PICASSO Genius or Charlatan

Hi, Goodstein-Shapiro, whyn't you delete your second version of this question before anyone answers it - it is possible to do that here if no one has answered. (The question showed up twice. If no one has answered on the second one, click on the x next to edit, and it'll go away...)

Cant say I know the names of any of his works.
I didnt like him for a long time, then an artist explained to me that Picasso painted an object/person from its most interesting view ie an eye straight on but a nose from the side.
That mad e me understand and like his work.
He represents a certain art movement but i dont know if that makes the art movement good or particularly interesting.

Re: PICASSO Genius or Charlatan





I like some of his works from the rose, and blue period. I like The Gourmet, from his blue period. I like the Two Saltimbanques With Dog, from his blue period (even though it looks unfinished). The blue, and rose period I found interesting, but if he had continued in the same depressing style, I would not have liked it.

In the cubist style I like the Three Musicians. And, if I try to remember I might come up with a few others I like. He is not my favorite, but I do like some of his works, only a few.

I think we had many good skilled artist to give Picasso all the credit and call him "the visual voice of the 20th century"

I did not know the man personally to call him a "charlatan", I only know what I have read. But, I often wonder where he wanted to go with his work. And, I also wonder how much of his fame was due to knowing the right people, and being at the right place at the right time, and not his talent.

I try to study all the artist, but only like a few. I give Picasso a four from a one to ten scale.

And he is definitely not a genius

I never understood why some artist switch from realism painting to abstract painting, and stay there. I switch every so often but, it's to achieve a particular feel to the painting I'm creating at the moment. I always go back to realism.

When I say realism I mean as real as an artist can make a painting look to real life.

One more thing I like about the artist is that he produced a lot of work and a lot of variety.

Paintings
Cubist painting
Sculptures
Linocuts
Lithographs

And, who knows what else I missed.

I like some of his early youth work.


Study of Torso


The Old Fisherman (Salmerón)

ometimes I dismiss an artist because I think his art doesnt appeal to me, like Picasso, but then they go and surprise me by producing works that AngeliqueEast posted.If I knew they could paint like that to begin with I may appreciate their later work.

I think talented artists should be able to paint realistically, thats far more difficult that making up a style.Er hello, Jackson Pollock with his dribbly paintings...I could do that.

MG, you really have to look at all their work in order to come up with a fair decision.

Yep, Im happy too but if someone can paint well Id assume theyd exhibit the good/realistic work and not the odd style work to show off the artists real talent.
Im not blinkered but If someone like Picasso is known for his cubist work then I tend to assume thats all he has done.

Many artist switch from realism to abstract, and stay that way. I asked this question on this thread a few posts earlier. I would like to know why.

Me too.

thankyou ossobuco, for letting me know. I did delete the second post...don't know how or why it was there in the first place.

Hmmm, it's still there if you click on art forum - not sure why. Did you click on the x? Or maybe I cross posted.. and it'll be gone in a minute.

Why it happens in the first place is usually that someone clicks on submit twice, thinking it didn't work the first time.
But.. for me, with my computer, it usually happens when I push the Back button just after posting. I've been training myself for years now not to do that but still do it sometimes.

G-S, Welcome to A2K! May I ask, are you, perhaps, writing a paper on Picasso? One that requires you to explore a conflict?

I have never heard anyone who knows Picasso's work well describe him as a "charlatan." I have met a fair number of people who say that Picasso was a genius, but he was a true bastard with women. I tend to agree with this latter observation--although, to give the devil his due, there were a few women he treated well (though, typically, not his wives), and, generally, he was a good father to his children.

Picasso could be secretive, manipulative, mean-spirited, aggressive, egotistical; therefore, he had enemies, and some of these may have considered him a charlatan--but for personal reasons rather than artistic ones.

It strikes me as false reasoning to say that Picasso's art must be controversial because his behavior could be offensive. Apples and oranges.

Some of Picasso's anger (at precisely what, no one is sure--the most common guess is the artist's suddenly-waning virility) in his later years comes out in paintings of his last wife. BUT, this doesn't mean he hated her (there is much evidence to the contrary, in fact), nor does this mean that his art has left him. His art is still there, still powerful, but it is more often very harsh in its expression.

Did you know, speaking of Picasso's level of intelligence, that
for many decades, he read an entire box of books on challenging subjects every week? Brassai, Picasso's initimate friend and best-informed biographer (along with Richardson, who knew Picasso later), wondered when, if ever, Picasso slept! If you read Brassai's CONVERSATIONS WITH PICASSO, you will see that those who call Picasso a genius do not use the term lightly. In addition to being a brilliant artist, Picasso had a very quick and broad-ranging mind. Remember, of course, that, if he were in a bad mood, he could act childish and narrow!

I wouldn't know where to begin listing important works by Picasso! There are so many over so many years. One of my particular favorites is "The Dream," a serene portrait of Dora Maar.

Picasso Genius or Charlatan
Thankyou for that glorious post, Miklos.
I would like to express a few thoughts I have about Picasso.
Firstly, in defense of Picasso's moneymaking ability, railed against by a poster from a previous discussion topic.
It would be wonderful, I think, if ALL creative people had this ability.
Many artists' wonderful work is overlooked BECAUSE they do not know how or do not have the courage or do not have the need to be active sales representatives on behalf of their own creations.Picasso's ability to publicize and sell his own work, to find broad audiences and consumers of it, is a plus. In the world we live in, artists are really small businessmen, manufacturing and selling their own products. Those who do both functions well, have a good chance of success; those who fail on either manufacturing OR selling, fall flat on their faces, maybe full of over sensitive self pity.
When he was in Paris, strangely enough, it was NOT the French public that purchased Picasso's work. There were mainly two sources to which Picasso sold: first, the Russians, for whatever reason I do not know. And Secondly, the Steins, Gertrude and her brother.
Aside: Picasso's massive powerful women, a huge change from the tuberculosis diseased emaciated women of earlier periods, are attributed to the influence of Gertrude Stein, hah, who was a hefty woman of great mass.
For me, Picasso's genius is to be found mainly in his development of Cubism, and the spiritual quality of his erotic etchings.
In a scientific world where the xray camera can probe behind solid mass to find the hidden workings of humans and machine, cubism should be no surprise. ANd while the artist can on his own instinct select those
attributes (in cubism) of his subject that he wishes to portray and modify those attributes to a certain extent, the artist still has to combine them to construct a painting that has traditional esthetic attributes. Cubist work may look antithetical to realism, but it still must satisfy aesthetic standards
of art, and in this sense is traditional. Cubism was a step in freeing artists from traditional spatial qualities, into an analysis of what constituted painting.
Picasso was a fine draughtsman, and I know that not even his worst critics can deny that fact. This is to be seen, I think, particularly, in his erotic etchings...which are absolutely ethereal in their delicacy. I always feel a gentle breeze wafting in and out and around his lines and figures in these works.
And finally, a word on Picasso's subject matter...utterly all inclusive...his mind embraced the whole world and the tiniest detail of his ordinary family life.Whether he railed against war, for social justice, or loved the look and touch of his child's hair, his wife's breast, the form of the jar on his table...it was all deeply entwined in Picasso's consciousness, and found itself importantly in his art. In Picasso's work, we see an artist deeply involved with life.

Ossobuco, A2K tells me that I cannot delete the second announcement BECAUSE I am not the authot of it. Go fight city hall!!!
Miklos, don't be so suspicious. I am not writing any articles on Picasso, or doing any current research...nor intend to. While I have taken graduate work in art history, I do not write about it, or desire to publish what I might like to write about. Simply, hah...an amateur.

GS, I don't think micklos knows you immediately, he was thinking, I think, that you might be a serious student. Which is what we all are in our way(s).

Anyone, re my avatar, it is a transient religiopolitico statement that I am enjoying: Pacco will be back in a bit.