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
You undo your own point a bit earlier on, Peter, on the 'lines' issue, it doesn't help a lot, does it, to imply he could have put them anywhere since he was the author of the design: it was a design that is relevant; that's where the art lies. But I don't think I want to flog through all that again. PP's dead, and I'm none too good myself - I've never yet known an opinion on art matters to be changed by discussion. You like what you like, all the rest is post hoc rationalization.
I'll take issue with one thing though, just to be difficult: Helen says "he wasn't a good person" - well that rather depends on whom you're comparing him to, given contemporaries included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Picasso isn't feted for his abundant goodwill and treatment of women (in the latter case, he certainly wasn't anyone's idea of a good person: though what you'd expect of a middle-class Spaniard of his generation, I don't know - it's not mere coincidence or accident that the word "machismo" is Spanish).
In general however - and I agree that it's just as well Hitler wasn't a better painter, or we'd have a real problem on our hands - I don't think that one's personal character, even if it be corrupted, is relevant. Hence - Sir Stanley Spencer was a deeply odd cove, probably harmless; but had he not been harmless, he would still have been a great painter. But I've been saving up the real controversy (one loves to tease.....): Eric Gill. Now Eric Gill was a man who would trouble a frog with his attentions were it only to stop hopping: he had vile opinions, and viler habits. I do not agree, however, with the person who attacked his carvings outside the BBC building - not in any way at all. Indeed, he's very lucky I'm not a Judge, since the quality of mercy would not be strained, it wouldn't exist.
I do not think that Gill's loathsome personality has any real bearing on his art. I don't think Picasso's behaviour - granted, greatly less extreme and repulsive than Gill's - has any relevance to his.
Posted
My late mother's favourite artist. She much admired his single continuous line drawings which she said were much more difficult than they looked.
I'm sure in that era they were up against the camera and the moving image, so modern artists were searching for something different to say. Like Hockney today. Hence perhaps Picasso's multi dimensional portraits. I'm not keen on that type of work, I prefer his earlier blue and rose periods.
(That Virgil book, Traditional Oil Painting, of which I've just finished another chapter, is way way above my pay grade! Hopefully, something will have soaked in to my brain by the time I finish it)
Posted
Norette - persist with it; start again when you've finished, read isolated bits - it is difficult, but really is so worth delving deeply into.
To adjust something I said earlier: of course his (or anyone's) art is influenced by personal factors; in Picasso's case, his antediluvian attitude to women was a key to his work: he exploited them, got what he could from them, tired of them, and moved on - all that is quite true, and even I can see how offensive it is. He either worshipped or despised women, and his attitudes make him ripe for revulsion today, and did, to some extent, in his time.
But that's a moral judgement we can make, not an aesthetic one - I believe. Others will disagree, and OK - I have no problem with that. But to take real issue with it, I'd also have to despise T S Elliot, for his (alleged) anti-Semitism, to Ezra Pound, for his entirely provable attraction to fascism, to Knut Hamsun, for his indulgence of Nazism, to Salvador Dalí (whom I dislike... for many reasons) for his closeness to Opus Dei and indulgence of General Franco.
For so long as the works, er, work , I wouldn't say I don't care, but I care a great deal less than some. I don't believe in moral criticism of aesthetic questions (I also don't believe in the landlord's bloody old dog barking at my door and distrupting my chain of thought, but that's something else entirely).
Posted
For a quick and (in my opinion) authoritative take on Picasso, this video about the collection of the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York is well worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oly6d0zlZM
The Picasso starts 18 minutes in and lasts a bare 3 minutes, but for anyone who is not sure about 'modern' art, the whole video makes for interesting watching.
Posted
Thanks for the link - I think of myself as a bit backward-looking in matters artistic, because I don't get performance art, installations, and the like. However, Picasso, Rothko, Pollock (I've never yet, so far as I remember, managed to arouse any enthusiasm for Pollock on here..), greatly appeal to me; though on the other hand Matisse, de Kooning, and a few others, don't.
The video is worth a watch, even if Americans do insist on mispronouncing European names, headed by that of Van Gogh; it's interesting to hear the late David Rockefeller speaking - obviously, he knew more about the foundation of the MOMA than anyone, but he was also free of art-professional-speak, which can't be said of some of the other contributors: I shift uneasily in my seat when museum and gallery executives sound more like politicians than art enthusiasts - but it's quite possible that I just LOOK for trouble...
Posted
I found the archive footage interesting too, and also to see Alfred Barr, he of the famous diagram.
I'm a huge fan of Pollock. The more I read about his technique the more his innovation impresses me. Ditto Matisse. Rothko apparently spent hours looking at his Red Studio and claimed it led to the colour field paintings. Here's a BBC documentary on Matisse that I enjoyed.
I find De Kooning more difficult (Basquiat too), but I don't necessarily 'get' a particular artist's work until I find out more about what went into making it, and how it moved things forward, and sometimes not until I see it in the flesh, as it were. I used to think one should be able to judge an artist simply by looking at their paintings, but I genuinely don't think that is enough in itself (at least in some cases), unless one looks with an open mind before going away and finding out more and looking again afresh. You might have heard of the book 'Why your 5 year old could not have done that' by Susie Hodge that describes what is special about 100 works of modern art. That helped me to appreciate what the artist was trying to say. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean I'll return to a painting and 'like' it.
Having said all of that, I'm no great fan of installation or performance art. Or rather, I've seen some of each and enjoyed some of it, but I see it as a totally separate genre from painting so I don't tend to make comparisons. I regard myself as uneducated in those genres (pretty much the same with sculpture).
Threads like this are pretty useful, because they do lead to something of a discussion about why specific artists are revered (or not).
Posted
I'll check on that video, but I'm already a great admirer of Picasso's art. I watch a lot of programs about art, including those that I don't 'get'. I've watched several on Rothko. One program included an actor speaking Rothko's words. I found what he had to say fascinating, but for this viewer the words didn't transfer to his paintings. So Rothko is an artist who's passed me bye. I have mixed feelings about Pollock. How he made his art is well documented. With a love of colour I can hardly fail to admire some of his paintings. Many years ago I had to visit a couple's house, they were heavily into minimalism, I thought their home drab and colourless. What I thought doesn't matter, it's their home. On a wall they had a very large print of Pollock's work...it really lit up the room. This caused me to look at Pollock's work again.
For me too, the jury's out on installation and performance art, however, there was one installation I WOULD have liked to have seen. It was by Anthony Green at the Royal Academy
(this artist has featured in Dixie's inspiration thread). I admire his off-beat art, and as the 'installation' seemed to be an assemblage of some of his painted pieces, I'm sure I'd have found it intriguing. Here's a poor picture of it...
Posted
It is interesting to check out figure 3 in this paper which shows photographs of people alongside Picasso's portraits of the same. Its pretty clear that he was able to capture the essence of each person.
Posted
It is interesting to check out figure 3 in this paper which shows photographs of people alongside Picasso's portraits of the same. Its pretty clear that he was able to capture the essence of each person.Interesting article Martin.