[Utah Binger]

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/

[Joe 6-pack]

"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."

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.