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member of the infamous German National Socialist Party of the 1930’s signing the under-bonnet of my overpriced, outdated, loud and uncomfortable symbol of elitist snobbery.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.

Late in life, Picasso signing checks was forbidden because the value of the check sometimes exceeded the dollar amount simply because of his signature being on it.

OK. Not really art but c’mon, man. That is something.

As an aside, but still interesting, an American painter (he was American only bacause he lived in America-his true citizenship was a mystery) who was hired by a newspaper to depict in watercolors scenes from the battlefields of WWI was eventually most famous for his full sized portraits of the then rich and famous. ‘Madam X’ is one of them.

This guy did it right. Never worked a day in his life but went around the world conjuring up commissions of famous and very rich (more rich than famous usually) people.the contracts involved him living rent-free in the homes of his clients during the production of his work. Because he was such an intriguing and pleasant conversationalist, his company was almost as coveted as his paintings.

Anywho, at one point in his life, whilst his client entertained other rich and famous people playing badminton and/or croquet or whatever and drinking mint julips on the lawn, he would suddenly excuse himself, hurry to his studio on the premises of so and so’s estate at exactly the right time of day and in exactly the right kind of light (so he explained) to execute one single stroke of his brush on his current work to immediately return to the frivolity at which he was heartily welcomed.

There is much more to say about him, including his stupendous technical skills as an artiste.

John Singer Sargeant.

I wasn't impressed. Until I went to the Picasso museum (Madrid???). He is pretty darn talented.

And. I wasn't on acid. Then.

I visited a museum of Picasso's early work - stuff he did as a child and young person. I recall it was in the town of his birth. It was amazing. As a teenager, his mastery of all the "conventional" forms of painting was incredible. That helped me understand why he spent his life searching for different ways to represent and abstract figure, form, motion, light. Everything else, he had already done before adulthood.

I like many types of painting - realism, impressionism, primitives, abstract, modern.

Recently went to an exhibit at SF MOMA for Ruth Asawa's work - that was really cool. Google for pics.

It must be that I have not seen enough Picasso, but I have never been impressed or wowed in ways even close to van Gogh.

One of my favorites. I wish I could send you all my pics from the d'Orsay and ensure you have a 43" screen and graphics card to dive into his paintings. It is, for me, breathtaking.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569817.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551569176.jpg

OMG she was young.

There are no incorrect comments here.

I like Georges Braque's work more than Picasso's. As much as I say the abstract stuff has nothing to do with it, Braque's stuff is less abstract.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764682163.jpg

I didn't get Picasso until I went to a little Picasso museum in Spain. I don't remember what city it was in, perhaps Madrid. It was small with only his early, less valuable works. It quickly became evident that he was a master as a teen which I assume lead him to go where nobody had gone in art before.

I don't recall hearing that. My understanding is he would write checks knowing that they wouldn't be cashed.

I read he gave napkin sketches to waitresses, but not for payment. I'd love to hear the real truth about these things.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about Van Gogh’s contribution. The intensity, emotionalism, passion and spirituality in his work and in his life are definitions of ‘the troubled artist’. There are several Van Goghs (5, I think) at the Detroit Institute of Arts and more in Chicago. I make a point to see them whenever I am there, which isn’t often enough.

Any argument about whose work is ‘better’ is ridiculous. Fun, but ridiculous. However, as an artist, Picasso was pretty much on the forefront of innovation in the art world for almost a century. He alone at his death owned over 50,000 pieces in multiple media. Today, his work is everywhere. Around 1947, as a friend of his writes, Picasso found a broken bicycle and without conscious thought, he made this, one of the most famous sculptures of ‘found objects’ that revolutionized the idea of making something from nothing, connecting ideas to things and connecting totally unrelated things to each other spontaneously in beautifully anti-intellectual ways.

https://cdn.thecollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/picasso-bull-sculpture.jpg?width=1200&quality=100&dpr=2

People that criticize Picasso invariably focus on his Cubist period. Bad idea. As some have noted, he created art in a huge range of styles over his long career and was very talented, as you might surmise from some of his conventional, early works, or even his simple line drawings. Those throw-away, simple works reveal a lot, just like the drawings and sketches of Toulouse-Lautrec.

I like the bold color of Van Gogh as much as anybody but Picasso was far more successful in his career, as measured by the art he sold. That counts for something, right?

Much of modern art is good, some of it is not. I think how a particular person's brain is wired determines how they feel about a Pollock or a Rothko. Some get it; others never will. Too often they view good/bad on the basis of whether they could replicate it, or not. That's a mistake; they can't - but they don't understand enough of the technique to know why and they fail completely in achieving the emotional connection. Some things are pleasing, some are not and the underlying reasons go unexplored. There's quite a bit of art out there that plays with how the brain interacts with colors or patterns and that's not something most people will understand unless the read a book on it. That's OK, there's other stuff out there for them.

Books on Picasso, for those inclined:

https://www.artnews.com/list/art-in-america/columns/essential-books-pablo-picasso-1234679306/a-life-of-picasso-iv-the-minotaur-years-1933-1943-by-john-richardson/

The mystery is that there have been people born to such destiny. There's really no good explanation as to why Vincent (or Pablo or any transcendental artist in any capacity) left behind masterpieces for all of us to enjoy as we will.

If you like Pablo better than Salvadore, or Dürer more than Vermeer, your opinion is valid and correct and no one can tell you otherwise.

I like this thread; people can be moved and awed by visual interpretation in all different ways- and the examples posted are all hallmarks of the joy of art and the celebration of the artist.

There’s a very old B&W film piece wherein Picasso was commissioned to draw on a pane of clear glass anything he wanted for a brief time like an hour or whatever (I’m not clear about the details of the event). He agreed but required the piece to be destroyed afterwards. In doing so, Picasso made the film itself a piece of art.

The film shows him behind the glass, facing the camera with some kind of marker in hand and furiously drawing spontaneously without effort. The first few minutes created one thing but as the camera rolls, the image becomes something totally different. Live action, ad-lib art!

I’ll look for the video.

This isn’t the one but it shows his spontaneity and confidence

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qqZXU77YCf4

And, understanding that should inform our opinion of his relatively simple line drawings. They were effortless for him.

Doubt his ability? Create on of your own without reference to an image or a figure in real life. Just from an image you create in your head...

And do it in 10 seconds, start to finish.

I love spontaneity.

<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@katiemicucci/video/7556288817255255326" data-video-id="7556288817255255326" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@katiemicucci" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@katiemicucci?refer=embed">@katiemicucci</a> <p>I found a snowboard in the trash!</p> <a target="_blank" title="♬ Mr. Sandman - The Chordettes" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/Mr-Sandman-6717461240567826433?refer=embed">♬ Mr. Sandman - The Chordettes</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

an homage...
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764690795.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1764690795.jpg

I thought this was a clever bookend to Shaun's declaration. For what it's worth, I like to listen to Don McLean sing about VVG way more than McCartney's tribute to "the grand old painter'.

<iframe width="690" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ciLNMesqPh0?list=RDciLNMesqPh0" title="Vincent" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="324" height="324" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9NobdV5Kxw8?list=RD9NobdV5Kxw8" title="Picasso’s Last Words (Drink to Me) (2010 Remaster)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I kinda enjoy it all. I dont understand it all, but that means that is my own limitations.

I was interested in a painting lately, and it was dope as hell. but I did the money conversion and it was $35k..hahha..

my understanding isn't my only limitation.

I'm to grownup these days to criticize something like art. just cus it doenst blow air up my skirt, my **** isn't hanging on a wall in some gallery.

I'd love to see that. I read he would make drawings like when at a restaurant, one time on the whole tablecloth, then destroy them before he left.

I went to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in 1980 and that was a treat. There was also an exhibit at the de Young in Golden Gate Park that was like a mini version. There was even an immersive experience in SF that was fun: https://vangoghsf.com/

Van Gogh is one of my favorites, although my knowledge of art is tiny. My main thing is Inuit art. Which reminds me I need to order a 2026 calendar...

Don McLean wrote such a touching song in "Vincent." I think he really captured it.

Starry, starry night
Paint your palette blue and gray
Look out on a summer's day
With eyes that know the darkness in my soul
Shadows on the hills
Sketch the trees and the daffodils
Catch the breeze and the winter chills
In colors on the snowy, linen land
Now, I understand what you tried to say to me
And how you suffered for your sanity
And how you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they did not know how
Perhaps they'll listen now
Starry, starry night
Flaming flowers that brightly blaze
Swirling clouds in violet haze
Reflect in Vincent's eyes of china blue
Colors changing hue
Morning fields of amber grain
Weathered faces lined in pain
Are soothed beneath the artist's loving hand
Now, I understand, what you tried to say to me
How you suffered for your sanity
How you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they did not know how
Perhaps they'll listen now
For they could not love you
But still your love was true
And when no hope was left inside
On that starry, starry night
You took your life as lovers often do
But I could have told you, Vincent
This world was never meant for one
As beautiful as you
Starry, starry night
Portraits hung in empty halls
Frameless heads on nameless walls
With eyes that watch the world and can't forget
Like the strangers that you've met
The ragged men in ragged clothes
The silver thorn of bloody rose
Lie crushed and broken on the virgin snow
Now, I think I know what you tried to say to me
How you suffered for your sanity
How you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they're not listening still
Perhaps they never will

1986 for me. Outstanding day.

Museo del Prado in Madrid around the same time. I was hoping to see more Dali but it didn't matter as there was plenty.

British Museum blew me away. Rosetta Stone and all the spoils of war stuff the British brought back from a squillion years ago. The country's asked for it back and the Brit's said Nah.