mural was not public, of course. And it's the sort of, oh, sure, it's in this new period in his work, but nobody really sees it. And so this is really, this 1936 show is his kind of coming out of this new style. And what was my question? Now I'm forgetting my question, sorry. Oh, I think I was wondering two things. I was wondering whether you came across anything that indicated that he was maybe thinking about including some of the studies from the dance in this show? Like, did he consider that part of this new oeuvre? And then, well, I'll ask my second question in a minute. No, I didn't come across. I mean, I didn't really talk about it. The earliest painting in the show, the woman in a white dress, which is at the far right end of that long wall, is like the one easel painting that he kind of worked on towards the end of the dance. So it does seem like he wanted to represent a continuity, that the show would be like what his paintings were from the time of the dance forward. And actually, he mentions in another letter to Pierre that Rosenberg kind of suggested the show to him at the end of 1934 thinking he must have all these paintings stored up from when he was making the dance mural. And the reality is like he had painted very little. So in some ways, this show was like a matter of making up or figuring out what easel painting would be after the dance. And I guess one of the things that seems interesting about it to me is how little it seems like the dance really dictated for him where he would go. I mean, some of the things, obviously, are stylistically very close. But it seems like by 1936 he wanted the dance not to represent a style that he was perfecting, but just one of this kind of kaleidoscope of operations that he would or could use. I also wanted to ask you to, if you had any thoughts about Margaret's talk, because your talk is about this idea that these pictures are a handbook of how to make a Matisse, as you said. So he's reflecting on his own processes and trying to kind of reveal something about them. And yet I don't think that any of these pictures actually show the studio or any of his methods. Well, there's the one which is really interesting to me, because early on he's showing you all of his material, not materials, but the components of his work. Yeah. And he doesn't do that later. Yeah. I mean, it's like, it's sort of a matter of emphasis. I mean, like a lot of the models are in the studio, but if he crops it tight enough, it becomes a painting of a woman rather than a painting of a studio. But I think my thought when you bring up Margaret's talk is that he was an incredibly self-conscious artist. Like his investment in understanding his own means is kind of breathtaking. And I think it's totally revelatory to hear what he has to say about his own art. But at the same time, I guess I'm trying not to let him have the last word on it. Like it's just, the paintings have to be more than just an illustration of what they were for him. Yes. Questions? Yes, please. My question is for Kate Butler. Do you think that Dr. Barnes was greatly influenced by Leo Stein in his artistic taste? Because Leo Stein's preference was for Renoir, Matisse, and Picasso. And Leo Stein did not like Cubism. And he dismissed Cubism at the same time as he dismissed his sister's avant-garde writings. And after 1913, he and Gertrude never spoke again. And it seems to correspond to a great deal to Dr. Barnes's preferences. Yeah, I would agree. And there's a little bit more of that in my essay. Originally, very early on, I said I would write on Barnes and Leo and get at Matisse that way. And then when you, and in fact, there were whole passages that got junked about them. But when you look at the correspondence between Barnes and Leo, which is big from 1914 to 25 when they have a kind of breakup over the review of Leo's review of the art and painting, there's almost no mention of Matisse in their correspondence of that first letter that I cite. And then in 1921, when he's buying Leo's Matisse's, there's more kind of back and forth that's about official business. So it's actually hard to make a specific interpretation about them by looking specifically at their correspondence. But I mean, they were sharing their essays back and forth. It's in my essay at this point. I can't quite remember which one. Barnes sends him the Renoir essay, I think, a preliminary version. And I mean, there's an incredible exchange. And they're very intellectually similar. I think a little bit later on, Barnes sends him Dewey's art and appreciation. And he then writes to someone else that he says he doesn't like Dewey. But Leo was at Harvard under James. So there's an enormous methodological overlap between the two men. And he says that, I think, it's in the first essay, How to Judge a Painting, where he says, how much I think it's there. Maybe it's a letter. But Marth has written on it. There's a letter, I think, after Leo dies that he writes to Leo's wife, where he talks about how much Leo influenced him and how much he meant to him. And he says, nobody had more impact on my early thinking about art than Leo's time. So yeah, so that's complete intellectual connection that they had. Joe. Any of you or anybody's audience, it is so interesting and so wonderful you're working on the lay evictions. Do we have any evidence that he, Barnes, pursued, either Vegard, or the ferry boat at Tahiti, or the remarkable, the studio interior? These are masterpieces of their kind, and clearly the fff. Yeah. I have a question. Yeah. You should take it. It's convenient. Matisse really wanted to. Well, first, Comrade, on a question, I think you said there were five paintings that show Tahiti II in the background. One of them is the model in the studio painting that was in the Rosenberg show. How many of the other four were in the Rosenberg show? All of those that I showed. All five of those paintings. OK. So the missing element here is that Tahiti II was a tapestry cartoon. Tahiti I was a tapestry cartoon as well. One was fabricated as a tapestry in a single example bought by Nelson Rockefeller. And Matisse really wanted Barnes to buy a tapestry from him. And he really hoped that that would happen. It never did. Barnes bought tapestries by other artists, but not by Matisse. Tahiti II was never fabricated as a tapestry, never woven. It appears in the background of those paintings because it remained in Matisse's studio. And so I think your idea of the, well, it's a kind of, yeah, it's a feedback loop and an adaptive reuse of a Tahiti, of a tapestry cartoon in the backgrounds of his paintings. He had it around for a long, long time. And it's a presence in his studio for a long time. So I think that's a partial response to Joe's question into the question of why it's there in so many of those paintings. But the interior of the studio, that really odd painting, it's in a New York private collection. It was sold. I mean, I would think Barnes, given his significance as a collector of Matisse, would have had priority over choosing works from the show. So I think he probably got what he wanted. And what's weird from our perspective is how, or it surprised me anyway, it was the level of enthusiasm for those very small paintings on wood. And actually, Barnes is quoted in a newspaper article after the show where he says, one of these new paintings will knock your eye out. The guy's got a whole new idea about color. Yeah, he comes back from Paris and he advertises. I mean, he really, I think, Joe, those would have been too big for him, though. I mean, on a level of practicality, say that again. There's a big Archie's there. Well, no, but yes. But of course, he tries to sell the Riffian, right? I mean, he's buying all these Nice period nudes and then sticking them up the top of all the ensembles. So he buys the Vance period paintings. I mean, those are big, but I just have a sense, among other things, those would have been too big for him. It's an interesting question. There is, to my knowledge, I mean, he goes to Paris and buys, what is it, four of them he comes back with? So I don't think he ever thought of buying anything else, because he buys what he buys, and he's quite happy with it. So I know the final comment. Laverdeur was intended originally as a tapestry cartoon as well, and it was never finished for that sense. So, I mean, is your point that they weren't for sale, or something, or? Laverdeur, his intention in all of those paintings was to make tapestries. Well, I mean, I would qualify that, because I have some reservations about that idea, just because I looked at the contract that he had with Marie Coutoli, who initiated the tapestry project. And the contract is very clear that the artist will be allowed to keep the work that they want, and the work is referred to as a painting. And when it appears in the catalog, it's not qualified as a cartoon for a tapestry. The assumption is that it's just these are like, well, maybe it's too much of an assumption. You're all correct. It's true. You have to forget that the first 81 was already despite, because there is a mistake. And she was made as a tapestry, but on the wrong side. So, and Matisse absolutely don't want that this tapestry went to the States. And Marie Coutoli don't listen to Matisse and send it to the States, but Matisse don't want. And after, he decided to simplify with the 82 to make tapestry more easy to do. And the third, the verdure, was also a despite for Matisse, because he never finished this tapestry. And tapestry is very important for Matisse. He came from an area where we practiced textiles. And his life is surrounded by tapestry. We, on all pictures, we see Musharrabie and so on and so on. So, 82 was a tapestry. And it took a long time before saying, no, finally, I don't want to make a tapestry because with all the tapestry, in fact, it was despite. It was very despite with La Famolute also. And so, he decided to never made anymore a tapestry. So, he let this cartoon like a painting after. Yeah. I think we can take one more question and then we're going to take a break. Yes, please. Yes. I think of the dance in the Cone Collection down in Baltimore. And I'm wondering, I don't know if when each one of them was created to see if there was any connection between them. Has anyone done any analysis of the two works? Because they're, in some ways, they're very similar. Which dance? Are you talking about the earlier versions of the dance? The one that is where it almost looks like a circular dance. At Walmart? No, it's in Baltimore. It's part of the Cone Sisters collection. It's like they're, no. I'm not. Yeah, I can't visualize the specific dance that you're talking about. But my talk touched on Margaret's, I think, also touched on that Matisse had this great affection for his own work and a kind of fascination with what it became when it was done, that it kind of had a life of its own. And had the potential to be a source of inspiration for something else afterwards. So I think the replications of the dance kind of fit into that same scheme. Yeah. And I don't mean to point you to the catalog, but in my own work, but there's an essay on the dance mural in the book, which, I mean, I think he was most certainly influenced by his earlier work. I mean, he comes here. Of course, there's a dance in the Bernard de Vifre, right? So he comes here in 1930, sees Bernard de Vifre. He hasn't seen it in a long time. That dance is in the staircase. That dance is there. He makes the dance. Then we know he's painting a nice with a little charcoal drawing of the dance on the wall. So that is definitely that a repeated reference. OK, thank you. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll meet back here at 3.45.