Picasso’s Grenades
Feb 23, 2011
Joe Carter
“I paint the way some people write their autobiography.” – Pablo Picasso
“Picasso’s life was, in a very real sense, the twentieth century’s own biography.” – Arianna Huffington
Shortly after the end of World War II, Ernest Hemingway was traveling through Paris and attempted to visit his old acquaintance, Pablo Picasso. On learning that the artist was out, Hemingway decided to leave him a present. He went to his car and returned with a case of grenades, on which he wrote, “To Picasso from Hemingway.”
While an appropriately symbolic gift, Picasso didn’t need the armaments: He had already been lobbing grenades for nearly half a century. His explosive entry into the Cubist movement marked him as one of the most important figures in Western art. The detonations rang so loudly that during the pinnacle of his career he was compared to artists such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael. The shockwaves have even carried over into this new century. A few years ago in Paris, seventy-nine-year-old Genevieve Laporte, one of Picasso’s former lovers, sold a collection of twenty sketches worth between $1.8 and $2.4 million.
The grenades he tossed also left more than a few wounded women. Many of Picasso’s wives and mistresses led tormented existences that ended tragically: Marie-Therese Walter hanged herself; Jacqueline Roque shot herself; Dora Maar had a nervous breakdown, underwent shock therapy, and eventually became a recluse, dying poor and alone. The women, however, were not merely the collateral damage of Picasso’s temperamental genius; they were the catalyst of his art.
What begins in the glow of realist love—or at the very least infatuation—ends in the violent disgust of Cubist distortion. Picasso’s love-hate relationship with the visible world was a visual expression of his love-hate relationship with the women in his life. Cubism, according to the evidence in Picasso’s paintings, is less an abstract juggling of shapes and colors than an index of sexual disgust.
Examining the works of Picasso alongside a chronology of his relationships reveals a striking pattern. Consider this brief but representative set of examples.
Prior to 1907, most of Picasso’s representations of women are similar to the painting of his mother or novelist Getrude Stein.
The year 1907, however, marked a period of crisis for Picasso and his mistress Fernande Olivier. The obsessively jealous painter was outraged when he discovered that Olivier had posed as a model for another artist. After they separated, Picasso broke from his realistic paintings and created one of the landmarks in modern art, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.
The five distorted figures in the work are not ordinary women, but prostitutes. According to Picasso’s art dealer, the artist named all of the figures and dubbed one of them Fernande.
Picasso’s foray into cubism continued unabated until he met Olga Khoklova, the woman who would become his first wife. The realism in which he painted Olga was a jarring contrast to his cubist works.
What brought about this shocking change of direction? “Realism was, quite simply, a medium more appropriate to love than the Cubist still lifes he was producing during the same period,” says E. Michael Jones. “Realism conveyed the value of the object of love every bit as effectively as Cubist distortion conveyed the loathing of women that comes from sexual disgust.”
The love faded, however, and was replaced by the medium’s typical distortion and disgust. After his marriage fell apart in 1925, Picasso took up a teenage mistress, Marie-Therese Walter. Being only an object of lust rather than of love, Walter never rated a fully realistic portrayal:
When he tired of Walter, Picasso took as his lover Dora Maar. Maar’s image fluctuated between the mildly distorted . . .
. . . to the grotesque . . .
. . . to the moderately realistic.
For Picasso, the dignity of a woman was entirely dependent on his feelings for her. When in the throes of love he could see the intrinsic worth; when in the faded glow of lust, he could only look upon her with disgust. “It must be painful for a girl to see in a painting that she’s on the way out,” Picasso mused.
But Picasso’s story is not merely his own. As Arianna Huffington wisely discerned, his story is “the twentieth century’s own biography.”
The dehumanization trope can also be found in the works of such artists as Allen Jones and Robert Mapplethorpe, men who have embraced the objectification of the human form and who reduce the individual to an object.
Meanwhile, the fear and disgust surrounding female sexuality has become so pervasive that it is almost passé. Castration anxiety is now a major theme in rap and hip-hop music, and extreme images of the female threat, such as vagina dentate, appear in popular films (for example, in Teeth).
Picasso’s life story, however, has an amusing footnote. The artist once attempted to seduce Conifer Rowland, pulling her to a small bench and sketching her portrait. He drew a few quick lines, wrote “La belle Anglaise,” signing it “Picasso.” Rowland, unaware of the elderly man’s prominence, found the paper in her purse a few days later—and threw it away. “What rubbish,” she thought. “It doesn’t look a bit like me.”
If only the rest of the world had been so discerning, the story of twentieth century art might have turned out differently. Instead, Picasso’s work still commands millions—and we continue to pay a premium for misogyny.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
Comments:
2.23.2011 | 3:08am
In Joculus Veritas says:
I have always considered Picasso one in a long line of unequivocal arguments against the rationality of markets.
2.23.2011 | 9:38am
Bangwell Putt says:
Discussion cannot begin unless all participants define their terms. Assertions tend to end, not begin, argumentation. They certainly do not enlighten. In what ways is this essay "philistine"? When that question is answered, debate on the merits of using that term can begin.
2.23.2011 | 9:50am
Sergio Méndez says:
The merit of this article seems to depend on two things:
1) A quote that pretends that cubism "conveyed the loathing of women that comes from sexual disgust".
2) A couple anecdotes pretending to prove that.
I am not a history art expert, but I wonder if that isn´t a bit.... reductionist.
Otherwise I find funny that people who come from a religious tradition that has manifested a poor opinion of women sexuality during centuries, comes with this weird argument to disqualify an artist (Picasso or any other).
1) A quote that pretends that cubism "conveyed the loathing of women that comes from sexual disgust".
2) A couple anecdotes pretending to prove that.
I am not a history art expert, but I wonder if that isn´t a bit.... reductionist.
Otherwise I find funny that people who come from a religious tradition that has manifested a poor opinion of women sexuality during centuries, comes with this weird argument to disqualify an artist (Picasso or any other).
2.23.2011 | 10:23am
ODIrony says:
Re the comment, "I find funny that people who come from a religious tradition that has manifested a poor opinion of women sexuality during centuries...", it must be noted that Mr Méndez clearly knows the 'religious tradition' (by which he presumably means to refer to Christianity) only via the still too prominent Gibbons-esque distorted view of history. Whatever one may say about the treatment of women in Christian culture their lot was clearly worse in most, if not all, other societies.
2.23.2011 | 11:46am
John M. says:
... This is an ignorant unfortunate article whose moral tone is one of hypocracy and self congratulations. Picasso all through his career drew women with a draughtmanship which rivals that on great Greek vases he was in every sense a master albiet more individual than suits Mr. Carters self justifying philistinism.
2.23.2011 | 12:03pm
Last Draughtsman says:
The Artist
With deft stroke of far reaching brush
I the world entire enthrall;
Or turn a phrase in keen disgust
And ‘pon an age entire cast a pall
I revel in adulation
In citadel cold, high, and lone;
Some prepare my coronation
While others gather a store of stone
Let critics plumb depths limitless,
Let them strain in limited light
Upon a surface infinite…
Upon an all too familiar sight
With deft stroke of far reaching brush
I the world entire enthrall;
Or turn a phrase in keen disgust
And ‘pon an age entire cast a pall
I revel in adulation
In citadel cold, high, and lone;
Some prepare my coronation
While others gather a store of stone
Let critics plumb depths limitless,
Let them strain in limited light
Upon a surface infinite…
Upon an all too familiar sight
2.23.2011 | 1:50pm
Jamie says:
But go to Church: what about all those disfigured pictures of Christ, suffering, dying? Doen't many pictures of people disfigured, suffering, often encourage ... sympathy and love?
2.23.2011 | 2:05pm
winfernal says:
Has the author ever bothered to take a basic art history course? Cubism (which was not the invention of Pablo Picasso but developed primarily via a dialogue between Picasso and Braque in the light of predecessors, notably Cezanne) is noteworthy for its formal exploration of picture content, not the content itself. In that respect (content) it was totally conventional, since it included in its subject matter things that have been depicted since cave men began decorating their walls. Carter's "examination" of different "portraits" of Dora Maar is the most idiotic of his assertions. That he labels one of them "grotesque" puts me in mind of something Picasso himself once said on the subject of beauty (I paraphrase): Pretty will never be anything but pretty, but sometimes ugly can be beautiful. Calling Carter a philistine is being much too kind; ignoramus is more accurate. But all of this really has nothing to do with art and everything to do with a flea brained ideologue grinding a very dull axe.
2.23.2011 | 2:09pm
Pastor Spomer says:
"This is rather philistine."
You say 'philistine' as if it were a bad thing.
Yet, if you believe it is, then just appreciate that Mr. Carter is being transgressive!
You say 'philistine' as if it were a bad thing.
Yet, if you believe it is, then just appreciate that Mr. Carter is being transgressive!
2.23.2011 | 2:26pm
Joe Carter says:
@winnferal: Indeed, I have taken a basic art history class, though its really not needed to determine whether a painting is execrable.
The fact is that Picasso was a hack whose lifestyle and biography made him a favorite of the art community. Exploring what was going on in his life certainly makes sense in that context.
Perhaps you think that it’s just a coincidence that Picasso only painted disfiguring portraits of his lovers after he tired of them. That’s certainly a debatable point. But the fact that one of the works of Maar is a grotesque seems obvious to everyone who hasn’t had their aesthetic taste denuded by too much theory.
The fact is that Picasso was a hack whose lifestyle and biography made him a favorite of the art community. Exploring what was going on in his life certainly makes sense in that context.
Perhaps you think that it’s just a coincidence that Picasso only painted disfiguring portraits of his lovers after he tired of them. That’s certainly a debatable point. But the fact that one of the works of Maar is a grotesque seems obvious to everyone who hasn’t had their aesthetic taste denuded by too much theory.
2.23.2011 | 3:18pm
John of Roncesvalles says:
Good article.
What is going on in an artists life does frequently make sense of their art.
I recently read an account of what was going on in and around Shakespeare's life
that shed a new light on how to interpret his plays that I never would have
imagined before.
I could see how this article would upset some who find Picasso's dissolute behaviour
something to emulate, or, find his art as tasteful.
"Good taste is the first refuge of the non-creative. It is the last ditch stand of the
artist."
Marshall McLuhan
What is going on in an artists life does frequently make sense of their art.
I recently read an account of what was going on in and around Shakespeare's life
that shed a new light on how to interpret his plays that I never would have
imagined before.
I could see how this article would upset some who find Picasso's dissolute behaviour
something to emulate, or, find his art as tasteful.
"Good taste is the first refuge of the non-creative. It is the last ditch stand of the
artist."
Marshall McLuhan
2.23.2011 | 3:59pm
Michael says:
Joe,
I usually like your writing, especially your curiosity, but I think calling Picasso a hack is going too far. For better or worse, the man helped change the direction of the practice of art in the twentieth century, affecting not just visual artists but creative writers and philosophers. The “art community” is attracted not to his “lifestyle and biography” but his talent.
It’s always dangerous to draw direct connections between art and life, even when the connection seems to be crystal clear. But even if you feel sure that Picasso is merely expressing misogyny or sexual disgust, the artistic question is whether he has expressed those emotions memorably, enduringly, or in a way that changes the way emotions can be represented.
I don’t share Picasso’s lifestyle, values, or misogyny, but I know what it is like to feel disgusted, and the grotesque of Maar you’ve reproduced, complete with the hat and flower, brightly colored and contrasting with the gray of her distorted face, is enormously moving and gives me an opportunity to think about disgust.
I usually like your writing, especially your curiosity, but I think calling Picasso a hack is going too far. For better or worse, the man helped change the direction of the practice of art in the twentieth century, affecting not just visual artists but creative writers and philosophers. The “art community” is attracted not to his “lifestyle and biography” but his talent.
It’s always dangerous to draw direct connections between art and life, even when the connection seems to be crystal clear. But even if you feel sure that Picasso is merely expressing misogyny or sexual disgust, the artistic question is whether he has expressed those emotions memorably, enduringly, or in a way that changes the way emotions can be represented.
I don’t share Picasso’s lifestyle, values, or misogyny, but I know what it is like to feel disgusted, and the grotesque of Maar you’ve reproduced, complete with the hat and flower, brightly colored and contrasting with the gray of her distorted face, is enormously moving and gives me an opportunity to think about disgust.
2.23.2011 | 4:38pm
Windthorst says:
Thank you for the inspiring connection, Mr. Carter. Once again shown as useful : Cherchez la femme.
It makes some sense that Picassos problems with women translated into his œuvre. His serious shock about the destruction of the city of Goya showed in one of his most famous paintings, "Guernica", also in cubist style.
The articles on Picasso in the French and German Wikipedia state about a certain sexual influence in the paintings, as can be also found in "Minotauromachie".
Lonely the English Wiki article lacks these statements, so this is perhaps the reason for this "philister" revolt against the article.
It makes some sense that Picassos problems with women translated into his œuvre. His serious shock about the destruction of the city of Goya showed in one of his most famous paintings, "Guernica", also in cubist style.
The articles on Picasso in the French and German Wikipedia state about a certain sexual influence in the paintings, as can be also found in "Minotauromachie".
Lonely the English Wiki article lacks these statements, so this is perhaps the reason for this "philister" revolt against the article.
2.23.2011 | 4:47pm
Paul Rimmer says:
The author has very little understanding of art, or, it seems, of much of anything outside of himself.
For someone like this with a very small vision, his words tell us far more about himself than they do about his subject. I wonder. Might it be that the author has actually revealed his own misogynistic and sexually deviant nature?
It may be that Joe Carter is disgusted by women's bodies, and finds it somewhat comforting to project onto Picasso.
For someone like this with a very small vision, his words tell us far more about himself than they do about his subject. I wonder. Might it be that the author has actually revealed his own misogynistic and sexually deviant nature?
It may be that Joe Carter is disgusted by women's bodies, and finds it somewhat comforting to project onto Picasso.
2.23.2011 | 5:06pm
Praefect says:
It may be true, and the anecdotes are persuasive, so far as they go, that Picasso devolved away from realism as his love interests waned. It doesn't follow that that appropriately indicates the aesthetic or artistic value of his cubist works. The origin of a work of art is often interesting, and sometimes important for understanding it, but it is not the only thing that matters. (I have no interest in defending the actual merit of Picasso's cubism - I'm just observing something about the line of thought here.)
I'm a bit surprised and disturbed to see E. Michael Jones quoted as an authority here. He has, shall we say, a tendentious approach as an historian - vide his views on the Jews. Actually, don't vide his views on the Jews, unless you want to be disgusted and outraged.
I'm a bit surprised and disturbed to see E. Michael Jones quoted as an authority here. He has, shall we say, a tendentious approach as an historian - vide his views on the Jews. Actually, don't vide his views on the Jews, unless you want to be disgusted and outraged.
2.23.2011 | 5:20pm
winfernal says:
Mr. Carter: Since you address me directly I'll return the favor. I know it's easy to dismiss someone as prolific as Picasso as a hack, but I've never felt that he did anything that wasn't driven by an innately restless creative spirit. I might buy your point were you discussing someone like Dali or Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons, artists whose motivations wavered between genuine artistic genius and less savory inspirations, usually monetary cravenness, or someone like deKooning, who did harbor some genuinely ugly attitudes towards women. As to my supposed "aesthetic taste (being) denuded by too much theory" (I'm not ignorant enough?) I will inform you that I'm not slavish in my avidity for any artist. I know what I like too and I much prefer Picasso's explorations of still life, particularly the things he did in the teens and 20s, to the more popular and accessible things from his Rose or Blue periods or the neoclassical figuratives from the 1930s. But that's just my taste and has nothing to do with the accomplishments evident in work that simply doesn't please my eye. Going after someone of Picasso's stature, something determined by history, is what makes your entire premise so laughable. And it's the gist of my argument, that you're not the least bit interested in art, you've got a political point to drive home. Your entire essay reminds me of Nikita Khruschev's reaction to Abstract Expressionism back in the 1960s ("looks like it was painted by a horse with its tail"). I bet you never thought you'd have anything in common with a reactionary communist authoritarian. But life is full of thin lines.
2.23.2011 | 5:56pm
Skeptic says:
Picasso was a phenomenally talented artist. Anybody who can paint like this at the age of *15* -- http://pablo-picasso.paintings.name/biography/images/1024/first-communion.jpg , http://pablo-picasso.paintings.name/images/1024/science-charity.jpg -- is a great artist. When he turned to Cubism and non-realism, he knew *exactly* what he was doing. To be sure, Picasso was often a real jerk towards his lovers and/or wives, but if his "non-realism" was "proof" of disliking his subject, then this painting -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting) -- means he disliked Spain, and this painting -- http://cdn1.iofferphoto.com/img/item/185/402/230/Yd77.jpg -- that he despised streed musicians.
2.23.2011 | 6:05pm
Joe Carter says:
@winfernal ***I might buy your point were you discussing someone like Dali or Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons, artists whose motivations wavered between genuine artistic genius and less savory inspirations, usually monetary cravenness, ***
Picasso was just better at hiding it. As David Galenson has pointed out:
“Early in his career, Picasso used his art to cultivate key figures in Paris’s art world, as he made portraits of the poet and critic Guillaume Apollinaire and of the collector Gertrude Stein. Yet he devoted more extensive efforts to portraying dealers, as he carefully cultivated central figures in the art market who could sell his work and spread his reputation with major exhibitions and publications. It is likely that no artist painted more portraits of dealers. . . . Early in his career, Picasso told Kahnweiler, “I’d like to live like a poor man with a lot of money.” Yet Picasso was careful to keep private his considerable interest in the material rewards of art, and it did not become part of the colorful image that made him the epitome of the modern artist for a vast admiring public.”
http://american.com/archive/2010/september/artists-and-the-market
***But that's just my taste and has nothing to do with the accomplishments evident in work that simply doesn't please my eye. Going after someone of Picasso's stature, something determined by history, is what makes your entire premise so laughable.***
Picasso’s stature was determined by his willingness to suck up to gallyer dealers (see above) and of the middlebrow taste of a public who wanted modern art that was “edgy” but not completely minimalist. I suspect future generations will look back on our fascination with Picasso and laugh. Aesthetically, there is not there there.
***And it's the gist of my argument, that you're not the least bit interested in art, you've got a political point to drive home.***
If by political point you mean “My desire to expose a hack as being inspired by misogyny” then I guess I’m guilty. There’s not point in dealing with Picasso from an aesthetic point of view because there simply isn’t enough to waste time with.
Regrettably, I didn't make that clear in my article. I should have been more upfront about the fact that I consider him more of a celebrity than an artist and critique him accordingly.
Picasso was just better at hiding it. As David Galenson has pointed out:
“Early in his career, Picasso used his art to cultivate key figures in Paris’s art world, as he made portraits of the poet and critic Guillaume Apollinaire and of the collector Gertrude Stein. Yet he devoted more extensive efforts to portraying dealers, as he carefully cultivated central figures in the art market who could sell his work and spread his reputation with major exhibitions and publications. It is likely that no artist painted more portraits of dealers. . . . Early in his career, Picasso told Kahnweiler, “I’d like to live like a poor man with a lot of money.” Yet Picasso was careful to keep private his considerable interest in the material rewards of art, and it did not become part of the colorful image that made him the epitome of the modern artist for a vast admiring public.”
http://american.com/archive/2010/september/artists-and-the-market
***But that's just my taste and has nothing to do with the accomplishments evident in work that simply doesn't please my eye. Going after someone of Picasso's stature, something determined by history, is what makes your entire premise so laughable.***
Picasso’s stature was determined by his willingness to suck up to gallyer dealers (see above) and of the middlebrow taste of a public who wanted modern art that was “edgy” but not completely minimalist. I suspect future generations will look back on our fascination with Picasso and laugh. Aesthetically, there is not there there.
***And it's the gist of my argument, that you're not the least bit interested in art, you've got a political point to drive home.***
If by political point you mean “My desire to expose a hack as being inspired by misogyny” then I guess I’m guilty. There’s not point in dealing with Picasso from an aesthetic point of view because there simply isn’t enough to waste time with.
Regrettably, I didn't make that clear in my article. I should have been more upfront about the fact that I consider him more of a celebrity than an artist and critique him accordingly.
2.23.2011 | 6:10pm
Sextus Empiricus says:
I am not an expert on Picasso or on art generally; almost all I know about Picasso comes from the biography by Patrick O'brien and from my own limited viewing of his paintings. Yet it is clear to me that, quite aside form his moral failings, of which he seems to have had many, he was first and foremost a human being, one of genius, with the great goodness and badness that implies. That he, and his whole body of work, would be reduced merely to his paintings of women, that no consideration would be given to how and why he was driven to innovate as he did, and that he would then perfunctorily be cast off as a hack, the tale not even half told, places Mr. Carter in a position of moral culpability. Picasso was a human being, not a caricature of one, and, in humility, it is a sin against God and man to treat him so, for a merely political purpose or any other.
2.23.2011 | 6:14pm
Joseph Cross says:
This column is asinine. It is a flagrant example of the biographical fallacy. If we extend Mr. Carter's reasoning to Picasso's oeuvre as a whole we would then learn that the master also had a violent love-hate relationship with vases, male figures, musicians, pipes, and newspapers.
Picasso's work, including and beyond cubism, is an exploration of what seeing is and an affirmation that seeing is a thinking action. Gratefully, like all great artists, he affirms that beauty does not subsist in petty, bourgeois notions of prettiness informed by effusive sentimentality and heaving bosoms.
Picasso's work, including and beyond cubism, is an exploration of what seeing is and an affirmation that seeing is a thinking action. Gratefully, like all great artists, he affirms that beauty does not subsist in petty, bourgeois notions of prettiness informed by effusive sentimentality and heaving bosoms.
2.23.2011 | 6:25pm
Joe Carter says:
Joseph Cross: ***Picasso's work, including and beyond cubism, is an exploration of what seeing is and an affirmation that seeing is a thinking action.***
No, actually, it's not. But it is the sort of thing they teach you to say in an undergrad art history class, so I give you an A for effort.
Seeing is nothing like Cubism. Cubism is just another onanistic avant-garde movement that came about in the aesthetic desert that was the early 20th century. If you want to pretent that you get somem sort of hi-culture points for embracing such nonsense, then that is your business. But most of the rest of us have realized that the emperor has no clothes and have moved on to seek out real art.
No, actually, it's not. But it is the sort of thing they teach you to say in an undergrad art history class, so I give you an A for effort.
Seeing is nothing like Cubism. Cubism is just another onanistic avant-garde movement that came about in the aesthetic desert that was the early 20th century. If you want to pretent that you get somem sort of hi-culture points for embracing such nonsense, then that is your business. But most of the rest of us have realized that the emperor has no clothes and have moved on to seek out real art.
2.23.2011 | 6:56pm
Sextus Empiricus says:
Mr. Carter should be aware, I think, that there are men of good will who can read his piece and not agree with him. Responding to ill-intentioned criticism, particularly by descending to the use of sarcasm, will not convince those who gave it, and cannot help to conciliate him to those who, though they disagree, wish him well. In this case, Mr. Carter's conclusion does not seem commensurate to his argument. He has argued that Picasso had a troubled relationship with women, that he acted immorally, that it has some reflection in his work: even if all this is true, does this make him a hack? I think not. If people take exception to his article, Mr. Carter should not be surprised. It was his duty to only conclude so much as he argued, and when he simply dismisses arguments for Picasso's artistic value he prevents himself from filling up what was initially lacking in his own work.
2.23.2011 | 7:59pm
Bob G says:
So ridiculously short an essay cannot say much that is important about an artist of such towering genius as Picasso whose character, it certainly seems, was execrable. I think Mr. Carter takes big steps, and chances, in conflating so summarily the moral and aesthetic merits of Picasso's art, or whatever it was. Others have said at much greater length and with more nuance basically what Mr. Carter says, so it doesn't seem necessary to repeat it. But it was fun to look at the images he posted.
If Joe Carter actually got to the heart of the truth about Picasso, he must be as great a genius as his subject.
If Joe Carter actually got to the heart of the truth about Picasso, he must be as great a genius as his subject.
2.23.2011 | 8:11pm
Jeff Kilmartin says:
I like Mr. Carter's articles, but it must be admitted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
When I consider that the "grotesque" painting of Dora Maar is called "The Weeping Woman" I find it deeply moving and, yes, beautiful. "Guernica" affects me the same way.
Disclosure - I took an intro to art class in university ;-)
When I consider that the "grotesque" painting of Dora Maar is called "The Weeping Woman" I find it deeply moving and, yes, beautiful. "Guernica" affects me the same way.
Disclosure - I took an intro to art class in university ;-)
2.23.2011 | 8:24pm
Mark VA says:
I like this article very much. A provocative, and needed, hypothesis. Also a good angle for a graduate thesis for someone willing to take on the art establishment.
All this buzz about Picasso. I find Alphonse Mucha a welcome relief.
All this buzz about Picasso. I find Alphonse Mucha a welcome relief.
2.23.2011 | 8:32pm
Joe Carter says:
@Sextus Empiricus ***Mr. Carter should be aware, I think, that there are men of good will who can read his piece and not agree with him. Responding to ill-intentioned criticism, particularly by descending to the use of sarcasm, will not convince those who gave it, and cannot help to conciliate him to those who, though they disagree, wish him well.***
Well said, point taken.
***even if all this is true, does this make him a hack? I think not. ***
There is certainly nothing in my original article that would imply that Picasso was as hack. I intentionally left that out so it wouldn't distract from my primary point (the comment section, though, is more of a free-for-all).
***It was his duty to only conclude so much as he argued, and when he simply dismisses arguments for Picasso's artistic value he prevents himself from filling up what was initially lacking in his own work.***
There is certainly a division between the claims I made in the article and the ones I made in the comments. I don't expect people to necessarily agree that Picasso is overrated based on a few brief comments.
@Bob G ***If Joe Carter actually got to the heart of the truth about Picasso, he must be as great a genius as his subject.***
I would be curious to why you assume that Picasso was some sort of genius. Do you think that claim could be discerned simply from looking at his work? I'm a firm believer that if Genius can only be noticed by appealing to the Theory, then it ain't all that smart. And Picasso's work, in my opinion, is wholly dependent on a Big Theory, namely Cubism.
@Jeff Kilmartin ***When I consider that the "grotesque" painting of Dora Maar is called "The Weeping Woman" I find it deeply moving and, yes, beautiful.***
I don't begrudge anyone's emotional or aesthetic reactions to a particular work. But since Picasso's work is so theory-laden, it can't hurt for people to know what he was actually thinking when he produced a work or that the pain in the woman's face was likely caused by the artist's treatment of her.
Well said, point taken.
***even if all this is true, does this make him a hack? I think not. ***
There is certainly nothing in my original article that would imply that Picasso was as hack. I intentionally left that out so it wouldn't distract from my primary point (the comment section, though, is more of a free-for-all).
***It was his duty to only conclude so much as he argued, and when he simply dismisses arguments for Picasso's artistic value he prevents himself from filling up what was initially lacking in his own work.***
There is certainly a division between the claims I made in the article and the ones I made in the comments. I don't expect people to necessarily agree that Picasso is overrated based on a few brief comments.
@Bob G ***If Joe Carter actually got to the heart of the truth about Picasso, he must be as great a genius as his subject.***
I would be curious to why you assume that Picasso was some sort of genius. Do you think that claim could be discerned simply from looking at his work? I'm a firm believer that if Genius can only be noticed by appealing to the Theory, then it ain't all that smart. And Picasso's work, in my opinion, is wholly dependent on a Big Theory, namely Cubism.
@Jeff Kilmartin ***When I consider that the "grotesque" painting of Dora Maar is called "The Weeping Woman" I find it deeply moving and, yes, beautiful.***
I don't begrudge anyone's emotional or aesthetic reactions to a particular work. But since Picasso's work is so theory-laden, it can't hurt for people to know what he was actually thinking when he produced a work or that the pain in the woman's face was likely caused by the artist's treatment of her.
2.23.2011 | 8:57pm
winfernal says:
Mr. Carter: The drivel you contribute here will not endure beyond tomorrow. Picasso (whose work, incidentally, was included in the Nazi's Degenerate Art exhibition in the 1930s - that thin line again, only now you share sympathies with Nazis) enjoys his reputation as probably the most significant fine artist of the 20th Century, and I doubt seriously that this will ever change. And David Galenson as art critic? The only David Galenson I know of is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago. What can be said of someone who honed his sense of the aesthetic from Milton Friedman. Since you take so much interest in my comments that you're selectively dissecting them point by point, may I ask you a question? We know all about your contempt for Pablo Picasso: would you mind giving us a few examples of 20th Century artists whose work you do like? And when was the last time you set foot in an art museum and what exhibits have you attended recently?
2.23.2011 | 9:08pm
Bob G says:
Well, Joe, I think Picasso was a genius partly because so many critics whom I greatly admire say he was. And when I see his paintings I see what they mean. Guernica, for example, is an obvious masterpiece. Many of his works are shockingly good, in composition, color, and other aspects. I used to walk up and down at MOMA trying to get a handle on his work. There isn't anyone remotely like him, including Braque. He was one of a kind. My hunch is that you got a bead on his moral character, but I'll bet if you trained for a while in art you'd begin to modify your judgement, or at least begin to see more mystery in this subject.
2.23.2011 | 9:51pm
Edward Alleyn says:
The modernist experiment was an utter failure. Picasso was a charlatan—a mere dauber of paint; he managed to dupe a great many people, those philistine anti-traditionalist who wanted him to succeed. Thank heaven: we are now in the process of forgetting him and modernist art. Perhaps real talent, even genius, will reappear and artistic skill will once again be appreciated.
2.23.2011 | 9:52pm
Santiago says:
Didn't Mary Rose Ryback already write this article over a year ago?
2.23.2011 | 9:55pm
Ted Champagne says:
I shall admit to know little about art, which makes me eminently qualified to comment on what I like. I like Picassos stuff. I like it a lot.
It draws me in and catches my eye from a long way off.
It doesn't matter what anyone else says or believes (although I find these thoughts interesting to discuss), I like it. And apparently so do a great many others as well.
It draws me in and catches my eye from a long way off.
It doesn't matter what anyone else says or believes (although I find these thoughts interesting to discuss), I like it. And apparently so do a great many others as well.
2.23.2011 | 10:17pm
Timothy Andrus says:
I can't agree with the assertion, made anywhere, that Picasso was a hack. You don't have to like his art, but to say that therefore he was a mere sham is a bit overstated. But the real problem with the article is the over-simplified treatment of the terms "realism" and "abstraction" as if they were the only two alternatives that Picasso had, with the corollary that "realism" somehow equals a "true" representation. Now, that said, I don't necessarily disagree with the author that Picasso's attitudes towards his lovers may be on display in his portrayals of them. Underneath this, however, I sense an assumption, also unfounded, that the (lurid and insipid, and, well, just plain bad) paintings of Bouguereau (which are also not realist, and also, I'm afraid to say, founded on a theory) should have been the real fountainhead of twentieth-century art.
An additional problem with the above argument is that it conflates two things which must be evaluated separately: the goodness of the art and the goodness of the person. Picasso may have been a bad person (although like Sextus Empiricus, I think we should refrain from such judgments as far as is possible) and his art morally bankrupt, but it may still possess technical and expressive merits, and therefore be good art. Perhaps a near parallel may be found in a well-engineered ICBM. In the final analysis, like the ICBM, the purpose the art serves may be the definitive criterion in the determination of whether or not Picasso is a "good" artist. But in that case we are talking about something much broader than Picasso's intentions (but not exclusive of those, either).
These are issues which do not admit of easy simplification, as I think the example of Bouguereau makes clear. Pursuing them with a view to some fixed "resolution" smacks of establishing an arbitrary and overly-narrow criteria for the valuation of art. Two recent instances of such an effort do not put it in a good light: Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. But then again, as someone who has not only taken an intro art history class, but been known to teach them on occasion, I'm rather invested in their complexity.
An additional problem with the above argument is that it conflates two things which must be evaluated separately: the goodness of the art and the goodness of the person. Picasso may have been a bad person (although like Sextus Empiricus, I think we should refrain from such judgments as far as is possible) and his art morally bankrupt, but it may still possess technical and expressive merits, and therefore be good art. Perhaps a near parallel may be found in a well-engineered ICBM. In the final analysis, like the ICBM, the purpose the art serves may be the definitive criterion in the determination of whether or not Picasso is a "good" artist. But in that case we are talking about something much broader than Picasso's intentions (but not exclusive of those, either).
These are issues which do not admit of easy simplification, as I think the example of Bouguereau makes clear. Pursuing them with a view to some fixed "resolution" smacks of establishing an arbitrary and overly-narrow criteria for the valuation of art. Two recent instances of such an effort do not put it in a good light: Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. But then again, as someone who has not only taken an intro art history class, but been known to teach them on occasion, I'm rather invested in their complexity.
2.23.2011 | 10:20pm
Rodo says:
Joe, nice job on the article. I wish there were more essays that, at the very least, question the received orthodoxy on cubism, Picasso, and art in general. I have had a few art history courses; now I teach it. My reading of Picasso is rather echoed by some of the comments above which fall into two categories: 1) He is great, he is a genius. But then rarely does one explain WHY his work is great and he is a genius. Originality? Assisted in developing a new style? But original what? And what does the new style mean or imply? 2) His work reflects something of his deeply felt emotional state. But this is Modernist dogma and rarely do historians or critics bother to ask if considering someone's painted emotional state is valuable. And never do they find the emotion insincere. (Ha, how would anyone know?) Certainly this was not an artistic goal prior to the 19th century. Can art be about something other than mere emotional venting or technical originality? You bet.
2.23.2011 | 10:24pm
Matthew Walther says:
Mr. Carter:
Like others who disagree with you here, I am a First Things subscriber and an admirer of your columns. I think, however, that you are wrong about Picasso.
More generally, to write something like "the aesthetic desert that was the early 20th century" simply evinces a lack of sensibility on your part.
What "aesthetic desert" are you referring to? The aesthetic desert of Matisse, Derain, van Dongen, Modigliani, de Vlaminck (not to mention that of Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Faulkner, Wolfe, Stravinsky, Debussy, Rachmaninoff, &c.,)?
Like others who disagree with you here, I am a First Things subscriber and an admirer of your columns. I think, however, that you are wrong about Picasso.
More generally, to write something like "the aesthetic desert that was the early 20th century" simply evinces a lack of sensibility on your part.
What "aesthetic desert" are you referring to? The aesthetic desert of Matisse, Derain, van Dongen, Modigliani, de Vlaminck (not to mention that of Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Faulkner, Wolfe, Stravinsky, Debussy, Rachmaninoff, &c.,)?
2.23.2011 | 10:54pm
Joe Carter says:
infernal ***only now you share sympathies with Nazis***
C'mon, dude, you have to pick one. Either I'm like a Nazi or like a Commie. You can't choose both.
***enjoys his reputation as probably the most significant fine artist of the 20th Century, and I doubt seriously that this will ever change. ***
Enjoys his reputation by whom? The same critics that now take Damien Hirst seriously?
Picasso has to be judged on the scale of history, not on the drivel that dribbled out during the time he was alive. Any of the significant painter from the Renaissance era could have done what Picasso did. But they didn't because they were too busy producing real works that would stand the test of time.
***And David Galenson as art critic? ***
I wasn't referencing him as an art critic. He just happened to have made the point (rather obvious I has assumed) that Picasso was the kind of hack who painted for money and fame as much as for "his art." Whether it was to pay off prostitutes or to get in good with art dealers, Picasso often painted for reasons that had nothing to do with producing quality work.
***We know all about your contempt for Pablo Picasso: would you mind giving us a few examples of 20th Century artists whose work you do like?***
Are we just talking painters? Let's see, off the top of my head: John Singer Sargent, Claude Monet, Norman Rockwell, Henri Matisse, Diego Rivera, Mary Cassatt, Edward Knippers, Paul Cézanne, Jasper Johns, Frederic Remington, Edward Hopper, Marc Chagall. . .
(Though my favorite work of 20th century art is a sculpture: Frederick Hart's "Ex Nihilo" (http://bit.ly/fAxWHz))
***And when was the last time you set foot in an art museum and what exhibits have you attended recently?***
I went to the MOMA during the Summer when I was in New York and was underwhelmed as usual. I live in the DC area so I go to the Smithsonian quite often. I used to work across the street from the National Portrait Gallery and would go there quite often. I also used to live in Fort Worth, a town which has two surprisingly good museums—The Amon Carter Museum and The Modern.
As a general rule, I agree with Alfred Munnings, an artist and fellow Picasso-scoffer, who said, "What are pictures for? To fill a man's soul with admiration and sheer joy, not to bewilder and daze him."
@Santiago ***Didn't Mary Rose Ryback already write this article over a year ago?***
I don't think so. Though I wrote a variation of it for the blog about a year ago.
@Ted Champagne ***I like it. And apparently so do a great many others as well.***
And I have no problem with that, just as I don't have a problem with people liking Thomas Kinkade (the two are surprisingly similar). I never said that Picasso was untalented; I just think he is overrated.
Mainly what I have a problem with are the people who haven't though enough about it to form their own opinion and think they can set themselves on the right side of the highbrow divide by saying how wonderful Picasso is. They'll point to critics who think Picasso is a great artist rather than explain for themselves what about the paintings makes them sublime.
Picasso is like Woody Allen. There is nothing wrong with being able to appreciate "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan." But when a person starts saying that Allen was the greatest director of the 20th century, its a sure sign that they haven't watched enough films.
C'mon, dude, you have to pick one. Either I'm like a Nazi or like a Commie. You can't choose both.
***enjoys his reputation as probably the most significant fine artist of the 20th Century, and I doubt seriously that this will ever change. ***
Enjoys his reputation by whom? The same critics that now take Damien Hirst seriously?
Picasso has to be judged on the scale of history, not on the drivel that dribbled out during the time he was alive. Any of the significant painter from the Renaissance era could have done what Picasso did. But they didn't because they were too busy producing real works that would stand the test of time.
***And David Galenson as art critic? ***
I wasn't referencing him as an art critic. He just happened to have made the point (rather obvious I has assumed) that Picasso was the kind of hack who painted for money and fame as much as for "his art." Whether it was to pay off prostitutes or to get in good with art dealers, Picasso often painted for reasons that had nothing to do with producing quality work.
***We know all about your contempt for Pablo Picasso: would you mind giving us a few examples of 20th Century artists whose work you do like?***
Are we just talking painters? Let's see, off the top of my head: John Singer Sargent, Claude Monet, Norman Rockwell, Henri Matisse, Diego Rivera, Mary Cassatt, Edward Knippers, Paul Cézanne, Jasper Johns, Frederic Remington, Edward Hopper, Marc Chagall. . .
(Though my favorite work of 20th century art is a sculpture: Frederick Hart's "Ex Nihilo" (http://bit.ly/fAxWHz))
***And when was the last time you set foot in an art museum and what exhibits have you attended recently?***
I went to the MOMA during the Summer when I was in New York and was underwhelmed as usual. I live in the DC area so I go to the Smithsonian quite often. I used to work across the street from the National Portrait Gallery and would go there quite often. I also used to live in Fort Worth, a town which has two surprisingly good museums—The Amon Carter Museum and The Modern.
As a general rule, I agree with Alfred Munnings, an artist and fellow Picasso-scoffer, who said, "What are pictures for? To fill a man's soul with admiration and sheer joy, not to bewilder and daze him."
@Santiago ***Didn't Mary Rose Ryback already write this article over a year ago?***
I don't think so. Though I wrote a variation of it for the blog about a year ago.
@Ted Champagne ***I like it. And apparently so do a great many others as well.***
And I have no problem with that, just as I don't have a problem with people liking Thomas Kinkade (the two are surprisingly similar). I never said that Picasso was untalented; I just think he is overrated.
Mainly what I have a problem with are the people who haven't though enough about it to form their own opinion and think they can set themselves on the right side of the highbrow divide by saying how wonderful Picasso is. They'll point to critics who think Picasso is a great artist rather than explain for themselves what about the paintings makes them sublime.
Picasso is like Woody Allen. There is nothing wrong with being able to appreciate "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan." But when a person starts saying that Allen was the greatest director of the 20th century, its a sure sign that they haven't watched enough films.
2.23.2011 | 11:23pm
Joe Carter says:
@Timothy Andrus ***Underneath this, however, I sense an assumption, also unfounded, that the (lurid and insipid, and, well, just plain bad) paintings of Bouguereau (which are also not realist, and also, I'm afraid to say, founded on a theory) should have been the real fountainhead of twentieth-century art.***
Oh, no, no. While I admittedly prefer the representational to the abstract, I'm not in favor of sentimental schlock. I think the fountainhead of 20th century painting is either John Singer Sargent or Claude Monet—the centuries two best painters.
*** . . . but it may still possess technical and expressive merits***
I certainly don't deny that Picasso's work has some technical and expressive merit (that's not inconsistent with being a hack). But I think because he is one of the most accessible of painters on the abstract side of the spectrum, that he gets overpraised.
However, even on the technical side Picasso's works are not nearly as complex as, say, something by Sergeant. Yet because they fit an agenda (Down with representationalism!) and a Theory (Cubism, which is a bit tired now) art critics love beyond its own merits.
Oh, no, no. While I admittedly prefer the representational to the abstract, I'm not in favor of sentimental schlock. I think the fountainhead of 20th century painting is either John Singer Sargent or Claude Monet—the centuries two best painters.
*** . . . but it may still possess technical and expressive merits***
I certainly don't deny that Picasso's work has some technical and expressive merit (that's not inconsistent with being a hack). But I think because he is one of the most accessible of painters on the abstract side of the spectrum, that he gets overpraised.
However, even on the technical side Picasso's works are not nearly as complex as, say, something by Sergeant. Yet because they fit an agenda (Down with representationalism!) and a Theory (Cubism, which is a bit tired now) art critics love beyond its own merits.
2.24.2011 | 2:00am
winfernal says:
Good Lord Joe, you really are hopeless. The commie/nazi divide never seems to be a problem with you right wingers when dissecting your political enemies, our current president being a salient example. If you're suggesting that I don't know the difference between the two, it's you who misconstrues my criticism; authoritarians spring from the fanatical elements of both ends of the political spectrum, that thin line I've mentioned twice now, dude. And since it's art that's under discussion, wouldn't your arguments have a bit more teeth if you could buttress them by quoting someone who's actually thought a lot about art instead of someone whose primary preoccupation is/was money grubbing? And as to that list of the greats of 20th Century art - Cassatt, Sargent and Monet all enjoyed longevity and survived until the 1920s, but they were all Impressionists and their major contributions were done in the 19th Century. After Monet retired to Giverny (after the turn of the Century) he did all those wonderful water lily pictures, but stylistically they were identical to his previous works, which were indeed revolutionary when they were painted in the 19th Century. I find it odd that someone who seems to have rather pedestrian tastes in visual arts - not one abstractionist (well Johns might be an exception, but only rarely) graces your list - would even bother with MOMA. They've been around long enough that you must be familiar with their holdings. Do you go there to sate some kind of weird aesthetic masochism, or just to curl your lip and sneer? And I've wasted as much time as I care to with this silly jousting with someone who obviously doesn't know jack about art. I'll let you get back to your Saturday Evening Post covers.
2.24.2011 | 7:49am
BHG says:
I find the art arguments interesting but not dispositive. Art, after all, has a great deal of value in what it says to the people who see it--isn't that at least one point of making art in the first place? I am unaware that one needs a degree in art history to respond to the power of images....if so, art is only for the artist and the initiated, a common enough if Gnostic, approach, to the subject. I think that limits its utility too much, and the reality is that images can convey a reality apart from what the artist intends. In the words of one of my professors, "I know you think you understand what it is you believe I was saying but you must know that what you heard is not what I meant..." Still, there's a message in those images and the point about how we as a culture value things is also clear. Want to have a child? Society says you are going to have a baby, congratulations! Find pregnancy an inconvenience? That same baby is now a mass of cells to be discarded without conscience. The value of the baby, then, depends entirely on the person viewing it. It is either real and beautiful or distorted and discarded. Kind of like Picasso's images.....
2.24.2011 | 9:06am
Larry says:
Missing from this back-and-forth is the point that a "Picasso" phenomenon is only possible in a decadent cultural landscape populated with rootless "consumers" to whom it is fiercely marketed. The discussion should not be, "How does Picasso fit into the history of art?" but rather, "How does the Picasso cultus resemble those of the Beatles, Hemingway, Warhol, Hannah Montana, and the hula hoop?" The schlock merchants who have been selling us revolutionary slogans and motifs since the late 19th Century are ultimately responsible for the fact that we even know this little insect existed. Guernica, indeed! It's all just (revolutionary) politics, anti0clericalism, and generalized filth.
2.24.2011 | 11:05am
Michael says:
Larry,
The Picasso cult doesn’t resemble the others you list all. No matter how many museum mugs and t-shirts get sold, there’s a difference between high art and pop culture.
And whatever Picasso’s personal faults, he was serious about thinking through art. His seriousness can be contrasted with the most decadent phases of medieval or Renaissance art when corrupt popes and bishops commissioned religious works from artists who cared little about real faith. That some of those works still communicate faith is sometimes more a testament to the artist’s skill and the viewer’s heart than it is to the decadent culture that produced the work.
Guernica has the virtue of naming the enemy of fascism and protesting its brutality.
As far as anti-clericalism goes, it helps to identify which particular eruption you have in mind. Today’s anti-clericalism, which defames all priests as molesters, is wrongheaded, but there have been many a time and place when clerics have been corrupt and have supported corrupt regimes. In those situations, anti-clericalism is an appropriate, though not wholly intelligent, response.
The Picasso cult doesn’t resemble the others you list all. No matter how many museum mugs and t-shirts get sold, there’s a difference between high art and pop culture.
And whatever Picasso’s personal faults, he was serious about thinking through art. His seriousness can be contrasted with the most decadent phases of medieval or Renaissance art when corrupt popes and bishops commissioned religious works from artists who cared little about real faith. That some of those works still communicate faith is sometimes more a testament to the artist’s skill and the viewer’s heart than it is to the decadent culture that produced the work.
Guernica has the virtue of naming the enemy of fascism and protesting its brutality.
As far as anti-clericalism goes, it helps to identify which particular eruption you have in mind. Today’s anti-clericalism, which defames all priests as molesters, is wrongheaded, but there have been many a time and place when clerics have been corrupt and have supported corrupt regimes. In those situations, anti-clericalism is an appropriate, though not wholly intelligent, response.
2.24.2011 | 11:18am
Robert says:
Well, call me ignorant or call me a philistine, but I have always thought Picasso squandered his talent.
2.24.2011 | 11:35am
Christian West says:
@ Larry:
"The schlock merchants who have been selling us revolutionary slogans and motifs since the late 19th Century are ultimately responsible for the fact that we even know this little insect existed."
Very well said!
Still, it was there rest of us responsible for not identifying the "schlock merchants" in time allowing the cult of the insect grow and carry his cadaver into mausoleum. I have no doubt the mausoleum will one day be converted to Museum of the 20th Century's Frauds.
"The schlock merchants who have been selling us revolutionary slogans and motifs since the late 19th Century are ultimately responsible for the fact that we even know this little insect existed."
Very well said!
Still, it was there rest of us responsible for not identifying the "schlock merchants" in time allowing the cult of the insect grow and carry his cadaver into mausoleum. I have no doubt the mausoleum will one day be converted to Museum of the 20th Century's Frauds.
2.24.2011 | 11:45am
John M says:
.... Right now there is a wonderful show at MOMA in NYC, Picasso:Guitars see it if you can proceed uptown to the Met's, Guitar Heroes exhibition; 2 wonderful shows that are in my opinion a curious and wonderful counterpoint to each other. Anyone who thinks PP is a hack is entitled to their opinion however, Mr. JC who seems to have a JC complex simply put, just doesn't get it.
2.24.2011 | 11:53am
T. H. Larsen says:
Robert writes:
"...I have always thought Picasso squandered his talent."
Well, his greatest talent was being a conman and he anything but squandered it. He, posthumously even, still cons.
"...I have always thought Picasso squandered his talent."
Well, his greatest talent was being a conman and he anything but squandered it. He, posthumously even, still cons.
2.24.2011 | 12:01pm
John M. says:
... Picasso spoke of and pondered the masters w/ great reverence and humility, virtues lost on many of those responding to Mr. Carters "dull ax"
2.24.2011 | 2:22pm
T. Hanski says:
Michael writes:
"Guernica has the virtue of naming the enemy of fascism and protesting its brutality."
Pity Picasso somehow never got to paint "Gulag Archipelago", or "Katyn abattoir" that would have had the virtue of naming the enemy of communism and protest its brutality, which at that time at least far exceeded that of fascism. Ah, but I forget he was, until his death, a loyal member of the communist party and even received Hitler, or was it Lenin, Prize from the government of the Soviet Empire.
"Guernica has the virtue of naming the enemy of fascism and protesting its brutality."
Pity Picasso somehow never got to paint "Gulag Archipelago", or "Katyn abattoir" that would have had the virtue of naming the enemy of communism and protest its brutality, which at that time at least far exceeded that of fascism. Ah, but I forget he was, until his death, a loyal member of the communist party and even received Hitler, or was it Lenin, Prize from the government of the Soviet Empire.
2.24.2011 | 4:21pm
Bob G says:
The discourse has descended into gutter rhetoric. Actually, I suspect most of the Picasso critics here have been affected more than they know by our "depraved" culture, in which violent and abusive rhetoric tries to replace sober consideration, and those who hurl the strongest insults think they win.
John M: I wish I could get to those Picasso exhibitions, which I'm sure are wonderful and absorbing.
John M: I wish I could get to those Picasso exhibitions, which I'm sure are wonderful and absorbing.
2.24.2011 | 4:24pm
Mr. M. Savage says:
Credit given where credit is due: Picasso, arguably more than any other man in history, should be regarded as the founding light of that movement, a movement more prevalent than arguably any other movement today, the culture of ugliness.
2.24.2011 | 7:06pm
Bob G says:
Picasso and communism:
Picasso grew up in and loved Barcelona, which sided with the Republicans and communists in the Spanish Civil War that started in 1936. It would have been amazing if he had not, since his news from Spain was filtered through the French Republican mind. The Spanish Republicans did well in the cities, while the peasantry remained strongly Catholic, even though the Republicans had pushed through land reform. The strongest Catholics in Spain were the Basques, yet when push came to shove they sided with the Republicans, a tremendous shock to the Falangists. Although I'm not sure, the probable reason is that they saw a better chance of obtaining independence from the Republicans than from a restored monarchy. If we are to condemn Picasso for becoming communist (when the New York Times was still proclaiming Soviet Russia a triumph of democracy), must we not also condemn the Basques for siding with the Reds? These questions are not as simple as some think.
To see how savage and uncontrolled the war became on both sides, read the great Spanish novel The Cypresses Believe in God (which the Republicans hated). Even now the famous scene of the novel, the author's native city near Barcelona, refuses to acknowledge him.
Picasso grew up in and loved Barcelona, which sided with the Republicans and communists in the Spanish Civil War that started in 1936. It would have been amazing if he had not, since his news from Spain was filtered through the French Republican mind. The Spanish Republicans did well in the cities, while the peasantry remained strongly Catholic, even though the Republicans had pushed through land reform. The strongest Catholics in Spain were the Basques, yet when push came to shove they sided with the Republicans, a tremendous shock to the Falangists. Although I'm not sure, the probable reason is that they saw a better chance of obtaining independence from the Republicans than from a restored monarchy. If we are to condemn Picasso for becoming communist (when the New York Times was still proclaiming Soviet Russia a triumph of democracy), must we not also condemn the Basques for siding with the Reds? These questions are not as simple as some think.
To see how savage and uncontrolled the war became on both sides, read the great Spanish novel The Cypresses Believe in God (which the Republicans hated). Even now the famous scene of the novel, the author's native city near Barcelona, refuses to acknowledge him.
2.24.2011 | 7:50pm
Michael says:
Hanski,
I know virtually nothing about Picasso’s life or politics. All I know is what I’ve seen. If you’re right about your facts (and I haven’t bothered to check them), then the fact that Picasso accepted an award from the Soviets or that he was a communist does not change my experience of his art. Nor does it change my experience of Guernica. The painting remains a powerful indictment of fascism and of a new willingness to slaughter civilians. Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.
I know virtually nothing about Picasso’s life or politics. All I know is what I’ve seen. If you’re right about your facts (and I haven’t bothered to check them), then the fact that Picasso accepted an award from the Soviets or that he was a communist does not change my experience of his art. Nor does it change my experience of Guernica. The painting remains a powerful indictment of fascism and of a new willingness to slaughter civilians. Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.
2.24.2011 | 8:10pm
Mark VA says:
Mr Savage:
Ugliness yes, but let's not forget that on occasion even ugly "art" can be useful, like, for example, the celebrated urinal.
Ugliness yes, but let's not forget that on occasion even ugly "art" can be useful, like, for example, the celebrated urinal.
2.24.2011 | 9:26pm
Sergio Méndez says:
"Seeing is nothing like Cubism. "
Yes. So what? Since when art or painture in particular should replicate the way people see? That sounds like some wierd hyperrealist nonsense understanding of art. I could say "Seeing is nothing like: Barroque, neoclasisim, impresionism etc..." and that hardly means anything.
Yes. So what? Since when art or painture in particular should replicate the way people see? That sounds like some wierd hyperrealist nonsense understanding of art. I could say "Seeing is nothing like: Barroque, neoclasisim, impresionism etc..." and that hardly means anything.
2.24.2011 | 9:47pm
MinCa says:
I think Picasso's best work was in ceramic. Joe Carter is entitled to his opinion. I am an art historian with degrees in the subject, if that makes any difference. I agree with Carter regarding Picasso's depiction of women. I see no respect in the "distorted" paintings, where women are so often depicted in pieces, tormented poses, emphasis on their orifices. This opinion was never welcomed in art history classes. It just didn't fit in with the received wisdom.
2.24.2011 | 11:46pm
john M says:
Several years ago at the Met there was a show titled the Havermayer Collection. There was this Goya painting '2 old Syphilitic Women' -- ugly, a horror bordering on characterization but the way their clothes were painted the most masterful abstract handling of paint, it took your breath away in this very Spanish work all the ambiguity, the paradox, and tragedy of life and Pablo Ruiz Picasso was and is it's worthy heir. I have painted for years realistic, tromp l'oiel, abstract pictures, posters, theater scenery, illustrations and I feel I know little and am indeed unworthy but as in life am privileged to hopefully humbly partake. The presumption, absurd moralism and misinformation of so many of the criticisms of Picasso following this article are I feel by people who know what they like - well even 3 year olds know what they like. True art is a challange a line in the sand a lie that tells the truth and truth itself these self styled critics really need simply put, to open their eyes. It is one thing to either like or dislike something but the hysterical judjmentalism going on here has nothing to do with Mr Picasso.
2.25.2011 | 8:17am
T. Hanski says:
@ Michael:
“I know virtually nothing about Picasso’s life or politics. All I know is what I’ve seen. If you’re right about your facts (and I haven’t bothered to check them), then the fact that Picasso accepted an award from the Soviets or that he was a communist does not change my experience of his art. Nor does it change my experience of Guernica. The painting remains a powerful indictment of fascism and of a new willingness to slaughter civilians. Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.”
I haven’t in one word commented on your taste, or understanding of art of painting. If you want to appraise a painting on the basis of its political, moral, or let’s say personal-hygiene, or global warming related, message, you are free to do so. I can only wonder that someone who looks for particular messages chooses to do so in media so open to interpretation, rather than books, publications and manifestos. Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?
My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice. No more than that. Not a word about his being a talented fraud.
You conclude with that quite revealing about your mechanistic understanding of the relation between the painter, his work and the viewer, remark: “Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.” - the remark that denies the necessity for continuity of truth transferred from the first to the last stage – the continuity that marks the true art.
“Whatever he believed”?
But that must include the probability of his not believing one single brush stroke of the painting. Which makes him propagandist and businessman rather than artist and gives totally different meaning to your “he was right to attack these two evils” to be now understood as “”he was right picking up the “commercially right” devils to attack””.
“I know virtually nothing about Picasso’s life or politics. All I know is what I’ve seen. If you’re right about your facts (and I haven’t bothered to check them), then the fact that Picasso accepted an award from the Soviets or that he was a communist does not change my experience of his art. Nor does it change my experience of Guernica. The painting remains a powerful indictment of fascism and of a new willingness to slaughter civilians. Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.”
I haven’t in one word commented on your taste, or understanding of art of painting. If you want to appraise a painting on the basis of its political, moral, or let’s say personal-hygiene, or global warming related, message, you are free to do so. I can only wonder that someone who looks for particular messages chooses to do so in media so open to interpretation, rather than books, publications and manifestos. Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?
My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice. No more than that. Not a word about his being a talented fraud.
You conclude with that quite revealing about your mechanistic understanding of the relation between the painter, his work and the viewer, remark: “Whatever else Picasso believed, he was right to attack these two evils.” - the remark that denies the necessity for continuity of truth transferred from the first to the last stage – the continuity that marks the true art.
“Whatever he believed”?
But that must include the probability of his not believing one single brush stroke of the painting. Which makes him propagandist and businessman rather than artist and gives totally different meaning to your “he was right to attack these two evils” to be now understood as “”he was right picking up the “commercially right” devils to attack””.
2.25.2011 | 12:11pm
T. Hanski says:
correction to the last sentence of my recent comment:
“”...he was right picking up the “commercially right” devils to attack””. It should be, "evils", not "devils".
“”...he was right picking up the “commercially right” devils to attack””. It should be, "evils", not "devils".
2.25.2011 | 8:13pm
Edward Alleyn says:
@ John M
"True art is a challange a line in the sand a lie that tells the truth and truth itself . . ."
A challenge to what?
A line in what sand?
Picasso did not lie; he was dishonest (as an artist)
And no, art is not truth itself, if I understand what you mean. Art is art.
"True art is a challange a line in the sand a lie that tells the truth and truth itself . . ."
A challenge to what?
A line in what sand?
Picasso did not lie; he was dishonest (as an artist)
And no, art is not truth itself, if I understand what you mean. Art is art.
2.26.2011 | 7:22pm
Michael says:
Hanski,
I think you have misinterpreted my comments, so my reply will be brief.
“I haven’t in one word commented on your taste, or understanding of art of painting.”
I didn’t think you had.
“Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”
The painting is about Guernica.
“My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice.”
I don’t expect artists to talk about anything except what they’ve decided to talk about. Picasso chose fascism in this painting. I can judge him for how he decided to depict fascism, but I’m not going to fault him for not discussing something else.
“the necessity for continuity of truth transferred from the first to the last stage – the continuity that marks the true art”
I doubt many or even any artist could meet this definition.
“But that must include the probability of his not believing one single brush stroke of the painting. Which makes him propagandist and businessman rather than artist”
Sure, there’s a possibility that he didn’t believe in his art. If I knew something about his life, I could say yes or no with greater certainty, but I don’t, and I’m generally disinclined to dismiss somebody’s art because of his life, politics, or motivations. I’d rather judge the art work itself.
I think you have misinterpreted my comments, so my reply will be brief.
“I haven’t in one word commented on your taste, or understanding of art of painting.”
I didn’t think you had.
“Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”
The painting is about Guernica.
“My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice.”
I don’t expect artists to talk about anything except what they’ve decided to talk about. Picasso chose fascism in this painting. I can judge him for how he decided to depict fascism, but I’m not going to fault him for not discussing something else.
“the necessity for continuity of truth transferred from the first to the last stage – the continuity that marks the true art”
I doubt many or even any artist could meet this definition.
“But that must include the probability of his not believing one single brush stroke of the painting. Which makes him propagandist and businessman rather than artist”
Sure, there’s a possibility that he didn’t believe in his art. If I knew something about his life, I could say yes or no with greater certainty, but I don’t, and I’m generally disinclined to dismiss somebody’s art because of his life, politics, or motivations. I’d rather judge the art work itself.
2.27.2011 | 4:22pm
T. Hanski says:
@Michael:
Hanski:
“Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”
Michael:
“The painting is about Guernica.”
You haven’t answered my very simple question, which is: “…could you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?””
Otherwise, a painting is never “about”. Not any more than Bach’s “Goldberg’s Variations” is about Goldberg, or Notre Dame Cathedral is about Our Lady of Paris, or Modiglani’s “Jeanne Hebuterne with Hat” is about Jeanne Hebuterne, or her hat. A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something.
Hanski:
“My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice.”
Michael:
“I don’t expect artists to talk about anything except what they’ve decided to talk about. Picasso chose fascism in this painting. I can judge him for how he decided to depict fascism, but I’m not going to fault him for not discussing something else.”
Something else? Unless you believe that crimes of Marxist variety of fascism and the “ordinary fascism” represent “something else” you are either joking, dishonest, or wilfully ignorant.
And, of course, when painters start “discussing” through their art they are not painters anymore but propagandist, or activists, or merchant.
“Sure, there’s a possibility that he didn’t believe in his art.” If I knew something about his life, I could say yes or no with greater certainty, but I don’t, and I’m generally disinclined to dismiss somebody’s art because of his life, politics, or motivations. I’d rather judge the art work itself.
Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?
Hanski:
“Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled “Guernica”, but say “Rush hour in Tobruk” would you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”
Michael:
“The painting is about Guernica.”
You haven’t answered my very simple question, which is: “…could you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?””
Otherwise, a painting is never “about”. Not any more than Bach’s “Goldberg’s Variations” is about Goldberg, or Notre Dame Cathedral is about Our Lady of Paris, or Modiglani’s “Jeanne Hebuterne with Hat” is about Jeanne Hebuterne, or her hat. A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something.
Hanski:
“My comment was about Picasso’s moral rot and his profound dishonesty when condemning an act of brutality carried out by one type of fascism but absolutely silent about the most horrendous crimes against humanity committed by the type of fascism of his choice.”
Michael:
“I don’t expect artists to talk about anything except what they’ve decided to talk about. Picasso chose fascism in this painting. I can judge him for how he decided to depict fascism, but I’m not going to fault him for not discussing something else.”
Something else? Unless you believe that crimes of Marxist variety of fascism and the “ordinary fascism” represent “something else” you are either joking, dishonest, or wilfully ignorant.
And, of course, when painters start “discussing” through their art they are not painters anymore but propagandist, or activists, or merchant.
“Sure, there’s a possibility that he didn’t believe in his art.” If I knew something about his life, I could say yes or no with greater certainty, but I don’t, and I’m generally disinclined to dismiss somebody’s art because of his life, politics, or motivations. I’d rather judge the art work itself.
Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?
2.28.2011 | 12:46pm
Michael says:
Hanski,
“You haven’t answered my very simple question, which is: “…could you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”””
I don’t understand the point of the question, and I don’t find the question simple since it is counter-factual.
“A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something”
Semantics.
“Something else? Unless you believe that crimes of Marxist variety of fascism and the “ordinary fascism” represent “something else” you are either joking, dishonest, or wilfully ignorant”
None of the above. I don’t approach art thinking first about my beliefs. How I think about fascism, communism, or their relationship is not the first thing on my mind. Picasso chose to “depict” the bombing of his countrymen by German and Italian fascists. Because he chose that subject, I choose to critique him based only on how well he depicted or understood that subject. I won’t criticize Picasso for failing to depict some other subject while he was engaged in another.
“And, of course, when painters start “discussing” through their art they are not painters anymore but propagandist, or activists, or merchant”
Well, it depends on how capaciously or narrowly you define your terms. Some art can destroy its artfulness by descending to propaganda, while other art is lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda. The same is true with activism or commercialism.
“Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?”
Yes, I do. I don’t presume to know what was in the hearts of any of these men. Furthermore, human motivation is complex: lots of sometimes contradictory feelings and beliefs get mixed into art as well as life. And finding evidence of motivation is even harder: people can read all kinds of things into art and can pluck evidence from letters, comments, or the memories of others to support one guess over another. But that evidence is limited to what was written down.
I find much discussion of any artist’s life to be little more than gossip. I’d rather look at the art and contemplate the thoughts and emotions it raises. You and Joe want to make connections between Picasso’s art and life, and I don’t.
“You haven’t answered my very simple question, which is: “…could you still discern in it “powerful indictment of fascism”?”””
I don’t understand the point of the question, and I don’t find the question simple since it is counter-factual.
“A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something”
Semantics.
“Something else? Unless you believe that crimes of Marxist variety of fascism and the “ordinary fascism” represent “something else” you are either joking, dishonest, or wilfully ignorant”
None of the above. I don’t approach art thinking first about my beliefs. How I think about fascism, communism, or their relationship is not the first thing on my mind. Picasso chose to “depict” the bombing of his countrymen by German and Italian fascists. Because he chose that subject, I choose to critique him based only on how well he depicted or understood that subject. I won’t criticize Picasso for failing to depict some other subject while he was engaged in another.
“And, of course, when painters start “discussing” through their art they are not painters anymore but propagandist, or activists, or merchant”
Well, it depends on how capaciously or narrowly you define your terms. Some art can destroy its artfulness by descending to propaganda, while other art is lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda. The same is true with activism or commercialism.
“Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?”
Yes, I do. I don’t presume to know what was in the hearts of any of these men. Furthermore, human motivation is complex: lots of sometimes contradictory feelings and beliefs get mixed into art as well as life. And finding evidence of motivation is even harder: people can read all kinds of things into art and can pluck evidence from letters, comments, or the memories of others to support one guess over another. But that evidence is limited to what was written down.
I find much discussion of any artist’s life to be little more than gossip. I’d rather look at the art and contemplate the thoughts and emotions it raises. You and Joe want to make connections between Picasso’s art and life, and I don’t.
3.1.2011 | 9:26pm
T. Hanski says:
@ Michael
“I don’t understand the point of the question, and I don’t find the question simple since it is counter-factual.”
I am amazed that you are unable to “see the point”.
But let me help you: the point is that I am trying to show that your claiming to discern “powerful indictment of fascism” in "Guernica" is affectation and posturing. Humbug. And let me add, you know very well what is the point, you are merely trying to evade the question because by answering in negative you would admit that “powerful indictment of fascism” is not inherent in the painting. And of course, if you answer in positive you would make a total fool of yourself.
And why do you believe a counterfactual question can not be simple? Especially when it is only be answered by yes, or no?
Hanski
“A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something”
Michael:
“Semantics”.
Another evasion, or phony “reply”.
Crying “semantics!” is the last refuge of someone who would like to refute, but is unable to.
Hanski:
“Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?”
Michael:
“Yes, I do. I don’t presume to know what was in the hearts of any of these men. Furthermore, human motivation is complex: lots of sometimes contradictory feelings and beliefs get mixed into art as well as life. And finding evidence of motivation is even harder: people can read all kinds of things into art and can pluck evidence from letters, comments, or the memories of others to support one guess over another. But that evidence is limited to what was written down.”
It is evident you have no idea what is meant by “artist believing in his art”. No, it has nothing to do with ”motivations”, however “complex”, “lots of contradictory feeling and beliefs” and rest of the “psychological” babble you are trying to pass as serious analysis.
The artist’s only motivation is that he MUST create – regardless whether you may “find an evidence of motivation”.
“I’d rather look at the art and contemplate the thoughts and emotions it raises. You and Joe want to make connections between Picasso’s art and life, and I don’t. “
So do I. And the emotions Picasso’s painting raised in me was dislike and the thought was: “clever fraud”. THEN I looked at his person, life and character and found perfect accord between his warped person and his art.
And of course, you are very naïve if you think I believe your declaration that you never heard of Picasso being a commie and receiving rewards and accolades from the leaders of the Evil Empire. That fact is mentioned in virtually every catalogue and certainly in each of his exhibitions.
But here comes a gem showing most clearly that you have not a slightest feeling for art, in fact you are perfectly “tone deaf” for it.
“... while other art is lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda.”
Wow!!! You have written many absurd things, but that one beats all. Had you expressed it at the beginning of our exchange I would have not wasted my time replying you.
Accidentally, you are not alone expressing that belief. Both Lenin and Hitler hailed “art in the service of their murderous ideologies. Exactly like you they believed that art is “lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda.”
Still, I am curious to see the list of artist whose creativity was “lifted even higher through engagement with propaganda”. Could you please supply one? Is my educated guess that Picasso is on the list, correct?
“I don’t understand the point of the question, and I don’t find the question simple since it is counter-factual.”
I am amazed that you are unable to “see the point”.
But let me help you: the point is that I am trying to show that your claiming to discern “powerful indictment of fascism” in "Guernica" is affectation and posturing. Humbug. And let me add, you know very well what is the point, you are merely trying to evade the question because by answering in negative you would admit that “powerful indictment of fascism” is not inherent in the painting. And of course, if you answer in positive you would make a total fool of yourself.
And why do you believe a counterfactual question can not be simple? Especially when it is only be answered by yes, or no?
Hanski
“A painting may depict something, but is never ABOUT something”
Michael:
“Semantics”.
Another evasion, or phony “reply”.
Crying “semantics!” is the last refuge of someone who would like to refute, but is unable to.
Hanski:
“Hmm, do you think there is a possibility Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gogh, Modigliani didn’t believe in their art?”
Michael:
“Yes, I do. I don’t presume to know what was in the hearts of any of these men. Furthermore, human motivation is complex: lots of sometimes contradictory feelings and beliefs get mixed into art as well as life. And finding evidence of motivation is even harder: people can read all kinds of things into art and can pluck evidence from letters, comments, or the memories of others to support one guess over another. But that evidence is limited to what was written down.”
It is evident you have no idea what is meant by “artist believing in his art”. No, it has nothing to do with ”motivations”, however “complex”, “lots of contradictory feeling and beliefs” and rest of the “psychological” babble you are trying to pass as serious analysis.
The artist’s only motivation is that he MUST create – regardless whether you may “find an evidence of motivation”.
“I’d rather look at the art and contemplate the thoughts and emotions it raises. You and Joe want to make connections between Picasso’s art and life, and I don’t. “
So do I. And the emotions Picasso’s painting raised in me was dislike and the thought was: “clever fraud”. THEN I looked at his person, life and character and found perfect accord between his warped person and his art.
And of course, you are very naïve if you think I believe your declaration that you never heard of Picasso being a commie and receiving rewards and accolades from the leaders of the Evil Empire. That fact is mentioned in virtually every catalogue and certainly in each of his exhibitions.
But here comes a gem showing most clearly that you have not a slightest feeling for art, in fact you are perfectly “tone deaf” for it.
“... while other art is lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda.”
Wow!!! You have written many absurd things, but that one beats all. Had you expressed it at the beginning of our exchange I would have not wasted my time replying you.
Accidentally, you are not alone expressing that belief. Both Lenin and Hitler hailed “art in the service of their murderous ideologies. Exactly like you they believed that art is “lifted even higher by its engagement with propaganda.”
Still, I am curious to see the list of artist whose creativity was “lifted even higher through engagement with propaganda”. Could you please supply one? Is my educated guess that Picasso is on the list, correct?
3.1.2011 | 11:02pm
Michael says:
Hanksi,
““powerful indictment of fascism” is not inherent in the painting.”
If you mean that we have to know that the title refers to the fascists bombing of the city in the Civil War, then yes, the indictment isn’t in the painting, it’s provided by the context as established by the title and some knowledge of history. I don’t see how the necessity of knowing the context provided by the title makes my experience of the painting less authentic.
“Crying “semantics!” is the last refuge of someone who would like to refute, but is unable to”
I don’t see how changing the word from “about” to “depict” changes anything. If you do, then you need to explain why the word choice matters.
“The artist’s only motivation is that he MUST create”
I agree.
“And the emotions Picasso’s painting raised in me was dislike and the thought was: “clever fraud”. THEN I looked at his person, life and character and found perfect accord between his warped person and his art”
So you don’t like the motives you think you found in his art. As I’ve explained, I don’t bother about such things. Some of his art leaves me cold, and some I find fascinating—a series of vases, for example, has really haunted me—and others I find moving. That’s enough for me. If I started eliminating all of the art by people whose personal life or politics I did not like, I’m not sure how much art I could enjoy.
“you are very naïve if you think I believe your declaration that you never heard of Picasso being a commie and receiving rewards and accolades from the leaders of the Evil Empire. That fact is mentioned in virtually every catalogue and certainly in each of his exhibitions”
I don’t know why you wouldn’t believe me. That seems to be a personal choice to think the worst of people. Anyway, if I read something that mentioned his communism, I didn’t pay much attention to it. I would if he were painting pictures of Stalin, but I haven’t run across any such paintings.
“Could you please supply one? Is my educated guess that Picasso is on the list, correct?”
No, not Picasso. You could make a case that Guernica is propagandistic, but I’d be more likely to put it in the category of protest art, like Goya. As far as propaganda that rises to art, I think of the Uncle Sam recruiting poster or the “We Can Do It” poster. Both of those have become enduring because of their artistic power. They tap something deep, I think, iconic. I hesitate to put Norman Rockwell in this category, but some of his art comes very close to propaganda. It’s good stuff.
“You have written many absurd things, but that one beats all. Had you expressed it at the beginning of our exchange I would have not wasted my time replying you.”
Why all the abusive language? Do you have a problem?
““powerful indictment of fascism” is not inherent in the painting.”
If you mean that we have to know that the title refers to the fascists bombing of the city in the Civil War, then yes, the indictment isn’t in the painting, it’s provided by the context as established by the title and some knowledge of history. I don’t see how the necessity of knowing the context provided by the title makes my experience of the painting less authentic.
“Crying “semantics!” is the last refuge of someone who would like to refute, but is unable to”
I don’t see how changing the word from “about” to “depict” changes anything. If you do, then you need to explain why the word choice matters.
“The artist’s only motivation is that he MUST create”
I agree.
“And the emotions Picasso’s painting raised in me was dislike and the thought was: “clever fraud”. THEN I looked at his person, life and character and found perfect accord between his warped person and his art”
So you don’t like the motives you think you found in his art. As I’ve explained, I don’t bother about such things. Some of his art leaves me cold, and some I find fascinating—a series of vases, for example, has really haunted me—and others I find moving. That’s enough for me. If I started eliminating all of the art by people whose personal life or politics I did not like, I’m not sure how much art I could enjoy.
“you are very naïve if you think I believe your declaration that you never heard of Picasso being a commie and receiving rewards and accolades from the leaders of the Evil Empire. That fact is mentioned in virtually every catalogue and certainly in each of his exhibitions”
I don’t know why you wouldn’t believe me. That seems to be a personal choice to think the worst of people. Anyway, if I read something that mentioned his communism, I didn’t pay much attention to it. I would if he were painting pictures of Stalin, but I haven’t run across any such paintings.
“Could you please supply one? Is my educated guess that Picasso is on the list, correct?”
No, not Picasso. You could make a case that Guernica is propagandistic, but I’d be more likely to put it in the category of protest art, like Goya. As far as propaganda that rises to art, I think of the Uncle Sam recruiting poster or the “We Can Do It” poster. Both of those have become enduring because of their artistic power. They tap something deep, I think, iconic. I hesitate to put Norman Rockwell in this category, but some of his art comes very close to propaganda. It’s good stuff.
“You have written many absurd things, but that one beats all. Had you expressed it at the beginning of our exchange I would have not wasted my time replying you.”
Why all the abusive language? Do you have a problem?
3.12.2011 | 1:21am
Leeanna Sill says:
"The schlock merchants who have been selling us revolutionary slogans and motifs since the late 19th Century are ultimately responsible for the fact that we even know this little insect existed." Really, if the Guernica painting were not entitled Guernica, but say Rush hour in Tobruk would you still discern in it powerful indictment of fascism?
8.14.2011 | 10:03pm
Cliff Colman says:
I found this web page when doing a web search to see if anyone else felt Picasso's Guernica was an insult to the Basque people. The picture functions as a very effective piece of (white) propaganda re the mass bombing of Gernika/Guernica by the Nazi German airforce operating on behalf of Franco's Fascist rebels. However as a piece of 'art' it is utter tat. There is something demeaning in a proud people identifying with it.
Salvador Dali once said
'Picasso is a Spaniard, so am I.
Picasso is a genius, so am I.
Picasso is a communist, neither am I.'
Can't say I agree with all of that - as an artist Dali certainly had genius (leave aside his egregious attention-seeking antics), but Picasso? No; competent (in the early years), but nothing special - although it has to be acknowledged that a great deal of the garbage he produced during the 'genius years' was done with a certain 'artistic' panache.
Picasso produced the Guernica picture when his real genius (conning rich idiots) was in full flow. What; you doubt me? Then take note of what the man himself said, for towards the end of his life Picasso did what all people brought up in a profoundly catholic environment do - he confessed
'From the time of Cubism onwards I did not consider myself to be an artist.'
he went on to say that having realised that the more ridiculous and outrageous the work he produced was the more the dealers and buyers paid him, he settled for that.
Real artists and real art lovers knew long before Picasso put his hand up that the Picasso of the 'genius years' was a peddler of unmitigated trash.
In spite of Picasso's confession there are still art experts, critics, pedagogues, commentators, pretend artists, and various other arty-farties displaying their truly astounding wisdom, knowledge and judgement by telling us what a great genius Picasso was. There are none so blind as those who won't see.
Nice to see Munnings get a mention - his art isn't to my taste, but he had the range on pretentious fraudsters like Picasso.
Salvador Dali once said
'Picasso is a Spaniard, so am I.
Picasso is a genius, so am I.
Picasso is a communist, neither am I.'
Can't say I agree with all of that - as an artist Dali certainly had genius (leave aside his egregious attention-seeking antics), but Picasso? No; competent (in the early years), but nothing special - although it has to be acknowledged that a great deal of the garbage he produced during the 'genius years' was done with a certain 'artistic' panache.
Picasso produced the Guernica picture when his real genius (conning rich idiots) was in full flow. What; you doubt me? Then take note of what the man himself said, for towards the end of his life Picasso did what all people brought up in a profoundly catholic environment do - he confessed
'From the time of Cubism onwards I did not consider myself to be an artist.'
he went on to say that having realised that the more ridiculous and outrageous the work he produced was the more the dealers and buyers paid him, he settled for that.
Real artists and real art lovers knew long before Picasso put his hand up that the Picasso of the 'genius years' was a peddler of unmitigated trash.
In spite of Picasso's confession there are still art experts, critics, pedagogues, commentators, pretend artists, and various other arty-farties displaying their truly astounding wisdom, knowledge and judgement by telling us what a great genius Picasso was. There are none so blind as those who won't see.
Nice to see Munnings get a mention - his art isn't to my taste, but he had the range on pretentious fraudsters like Picasso.
