What do you think?
Rate this book
The Art of Rivalry: Four Friendships, Betrayals, and Breakthroughs in Modern Art
Pulitzer Prize–winning art critic Sebastian Smee tells the fascinating story of four pairs of artists—Manet and Degas, Picasso and Matisse, Pollock and de Kooning, Freud and Bacon—whose fraught, competitive friendships spurred them to new creative heights.
Rivalry is at the heart of some of the most famous and fruitful relationships in history. The Art of Rivalry follows eight celebrated artists, each linked to a counterpart by friendship, admiration, envy, and ambition. All eight are household names today. But to achieve what they did, each needed the influence of a contemporary—one who was equally ambitious but possessed sharply contrasting strengths and weaknesses.
Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas were close associates whose personal bond frayed after Degas painted a portrait of Manet and his wife. Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso swapped paintings, ideas, and influences as they jostled for the support of collectors like Leo and Gertrude Stein and vied for the leadership of a new avant-garde. Jackson Pollock’s uninhibited style of “action painting” triggered a breakthrough in the work of his older rival, Willem de Kooning. After Pollock’s sudden death in a car crash, de Kooning assumed Pollock's mantle and became romantically involved with his late friend’s mistress. Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon met in the early 1950s, when Bacon was being hailed as Britain’s most exciting new painter and Freud was working in relative obscurity. Their intense but asymmetrical friendship came to a head when Freud painted a portrait of Bacon, which was later stolen.
Each of these relationships culminated in an early flashpoint, a rupture in a budding intimacy that was both a betrayal and a trigger for great innovation. Writing with the same exuberant wit and psychological insight that earned him a Pulitzer Prize for art criticism, Sebastian Smee explores here the way that coming into one’s own as an artist—finding one’s voice—almost always involves willfully breaking away from some intimate’s expectations of who you are or ought to be.
Praise for The Art of Rivalry
“Gripping . . . Mr. Smee’s skills as a critic are evident throughout. He is persuasive and vivid. . . . You leave this book both nourished and hungry for more about the art, its creators and patrons, and the relationships that seed the ground for moments spent at the canvas.” — The New York Times
“With novella-like detail and incisiveness [Sebastian Smee] opens up the worlds of four pairs of renowned artists. . . . Each of his portraits is a biographical gem. . . . The Art of Rivalry is a pure, informative delight, written with canny authority.” — The Boston Globe
Rivalry is at the heart of some of the most famous and fruitful relationships in history. The Art of Rivalry follows eight celebrated artists, each linked to a counterpart by friendship, admiration, envy, and ambition. All eight are household names today. But to achieve what they did, each needed the influence of a contemporary—one who was equally ambitious but possessed sharply contrasting strengths and weaknesses.
Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas were close associates whose personal bond frayed after Degas painted a portrait of Manet and his wife. Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso swapped paintings, ideas, and influences as they jostled for the support of collectors like Leo and Gertrude Stein and vied for the leadership of a new avant-garde. Jackson Pollock’s uninhibited style of “action painting” triggered a breakthrough in the work of his older rival, Willem de Kooning. After Pollock’s sudden death in a car crash, de Kooning assumed Pollock's mantle and became romantically involved with his late friend’s mistress. Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon met in the early 1950s, when Bacon was being hailed as Britain’s most exciting new painter and Freud was working in relative obscurity. Their intense but asymmetrical friendship came to a head when Freud painted a portrait of Bacon, which was later stolen.
Each of these relationships culminated in an early flashpoint, a rupture in a budding intimacy that was both a betrayal and a trigger for great innovation. Writing with the same exuberant wit and psychological insight that earned him a Pulitzer Prize for art criticism, Sebastian Smee explores here the way that coming into one’s own as an artist—finding one’s voice—almost always involves willfully breaking away from some intimate’s expectations of who you are or ought to be.
Praise for The Art of Rivalry
“Gripping . . . Mr. Smee’s skills as a critic are evident throughout. He is persuasive and vivid. . . . You leave this book both nourished and hungry for more about the art, its creators and patrons, and the relationships that seed the ground for moments spent at the canvas.” — The New York Times
“With novella-like detail and incisiveness [Sebastian Smee] opens up the worlds of four pairs of renowned artists. . . . Each of his portraits is a biographical gem. . . . The Art of Rivalry is a pure, informative delight, written with canny authority.” — The Boston Globe
432 pages, Paperback
First published August 16, 2016
552 people are currently reading
4378 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews
December 18, 2016
If he looks a bit bored here . . .
. . . you have to understand that Édouard Manet had no ear for music, no matter how lovely his wife Suzanne played. And he had been sitting most of a winter for Degas to get this family setting on canvas. Ah, but Degas was showing more than boredom. You know what they say about unhappy families.
The right side of the painting looks as though Madame Manet is hidden by a wall. But that's no wall. Degas painted Suzanne in full profile, and the piano, too. But when he visited Manet, shortly after completing the painting, he noticed that someone had slashed the face of Madame Manet. The perpetrator was none other than the otherwise mild-mannered Édouard Manet.
Degas immediately took the painting back to his house. In perhaps an odd bit of accounting, Degas then wrapped up a still life that Manet had given him and had it returned to Manet with a note: Monsieur, I am returning your Plums.
A good story, so good that our author tells it twice in this book, even if he does not solve the mystery of Manet's act. He posits that maybe, just made, the slashing had something to do with the 'rivalry' between Manet and Degas. I don't know. Taking a knife to a painting of your wife seems like Psychiatry 101.
Sebastian Smee takes these eight artists in pairs -- Manet/Degas, Matisse/Picasso, Pollock/de Kooning, Freud/Bacon -- and explores how their 'rivalry' with each other drove their styles. He means 'rivalry' in a broader sense than macho competition, more like a symbiosis.
If he goes too far with this idea, nevertheless the stories of the creation of this art are well-told. It's also anecdotal to the point of gossipy -- who is sleeping with whom -- but I'm okay with that.
. . . you have to understand that Édouard Manet had no ear for music, no matter how lovely his wife Suzanne played. And he had been sitting most of a winter for Degas to get this family setting on canvas. Ah, but Degas was showing more than boredom. You know what they say about unhappy families.
The right side of the painting looks as though Madame Manet is hidden by a wall. But that's no wall. Degas painted Suzanne in full profile, and the piano, too. But when he visited Manet, shortly after completing the painting, he noticed that someone had slashed the face of Madame Manet. The perpetrator was none other than the otherwise mild-mannered Édouard Manet.
Degas immediately took the painting back to his house. In perhaps an odd bit of accounting, Degas then wrapped up a still life that Manet had given him and had it returned to Manet with a note: Monsieur, I am returning your Plums.
A good story, so good that our author tells it twice in this book, even if he does not solve the mystery of Manet's act. He posits that maybe, just made, the slashing had something to do with the 'rivalry' between Manet and Degas. I don't know. Taking a knife to a painting of your wife seems like Psychiatry 101.
Sebastian Smee takes these eight artists in pairs -- Manet/Degas, Matisse/Picasso, Pollock/de Kooning, Freud/Bacon -- and explores how their 'rivalry' with each other drove their styles. He means 'rivalry' in a broader sense than macho competition, more like a symbiosis.
If he goes too far with this idea, nevertheless the stories of the creation of this art are well-told. It's also anecdotal to the point of gossipy -- who is sleeping with whom -- but I'm okay with that.
March 10, 2022
Click here to hear my thoughts on this book over on my Booktube channel, abookolive!
July 25, 2017
Painters Without Pictures
So much of the pleasure in an art book comes from the combination of text, binding, and the art itself that it is difficult to review a cheaply-produced advance proof (via Amazon Vine) of the words alone. However, the publishers promise a "beautiful package with two 8-page color photo inserts of art." Author Samuel Smee refers to the illustrations by number, and it is possible to look most of them up online, but there are a few cases where it is difficult to be sure exactly which version of a work he has chosen. But even if one assumes that the final copy will be all that its publishers promise, the proportions are just wrong. 16 illustrations are just too few for 360 pages of text. In a book about friendships, influence, and rivalries between pairs of artists (Manet/Degas, Picasso/Matisse, Pollock/De Kooning, and Bacon/Freud), what really matters, surely, is that the paintings themselves should do the talking, whether reproduced in photographs or described in words. But while Smee ranges from good to excellent when writing as a biographer, the actual art—no matter how beautifully produced the final edition—takes a back seat to facts and anecdotes.
I read two of Smee's sections (Bacon/Freud and Manet/Degas) in detail, and skimmed the other two. I learned a lot, I must admit. I had known Francis Bacon's work—his theatrically contorted figures and screaming popes—ever since his 1962 retrospective at the Tate; the intimate skewed realism of Lucian Freud's portraiture stole more slowly into my awareness. I gather I am by no means alone in this; one of the more useful things that Smee does is to trace the trajectory of each artist's career: Bacon rising rapidly to a creative plateau; Freud gaining slowly in reputation and fame right up to his death in 2011. I learned a great deal about the artists as men: Bacon's louche lifestyle and risk-taking behavior with lovers who could be physically abusive or even criminal, Freud's two marriages and liaisons with a great number of women—all told with cameo appearances by many of the more famous or infamous figures of the London postwar social scene. Somewhere along the line, Smee shows how the friendship may have given Freud more technical boldness, and perhaps nudged Bacon into portraiture, but my increased understanding of each artist's work was minor compared to what I learned about their lives.
In his chapter on the two French artists, Smee spends more time on Manet than on Degas. This is probably because he was the more interesting figure, flamboyant and genial in his social life, fresh and iconoclastic in his artistic one. Degas, by contrast, was more private, married only to his art. Perhaps because I already knew most of Manet's work, I could run through the slides in my head, so to speak, watching how each stage in his development matched the appropriate picture. But I learned little more about him as a painter, as compared to Julian Barnes' essays on the artist in Keeping an Eye Open or even the amateur but insightful observations of Michel Foucault in Manet and the Object of Painting. Smee opens his entire book intriguingly with a trip to southern Japan to see Degas' portrait of Manet and his wife—a gift of friendship that Manet later destroyed by cutting the section with his wife right down the middle. Intriguing. Biographers have no explanation for the violence of Manet's action. But here's the thing: I don't think Smee manages to explain it either.
Smee's relative lack of focus on the artworks themselves is especially regrettable since when he does address a painting in detail he can be superb. Here is part of what he has to say about Freud's small portrait of Francis Bacon painted on copper in 1952:
So much of the pleasure in an art book comes from the combination of text, binding, and the art itself that it is difficult to review a cheaply-produced advance proof (via Amazon Vine) of the words alone. However, the publishers promise a "beautiful package with two 8-page color photo inserts of art." Author Samuel Smee refers to the illustrations by number, and it is possible to look most of them up online, but there are a few cases where it is difficult to be sure exactly which version of a work he has chosen. But even if one assumes that the final copy will be all that its publishers promise, the proportions are just wrong. 16 illustrations are just too few for 360 pages of text. In a book about friendships, influence, and rivalries between pairs of artists (Manet/Degas, Picasso/Matisse, Pollock/De Kooning, and Bacon/Freud), what really matters, surely, is that the paintings themselves should do the talking, whether reproduced in photographs or described in words. But while Smee ranges from good to excellent when writing as a biographer, the actual art—no matter how beautifully produced the final edition—takes a back seat to facts and anecdotes.
I read two of Smee's sections (Bacon/Freud and Manet/Degas) in detail, and skimmed the other two. I learned a lot, I must admit. I had known Francis Bacon's work—his theatrically contorted figures and screaming popes—ever since his 1962 retrospective at the Tate; the intimate skewed realism of Lucian Freud's portraiture stole more slowly into my awareness. I gather I am by no means alone in this; one of the more useful things that Smee does is to trace the trajectory of each artist's career: Bacon rising rapidly to a creative plateau; Freud gaining slowly in reputation and fame right up to his death in 2011. I learned a great deal about the artists as men: Bacon's louche lifestyle and risk-taking behavior with lovers who could be physically abusive or even criminal, Freud's two marriages and liaisons with a great number of women—all told with cameo appearances by many of the more famous or infamous figures of the London postwar social scene. Somewhere along the line, Smee shows how the friendship may have given Freud more technical boldness, and perhaps nudged Bacon into portraiture, but my increased understanding of each artist's work was minor compared to what I learned about their lives.
In his chapter on the two French artists, Smee spends more time on Manet than on Degas. This is probably because he was the more interesting figure, flamboyant and genial in his social life, fresh and iconoclastic in his artistic one. Degas, by contrast, was more private, married only to his art. Perhaps because I already knew most of Manet's work, I could run through the slides in my head, so to speak, watching how each stage in his development matched the appropriate picture. But I learned little more about him as a painter, as compared to Julian Barnes' essays on the artist in Keeping an Eye Open or even the amateur but insightful observations of Michel Foucault in Manet and the Object of Painting. Smee opens his entire book intriguingly with a trip to southern Japan to see Degas' portrait of Manet and his wife—a gift of friendship that Manet later destroyed by cutting the section with his wife right down the middle. Intriguing. Biographers have no explanation for the violence of Manet's action. But here's the thing: I don't think Smee manages to explain it either.
Smee's relative lack of focus on the artworks themselves is especially regrettable since when he does address a painting in detail he can be superb. Here is part of what he has to say about Freud's small portrait of Francis Bacon painted on copper in 1952:
Even so, the contrast between the left and right sides of Bacon's distinctive, pear-shaped head is odd—and becomes more so the longer you study it. The right (Bacon's right), cast lightly in shadow, is a study in placidity. Over on the left, however, everything is slipping and sliding about. An S-shaped lick of hair—you can count the strands—casts a dashing shadow on Bacon's brow. The whole left side of his mouth twists upward, triggering a pouchy swelling, like the body's response to a sting, at the corner of the mouth. A sheen of sweat shines from that corner of his nose. Even the left ear seems to convulse and squirm. Most striking of all is the way Bacon's left eyebrow extends its powerful arabesque into the furrow at the center of his forehead. This has nothing to do with "realism" if you take that term literally; no eyebrow behaves this way. But it's the engine that powers the whole portrait, just as the portrait itself is the key to the story of the most interesting, fertile—and volatile—relationship in British art of the twentieth century.Is this better than the pithy description by Robert Hughes: "the silent intensity of a grenade in the millisecond before it goes off"? Perhaps, because it adds detail—though I wish Smee had added it to more of the other pictures he mentions in this text-heavy book, and he could do with more of Hughes' incisive urgency. He also offers the portrait as yet another unsolved mystery: who stole it from an exhibition in Berlin in 1988, and why? Ultimately, what most interests Smee is not the portrait, but the relationship and the stories that surround it. He will attract many readers who have exactly the same priorities; pure art lovers, not so much.
December 31, 2016
Great topic, disappointing handling. This book can't seem to decide whether it's biography, psychology, or art history, and in the end is a rather bland mix of the three that doesn't add up to solid substance. You get some general biographical sketches, first of one person, then the other. Sometimes they interact, but there is little to demonstrate the in-depth dynamics of the rivalry. I do believe the rivalries existed, but I wanted a little more meat on the bone.
There's a lot of surmising: "He probably felt that.." or "we can imagine that he was..." "one can only assume..." with no specific references: no footnotes, no validation. In fact one scene, about 4 pages long, in which Matisse visits the studio of Picasso is all conjecture: "Matisse must have felt;" "Gertrude, one feels, would have been brusque" "It's possible Matisse may have noticed;" etc. I felt I was wasting my time, but it's a bit like reading celebrity gossip...you keep going in spite of yourself. In the end, gossip, hearsay, and hypotheses made up a lot of the content. Lots of filler, too--little chatty asides that didn't really contribute weight to the central idea.
I also found the writing quite uninspired--short sentences lacking complexity that seemed to be written almost at a high school level. I was surprised to learn that the author was actually a Pulitzer prize winning art critic. Maybe so, but this book just doesn't seem to measure up. .
There's a lot of surmising: "He probably felt that.." or "we can imagine that he was..." "one can only assume..." with no specific references: no footnotes, no validation. In fact one scene, about 4 pages long, in which Matisse visits the studio of Picasso is all conjecture: "Matisse must have felt;" "Gertrude, one feels, would have been brusque" "It's possible Matisse may have noticed;" etc. I felt I was wasting my time, but it's a bit like reading celebrity gossip...you keep going in spite of yourself. In the end, gossip, hearsay, and hypotheses made up a lot of the content. Lots of filler, too--little chatty asides that didn't really contribute weight to the central idea.
I also found the writing quite uninspired--short sentences lacking complexity that seemed to be written almost at a high school level. I was surprised to learn that the author was actually a Pulitzer prize winning art critic. Maybe so, but this book just doesn't seem to measure up. .
October 31, 2020
Really 4.5. A very interesting study of four sets of artistic rivalries that defined an important cross-section of modern art. Somewhat derivative and dependent on the standard biographical literature; but occasionally quite perceptive, and always interesting and full of anecdote.
June 4, 2020
This is a story of Modern Art told through the lens of four pairs of rivaling friendships--Freud and Bacon, Manet and Degas, Picasso and Matisse, and Pollock and de Kooning. Smee follows ups and downs, loves and hates in these relationships and around them. He explores how these relations are influenced by art and vice versa, how how these relations shape the art. The book contains 8 pages of color illustrations, which feature 2-3 key paintings from each pair. However, the text refer much more works, so I end up googling and printing these paining to get visuals for narrative.
This book was part of my reading spring on Biographies. The book came to me from some books review.
This book was part of my reading spring on Biographies. The book came to me from some books review.
December 15, 2019
As I was reading The letters of Vincent van Gogh I was inspired to approach art from a different way, that’s how I discovered this book. From the twentieth century, Smee covers the story of 4 pairs of artists, drawing a picture of a love hate relationship and have it fed their art and life. Compared to something like Art Visual Culture: 1850 - 2010 there are no art tech terms to grasp or big concepts of art history, this is a scintillating, entertaining read, where the writing is so tight as Smee managed to pack much information and detail about each artist in this book of just over 400 pages.
What I knew about Francis Bacon; Lucien Freud; Édouard Manet; Edgar Degas; Henri Matisse; Pablo Picasso; Jackson Pollock; and Willem de Kooning, I just got by on, and what I knew was more about their works of art than how the rivalry between each pair fuelled their creativity. Freud’s admiration for Bacon was almost to the point of obsession where it inspired him to rethink his own approach to painting, whereas Degas’s reverence of Manet never made him lose sight of his autonomy. Of the four pairs, it was the rivalry between Matisse and Picasso that worked at a different tempo, Smee explains how oblivious Matisse was to see for years he and Picasso were competitors, as Picasso’s drive to be better than him would eventually put him ahead of the game. Also, Matisse and Picasso, unlike Pollock and de Kooning, were not unnerved by the fame their art would bring them; both Pollock and de Kooning, when they reached the heights of being noticed, struggled with it. However, their rivalry differed from the others and for a period was playful as they were the closest in friends. However, this would become difficult when Pollack, who always struggled with keeping his anger in check, and couldn’t handle his drink like Bacon, would start to damage it.
What I also liked about this book was not that it just covered the lives of eight artists but also gave a wide scope of their times, what was going on with art in general, and other artists and patrons who had an input to their journey to produce their art. For Matisse and Picasso, the Steins, primarily Leo and Gertrude Stein, helped to make their art visible. The Steins were all avid art collectors of something new, went were divided and changed their favouritism between Matisse and Picasso. The chapter of Pollock and de Kooning covered the widest circle of friends as Smee gave a (sometimes very) brief insight to art critics who had an influence (Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg), supporters and patrons (Peggy Guggenheim) and other artists (Arshile Gorky and Lee Krasner).
My only small quibble of this book is there were not enough images of the works it referenced, though some I am familiar with but others I had to look up. Otherwise, I liked how little work this book required from me to better appreciate some of the artists and art of the twentieth century.
What I knew about Francis Bacon; Lucien Freud; Édouard Manet; Edgar Degas; Henri Matisse; Pablo Picasso; Jackson Pollock; and Willem de Kooning, I just got by on, and what I knew was more about their works of art than how the rivalry between each pair fuelled their creativity. Freud’s admiration for Bacon was almost to the point of obsession where it inspired him to rethink his own approach to painting, whereas Degas’s reverence of Manet never made him lose sight of his autonomy. Of the four pairs, it was the rivalry between Matisse and Picasso that worked at a different tempo, Smee explains how oblivious Matisse was to see for years he and Picasso were competitors, as Picasso’s drive to be better than him would eventually put him ahead of the game. Also, Matisse and Picasso, unlike Pollock and de Kooning, were not unnerved by the fame their art would bring them; both Pollock and de Kooning, when they reached the heights of being noticed, struggled with it. However, their rivalry differed from the others and for a period was playful as they were the closest in friends. However, this would become difficult when Pollack, who always struggled with keeping his anger in check, and couldn’t handle his drink like Bacon, would start to damage it.
What I also liked about this book was not that it just covered the lives of eight artists but also gave a wide scope of their times, what was going on with art in general, and other artists and patrons who had an input to their journey to produce their art. For Matisse and Picasso, the Steins, primarily Leo and Gertrude Stein, helped to make their art visible. The Steins were all avid art collectors of something new, went were divided and changed their favouritism between Matisse and Picasso. The chapter of Pollock and de Kooning covered the widest circle of friends as Smee gave a (sometimes very) brief insight to art critics who had an influence (Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg), supporters and patrons (Peggy Guggenheim) and other artists (Arshile Gorky and Lee Krasner).
My only small quibble of this book is there were not enough images of the works it referenced, though some I am familiar with but others I had to look up. Otherwise, I liked how little work this book required from me to better appreciate some of the artists and art of the twentieth century.
September 20, 2017
I was going to summarize my stance on this book by simply stating that I thought it was butt. However, I’ve decided you might need further explanation and support for such a negative review. So here goes…
My first issue with this book was discovered right at the onset: the language used. I understand that art and art criticism seemingly requires the application of grandiloquence, but this was ridiculous. By the end of the first chapter I tired of 55 word sentences filled with sesquipedalian words that ultimately conveyed a load of reified nonsense. The only time I was thankful for overly-obscure jargon was when the author refers to Jackson Pollock as a “stumblebum”.
My second issue was the failed attempt to clarify the overly masculine focus. Smee states that his choice stemmed from his desire to focus on unromantic relationships between contemporary artists (he settles on Freud and Bacon, Manet and Degas, Matisse and Picasso, and Pollock and de Kooning). The assumption that male-female (and female-female) artistic interactions will always amorous are problematic enough, but this is furthered when he focuses entirely on the sexual tension between Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon, and then hints at a possible sexual tension between Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning. Also, when the author wasn’t talking about possible amorous feelings between the chosen rivals he is talking at length about their escapades with wives, mistresses, models, collectors, and randos.
While interesting information about artists’ relationships were sometimes conveyed, and their artworks were beautifully described, the book failed to fully develop any insights into the rivalry or professional relationship between these artists. Instead, the connections felt contrived and forced. None seemed to be competing for the same commissions, studied or worked together, or pushed each other in terms of style or subject. They certainly lived in the same circles, and may have painted each other, were friends, lovers, or frenemies, but none of the salacious descriptions of these artists interactions conveyed a sense of rivalry, or even true influence. The last chapter dealing with Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning came closest, but it still could have been stronger.
The book gave interesting gossipy tidbits about each artist’s life and did convey good information about certain works, but overall, it was lacking in substance and insight into its proposed topic.
My first issue with this book was discovered right at the onset: the language used. I understand that art and art criticism seemingly requires the application of grandiloquence, but this was ridiculous. By the end of the first chapter I tired of 55 word sentences filled with sesquipedalian words that ultimately conveyed a load of reified nonsense. The only time I was thankful for overly-obscure jargon was when the author refers to Jackson Pollock as a “stumblebum”.
My second issue was the failed attempt to clarify the overly masculine focus. Smee states that his choice stemmed from his desire to focus on unromantic relationships between contemporary artists (he settles on Freud and Bacon, Manet and Degas, Matisse and Picasso, and Pollock and de Kooning). The assumption that male-female (and female-female) artistic interactions will always amorous are problematic enough, but this is furthered when he focuses entirely on the sexual tension between Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon, and then hints at a possible sexual tension between Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning. Also, when the author wasn’t talking about possible amorous feelings between the chosen rivals he is talking at length about their escapades with wives, mistresses, models, collectors, and randos.
While interesting information about artists’ relationships were sometimes conveyed, and their artworks were beautifully described, the book failed to fully develop any insights into the rivalry or professional relationship between these artists. Instead, the connections felt contrived and forced. None seemed to be competing for the same commissions, studied or worked together, or pushed each other in terms of style or subject. They certainly lived in the same circles, and may have painted each other, were friends, lovers, or frenemies, but none of the salacious descriptions of these artists interactions conveyed a sense of rivalry, or even true influence. The last chapter dealing with Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning came closest, but it still could have been stronger.
The book gave interesting gossipy tidbits about each artist’s life and did convey good information about certain works, but overall, it was lacking in substance and insight into its proposed topic.
July 10, 2016
If you ever imagined that great artists languish in their garrets all day in solitude, please read The Art of Rivalry. It's hard to see how these eight artists had time to paint at all with all the carousing, drinking, affairs, drugs, and fighting.
Art critic Sebastian Smee sets out to show how competitive friendships among artists result in pushing artists to be even more creative. This makes sense, and he points to four sets of friendships/rivalries in which one or both artists were pushed by competition, jealousy, rivalry to try new ways of painting. The rivalries are quite cinematic and the behavior of many of the artists is scandalous, demented, and sometimes destructive. It certainly made life for their families a disaster.
Several books have recently explored the idea that "genius" is a flawed notion, that creativity is built on the creativity that went before it and out of brainstorming and competition. Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs, none of them made their discoveries alone or in a vacuum. They built on what went before and they worked in pairs or groups and in competition with others of their generations. So it was with the artists.
This is a fun and gossipy book, with fascinating art criticism mixed in.
Art critic Sebastian Smee sets out to show how competitive friendships among artists result in pushing artists to be even more creative. This makes sense, and he points to four sets of friendships/rivalries in which one or both artists were pushed by competition, jealousy, rivalry to try new ways of painting. The rivalries are quite cinematic and the behavior of many of the artists is scandalous, demented, and sometimes destructive. It certainly made life for their families a disaster.
Several books have recently explored the idea that "genius" is a flawed notion, that creativity is built on the creativity that went before it and out of brainstorming and competition. Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs, none of them made their discoveries alone or in a vacuum. They built on what went before and they worked in pairs or groups and in competition with others of their generations. So it was with the artists.
This is a fun and gossipy book, with fascinating art criticism mixed in.
November 2, 2020
Якщо ви любите і цікавитесь мистецтвом, то вам ця книга потрібна) Гарний аналіз стосунків та взаємовпливу чотирьох пар відомих художників. Найбільше сподобалась історія Мане-Дега, Матісс-Пікассо.
October 27, 2017
‘Vivid and exuberant writing about art…[brings] great works to life with love and appreciation.’
Pulitzer citation
‘Smee takes readers deep into the beginnings of modern art in a way that not only enlightens, but also builds a stronger appreciation of the influences that created the environment that fostered its development.’
Kirkus
‘This is magnificent book on the relationships at the roots of artistic genius. Smee offers a gripping tale of the fine line between friendship and competition, tracing how the ties that torment us most are often the ones that inspire us most.’
Adam Grant, author of Originals and Give and Take
‘The keynotes of Sebastian Smee’s criticism have always included a fine feeling for the what of art—he knows how to evoke the way pictures really strike the eye—and an equal sense of the how of art: how art emerges from the background of social history. To these he now adds a remarkable capacity for getting down the who of art—the enigma of artists’ personalities, and the way that, two at a time, they can often intersect to reshape each in the other’s image. With these gifts all on the page together, The Art of Rivalry gives us a remarkable and engrossing book on pretty much the whole of art.’
Adam Gopnik, author of Paris to the Moon
‘Modern art’s major pairs of frenemies are a subject so fascinating, it’s strange to have a book on it only now—and a stroke of luck, for us, that the author is Sebastian Smee. He brings the perfect combination of artistic taste and human understanding, and a prose style as clear as spring water, to the drama and occasional comedy of men who inspired and annoyed one another to otherwise inexplicable heights of greatness.’
Peter Schjeldahl, New Yorker art critic
‘Beautifully written…This ambitious and impressive work is an utterly absorbing read.’
STARRED Review, Publishers Weekly
‘Smee’s book is full of interest and elegance and compelling insights into formative moments in, not just art, but Western culture more broadly.’
Australian Book Review
‘Smee’s writing is vivid and engaging, informed by his artistic judgment and a warmth of human understanding. The Art of Rivalry is a cracker of a book.’
Spectator Australia
‘Absorbing, informed and provocative, Sebastian Smee’s The Art of Rivalry takes us to heart of each of these relationships. It offers revelatory insights into the ways in which these major artists influenced and changed each other.’
Australian Arts Review
‘Smee’s double portraits are deeply moving, even haunting in their investigations of artistic and emotional symbioses of incalculable intricacy and consequence.’
Booklist
‘A riveting study.’
Miriam Cosic, Australian Book Review, 2016 Books of the Year
‘A hybrid of art history and biography, The Art of Rivalry sparkles with originality and psychological insight, and is full of fascinating information.’
Best Books of 2016, Australian Financial Review
‘The way Smee connects the dots is revelatory, plus lots of art world gossip.’
Daily Review
‘A riveting study…the title of which says it all.’
Miriam Cosic, Australian Book Review
‘Sebastian Smee explores the ‘frenemy’ relationships between modern artists Freud and Bacon, Manet and Degas, Matisse and Picasso and Pollock and de Kooning—an amusing, intimate and human lens that textbooks are closed to.’
Art Almanac
‘It made me laugh and it made me think.’
Wendy Whiteley, Australian Financial Review
Pulitzer citation
‘Smee takes readers deep into the beginnings of modern art in a way that not only enlightens, but also builds a stronger appreciation of the influences that created the environment that fostered its development.’
Kirkus
‘This is magnificent book on the relationships at the roots of artistic genius. Smee offers a gripping tale of the fine line between friendship and competition, tracing how the ties that torment us most are often the ones that inspire us most.’
Adam Grant, author of Originals and Give and Take
‘The keynotes of Sebastian Smee’s criticism have always included a fine feeling for the what of art—he knows how to evoke the way pictures really strike the eye—and an equal sense of the how of art: how art emerges from the background of social history. To these he now adds a remarkable capacity for getting down the who of art—the enigma of artists’ personalities, and the way that, two at a time, they can often intersect to reshape each in the other’s image. With these gifts all on the page together, The Art of Rivalry gives us a remarkable and engrossing book on pretty much the whole of art.’
Adam Gopnik, author of Paris to the Moon
‘Modern art’s major pairs of frenemies are a subject so fascinating, it’s strange to have a book on it only now—and a stroke of luck, for us, that the author is Sebastian Smee. He brings the perfect combination of artistic taste and human understanding, and a prose style as clear as spring water, to the drama and occasional comedy of men who inspired and annoyed one another to otherwise inexplicable heights of greatness.’
Peter Schjeldahl, New Yorker art critic
‘Beautifully written…This ambitious and impressive work is an utterly absorbing read.’
STARRED Review, Publishers Weekly
‘Smee’s book is full of interest and elegance and compelling insights into formative moments in, not just art, but Western culture more broadly.’
Australian Book Review
‘Smee’s writing is vivid and engaging, informed by his artistic judgment and a warmth of human understanding. The Art of Rivalry is a cracker of a book.’
Spectator Australia
‘Absorbing, informed and provocative, Sebastian Smee’s The Art of Rivalry takes us to heart of each of these relationships. It offers revelatory insights into the ways in which these major artists influenced and changed each other.’
Australian Arts Review
‘Smee’s double portraits are deeply moving, even haunting in their investigations of artistic and emotional symbioses of incalculable intricacy and consequence.’
Booklist
‘A riveting study.’
Miriam Cosic, Australian Book Review, 2016 Books of the Year
‘A hybrid of art history and biography, The Art of Rivalry sparkles with originality and psychological insight, and is full of fascinating information.’
Best Books of 2016, Australian Financial Review
‘The way Smee connects the dots is revelatory, plus lots of art world gossip.’
Daily Review
‘A riveting study…the title of which says it all.’
Miriam Cosic, Australian Book Review
‘Sebastian Smee explores the ‘frenemy’ relationships between modern artists Freud and Bacon, Manet and Degas, Matisse and Picasso and Pollock and de Kooning—an amusing, intimate and human lens that textbooks are closed to.’
Art Almanac
‘It made me laugh and it made me think.’
Wendy Whiteley, Australian Financial Review
March 16, 2017
Art history is certainly not one of my areas of expertise. I know just enough about art and artists to be able to answer trivial pursuit questions with answers other than "Picasso." So reading this book from the vantage point of learning something new was a great experience. Smee is a good writer; his book was neither terribly academic and dry, nor a vapid pop biography. If Smee's book was a meal, then it was rather well-cooked meat and potatoes, rather than a tv dinner or fancy French. But if his intent was to prove something about the power of rivalry vis-a-vis art and artists, I'm not so sure he succeeded. Almost, the book is an exercise in writing towards a theme; Smee wrote the art of rivalry into being, perhaps in a bit of an "emperor's new clothes" facade. Each of the four chapters centered on the "rivalry" between two artists, and in each of the four chapters, I learned a bunch about the artists, enough to find Picasso and Pollock to be sort of reprehensible (their art might be great, but their personalities are shit). Every chapter essentially reads like a piece of longform journalism though, and this unifying theme of "rivalry" just didn't hold water for me. If you can ignore that, you will enjoy this book (I was successful in that pursuit).
January 29, 2022
Чотири захоплюючі розповіді, що дають багато їжі для роздумів - історичний контекст згаданих епох, стосунків між людьми, та, звісно, плин мистецтва
Read
April 16, 2023Understand how rivalries helped create some of the world’s best art.
In business, rivalry and competition are often seen as crucial factors in the creation of the best products and services. In the artistic fields, however, competition is often portrayed as a drama of creative geniuses pitted against each other in bitter feuds. But is this really the case?
In this book, we’ll look at the relationships between some of history’s greatest painters: Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas, who were both part of the Impressionist movement in the nineteenth century; Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso, who redefined art in the early decades of the twentieth century; Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon, whose portraits and grotesque paintings, respectively, have granted them a special place in art history; and Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock, who were both key players in the advent of modern and abstract painting.
The intense meetings of minds between these artistic peers has profoundly affected art history as we know it today, so let’s explore the artful rivalry among these renowned luminaries.
---
Many famous artists have engaged in friendly rivalries, despite far more malicious fights among their supporters.
Have you ever heard the term frenemies? It refers to people who are close, but who are constantly at each other’s throats. Since the general public love to hear about heated competition between creative geniuses, the relationships between artists often seem to turn out this way. But despite what people want to see or read about, artists themselves aren’t always so malicious.
Just take the rivalry between Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso. People were absolutely thrilled at the idea of these two painters hating each other.
In fact, Picasso’s supporters would spread graffiti across Paris with government-style warnings regarding the health dangers posed by Matisse’s art. They even shot rubber-headed arrows at a portrait of Matisse’s daughter, Marguerite, that Matisse had given Picasso.
You can imagine how disappointed these fans were when they discovered that the two artists would often pay each other studio visits or walk together in the Tuileries Gardens.
Or take Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock, who were pitted against one another by the rival critics Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg. While this critic-provoked animosity added tension to their creative processes, the men were still great admirers of each other’s work and shared tremendous mutual respect.
That being said, Pollock, who was a bit of a wild card, would show his respect for de Kooning in an unusual way; he would bait the other artist into a fight, or shout abuse at him during exhibition openings. On other occasions, he would simply praise his fellow painter’s work in the press.
But regardless of how they show it, the personal development of artists depends on the respect of their peers. After all, by influencing those in his field, an artist can become more widely recognized and thus broaden his success.
For instance, Picasso was inspired by Matisse’s deconstruction of form, known as deformation. This technique worked by changing the normal proportions of a figure to create a more visceral impact.
The technique became widely recognizable within Matisse’s work, eventually causing Picasso to open his mind and reconsider his entire approach to painting. As a result, Picasso developed Cubism, a style that revolutionized painting and for which he would forever be recognized.
---
In friendships between artists, the older, more outgoing of the two tends to dominate – but that’s not to say their influence isn’t reciprocated.
Most relationships experience some degree of asymmetrical balance of power, and those between famous artists are no exception. For example, Francis Bacon and Edouard Manet both held an upper hand of sorts in their friendships with their peers Lucian Freud and Edgar Degas, respectively.
While Bacon and Manet were both older and more established when these friendships began, in both cases they were also the ones with the more extroverted personality as compared to their younger colleagues.
Bacon was known to be a charming man who was often the life and soul of the party. This trait made a lasting impression on Freud, who was more quiet, yet prone to reacting impulsively – and sometimes even aggressively – in certain situations. Through his relationship with Bacon, Freud learned that the use of charm could often be far more productive than that of brute force.
Or take Manet, who loved being out in the streets and cafés of Paris to meet other artists and discuss the current climate of the art world. His impulse for socializing made him the unofficial leader of the Batignolles group, which had Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Degas as members.
Beyond this extroverted personality, Manet also had a strong sense of self and a firm belief in his own value. This perspective had a profound effect on Degas, helping the younger artist to come out of his shell.
But that doesn’t mean the less dominant individuals in these relationships had no effect whatsoever; for instance, Freud was always known for his portraits, which were a signature aspect of his style from the beginning.
It can be inferred that Bacon’s later success with portraiture was a result of Freud’s influence. But what’s particularly telling is that, while the friendship between Freud and Bacon eventually came to an end, Bacon continued painting portraits of Freud for the rest of his life.
---
Matisse and Picasso both profoundly influenced each other.
In much the same way that Bacon’s extroverted character made him a role model to Freud, Matisse, too, had a profound influence on his more introverted peer, Picasso. But that dynamic wasn’t set in stone; Picasso’s profound desire to emerge from Matisse’s shadow eventually pushed him to invent Cubism together with Georges Braque, a landmark movement in art history.
Picasso felt insecure around Matisse who, through his native French, would regularly captivate crowds of people at the soirées held by his friends and collectors, Gertrude and Leo Stein. Picasso, a Spaniard, spoke rather broken French and could never hope to match Matisse’s charisma or hold an audience of potential patrons as he did.
Because of this, he felt held back by Matisse; just when he thought he was close to matching the other man’s level of invention and risk-taking, Matisse would take his work to another level, leaving Picasso to play catch-up once again.
This didn’t change until Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, a piece that established him as an equally great painter, albeit a stylistically different one. Even so, Picasso owed much of what he used to create his own ingenious style to Matisse.
Matisse had shown him an African statue at one of the Steins’ parties, pointing out its unique value to Picasso. The statue had inspired Picasso’s approach to art and led him to his great invention of Cubism.
Following Picasso’s breakthrough, Matisse also began to use Cubism in his work. For instance, until then, Matisse had always painted with strong colors and soft lines, but by 1913, he was sacrificing color and using sharp, cutting lines – all central elements of Cubism.
Matisse went on to paint a portrait of his daughter Marguerite in a style totally unlike any he had employed in his previous renderings of her. It was clear that Cubism was the spark that set this transformation in motion.
---
More dominant artists often inspired their traditional counterparts to work with greater freedom.
In many friendships among painters, the extroverts tended to dominate the relationship – but they also worked in a different way, tending to paint with greater freedom. In turn, this inclination had a major impact on their peers.
In most cases, the technically superior of the two would be inspired by the other to adopt a freer style. Just take Freud, Degas, de Kooning and Picasso, all of whom were superb draftsmen, with technical expertise far surpassing that of their rivals. All of them were encouraged to approach their work with greater freedom, of both hand and mind, neither of which came naturally to them.
For instance, Bacon was known for “ambushing” his paintings in a frenzy, with zero regard for the final outcome. Freud, on the other hand, would work methodically and with great attention to detail.
Bacon would pounce on the canvas, painting a significant portion before pausing to consider it, while Freud would calculate the effect of every stroke. Bacon’s proclivity for this method meant that he often threw away entire canvasses, starting over from scratch. Even so, Freud eventually came to embrace Bacon’s unchained spontaneity.
Or take de Kooning, whose masterpiece, Excavation, is noticeably inspired by the drip painting technique of Jackson Pollock. Although de Kooning returned to a relatively more traditional form of painting after completing this piece, his work retained a sense of freedom it had previously lacked. In fact, de Kooning actively suppressed his tremendous drawing skills, feeling that the freedom Pollock exhibited was the future of painting, and that his dependence on talent and technique was keeping him in the past.
By producing work that was both unique and contemporary, the meeting of more traditional minds with those of maverick artists allowed the field to continually grow and evolve. But the influence of these mavericks didn’t stop with the other artists they inspired. We’ll see what other effects they had on society in the next chapter.
---
Pollock was a particularly dominant character who changed art forever.
The great abstract-expressionist painter Jackson Pollock first became interested in art after his brother, Charles, took it up. His early teachers considered Jackson to be essentially talentless, but they failed to see his true ingenuity, which would come to transform the history of art.
Pollock was a wild child of the 1940s and 50s New York art scene. To be blunt, he was an alcoholic with a penchant for violent outbursts.
As a result, he had a volatile relationship with Lee Krasner, a fellow artist who had sacrificed her own career to help Pollock’s. Krasner was so in awe of Pollock’s genius that she supported him despite his frequent abuse.
Willem de Kooning, a good friend and rival of Pollock’s, saw the painter’s recklessness and spontaneity reflected in his work. Finding this passion incredibly inspiring, de Kooning endeavored to incorporate these same qualities into his own art, and managed to adopt such passion professionally without letting it damage his personal life.
But Pollock’s freedom didn’t just inspire de Kooning – it changed modern art forever.
While Pollock never broke free of his demons – he died in a single-car accident while driving drunk – he did inspire artists all over the world to create their work with freedom. His influence can be seen in everything from performance art to contemporary dance and even poetry; in other words, his legacy extends well beyond visual art.
This spillover is in large part attributable to Pollock’s use of a decentralized focus in his work, also known as an “all-over” composition. This now-commonplace term describes an important shift from a clear subject or narrative to the overall, visceral effect of the work.
So, while the eccentricities and extreme personalities of artists like Pollock might seem disruptive, we should be grateful for these quirks as they enrich our culture, giving us endless food for thought.
---
The relationships between artists supported the advancement of their field.
The artists you’ve learned about in this book are some of the most influential of all time. In fact, they were so important that their genius inspires people all over the world to this day.
And, while it might not have felt this way at the time, the relationships they had with each other were a driving force of the creativity that cemented their status as legends. After all, competition between these artists pushed them well beyond what they would have been capable of on their own. In the process, these very rivalries advanced the field of art as a whole.
Without each other, these artists wouldn’t have built such unique and powerful identities. The respect they felt for their peers led them to adopt some of the other artists’ best qualities into their work, yet they remained steadfast in their commitment to making their own unique mark on the history of art.
Take de Kooning’s experimentation with Pollock’s drip-painting style. This foray led to recognition for the artist after years of being sidelined.
But beyond having an effect on the trajectory of art, these artists had a major impact on one another. Just consider Freud, who kept Bacon’s painting Two Figures in his private collection for his entire life, even though the two had a falling out in the 1950s. Or consider Picasso, who kept the portrait of Marguerite that Matisse had given him until his death.
De Kooning was so affected by his relationship with Pollock that he moved to a house opposite Pollock’s burial site and even dated Pollock’s former lover, Ruth Kligman, after the artist passed away.
And finally, Degas, after giving Manet a portrait of Manet and his wife that Manet later attempted to destroy, took back the gift, keeping it in his studio for the remainder of his life.
If not for the relationships between these great artists and the inspiration they spurred on in each other, we might not ever have experienced the tremendous works of art they produced – art that will continue to touch people long after the artists who made it are gone.
---
The giants of modern art would not have made it nearly as far as they did had they not formed relationships and rivalries with their peers. Without these friendly competitions, the landscape of modern art would be entirely different and likely much less interesting.
===
Suggested further reading: Steal Like an Artist by Austin Kleon
Steal Like an Artist (2012) will help you unlock the secret to creating great art: theft. No artist creates their work in a vacuum: all art is influenced by the art that came before it. Steal Like an Artist teaches you how to “steal” from the work of your heroes, and use it to create something new and unique. It also provides important advice on using the internet to launch your career, so others can enjoy your creativity!
In business, rivalry and competition are often seen as crucial factors in the creation of the best products and services. In the artistic fields, however, competition is often portrayed as a drama of creative geniuses pitted against each other in bitter feuds. But is this really the case?
In this book, we’ll look at the relationships between some of history’s greatest painters: Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas, who were both part of the Impressionist movement in the nineteenth century; Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso, who redefined art in the early decades of the twentieth century; Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon, whose portraits and grotesque paintings, respectively, have granted them a special place in art history; and Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock, who were both key players in the advent of modern and abstract painting.
The intense meetings of minds between these artistic peers has profoundly affected art history as we know it today, so let’s explore the artful rivalry among these renowned luminaries.
---
Many famous artists have engaged in friendly rivalries, despite far more malicious fights among their supporters.
Have you ever heard the term frenemies? It refers to people who are close, but who are constantly at each other’s throats. Since the general public love to hear about heated competition between creative geniuses, the relationships between artists often seem to turn out this way. But despite what people want to see or read about, artists themselves aren’t always so malicious.
Just take the rivalry between Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso. People were absolutely thrilled at the idea of these two painters hating each other.
In fact, Picasso’s supporters would spread graffiti across Paris with government-style warnings regarding the health dangers posed by Matisse’s art. They even shot rubber-headed arrows at a portrait of Matisse’s daughter, Marguerite, that Matisse had given Picasso.
You can imagine how disappointed these fans were when they discovered that the two artists would often pay each other studio visits or walk together in the Tuileries Gardens.
Or take Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock, who were pitted against one another by the rival critics Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg. While this critic-provoked animosity added tension to their creative processes, the men were still great admirers of each other’s work and shared tremendous mutual respect.
That being said, Pollock, who was a bit of a wild card, would show his respect for de Kooning in an unusual way; he would bait the other artist into a fight, or shout abuse at him during exhibition openings. On other occasions, he would simply praise his fellow painter’s work in the press.
But regardless of how they show it, the personal development of artists depends on the respect of their peers. After all, by influencing those in his field, an artist can become more widely recognized and thus broaden his success.
For instance, Picasso was inspired by Matisse’s deconstruction of form, known as deformation. This technique worked by changing the normal proportions of a figure to create a more visceral impact.
The technique became widely recognizable within Matisse’s work, eventually causing Picasso to open his mind and reconsider his entire approach to painting. As a result, Picasso developed Cubism, a style that revolutionized painting and for which he would forever be recognized.
---
In friendships between artists, the older, more outgoing of the two tends to dominate – but that’s not to say their influence isn’t reciprocated.
Most relationships experience some degree of asymmetrical balance of power, and those between famous artists are no exception. For example, Francis Bacon and Edouard Manet both held an upper hand of sorts in their friendships with their peers Lucian Freud and Edgar Degas, respectively.
While Bacon and Manet were both older and more established when these friendships began, in both cases they were also the ones with the more extroverted personality as compared to their younger colleagues.
Bacon was known to be a charming man who was often the life and soul of the party. This trait made a lasting impression on Freud, who was more quiet, yet prone to reacting impulsively – and sometimes even aggressively – in certain situations. Through his relationship with Bacon, Freud learned that the use of charm could often be far more productive than that of brute force.
Or take Manet, who loved being out in the streets and cafés of Paris to meet other artists and discuss the current climate of the art world. His impulse for socializing made him the unofficial leader of the Batignolles group, which had Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Degas as members.
Beyond this extroverted personality, Manet also had a strong sense of self and a firm belief in his own value. This perspective had a profound effect on Degas, helping the younger artist to come out of his shell.
But that doesn’t mean the less dominant individuals in these relationships had no effect whatsoever; for instance, Freud was always known for his portraits, which were a signature aspect of his style from the beginning.
It can be inferred that Bacon’s later success with portraiture was a result of Freud’s influence. But what’s particularly telling is that, while the friendship between Freud and Bacon eventually came to an end, Bacon continued painting portraits of Freud for the rest of his life.
---
Matisse and Picasso both profoundly influenced each other.
In much the same way that Bacon’s extroverted character made him a role model to Freud, Matisse, too, had a profound influence on his more introverted peer, Picasso. But that dynamic wasn’t set in stone; Picasso’s profound desire to emerge from Matisse’s shadow eventually pushed him to invent Cubism together with Georges Braque, a landmark movement in art history.
Picasso felt insecure around Matisse who, through his native French, would regularly captivate crowds of people at the soirées held by his friends and collectors, Gertrude and Leo Stein. Picasso, a Spaniard, spoke rather broken French and could never hope to match Matisse’s charisma or hold an audience of potential patrons as he did.
Because of this, he felt held back by Matisse; just when he thought he was close to matching the other man’s level of invention and risk-taking, Matisse would take his work to another level, leaving Picasso to play catch-up once again.
This didn’t change until Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, a piece that established him as an equally great painter, albeit a stylistically different one. Even so, Picasso owed much of what he used to create his own ingenious style to Matisse.
Matisse had shown him an African statue at one of the Steins’ parties, pointing out its unique value to Picasso. The statue had inspired Picasso’s approach to art and led him to his great invention of Cubism.
Following Picasso’s breakthrough, Matisse also began to use Cubism in his work. For instance, until then, Matisse had always painted with strong colors and soft lines, but by 1913, he was sacrificing color and using sharp, cutting lines – all central elements of Cubism.
Matisse went on to paint a portrait of his daughter Marguerite in a style totally unlike any he had employed in his previous renderings of her. It was clear that Cubism was the spark that set this transformation in motion.
---
More dominant artists often inspired their traditional counterparts to work with greater freedom.
In many friendships among painters, the extroverts tended to dominate the relationship – but they also worked in a different way, tending to paint with greater freedom. In turn, this inclination had a major impact on their peers.
In most cases, the technically superior of the two would be inspired by the other to adopt a freer style. Just take Freud, Degas, de Kooning and Picasso, all of whom were superb draftsmen, with technical expertise far surpassing that of their rivals. All of them were encouraged to approach their work with greater freedom, of both hand and mind, neither of which came naturally to them.
For instance, Bacon was known for “ambushing” his paintings in a frenzy, with zero regard for the final outcome. Freud, on the other hand, would work methodically and with great attention to detail.
Bacon would pounce on the canvas, painting a significant portion before pausing to consider it, while Freud would calculate the effect of every stroke. Bacon’s proclivity for this method meant that he often threw away entire canvasses, starting over from scratch. Even so, Freud eventually came to embrace Bacon’s unchained spontaneity.
Or take de Kooning, whose masterpiece, Excavation, is noticeably inspired by the drip painting technique of Jackson Pollock. Although de Kooning returned to a relatively more traditional form of painting after completing this piece, his work retained a sense of freedom it had previously lacked. In fact, de Kooning actively suppressed his tremendous drawing skills, feeling that the freedom Pollock exhibited was the future of painting, and that his dependence on talent and technique was keeping him in the past.
By producing work that was both unique and contemporary, the meeting of more traditional minds with those of maverick artists allowed the field to continually grow and evolve. But the influence of these mavericks didn’t stop with the other artists they inspired. We’ll see what other effects they had on society in the next chapter.
---
Pollock was a particularly dominant character who changed art forever.
The great abstract-expressionist painter Jackson Pollock first became interested in art after his brother, Charles, took it up. His early teachers considered Jackson to be essentially talentless, but they failed to see his true ingenuity, which would come to transform the history of art.
Pollock was a wild child of the 1940s and 50s New York art scene. To be blunt, he was an alcoholic with a penchant for violent outbursts.
As a result, he had a volatile relationship with Lee Krasner, a fellow artist who had sacrificed her own career to help Pollock’s. Krasner was so in awe of Pollock’s genius that she supported him despite his frequent abuse.
Willem de Kooning, a good friend and rival of Pollock’s, saw the painter’s recklessness and spontaneity reflected in his work. Finding this passion incredibly inspiring, de Kooning endeavored to incorporate these same qualities into his own art, and managed to adopt such passion professionally without letting it damage his personal life.
But Pollock’s freedom didn’t just inspire de Kooning – it changed modern art forever.
While Pollock never broke free of his demons – he died in a single-car accident while driving drunk – he did inspire artists all over the world to create their work with freedom. His influence can be seen in everything from performance art to contemporary dance and even poetry; in other words, his legacy extends well beyond visual art.
This spillover is in large part attributable to Pollock’s use of a decentralized focus in his work, also known as an “all-over” composition. This now-commonplace term describes an important shift from a clear subject or narrative to the overall, visceral effect of the work.
So, while the eccentricities and extreme personalities of artists like Pollock might seem disruptive, we should be grateful for these quirks as they enrich our culture, giving us endless food for thought.
---
The relationships between artists supported the advancement of their field.
The artists you’ve learned about in this book are some of the most influential of all time. In fact, they were so important that their genius inspires people all over the world to this day.
And, while it might not have felt this way at the time, the relationships they had with each other were a driving force of the creativity that cemented their status as legends. After all, competition between these artists pushed them well beyond what they would have been capable of on their own. In the process, these very rivalries advanced the field of art as a whole.
Without each other, these artists wouldn’t have built such unique and powerful identities. The respect they felt for their peers led them to adopt some of the other artists’ best qualities into their work, yet they remained steadfast in their commitment to making their own unique mark on the history of art.
Take de Kooning’s experimentation with Pollock’s drip-painting style. This foray led to recognition for the artist after years of being sidelined.
But beyond having an effect on the trajectory of art, these artists had a major impact on one another. Just consider Freud, who kept Bacon’s painting Two Figures in his private collection for his entire life, even though the two had a falling out in the 1950s. Or consider Picasso, who kept the portrait of Marguerite that Matisse had given him until his death.
De Kooning was so affected by his relationship with Pollock that he moved to a house opposite Pollock’s burial site and even dated Pollock’s former lover, Ruth Kligman, after the artist passed away.
And finally, Degas, after giving Manet a portrait of Manet and his wife that Manet later attempted to destroy, took back the gift, keeping it in his studio for the remainder of his life.
If not for the relationships between these great artists and the inspiration they spurred on in each other, we might not ever have experienced the tremendous works of art they produced – art that will continue to touch people long after the artists who made it are gone.
---
The giants of modern art would not have made it nearly as far as they did had they not formed relationships and rivalries with their peers. Without these friendly competitions, the landscape of modern art would be entirely different and likely much less interesting.
===
Suggested further reading: Steal Like an Artist by Austin Kleon
Steal Like an Artist (2012) will help you unlock the secret to creating great art: theft. No artist creates their work in a vacuum: all art is influenced by the art that came before it. Steal Like an Artist teaches you how to “steal” from the work of your heroes, and use it to create something new and unique. It also provides important advice on using the internet to launch your career, so others can enjoy your creativity!
September 15, 2017
I like the subject matter and the stories of these 4 couples of artists friends and rivals were interesting. Their lives were filled with uncertainty, self-doubt, sexual tensions, betrayals, failure, and breakthroughs. Yet, at times their stories also felt petty and filled with self-absorption, self-importance and pompous. Maybe a fiction based on their real-life stories would have brought it closer.
October 19, 2018
In The Art of Rivalry, Sebastian Smee discusses the relationships between four pairs of artists. The book provides an interesting look at how artists influence one another, sometimes supporting, and other times undermining, each other as they struggle to create art. It was interesting.
Want to read
July 20, 2018"Um dia, o pintor Lucian Freud viu-se confrontado com a necessidade de tomar uma decisão tão inesperada quanto inusitados eram os motivos silenciados que a justificavam. Convidado para uma festa de casamento, optou por declinar o convite por se encontrar na invulgar situação de ter já tido relações sexuais com a noiva, com o noivo e com a mãe do noivo. Isto para lá de naquele momento estar casado com uma sobrinha da mãe do noivo e a boda decorrer em casa de Francis Bacon, que ali vivia com o seu amante, Eric Hall.
A estranheza da decisão tem eco em outros momentos tão dissonantes como quando Manet decide apunhalar um quadro pintado por Degas onde avulta a imagem de sua própria mulher. Constatar que o pintor Francis Bacon chegou a oferecer-se como acompanhante de cavalheiros nas colunas de anúncios do Times, de Londres. Perceber como Pollock era um tipo infrequentável, arruaceiro, de um insuportável machismo, com frequência alcoolizado e incapaz de fazer um desenho decente. Ou pressentir que Picasso nunca teria pintado uma obra tão decisiva e de rutura como “Les Demoiselles de Avignon”, nem teria impulsionado o cubismo, juntamente com Braque, sem a pressão e rivalidade que sobre ele exercia Matisse, cuja filha adolescente povoava o imaginário libidinoso do pintor granadino.
Estes e muitos outros episódios aparecem narrados no livro “El arte de la rivalidad”, do crítico de arte e ensaísta australiano Sebastian Smee, vencedor do Prémio Pulitzer. Construído à volta de episódios de amizade e amor, traição e rompimento protagonizados por quatro pares de artistas, todos homens e todos eles situados entre os mais importantes da modernidade, o livro faz-nos embarcar numa longa e surpreendente viagem à volta das vidas e dos encontros e desencontros entre Matisse e Picasso, Manet e Degas, Pollock e De Kooning, Freud e Bacon.
A partir das dinâmicas criadas pelas relações entre amigos que chegam em alguns casos a tornar-se quase inimigos, Smee mostra como os temperamentos divergentes destes artistas acabam por desembocar – seja pela rivalidade, pelo espírito de competição, pela vontade de ultrapassar o outro – em avanços estilísticos decisivos para a história de arte. Se é notável o início do capítulo dedicado a De Kooning e Pollock, situado numa noite do início da década de 1950, com os dois pintores completamente bêbedos, sentados no exterior da Cedar Tavern, de Greenwich Village, a partilharem uma garrafa e a brindarem-se mutuamente com o epíteto de melhor pintor dos EUA, não lhe ficam atrás as pulsões ou tensões eróticas e sexuais que podem estar por trás do golpe de Manet no quadro pintado pelo solteiro Degas, pintado num momento em que aquele casamento definhava de um modo que não terá escapado ao mais jovem pintor.
O que torna o livro extraordinário está muito para lá das abundantes “petites histories” sobre a vida de cada um dos protagonistas. O mais relevante é a maestria com que o autor, ensaísta e crítico de arte, nos conduz, a partir daquelas rivalidades por vezes mais intuídas do que reais, através de uma irresistível história da arte centrada em períodos cruciais dos séculos XIX e XX, pela qual passam ainda personagens não tão secundárias como isso. Entre elas estão Peggy Guggnheim, Gertrude Stein, Baudelaire ou Appolinaire, cuja influência sobre Picasso fica aqui exposta em toda a sua dimensão e importância. Picasso de quem Matisse dizia: “Tal como um gato, seja qual for o salto mortal que dês, cairás sempre de pé”.
Valdemar Cruz in Expresso Curto 20/07/2018
A estranheza da decisão tem eco em outros momentos tão dissonantes como quando Manet decide apunhalar um quadro pintado por Degas onde avulta a imagem de sua própria mulher. Constatar que o pintor Francis Bacon chegou a oferecer-se como acompanhante de cavalheiros nas colunas de anúncios do Times, de Londres. Perceber como Pollock era um tipo infrequentável, arruaceiro, de um insuportável machismo, com frequência alcoolizado e incapaz de fazer um desenho decente. Ou pressentir que Picasso nunca teria pintado uma obra tão decisiva e de rutura como “Les Demoiselles de Avignon”, nem teria impulsionado o cubismo, juntamente com Braque, sem a pressão e rivalidade que sobre ele exercia Matisse, cuja filha adolescente povoava o imaginário libidinoso do pintor granadino.
Estes e muitos outros episódios aparecem narrados no livro “El arte de la rivalidad”, do crítico de arte e ensaísta australiano Sebastian Smee, vencedor do Prémio Pulitzer. Construído à volta de episódios de amizade e amor, traição e rompimento protagonizados por quatro pares de artistas, todos homens e todos eles situados entre os mais importantes da modernidade, o livro faz-nos embarcar numa longa e surpreendente viagem à volta das vidas e dos encontros e desencontros entre Matisse e Picasso, Manet e Degas, Pollock e De Kooning, Freud e Bacon.
A partir das dinâmicas criadas pelas relações entre amigos que chegam em alguns casos a tornar-se quase inimigos, Smee mostra como os temperamentos divergentes destes artistas acabam por desembocar – seja pela rivalidade, pelo espírito de competição, pela vontade de ultrapassar o outro – em avanços estilísticos decisivos para a história de arte. Se é notável o início do capítulo dedicado a De Kooning e Pollock, situado numa noite do início da década de 1950, com os dois pintores completamente bêbedos, sentados no exterior da Cedar Tavern, de Greenwich Village, a partilharem uma garrafa e a brindarem-se mutuamente com o epíteto de melhor pintor dos EUA, não lhe ficam atrás as pulsões ou tensões eróticas e sexuais que podem estar por trás do golpe de Manet no quadro pintado pelo solteiro Degas, pintado num momento em que aquele casamento definhava de um modo que não terá escapado ao mais jovem pintor.
O que torna o livro extraordinário está muito para lá das abundantes “petites histories” sobre a vida de cada um dos protagonistas. O mais relevante é a maestria com que o autor, ensaísta e crítico de arte, nos conduz, a partir daquelas rivalidades por vezes mais intuídas do que reais, através de uma irresistível história da arte centrada em períodos cruciais dos séculos XIX e XX, pela qual passam ainda personagens não tão secundárias como isso. Entre elas estão Peggy Guggnheim, Gertrude Stein, Baudelaire ou Appolinaire, cuja influência sobre Picasso fica aqui exposta em toda a sua dimensão e importância. Picasso de quem Matisse dizia: “Tal como um gato, seja qual for o salto mortal que dês, cairás sempre de pé”.
Valdemar Cruz in Expresso Curto 20/07/2018
April 16, 2018
There are stories that have stayed with me since reading this a couple of years ago (when I took a hiatus from goodreads). One such story: "In 1945, Pollock's old and frequently tense friendship with Philip Gueston, who had been a fellow student back at Manual Arts in California, had come to a head at a party thrown by Sande. Pollock had already embraced abstraction at this point and was entering his most fruitful phase. He turned on Guston, who was panting allegorical works in a figurative style that was beginning to look old hat. 'Goddamn it,' exploded Pollock, 'I won't stand for the way you're painting! I won't stand for it!' He threatened to throw Guston out the window. A drawn-out fist-fight ensued." A must-read for anyone who loves Picasso, Matisse, DeKooning, Freud, Bacon, Matisse and Degas. Not only are the stories amusing, but you get more insights into the work of these artists and what drove them to create.
Read
June 21, 2017I’m reading a great book by the Boston Globe art critic Sebastian Smee, who won a Pulitzer for criticism in 2011. It looks at the intricate relationships between four pairs of painters—Matisse and Picasso, Manet and Degas, Pollock and de Kooning, and Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon. Close friends, former friends, frenemies—the bonds between these artists shift over time, and Smee opens new windows on their art and lives with his approach. —Phil (https://www.bookish.com/articles/staf...)
January 21, 2019
I liked learning about the lives of these artists in relation to each other. It helped me to make better sense of their art and to remember them more clearly. In some instances it made their art more interesting. Conflict is compelling and there’s plenty of it in the art world.
July 8, 2024
Very well-written but if you’re listening to the audiobook, you miss the paintings Smee describes. Also, it felt a little claustrophobic because all the rivalries are between men, and women play only supporting roles. But I learned a lot about art and these particular artists; I rather wish I knew less about Pollack and Picasso, who sounded like miserable human beings. It will be interesting to see if I can separate the artists from their art in the future.
November 13, 2017
Not as interesting as I had hoped. This is mainly just biographical sketches of the eight artists. He does of course, emphasize the times each pair's lives intersected with each other, but that didn't seem to be the main focus, as it sounds like it would be. I did learn a bit about those artists I had never read a lot about before, like Freud, Bacon and de Kooning. (this is no doubt because I'm not a huge fan of those three painters) But artists are usually weird people and it's always interesting to read about them.
(this is yet another art book with hardly any pictures in it, so be prepared to Google. Not even any photos of the artists themselves)
(this is yet another art book with hardly any pictures in it, so be prepared to Google. Not even any photos of the artists themselves)
May 14, 2021
Overall - 3.5
Freud and Bacon - 3
Manet and Degas - 2
Picasso and Matisse - 2.5
De Kooning and Pollock - 4
Freud and Bacon - 3
Manet and Degas - 2
Picasso and Matisse - 2.5
De Kooning and Pollock - 4
June 12, 2023
Не дочитала. Книжка жахливо нудна, автор подає тільки мільйон своїх додумувань і нічого конкретного. Ще й невимовною бісить оформлення, адже сторінки глянцеві і постійно мають відблиски.
April 23, 2024
Very interesting to read about art history rivalries and understand the context more, will enjoy seeing these works in museums more!
Finished reading this while our flight is being constantly delayed at the DFW Airport, next read will be the art of unproblematic flights
Finished reading this while our flight is being constantly delayed at the DFW Airport, next read will be the art of unproblematic flights
February 21, 2017
I wanted to read this book for a class I'm taking on Modern Art History to get the story of Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, but the stories of all four of these "rivalries" were so well told and interesting. Each section tells of the friendships of 4 pairs of artists, and includes their backgrounds, how they knew each other, and the end of their relationships (spoiler) it usually doesn't end well! The stories also focus on specific works of art, and I wish that there were more images of those works included, though I did use the internet to look them up while I was reading. A good read for art lovers, and anyone else.
April 21, 2019
Fluidly written and informative. As with all such projects (Katie Roiphe's "Uncommon Arrangements" for instance) it is not obvious why the author has zoomed in on this particular set of relationships as opposed to dozens of others, but who cares. Smee delivers a lively and balanced account of 4 fraught but fruitful relationships between pairs of famous artists who have all generated multiple biographies. While this book may be redundant for art historians, I learnt a lot from it since some of the artists included (Bacon, de Kooning, Pollock, Picasso) have never been among my personal favorites and I knew almost nothing about their private life. Turns out most of the artists chosen by Smee "lived large", i.e behaved atrociously towards most people within their orbit. Who knew.
September 26, 2018
This book is nonfiction, but is written like a telenovela complete with love triangles, fist fights, avant-garde parties, and gossip. I learned a lot from this book without feeling like I was reading an academic text. I would have liked more direct citations indicating where certain stories came from, but if you aren't all that worried about historical accuracy then that won't bother you. Fun read if you want to learn more about some of the giants of modern art.
August 15, 2018
For readers like me, largely unschooled in art history, this book is an informative and highly readable introduction to some major painters, their friends, lovers and patrons. The writer has done his homework, drawing mainly on secondary sources (noted, including his own writings on Lucian Freud, in an addendum) and his own professional knowledge as an art critic. The reader isn’t spared unpleasant facts about these painters' infidelities, addictions, abuse of women and in cases like Pollock's, outright thuggery. More refreshing, and instructive, is the attention given to the painters' social backgrounds, upbringing, native talent, training, technique and painterly strategies. Curiously for a book pivoting on rivalry, the matter of who was buying these artists’ paintings when, and with what kind of promotional encouragement (from dealers, taste-makers and the like) seemed a bit underplayed. In signposting the historical significance and standing of these painters, the writer cites the judgements of critics, assorted contemporaries and the painters themselves -- even when they were drunk. But in expressing his own opinions the author wasn't very forthcoming. For that reason I’ve found it helpful to turn to observers like John Berger, who found the animations of Walt Disney to be not unlike Francis Bacon’s 'stage-managed' depictions of alienation. Or observers like Julian Barnes, who wrote that Lucian Freud “was always a painter of the Great Indoors”, and who concluded in light of that painter’s unflattering fixations on bodies and their parts, “I wish he’d got out a bit more”. I wonder if Smee would agree.
Read
October 13, 2016First of all I should say that Sebastian is a dear friend. Being from Somerville, I'm familiar with his work in the Globe, and not only that, he has written a rather in depth article about me, and my time as Amy Arbus' muse in the late 70's. I suppose on some level that would make me biased. I loved this book. I have an extensive collection of art books, which I have spent years poring over, and copying paintings that I love. I was familiar with most of the paintings mentioned. I also have been a painters model for more than 30 years, so all told, I found the stories of the artists rivalries particularly interesting. I think I enjoyed the Pollack/DeKooning section the best, maybe because I knew more about them from the start. I read some other people's reviews who seemed to think the book read like a soap opera, and I say no. He's not making up their lives, their lives were what they were, their affairs, they're puff upedness and all that. I've spent a lot of time contemplating art, drinking it in almost...and what I've never gotten was how these people could get so wrapped up in angst over it all. I draw or paint to make myself happy. I do what interests me, or inspires me. I copy things, and people say why don't you do your own stuff....because I like their stuff and I want to see how close I can come. I don't do it for anyone else, not to get famous, not to outdo anyone else. I'm lucky I have some skill some imagination, but, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I think nowadays art and angst has fallen by the way side Every body is busy looking at their phones, rather than competing with each other artistically, just like the music business every thing has become so diluted. Anyway. I loved what Seb was saying in the introduction, as he was on the train heading to see the damaged Degas. If people would just let go of their expectations....they could enjoy things more. Talking about art in this day and age is entirely different than in the time of Degas and Manet, Freud and Bacon, Pollack and DeKooning...clearly, their art shocked people, scandalized them, because people were not accustomed to seeing what they were seeing. It's not much different than seeing two men walk down the street holding hands....it may not be your thing, but you're no longer shocked to see such a thing in a public place, it's allowed, it's practically commonplace. It's virtually impossible, from my perspective to come up with anything shockingly new. I don't think I ever realized there was a rivalry between Matissse and Picasso. I've never cared for Les demoiselles, but then the first time I stood in front of Seated Bather at MOMA, it took my breath away. Matisses color just slays me. I never paid much attention to Freud until I met Seb, Bacon not at all. I can appreciate Degas, but take him or leave him. For some reason, I got a kick out of Manet, I never knew much about him. I was always more interested in Pollack the brawler than Pollack the painter, and the whole lower east side artists thing. My favorite artists would be Thomas Hart Benton, Edward Hopper, Walt Kuhn, Wilfredo Lam, and a bunch of others but they would be my top ones.
If you are interested in art, I think you'd enjoy Seb's book, he's an effortless writer, or at least it seems that way, but clearly, a lot of thought and research went into this book and I congratulate him!
If you are interested in art, I think you'd enjoy Seb's book, he's an effortless writer, or at least it seems that way, but clearly, a lot of thought and research went into this book and I congratulate him!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 269 reviews