When Picasso was five years older than your granddaughter, he painted this...
A year later he painted this...
Be sure to let us know when she outgrows him.
Posted on 02/09/2013 9:26:41 AM PST by BenLurkin
Art scholars had long suspected Picasso was one of the first master artists to employ house paint, rather than traditional artists' paint, to achieve a glossy style that hid brush marks. There was no absolute confirmation of this, however, until now.
Physicists at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Ill., trained their hard X-ray nanoprobe at Picasso's painting "The Red Armchair," completed in 1931, which they borrowed from the Art Institute of Chicago. The nanoprobe instrument can "see" details down to the level of individual pigment particles, revealing the arrangement of particular chemical elements
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Mr Richmans poetry has a lot in common with Picasso’s art.
He used house paint because it was cheaper. Only reason needed.
When Picasso was five years older than your granddaughter, he painted this...
A year later he painted this...
Be sure to let us know when she outgrows him.
I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.
I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.
I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.
I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.
Yes, he did beautiful work when he was young. And then he cynically threw that all away because he realized he could get rich by appealing to the ignorant, the decadent, and the Left.
The Left has especially embraced the art of the twentieth century. They praise newer and ever-uglier forms of “art” and have shoved them down our collective throat telling us that ugly distortions and perversions are good and beauty is for fools and Christians. It’s political. It’s part of their general rejection of the true, the good, and the beautiful, the values that formed our nation. They try to tear down the West and all its glories, and when we protest and say, “This is ugly, this is vile, we want the chance to aspire to what is beautiful,” the Leftist media and academy sneer. This is not a movement in art that any conservative should support.
Bob Ross “Remixed”? You gotta watch this: http://youtu.be/YLO7tCdBVrA
First, I agree wholeheartedly with you in regards to your remarks about much of 20th Century art. What we saw at the close of the last century was the culmination of about 100 years worth of struggle on the part of communists, anarchists, atheists and nihilists to position themselves as the arbiters of good taste. This has been documented in many places, both by the left who openly espouse it and by those who vigorously oppose them. In 1963, when the current communist goals were read into the Congressional record, there were a number of items on the list that spoke to the deliberate intent to degrade the culture as a whole by passing off meaningless, ugly artforms. It was an old, and well known tenet of the left even then.
Second, I wish to stipulate that I am not an apologist for Picasso the person - he was a misogynist of the worst order and more closely fit the grotesque stereotype of such that the left loves to foist upon conservative males. Furthermore, I would openly reject and refute his declared politics anywhere, any time and under any circumstances. I find many of his works unappealing (so did he), although in others I find true, inspired genius.
Having said all that, I do love the truth, and there are some facts that you conveniently skew or ignore altogether that are quite germane to the topic of Picasso and his art.
You state, "...he did beautiful work when he was young. And then he cynically threw that all away because he realized he could get rich by appealing to the ignorant, the decadent, and the Left."
First, I think it's intellectually dishonest to state that Picasso, "threw...away," his traditional, academic training and work; I believe (and his own words and those of his contemporaries strongly suggest) that having mastered traditional academic techniques so early in life, he simply became bored with them. His shifts in style, at least most certainly, early in his career, were the efforts to break new ground, do things in a manner that had not been done before, and by his own admission he saw some as failures and others as successes. When an entrepreneur does this in virtually any other field of endeavor, conservatives call it "innovation," and laud it as a good thing.
Let's also keep in mind that in the 20th Century, the art market has been driven by elitists and critics who embraced ugliness. Even if Picasso later engaged in the work he did for strictly mercenary reasons, it is you who cynically criticize him for having simply identified a new market and (quite successfully) servicing it. Again, this is something conservatives typically defend. If people demand SUVs, conservatives defend the rights of the auto industry to build and sell SUVs in spite of the objections of the environmentalist fringes of the left, the MSM and power hungry politicians. If people want ugly art, that desire will be serviced in a free economy. Now, we can debate the merits of that market as well as the cultural factors and the intellectual vacuity that allowed it to come into being, but I think it somewhat disingenuous for a conservative to begrudge an artist (or an automaker) for accomodating the demands of a market and refer to the profit motive as "cynical" simply because we may not like, understand or feel the same demand. I'm not a big fan of Apple products and I personally view their marketing and diehard adherents in nearly cultlike terms. I don't get all the buzz, but I don't begrudge Apple for selling the products they do. Conservatives are supposed to love rags-to-riches stories, and Picasso went through a period where he was burning his own canvasses and frames for heat. He later found a niche that made him quite wealthy, and I don't begrudge him that one bit, regardless of whether he did so with purely cynical or purely artistic motives. As per my earlier caveat, I would take issue with his communist ideals that if and where realized, would limit the ability of others to do the same, and in this regard he was certainly a hypocrite.
Humans will typically respond to any objet d'art on both an intellectual and emotional level. Different periods, styles and artists have tended to swing more in one direction or the other to varying degrees. The swindle of the 20th Century art market is that from say the Expressionist period forward, art in practice, has tended to be more on the emotional side of things (with some notable exceptions), but the critics and galleries have told (and sold) the masses that they are engaging acts of deep intellect. People feign appreciation for things they don't really appreciate, because failing to do so would (they think) be a display of ignorance or absence of sophistication. This has allowed truly inferior artists to rise to levels of influence and renown that should be unthinkable; however, this was not the case with Picasso, and in fact, I think it is in this very tension between intellect and emotion where Picasso truly displays his genius.
A good artist will paint with the intent of evoking primarily an emotional or intellectual response. A really good artist will successfully fulfill that intent with some regularity. A truly great artist will manage to pull off both in the same work. Picasso was not only capable of pulling this off, but doing so with great ease. Even in a preliminary sketch with a little pencil work he could capture a moment of intense intimacy, with tremendous technical, linear, cooly rational virtuousity...
However, this skill was not limited to his realist work, but was done with equal aptitude in his more abstract efforts. Many years ago when I was in elementary school, I remember one of our English textbooks had E.A. Poe's Eldorado juxtaposed with Picasso's Don Quixote. I was struck by the image's simplicity and power (indeed its power loomed largely in its simplicity). At the time, I had no idea that I was looking at, "a Picasso," and it was only years later after studying and doing art of my own, that I could articulate why it struck me so...
...it was the balance of emotional and rational appeal, the volume of data that was communicated in combination with the raw pathos of a sketch that looks like it was rendered in a matter of a few minutes with deceptive simplicity.
Only the most very ignorant would fail to immediately recognize the subject matter, and those only remotely familiar with Cervantes' work will immediately recognize the setting. The elegantly simple rendering immediately places one under a hot Spanish sun which virtually becomes a character in its own right, its harshness reinforced by the strong black and white contrast and absence of intermediate grays. The Hidalgo and Sancho Panza are at once pathetic, dignified, absurd and noble; their mounts echoing the character of their riders, as they prepare for battle with the windmills. Many will write it off saying, "it looks like something a child could draw," which I suppose is technically true, yet I've never seen a child, nor any other adult for that matter, pull off anything quite like it when all is said and done.
You are both making reasonable points regarding the evolution of art and in particular Picasso.
In a lecture that we present to museums and art groups in the west, we discuss “Approach to Modernism” by the American Maynard Dixon.
All artists seek to find their own voice. In the case of Picasso, my opinion is that he recognized his own failure to compete reasonably with his precursors, the French Impressionists. He therefore took a new approach in marketing at the turn of the century. And yes the elitists who really did not have a clue about what they were looking at went viral.
http://www.thunderbirdfoundation.com/learn/maynard-dixon/
In August there will be a few symposiums at this event where much of what we are talking about is discussed in detail.
http://www.thunderbirdfoundation.com/maynard-dixon-country/maynard-dixon-country/
I agree with the general gist of your opinion with one minor quibble. What you write makes it sound as though Picasso was reactive, failing to compete and setting out to look elsewhere. Everything I've read (and I'll openly admit my forte is not 20th Century) suggests his was a more frenzied, proactive endeavor. I would submit that by the first decade of the 1900s, he couldn't have cared less about the Impressionists or competing with them. We both agree he was driven to new ground; I suppose we just differ in whether the forces that drove him were of external or internal origin, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
““Art is long, life is short.””
Most “art” is crap. Life is real.
I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Mainly Picasso went to the primitives of Africa, deriving their imagery in his quest for new market.
The “New Art” was certainly emerging slowly. I think Pablo made a move to step outside that entire movement in a bold new way. He would have been an “average competitor” and he certainly recognized that.
In 1913 at the Armory Show in NYC and in 1915 at the Panama Pacific Exposition in SF his art was an immediate hit with all the big shots. Course they didn’t know what they were looking at but it became the thing to do.
Maynard Dixon’s art changed too. It became more tonal but with heavy impasto and defined facets of paint. He then simplified, distilling unnecessary imagery to make the compositions more powerful. When he met and married Dorothea Lange in 1920 his art simplified even more.
I guess the point we are making is that all artists attempt to find their own voice and make their own unique statement.
Picasso took a huge leap; others more slowly.
Scruton on Beauty Here the English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton of the American Enterprise Institute and (currently) Oxford describes the uproar that resulted when he dared to attack the prevailing liberal view that originality in art, such as that Picasso shoveled at us, is more important than achieving beauty. I wish that the stunning BBC video were still available, but it has been taken down after going viral, which annoyed the BBC socialists.
Thank you, Ottbmare for your thoughtful, well stated argument, I rarely have the chance to discuss my thoughts on art. I concede to the body of your argument, with some reservations around the margins.
In full disclosure, I offer a Mea Culpa; I am a former deluded, self-educated, left-leaning dolt. However thirteen years ago, I experienced a volte face, though I am still a liberal, in so much as Churchill; was conservative because he was (a classic) liberal. I am frightened at the prospect of a Marxist-Islamic axis of power being implemented in government. How we repair and reset our constitutional rights is more important than any discussion on art. But I also believe that culture and politics are not mutually exclusive.
In my limited understanding, I believe Picasso was “messed-up” as a human being, not unlike Andy Warhol. et,al. I wish not to dismiss the amorality of their parasitic relationships with the intelligentsia, in which Picasso and others, enthusiastically embraced; nevertheless I share this disposition, and therefor, am unqualified to judge their lives.
As I understand, the main thrust of your argument, it is different from my poorly articulated claim, namely that, as a talent, Picasso squandered, and misspent his talent. My opinion is that Picasso’s artistic strategy was similar to a gold miner, he would dig tons of pay dirt in order to find only a few nuggets. I believe it is apparent that he was unprepared to evaluate the possible consequences of mining this gilded cage, also I am uncomfortable laying on his shoulders the condemnation of fraud, my contention is; that those around him, were like modern day talent agents, who purchased his talent and celebrity, not unlike the engaging in an act of Simony.
I now consider myself a Christian, although not a Catholic, I gravitate towards this language. Consequently, I am trying to apply my principles at past dislocated and incoherent conclusions. I concede, I am not naturally bright, but am willing to learn, even though, I am a very tardy soul.
“But the fundamental premise—the idea that what is original is good despite its evident ugliness—is a corrupting, decadent idea.”
On this thought, I am uncertain, Originality itself, was the new cause-celebrity of the day and apparently, merely a selling point for the greedy art dealer. This may seem unconnected, but when I think about the horrific struggle of the people of North Korea today, for example, how would an artist express this reality? I can see no beauty which could be expressed. Picasso also lived in times equally horrific and confused, On this point, I am willing to give him a pass.
Now I would like to discuss a possible bridge between our different conclusions. And because I am confident that almost nobody is reading this post, I would value your opinion on a personal project, a project, I have all but abandoned.
I believe in an artists language! There I said it. (not a solipsistic or personal language; or self referential drivel, but a logically coherent, fully productive, growing and yet definitional imaging referential language.)
No, I do not believe in Damien Hurst’s unicorns, or the facile yet brilliant utensils of the technically crafted pop art of Jeff Koons. I believe in the “unoriginal” extension of Catholic Iconography, expanded to include a secular language, as an exciting and fecund font for the artistic expression of the nature of being human. Agreed, that sounds dangerously decadent and easily confused as dung, but I enjoy drilling into the materialistic, adamantine core of the leftist determinists caves.
All language needs an anchor and at least two people who share its meaning. Realistically though, it must assume the suspension of social convention by incorporating empathy as communication, or obviously it will not communicate.
I am a follower of Rodger Kimball @ PJMedia, my opinion of Mr. Kimball is well esteemed, and I defer to his observations regarding the disassociation of personhood in art. But I digress, given enough time. He has written on the subject of Post modern art with great wit. I recommend his books.
I believe that an artist’s language is only possible with the input of “non-artistic individuals”. (By Non-artistic, I mean, those who’s interests do not include the production of objects de art, but have interest or ideas regarding the arts per se; Philosophers, historians, scientists, the aesthetically inclined, etc.)
Because I cannot presume to know which category you may occupy, I will only add, regarding the participation or insights that you may render, would be met with sincere gratitude.
In conclusion; I welcome any input, observation or suggestions which forwards my goals.
Thanks for posting the early Picassos.
Having read a number of Picasso bios I’m not a huge fan of much of the art or of the man.
But he knew what he was doing, and he could do it all.
You are comparing Picasso to a snuff-film director? Seriously? I would remind you that there are many, highly regarded artists from the Renaissance, Mannerist, Baroque, Romantic, etc. periods who created things of exquisite beauty who also dabbled in more obscure, and far more profane subject matter for very private patrons. You could argue that work served, "vile purposes," as well, but we are supposed to willingly ignore that based on their more conventional creations that appeal to our higher sensitivies.
If there is ugliness in Picasso's work (as there most assuredly is), I would argue it is a reflection of the consumer's tastes, and not the cause of it (although I do acknowledge that could rapidly devolve into a chicken-egg argument rather quickly). Similarly, there have been utterly vile people who have created works of intense beauty and spirituality (Caravaggio readily comes to mind, and in a modern context, you could probably throw Mel Gibson into the mix). Do we lessen their artistic accomplishments or deny the power and beauty of their creations because they had unsavory aspects to their personal lives?
For me sir, my moral underpinnings will not be forged, nor swayed by a drawing, a painting, a movie, a video game, a book, a website, etc. If I find them repugnant, I avoid them and decline to support them. If I find them uplifting and aesthetically pleasing I will engage them and enjoy the benefits of doing so.
You and I may be using the term "beauty" in different ways. When you doubt that traditional techniques and a traditional vision can convey some of the horrific evil of our current century, you raise a valid question. But don't assume that "beauty" in this application means something pretty and saccharine. It does not necessarily imply that. Beauty can also be the accurate examination of a hard reality. There are a number of emerging artists who use historically-proven technologies and sophisticated techniques to reflect some of the harsh realities of life. Just as Turner's The Burning of the Houses of Parliament (1834) and Meissonier's Souvenir of the Civil War (1851) depict violence and horror in strongly evocative but highly representational ways, do you not think that the new crop of superbly trained, highly gifted artists can show human misery? I do. I see this capability among some artists who are winning the prizes of the Art Renewal Center's semi-annual salon competition. There are a few whose contributions to the landscape division are not of pretty trees and lakes but gritty Chinese cities and urban poverty.
If the purpose of art is to communicate, then artists like this are certainly creating art, while cheap cynics who randomly smear feces on a canvas are not.
More anon, if you like.
I am only extending your argument that it's fine to produce ugliness as long as there's a market for it. Yes, he recognized and filled a market niche. So does the snuff-film maker, the pimp, and even Thomas Kincade. But the fact that one's work fills the consumer's desire doesn't by itself mean that it is inherently good.
Picasso himself seems to have felt a combination of disgust for his clients and disgust for himself. In an interview after the placement of his massive, grotesque sculpture in Chicago's Daley Center Plaza, he crowed that the steel monstrosity was a depiction of his Afghan hound, Kabul. He had put another one over on the Philistine capitalists he despised. "I am a communist," he famously stated.
I don't know why I am debating you when the case against modern art has been presented so much more persuasively than I could ever do. Mr Fred Ross, who founded the Art Renewal Center, has made a number of excellent and well-argued speeches on this topic. If you visit the website of the Art Renewal Center and check the tab under Philosophy, you will find a number of articles and presentations. The central premise is found woven throughout the site. But here, for your perusal and that of anyone else interested in the topic, is just one of Mr Ross's arguments. It might be worthwhile to page down and see his refutation of a letter written by a young woman who defends Picasso and his destructive, valueless ilk. Pulling Back the Curtain
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.