So every time I see someone fawn over a piece of "art" by Pablo Picasso, I can't help but wonder what stretch of logical imagination they must be using in order to see some form of art there. I turn my head, sit with my arms crossed staring blankly into a portrait's eyes.. only to continue pondering the obsession with it.
I think some, very few, of his pieces are "ok" but still nothing great, in fact, if my ten year old niece had drawn it I would say "that's awesome!" but still secretly think "if awesome was terrible."
What am I missing? I know it's all subjective, but for the love of god, am I the only one?
I think some, very few, of his pieces are "ok" but still nothing great, in fact, if my ten year old niece had drawn it I would say "that's awesome!" but still secretly think "if awesome was terrible."
What am I missing? I know it's all subjective, but for the love of god, am I the only one?
However, when I realised that cubism allows the painter to represent more than one thing at the same time, I thought, "Oh. Okay." and the thought kind of germinated. It wouldn't leave me alone in terms of what it made possible. And I looked at Picasso's work again and began to appreciate it.
As time went on, this grew. I'm now fascinated by him and his genius. There's an extra level of dimensionality about cubism. I find it utterly wonderful. It's like seeing a 3D film, except better, because what is extra is interpreted.
Don't close your mind to it just yet. Also, don't strictly go off the way art looks (I know that sounds stupid. How else are you meant to judge it?) but go off what it says.
Pollock's appeal is that there is a system to his art. It looks out of control but there is a design and a plan to it. Order in chaos is a difficult. It's a technical thing not an emotional one. Pollock will probably be more known for breaking the elitist art world than abstract expressionism.
When you say that Pollock was the first "great American artist", do you mean that he was the first to be accepted by European society as a worthy artist?
To understand what made Picasso paint the way he did you need to understand his time. Picasso could paint realistically but it wasn't good enough for him. He needed something completely new. Picasso often denied this (probably to feel special) but many historians have confirmed that Picasso was inspired by African masks. A popular exhibit of African art was touring Europe at his time. Look at African masks, the broad noses, the simple shapes, notice how Picasso does the same thing?
Instead of focusing on accuracy and details Picasso broke forms into simple shapes. He broke perspective so things existed on different planes in his paintings he destroyed all of the subjects and built it up in his own way. He later began to arrange the subjects in an appealing composition and focused on color. Many other artists decided to break and simply their art and the cubism movement was born. Even though the cubism movement ended the idea of breaking and rebuilding subjects is used in art today it influenced other movements. And Picasso started all of that.
A realistic Picasso Painting: <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XENPQVzgfFU/T-Vfwr7g2WI/AAAAAAAAEMU/esllFNFudsM/s1600/PIcassoOldFisherman.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XENPQVzgfFU/T-Vfwr7g2...</a>
An African Mask Picasso probably saw: <a href="http://www.amaco.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/lp31_mask4finished.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.amaco.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/20...</a>
Les Demoiselles <a href="http://www.cord.edu/faculty/andersod/picasso_demoiselles.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.cord.edu/faculty/andersod/picasso_de...</a>
Don't ask me to explain Dadasim. I hate that movement
But seriously, most of her stuff has to do with her sex life, which is as interesting as it is disgusting.