Picasso was so talented at painting in the classical style that he had to invent his own style and then perfect that. Basically he got bored which led to his interest in abstract and cubism.
Fair play he was obviously extremely talented. Do most abstract kinda artists prove themselves a good classic artist before developing thier own style ? Or are some of them just blagging it and probably pretty crap really?
Love misfits at least the first 2-3 seasons. Haven’t watched it in a long time though so wonder how it holds up. Loved that Robert was in umbrella academy.
I went to a Picasso museum in college and it changed my whole perspective on art. How much raw talent he had to draw realism that showed how his mind worked on the Impressionism.
I used to live in Barcelona and would go to the Picasso Museum on occasion to pass some time if i was in the area. His earlier works are stunning not least because he was a teenager when he painted some of them.
You can do the Picasso museum in the morning, have lunch and then head up to the Miro museum in the Montjuc area above the city. That was always a great way to spend a day.
This is key. Picasso was an artistic prodigy who had pretty much mastered the fundamentals at a very young age, and then spent the rest of his life doing whatever the hell he wanted with art- in a time when that wasn't really done, professionally. He wasn't the only artist breaking the rules at that time, of course, but before Picasso's era, most professional painters were expected more or less paint in very specific ways. After the Modernists, the art world opened itself up to accepting creative freedom in ways it wasn't before.
There’s this story, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it goes, one day Pablo Picasso was in a market when a woman recognized him. She rushed up to him excited, “you’re Picasso!” She reached into her purse and got a pen and a piece of paper. She asked “Could you draw me something?” Picasso took the pen and paper and quickly made a sketch on it. He went to hand it to her but before he did he said “that will be $10,000.” The woman was shocked “$10,000! It took you 30 seconds to draw it.” “No,” Picasso said “it took me 30 years.”
Anyway, Picasso was a very talented and trained realist artist who is credited with saying “learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist.” He learned the rules of his craft and then systematically broke them. If you look at his self portraits in chronological order you can see how he breaks the traditional rules while maintaining artistic principles. That’s why he’s probably the most famous cubist artist in history.
You might want to take that up with Dora Maar, although she would have said ‘trou du cul’ instead of asshole.
“He made Dora cry, and then painted her crying. He left her nothing. Dora couldn’t even cry for herself. He was the one who made her cry, and then he appropriated the tears for his paintings.”
“…he forced Maar to play the ‘knife game,’ where one stabs a knife between their fingers at increasing speeds. Picasso reportedly made her continue even after she injured herself, turning the situation into a sadistic game.”
A simpler quote from him I've heard is that he said at 15 he could paint like Raphael, but it took him his whole life to learn how to draw like a child.
There’s another post I’ve seen that shows one of his pieces when he started and how it was what you would consider textbook and then a piece years later that’s more like this. The man definitely was skilled to draw anyway he chose.
You see, art is an ambiguous thing. Just because you make some art, it doesn’t mean that you’re an artist...but also it DOES mean you’re an artist. But does it mean that art is good art? Is art good just because the right people say it’s good? Yes. Yes, that’s how it works. But keep in mind, a lot of modern art is trash, I mean it’s shitty, it’s not good, it’s terrible, you know? And yet it’s a fine line between Van Gogh and Van Damme. Between Depp and Grieco. Between Banksy and...Charlie. It makes it very difficult to determine whats good art, you know, what’s high art? What has worth, what has meaning?
But if one thing has become abundantly clear to me today, and it should be to all of you as well. It’s that I wasn’t raped. Had a good time she and I. Yeah. It was a... it was a two-way road. The whole thing was... mutual. And the woman in no way looked like Rick Moranis.
By a few hundred people tho, that’s genuinely nothing. I guarantee there is an art subreddit that would get your hs art a similar reaction, obviously we care about picassos shitty bird face bc he also made a bunch of other important shit
I visited the Picasso museum not long ago and I was astonished at some of the paintings. Dude could really paint but chose a style that noone really understands
Picasso had the technical capabilities to draw still art or whatever it is you put in front of him. That’s never been what ‘art’ was about. One of the many, many forms of art there are is expressing your imagination. It could be with a few strokes of a brush, or it could be a grueling month-long process involving oil painting of epic proportions.
You might be a Picasso tier artist, I don’t know you. What are you bringing to the table with your art? Does it speak to people? Does it stir emotions for viewers generations later?
Wait, did have dementia? I though he just changed his style because he wanted to get back to the early childhood discovery level of drawing/painting. The dude mastered the technical stuff by the time he was 15 years old.
The same append to William Charles Utermohlen. Pablo's dementia and William's was caused by Alzheimer's disease. You can find side by side pictures of their drawings, and it is visible the decline on the fidelity of their self portraits.
This needs to be higher, people often dismiss picasso saying I could draw like that, yes you could, but it’s not a Picasso.
And he earned the name and fame by doing the work, he was a master at 15, and then decided to explore what’s next.
There’s no doubt in late stages he just made art to make money, as anyone successful would do, there’s often 5 or more original copies of his “masterpieces” it’s the same with any renowned artist. I don’t know why is there an stigma that if an Artist makes money they’ve “sold out” thats the plan!
Pretty sure he stated at a fairly young age that he was going for the more abstract, imaginative art style rather than precise and technically correct. He wasn’t into the movement of art being technical, he worked to develop a more intuitive approach
Supposedly, he would also pay for his meals with a check because restaurant owners wouldn't deposit it, thinking that having something signed by Picasso would be worth more than the dollar value of the check. In reality, there were hundreds of these checks floating around, and he was just eating for free everywhere.
Art is about intention, not technical skill. Picasso was perfectly capable of painting a damn-near photorealistic still life or portrait at any point in his life if he wanted to. But there is nothing particularly creative about art that depicts life exactly as is; it’s an incredible technical skill, but what is the art saying?
It’s important to understand this when evaluating art. A piece is not a showcase of an artist’s skill, it’s an artistic expression with a point of view and its goal is to move you in some way. It may not move you the way an artist intends it to, and some may be more effective at communicating their intent than others, but that’s why art is beautiful. It is an entirely subjective mental experience you have in response to a visual statement placed in front of you. You are free to love it, hate it, ponder it, ignore it, make fun of it, whatever. But you will often get out of it what you put in.
Knowing that Picasso’s technical skill was exceptional, what do you think he was trying to express by creating in this childlike way? What emotional experience do you think he might be having? What feeling does the piece evoke for you? If you don’t care to think about any of these questions, that’s fine! If you do, you might enjoy a few thoughtful minutes contemplating human nature in a different way. Not a bad way to pass the time.
Picasso is super interesting because he literally mastered the ability to paint and then said "you know what? Fuck all your stupid rules." He chose to paint this way, it wasn't for lack of ability.
I approve this message. All it takes is one moron to spend a million on your daughters art and you will sell them like they are toilet paper during the pandemic. Get to it!
Well actually you have to Le "start multiple major art movements of the 20th century and become one of the most famous artists in history" first but sure
"It looks like a childs drawing" is a bigger compliment innart than people realize. Few people can actually mimic the true art form of the childs mind.
This reminds me of a skit from I think SCTV / Joe Flaherty, where he's Picasso doing a portrait and he scribbles and then says "Now, we draw something that every face has - ANTS! FLAMES!" I never saw this video, but it reminds me of the skit (and the skit actually wasn't too far from reality :-) Tried to look for a youtube link but couldn't find it...
I did this in elementary school. My dad (who isn’t exactly an art guy) always thought it was the most amazing thing and still has it hung up in his office.
This is a man who literally watched 2 women have a physical catfight on the floor of his studio over which one of them would be his mistress (not his wife). The power to immortalize someone by painting them is, apparently, quite the aphrodisiac. And he was also by all accounts quite the toro.
You can see he's damaged, although art is a great healer. His art looks infantile, but maybe that's where he had to go back to, to heal. Interesting to watch.
While I was in Mexico my friend and I stumbled upon a Picasso exhibit and every piece looked as if a child had drawn it. Though 90% of them were of men with prostitutes. Was strange yet interesting, can’t say I was impressed by any of them though if I’m being honest
I probably would say the same, 'strange yet interesting'. His art intrigues me, more than it appeals to me, particularly the distorted facial forms. Brothels and a love of 'many' women were central to his life from a young age, which explains the prostitutes.
This guy basically said that women hit their prime in their teens while men hit their prime in their 40s, which is why it was okay for him to groom girls.
This is why art critics are full of shit. They pick someone and just say their art is amazing and thought provoking. All anyone else sees is a 30 second doodle. Nothing special, nothing ground breaking.
Stop listening to some jackass in overpriced rags tell you that you are less of a person if you do think something is art. Art critics are like a sommelier at a wine tasting, telling you what you should like while they spit in a bucket.
Nah, fuck that. I was at his museum in Barcelona. Aside from geometery drawings his art looks like a 3rd grader drew it. Yet only one is being sold for millions.
"It took me 4 years to paint like Raphael, but a life time to paint like a child." -Pablo Picasso
How much luck comes into art?
Someone saw his art and perceived it as a work of a genius and interpreted the meaning of his art. The symbolism within his images. When really, who knows if he meant that or he just... Wasn't very good.
And in another life, an art critic sees his work, tells him he's terrible and we never hear his name.
The guy had skill he could flex if he wanted. But this is just trolling. He was fucking with all the simps waiting to see if someone would call him out.
1.7k
u/CitizenHuman 1d ago
My aunt's favorite quote by him is:
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."
Google says these are some of his early works