In relation to the subject matter which the Matsui Fuyuko likes and takes up, the curator is writing as follows in the exhibition catalog. ”She describes her strong interest in violence, experience of loss, repression, stress, and trauma, and she confides that her works derive from extremely personal motives. As this suggests, the world of Matsui’s portrayal arises from her taking up persecutory delusions, compulsion, narcissism and other human passions and fixations, based on what she herself has heard and experienced, and researching and endeavoring to paint the moments when these illnesses produce abnormality or degenerate into insanity. Investigating what are considered “abnormal” human perceptions and feelings, she has found themes universal to all living beings ─ life and death, sex, self-love, self-mutilation, self and the other, this world and the next, desire and passions. It follows that her paintings are richly fertile in content and lend themselves to varying interpretations. How are we to interpret Matsui’s works? Sociologist Ueno Chizuko has written an essay discussing this question from the perspective of feminism.” I do not deny what her work is such a work. however, the thing -- I am not interested in the very thing. Thus, I am interested in the structure where it is considered by the curator. I am noting whether being pursued by a marketing view which wrote this previously. It may be that people say that fine arts must be beautiful. There is also a thing at which people make it frown also in beauty. While 100 persons see and 99 persons bear a feeling of repulsion, there is also beauty that only the remainder of one person is beautiful. The beauty of her work is not such a thing, but is a thing of the kind accepted more widely.

Generally, that the curator is writing by the comment cannot obtain an understanding widely by a very individual thing. Her work is an exception of such generalities. Her work generalized the element limited for maniacs if common so that an ordinary young woman could receive. There is the dreadfulness of her work. If it sees from another viewpoint, she will be widely accepted in many people and will not ask only for the direction that it is beautiful. If she pursues only this direction, her work will be only external beauty. When her work was such a thing, comment like a curator's comment did not come out. Her work makes those who see feel the reality of the human existence beyond external beauty. Her work has the balance of Hazama of the reality of making the special subject matter restricted to some persons sublimate to universal beauty, if common, and the human existence beyond external beauty. When she makes a work, she considers this balance strategically. This is close to the strategy of the branding in a marketing term. For example, it discriminated that a nude photo was erotic and grotesque till a decade ago, and saw secretly in a place like a porno shop which is not common. However, even if the male penis is reflected, since it is of art and the sense is good, the photograph taken by Mapplethorpe is decorated that there is no sense of incongruity in the sitting room of an ordinary home. The reason is that Mapplethorpe's photograph has the beauty of art from which other nude photos are different. A bigger reason is that Brando called Mapplethorpe is making people think that they are the special things different from a mere nude photo. Matsui Fuyuko has taken such a measure against the work scrupulously. What kind of thing is it concretely? Her work has not made grotesqueness the theme. Her work makes the theme what is written to a curator's comment. And her work is justifying the grotesque subject matter that a thing grotesque as a means is required, in order to express the theme. Since those who look at her work have a justifiable reason, they look at an unavoidable grotesque thing as a not grotesque thing. And since she did not dare to have avoided a grotesque subject matter for the theme of a work, they are estimating that the Matsui winter child is great. Although it may not be suitable as comparison, I will compare with Egon Schiele　(Left figure) who takes up the similar theme and continued drawing a grotesque work throughout life. There are pity which wounds itself, and an element to which their eyes are occasionally made to be averted truly in his work. Even if those who looked at his work do not want to see, it becomes impossible however, to let a screen out of sight. Though regrettable, her work does not have such an element.