Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Picasso
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I began watching the first of the three BBC documentaries about Picasso the other night but I only lasted for fifteen minutes. Apparently he was a genius, the greatest painter of the twentieth century, etc. etc.
Well I beg to differ! Please do feel free to disagree!
In his 75 year career he painted 13,500 paintings. That's one every two days if he painted every single day for 75 years. That says to me that he couldn't be bothered to make much effort. On top of that he did 100,000 prints, 34,000 book illustrations and 300 sculptures. Then there were the ceramics............ Presumably he must have had the odd day off so he was churning the stuff out like a conveyor belt. Genius? Really?
Look at this still life:
He's just drawn some black lines and coloured them in with blocks of colour. It must have taken him all of half an hour.
A portrait:
Look at those eyes....a bit easier to paint than something Rembrandt or Renoir might have done! I think he was bone idle, any old crap would do and the art world fell for it hook line and sinker.
I realise I'm probably in a minority of one and yes, I know he wasn't trying to paint realistically (that would have been far too much trouble!). I know that some of his early work was reasonably competent. I still cannot see any justification for calling the man who churned out rubbish like this a genius.
I will now put on my steel helmet and retire!
Peter
He's just drawn some black lines and coloured them in with blocks of colour. It must have taken him all of half an hour.
A portrait:
Look at those eyes....a bit easier to paint than something Rembrandt or Renoir might have done! I think he was bone idle, any old crap would do and the art world fell for it hook line and sinker.
I realise I'm probably in a minority of one and yes, I know he wasn't trying to paint realistically (that would have been far too much trouble!). I know that some of his early work was reasonably competent. I still cannot see any justification for calling the man who churned out rubbish like this a genius.
I will now put on my steel helmet and retire!
PeterEdited
by Peter Smith
Posted
Picasso was a great artist - but that doesn't mean a) you have to like him, b) he didn't churn out as many pot-boilers as anyone else. There came a point at which he could sign a serviette, and it would be worth tens of thousands of pounds; well, that was plainly absurd, but can you blame him for taking advantage of it? Perhaps you can..... but if I could do the same, I fear I would.
Your point about the still life above - "he's just drawn some black lines and filled them in with colour" - misses the point that he knew where to put the lines in the first place.
The US painter Virgil Elliott - who has written a very good book on oil painting in the traditional way(s) has said that Picasso - I'm paraphrasing - led art down the wrong path. I have great respect for Virgil, but I think the trouble with Picasso was never Picasso - it was the art market, the critics, and Roland Penrose, who built a career as a Picasso "expert".
Posted
My opinion: a great artist should be judged based on innovation rather than in terms of the number of works produced. Picasso introduced so much that was new to art that most painters who came after him struggled to escape his influence (and said as much). If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading some art history covering his work from say Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) up to Guernica (1937) at least to get an idea of how far ahead of his contemporaries he was. It is also important to understand why what he did that was genuinely creative -- anyone can copy but few end up driving progress in art. I think of him akin to Miles Davis -- 5 decades of reinvention.
[Added in edit]. Incidentally, I just looked on Wiki and saw that in the first para they mention the exact same pair of paintings I named above. Coincidence, I assure you! More importantly, that first para neatly summarises some of his many innovations.
Edited
by Martin Cooke
Posted
You can't like everything. Picasso was a genius, he covered such a wide range of subjects and styles. He was an innovator. They always come in for some stick.
I don't pretend to like everything he does...that goes for every artist I admire...but I do admire great swathes of his huge output.
The greatest painter of the 20th century?? Probably.
I don't pretend to like everything he does...that goes for every artist I admire...but I do admire great swathes of his huge output.
The greatest painter of the 20th century?? Probably.
Posted
Well I did say I'd be in a minority of one. As for the black lines Robert, if the image isn't meant to look like anything of course they will be in the right place wherever they are.....he wins either way.
It's been interesting reading folk's opinions but nothing you've said has changed mine I'm afraid.
Posted
Well I certainly like the lady in red above, and found these two online,
but overall I agree with Peter! I wonder if someone without his name posted work like his main body on the gallery here, what would the reaction be? Very few comments I think.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I wouldn’t cross the room to look at his work in general!
Each to his own.
but overall I agree with Peter! I wonder if someone without his name posted work like his main body on the gallery here, what would the reaction be? Very few comments I think.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I wouldn’t cross the room to look at his work in general!
Each to his own.Edited
by Tessa Gwynne
Posted
Well said Tessa! The Lady in Red is OK but is that being put forward as his best work? It's adequate but certainly no better than dozens of other artists were doing at the same time. The portrait Tessa has posted is laughable.
I think he was a great artist but only if you put 'CON' in front!!
Posted
I’m not a big fan of Picasso, but have liked one or two of his works in the past. How he could be described as THE greatest artist of the 20th century I do not know. Surely there are thousands of great artists….
I am much LESS of a fan of his after watching the recent series on him. He wasn’t a good person
Posted
I’m not a fan I have never really liked his work . As to his being a genius or the greatest artist I don’t agree with that personally as there are far more artists whose work I much prefer and think they are better artists. He was very different and his work encouraged others to think out of the so called box but other artists were different are they all to be labelled genius and greatest artist . I would like to have the money a Picasso costs but I wouldn’t want one on my wall.
Posted
If I may digress a little, I am no great fan of Picasso but I do have a liking for van Gogh, and Peter's figures for Picasso's huge output reminds me of van Gogh. I read somewhere that almost all of his more famous paintings (i.e excluding the gloomy peasant stuff he did early on), almost all were painted within a 6 month period. I also read that he often had several canvases 'on the go' at the same time. I suspect that, if all this is true, his output over that 6 month period probably did amount to (at least) one picture every two days. Which begs the question, are output and genius related?
Posted
All this is perfectly normal, we all have our own preferences. I tend to like specific paintings, and seldom like everything that anyone does. I do admire a great deal of Picasso's work.
Are we saying those artists who have a huge output can't be any good. No...surely not. As Tony has pointed out Van Gogh was one. I certainly admire a great deal of his work. The same for Toulouse Lautrec...a short life...a huge output. I like his work a lot. Kandinsky was another, he was knocking out about one a day...I do like the odd painting of his...certainly not all of it. Just about the only artist I can think of where I liked NOTHING he did was Rothko.
I don't think any artist is a 'con- artist', apart from forgers. They just did what we're all trying to do...paint something that appeals to US in the first place, then if anyone else wants to fork out good money for it so much the better.
Posted
You're right of course Lewis - I was being tongue in cheek. I've just done a picture in two hours to take to art group so I'm a hypocrite (although no one is calling me a genius!!).
We all have our likes and dislikes and that's what makes art so interesting. Just don't ask me to put a Picasso on the wall!