I don't disagree but keep in mind that these too had their conceptual forebears in Homer, Whistler, Harnett, etc... I think of Warhol as a skip and a hop from Duchamp. A substantial one, but still dependent on the prior work. That doesn't stop me from loving most of the artists you mentioned, nor those later artists who are a "skip and a hop" from them. I would break my support of the five down as follows: Picasso: Cubism's continuation of Cezanne's fractured picture plane and analytical abstraction of space; Les Demoisselles: most important breakthrough against stigmaticism of social characterizations since Manet's picnic. Matisse: pronounced leap into figural reductivism through a confidence in emotional qualities of form and color; a forebearer to both minimalism and expressionism while not falling into theoretical contradictions between those two Duchamp: ended the classical understanding of art as a proscriptive form of intent-based creation by the artist and introduced the understanding of art as an object of presciption which brought art to a widely accepted definition: an object of appropriation on apart of an artist, whose only requirement is to exist as an artifact of the artist's appropriation of its status as "art" Kandinsky: Abstract composition and the phenonological characteristics of line, plane, and color among themselves as autonomous segments of the whole. Warhol: Dissolved the heirarchy of aesthetic value in art forms through an unprecedented support of capitalism and its democratic markets for beauty, consumerism, sex, fame, media and every other prevalent aspect of contemporary society.