PICASSO Genius or Charlatan

Didn't think much about him one way or another until I went to "his" museum in Barcelona. Amazing.

From his student sketches to his seminal works (including the bits with the different re/deconstructions of the royal family portrait (don't remember which family)) to his lecherous comic doodles (tucked away on the fourth floor) the depth and breadth of his work was astonishing. The dude could paint anything.

G-S, Thanks. You might consider writing about art! You write very well--with passion and insight.

I, too, greatly admire Picasso's erotic etchings. "Delicacy" strikes me as just the right word. But not the fidgety or fussy side of delicacy; rather, the side which describes gracefulness, fluidity, and rapidity of movement--none of which take away from expressive power.

The white center of Picasso's Weeping Woman is an index of his genius (I would love to hear interpretations of its "meaning"). It is his freedom that I admire most. But I do not respond to all his work.
People often come to appreciate Picasso after discovering, from examinations of his earlier periods, that he can draw. They should be aware that even his later abstract works demonstrate his drawing ability. Abstract shapes are drawn shapes.

bookmark

Weeping Woman 1937 oil on canvas

I love his use of color. The painting is dramatic in it's movement, and he achieves some of this with the way he uses lines.

JL, About "Weeping Woman": once one moves past the surface--the deftly-handled semi-transparency of the white handkerchief--one might think of this central whiteness as akin to the core of whiteness in MOBY DICK, a colossal, primal evil. By this (possibly deep-left-field!) analysis, Picasso's woman weeps over the state of the world, the wars, the senseless deaths of children.

Miklos, I should have thought of that. I think the "Whiteness of the Whale" was a very interesting speculation, and perhaps influential in the case of the Weeping Woman. Or not. But, yes, her weeping seems not to be merely for autobiographical reasons; it seems far more fundamental.

David Duncan, a great photographer from the late 20th century visited Picasso at his villa on the Riviera. While there, he took hundreds of photographs of the Artist at his home, playing, laughing, working late at night, relating to his wife and children and goats and friends...which were published. THey give a wonderful, if overrosy picture of this incredible force of energy relaxing in his everyday mode. Recommend it to those puzzled by Picasso's persona.

Great recommendation, G-S! Particularly revealing for me were the photographs Duncan took of Picasso playing with his children. There is genuine delight; kids don't fake that. Picasso made up all sorts of wondrous games.

I have heard from quite a few people that David Duncan was hugely egotistical. I have always wondered why there was no clash with the generally egocentric Picasso, who let him take LOTS of pictures. Perhaps, this, too, is revelatory: maybe even Duncan felt awed in the presence of a talent like Picasso's. Duncan is an extremely good photographer. Fortunate we are that he and the painter hit it off so well.

Weeping woman was painted when he and his wife were visiting Spain and Dora was very ill when they were there and very unhappy, Somehow Picasso isn't the nursemaid type! I think the painting really shows his exasperation with a sick and complaining wife, rather than anything deeper - but it does it brilliantly. There was a programme a few years ago with interviews with family and friends and Picasso over the years - it was a fantastic insight into his life and work. A friend who was there talked about the background events to Weeping Woman and what it was about.

No one can deny his incredible talent or incredible IQ and sheer hard work.

The problem is that he was cynical and was prepared to let second rate or dashed off work go to fools who would part with large sums for it. I've lost the quote but used to have an interesting one where he more or less said he'd fooled a lot of people. That doesn't alter the power of other work.

I don't enjoy much of his work but that doesn't mean it isn't good.

With a talent and enquiring mind like his he couldn't have continued producing figurative work for the rest of his life, it would have become boring and unsatisfying for him, his standard of work was so high, so young - so where was left to take it? I think it's a shame that he didn't continue figurative work alongside his more experimental stuff but it obviously no longer satisfied him.

It's easy to think that you 'could have done that' about abstract work - but it is actually much more demanding of the artist than figurative work.

You really can't make fair judgements about an artist without knowing something about their work and the development through their career.

Painting is a language with a rich vocabulary and like complex music or high literature, you can't understand it all at a glance. Some things make you respond to them instantly but they aren't necessarily the most sustaining, sometimes you come to realise they are shallow and long term are unsatisfying. In other work you grow to love it more with time as you appreciate more about it.

So, I would allow Picasso to be a very important influence of his time - some of his experiments were dead ends - cubism can only go so far and then it becomes repetitive for instance. He moved on.

I think others though will prove to have been over rated.

Thank you so much Vivian for posting that information. I was afraid to say anything. I did not want to get screamed at again.

no, no one will scream at you on the art threads here - unlike politics! we all hold positive opinions and state them - but remain polite!

I like to hear opposing opinions as I can learn - gs said some interesting things about Bacon elsewhere that made me re-evaluate him and though I can't like his work, I can respect it more.

Well Vivian you missed one art thread.

My first impression of the Weeping Woman was that there was conflict between her and Picasso, and she suffered because of it. I think the man was talented but very selfish. And, if any woman interfered with his work (and he was driven), he could be very cruel. I did not know about her illness. That was my take on the painting from what I know about Picasso. And I too believe that he had little patience with a crying woman.

But then the others started giving their views, and I thought it best to keep quiet.

Thank you for letting me speak Vivian, I feel better now.

yes I did miss that thread.

Well the programme I saw certainly provided evidence of a huge ego and little patience in interviews with family, friends, ex wives/partners and he himself over the years.

He said that when when he died 'it would be like a great ship going down and many would go down with him' - which certainly happened with deaths and suicides amongst family and ex wives.

He used cruelty to keep people at bay. I don't like that.

Instead of Picasso: genius or charlatan, we might better say, Picasso: genius AND charlatan.
To me, his art makes his biographical persona more interesting, but his biographical persona neither validates nor invalidates his art. Consider the great music of that racist, fascist, ego-maniac, Richard Wagner. As I've argued elsewhere, we cannot assess art on the grounds of the artist's personality or character. If a bad man cannot produce good art then it follows that a good man cannot produce bad art, and we know that isn't so.

Picasso Genius or Charlatan
When I go to buy a car, I really do not care that every person who put a screw into that car while it was being manufactured is of the highest moral calibre and wears clean underwear.
Likewise, when I look at a Rembrandt, I do not ask if the painter said something nice to his daughter. and ate his oats, the morning he finished it in the 17th century.
And when I vote for a guy to be president, I don't have to know that he attends church every Sunday, and has a very pure upstanding relationship with his wife, and likes chips.
Truth is...throughout the history of art, there have been painters, men
on the lowest moral scale, who have succeeded in painting some images on the highest spiritual level. We appreciate their genius; we ignore their moral character.We are richer for their gifts.

Exactly!

And I... have never developed an interest in Picasso, probably sad to say as I should have a least given a good long look to a hefty book I bought some years ago and recently 'sold' to Bookleggers.

The easy answer is that he isn't easy, and maybe the uneasy answer is that he isn't easy, but I've just never been hungry to know more than I know about the work at any given time. I'll agree his work was often exciting re art history, cut new ground, had aesthetic resonance. I might graduate to it at some point, I leave that open. I'd better hurry up thougn...
art is long, but life is shorter.