Liking an artist’s work is not the same as understanding its importance within the art timeline. We're so used to "wrong" perspective today we don't give it much thought (regardless of whether we like it or not). But at some stage an artist was the first to do this.
Part of the appreciation of The Red Studio comes from context in which Matisse was working and the concept, not solely the actual painting. A comparable example would be the color-field paintings of Rothko; it’s hard to envisage a time when covering a canvas with just color was unprecedented.
Who gets written into the books as a master is a question of fashion and to some extent luck, being in the right places or galleries at the right time, having academics and curators researching and writing about your work. Matisse went through a period of being dismissed as merely decorative (and worse), but has been reevaluated and given a more prominent role. Now he's well regarded for his simplicity, his use of color, his design.
Never worry about being called art ignoramuses for not liking the art of some Big Name; that's just snobbish and elitist nonsense. There's no reason you need like someone’s work, ever. But that’s not the same as being ignorant about why they’re regarded as important. Take a moment, at least, to try and understand why an artists did the painting in that manner -- you may be surprised at the answers you come up with!
Just because something was done by a Big Name doesn't make it a good painting, it just makes it a painting by a famous painter. (Every famous painter has done duds; the sensible ones took time to destroy them before they died rather than trust someone else to do it.) You need to judge for yourself what you like or don't. If you don't like the work of a Big Name, then you don't and stuff what anyone else thinks.
