Picasso

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,292
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#2
He made cubism. A lot of people seem to like it. And pay a sh*tload of money for his works and those of his contemporaries. So there should be something to him.

Now, I'm no fine arts connoisseur, but personally I don't like it. But I also don't like most of the art after impressionism. Tastes varry.
 
Nov 2016
398
Munich
#3
from looking at the post" greatest pictures I did not notice a Picasso Was (Is) Picasso over rated?
Overrated? As to the artistic quality, not at all. To fully appreciate his cubism one has to consider the cultural context. The emergence of photography, telegraphy, airplanes, the discovery of radioactivity, the development of an x-dimensional mathematics and the philosophy of Henri Bergson had led to new ideas about space and time, and hence to new ideas how to represent space and time in paintings. Cubism fragments a picture into a multitude of planes or spaces at the same time, thus splitting up the conventional view on reality and allowing a multitude of perspectives on an object.



A parallel movement brought forth the abstract painting (Kandinsky), which, strangely enough, was not understood by Picasso at all, since he had no idea of pictures without concrete objects.

Quite another issue are the prices paid for his paintings. Prices for art objects have no direct relation to their artistic value, they merely represent the stake which competing people are ready to invest in order to get into possession of such objects. A most laughable fate happened to the picture "The Man with the Golden Helmet" which was originally ascribed to Rembrandt and therefore achieved high prices, but lost most of its market value when experts found out that it wasn´t originally painted by Rembrandt. So what constitutes the market value of an art object is mainly the name of the producer, and not the artistic value. Such behavior can be called, with an expression coined by Karl Marx, ´commodity fetishism´.

 
Last edited:

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,944
Spain
#4
from looking at the post" greatest pictures I did not notice a Picasso Was (Is) Picasso over rated?
I think as you... for me Picasso and Van Gogh are overrated...I think both they were mediocre painters... not as Rembrad, Van Eyck, Velázquez, Zurbaran, Murillo, Rafaele, Leonardo etc etc...
 
Nov 2016
398
Munich
#5
I think as you... for me Picasso and Van Gogh are overrated...I think both they were mediocre painters... not as Rembrad, Van Eyck, Velázquez, Zurbaran, Murillo, Rafaele, Leonardo etc etc...
You´re comparing apples to oranges. Should all painters for all times paint like Leonardo and Van Eyck? That would mean an everlasting stagnation in art. I fully appreciate the painters named by you, but they had not the visions of Van Gogh and Picasso which mightily promoted the development of art, as did of course dozens of more artists in those days from 1870 until 1910.

By the way, you are underestimating Picasso´s technical skills by far. This is a painting which he produced when he was 15:

 
Aug 2010
15,005
Welsh Marches
#6
Picasso has never greatly appealed to me, I think his work to be somehow lacking in human sympathy, as if he wanted to apply his immense technical skill as an exercise in domination. His worst misfortune has been that so many people buy his works not out of love because his brand is instantly recognizable! One shouldn't try to award marks to artists, as Degas once expreesed the matter, but value them according to what they mean to one, and I am sure that there are many people to whom Picasso means much more than he means to me. There was assuredly nothing mediocre about him.
 
Aug 2010
15,005
Welsh Marches
#8
I find the feeling in these paintings to be rather stereotyped, and think that the quality of his ork improved when he put that sort of thing behind him.
 
Nov 2016
398
Munich
#9
I find the feeling in these paintings to be rather stereotyped, and think that the quality of his ork improved when he put that sort of thing behind him.
These pics are full of feeling but you deny it, maybe, just out of spite. Picasso started his blue periode in a phase of personal sadness when a good friend of him had committed suicide. The later rose periode reflects returned optimistic feelings.

I think you have just no appreciation for his works, like the other skeptics, and like them you seem to have never dealt with Picasso´s life and work in detail, otherwise you should have mentioned the rose and blue periodes (though in a skeptical manner) when asserting that Picasso or his painting lacks human sympathy. But tell me: Which painters do you actually like - and why?
 
Last edited:

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,944
Spain
#10
You´re comparing apples to oranges. Should all painters for all times paint like Leonardo and Van Eyck? That would mean an everlasting stagnation in art. I fully appreciate the painters named by you, but they had not the visions of Van Gogh and Picasso which mightily promoted the development of art, as did of course dozens of more artists in those days from 1870 until 1910.

By the way, you are underestimating Picasso´s technical skills by far. This is a painting which he produced when he was 15:
I understand to you but I don´t agree. Picasso was a normal painter... that he knews how to sell their pictures from the Ladies of Avignon. About Van Gogh he was a mediocre painter.. in fact, a poor guy nobody care..Van Gogh was not a product of his brother Theo who have pity for him... but Van Gogh is a "invention of the japanese in 20th Century"...nobody care a damm about Van gogh... his pictures maybe worth 1 euro 1 kilo! (it is what people paid for them)... but the Japanese snob said oh... he is so great.. so nice... so wonderfull... People know nothing about that poor devil.. till their pictures begun to worth money ... decades after his death ... in the future he will be a John Doe again. His pictures were old for his time and he hadn´t school.. he couldn´t see the evolution of the Modern art..

I don´t like but the most importan painter in 20th Century (my favourite is Dali) is Russian... Malévich...1879 - 1935.. his views was prophetic.. he understood the ways of the Modern Art.. today 50% Contemporanean painters came from Malévich.. not from Picasso. And of course not from Van Gogh one of most mediocre and bluff painters in the history of mankind..

 

Similar History Discussions