Pablo Ruiz Picasso
 

Here I quote a beloved Pelican:

“I have never dropped acid, so the vast majority of his "art" is just garbage, worth mega bucks because several art critics deems it so.

I would hang Elvis, dressed as a matador, fighting a bull, painted on black velvet before I hung a Picasso in my house like that last one above.”

Aside from the suggestion therein that those whom appreciate Picasso are acid heads, what struck me was the arrogance, not that there’s anything wrong with that. My first impulse was to post the gleeful and proud photo of the direct descendant of a card-carrying member of the infamous German National Socialist Party of the 1930’s signing the under-bonnet of my overpriced, outdated, loud and uncomfortable symbol of elitist snobbery.

But I restrain myself for obvious reasons. It would have been an example of my own ignorance, much like the quote above. I so chooe not to embarrass myself. An opinion is an opinion no matter how incorrect.

However, my self-restraint is insufficient to bar me from trying to educate someone, anyone in fact, with so much self-righteousness and pomposity.

Picasso is in many ways and considered by many people, to have been the preeminent scion of creativity in all of the history of art, including those of the cave dwellers in Lascaux through the Renaissance geniuses up to the present and all else in between.

I pray we can keep this discussion civil.

He's a bit anal, conventional, and a tiny bit curmudgeony, so I read that, chuckled a bit, and gave him a pass.

I've never done acid or any other illegal drug (or very many legal ones). And despite that, I do like some of Picasso's work, but some of the more distorted stuff just doesn't speak to me. And what I remember being exposed to in my younger years (photos in books and the like) is the more twisted and distorted stuff.

One of these days, I need to get back to WDC and the Smithsonian. We were there when I was about 12, and the art museum was amazing.

Many years ago, I did something similar. Someone mentioned something, and I responded with how I did not think the item mentioned was any good. It turned out that my buddy, had said item, and so I'd just insulted his new stuff that he was super excited about. I backpedaled like a mofo, and felt like crap. I usually try to refrain from that sort of thing these days, especially in places like this, because I consider most of you friends, at least of a sort, but I don't know you all well enough to be confident that I won't end up being insulting. I try to avoid that, although I'm sure I'm not 100% successful.

I was going to post this in the Random Pics thread but since you started a separate dicussion. I'll deposit my drivel here.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...1000_QL80_.jpg

I'm no art critic but there is a lot going on there. One thing is the use of color. Aside from the "abstract" definition the use of color is striking by itself. I don't know if I'd hang it either based on the color alone. So we'll look at a piece of pen and ink abstract.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...D/IMG_8056.JPG

Excellent posts, my friends.

At age 12 you, master Masraum, were enjoying the marvels of humanity at its finest.

Picasso was, on the other hand, just beginning to create it.

His portrait of his mother at age12:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764627851.jpg

I don't understand or appreciate any of the "modern art".

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764627847.jpg
This does nothing for me. It looks like the drop cloth of a sloppy painter, yet the critics proclaim it art.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764627985.jpg
This too sold for insane money, and it is proclaimed as great art. I don't understand that at all. It ain't my money so I don't care. Or put another way, not my monkey, not my circus.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764628172.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764628172.jpg
This is art!

I understand, art is all in the eye of the beer holder. I can't hold enough beer to appreciate a lot of what is proclaimed as art. Much like Opera, I will never appreciate that either.

My point being, in case anyone missed it, is that Picasso was quite able to produce beautiful and technically brilliant objects and depictions of reality even before he reached puberty. He also realized the magnificent David by Michelangelo could probably never be equaled as an homage to the human body, to dedication and to devotion and passion. So he took creativity much, much further. In directions unknown before him.

<iframe width="1399" height="761" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qW9_2aKRKMo" title="Midnight in Paris hd / Gil explains Picasso's Portrayal of Adriana." frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Picasso was a child compared with van Gogh.

Ahh, the joys of discovery, Shaun.

My introduction to art was facilitated by Vincent. A certain painting of a bridge, in fact.,

This one:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764629092.jpg

However, this is not Vincent’s. It is my feeble attempt at copy, which is a highly respected method of appreciation and learning.

Nevertheless, what came from the mind of Picasso, I could never have imagined.

Hey Glen, old buddy.

Your claim to you not being a critic of art is false: ‘Garbage’? Really? garbage?

I just don't get the total abstract stuff. That bridge painting above is something I understand.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764629967.jpg
This is weird, and I can appreciate the talent it took to draw it. I would never pay for it however.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764629967.jpg
This is garbage, yet considered art, and expensive. I just don't get it.

Picasso's done some good stuff. Some of the stuff that I've seen today for the first time I very much like.

But yeah, van Gogh, wow! I am much more onboard there.

I think my favorite since I was a kid wandering the halls of the National Museum of Art (holy carp it's huge) is Rembrandt. Michaelangelo and da Vinci would be next, but van Gogh may be next in line.

Unfortunately, I have not spent as much time being educated in/on art as I would like. I have always appreciated it, but when I was younger it just never seemed THAT important that it required study. Now I wish I'd taken the time back then.

Very cool, and nicely done. I'd hang that on my wall!

I will admit that upon many occasions, I've viewed Picasso's work and wondered what was going on in his head. I suspect that if I were able to peer inside his thoughts, it would seem wholly alien to me. I suspect the same goes for Dali.

My assumption is that their brains were wired VERY differently than mine to the point that I would be lost if a switch could be flipped on me to switch my brain to their programming.

The real bridge:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764630396.jpg

Monet:

“Were it not for flowers, I would not paint.”

‘Beer holder’. I’m stealing that.

I love this discussion. So much great art in the world, so many great artists; likewise, so many hacks that have been lauded as genius.

I'd join the debate, but I have long realized my skills at writing and debating are feeble and my thoughts on art and creativity are complex. I do know where the division lies, though, and I will surely enjoy this thread.

Diabolical viewpoint, Shaun!

Picasso:

Produced art in many forms, sculpture, painting, ceramics, poetry for almost every single one of his nine decades of life. Died peacefully wealthier than he could comprehend. Notorious and celebrated womanizer being the envy of men and women and uglier than the south end of a north facing donkey.

Van Gogh:

A miserable, mentally ill, self-mutilating lovelorn outcast who somehow managed to paint for an entire decade-almost, then (allegedly) shot himself in the stomach and died in squalor after three days of agony.

I was going to say bold.

Also wrong. That being another of my famously erroneous opinions.