# Tell me about Picasso **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 18, 2011, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332 "2011-11-18T11:30:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/61 "2011-11-22T15:13:07Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > Geepers, I haven’t been in such a swell art fight since undergrad days. Wow - so glad to hear you have been entertained. Well, the OP wanted to hear about Picasso, and you certainly present both the standard argument against Picasso - “he did a few interesting things early in his career, but was mostly an emperor wearing no clothes who swayed the art public through arrogance and intimidation” - and the holier-than-thou attitude that normally accompanies it. I am fine with taking a shot at Big Names - I have long held that Renoir was an portrait artist for the bourgeouis upper-class who was in the right place at the right time with the right gang of friends. He had a then-innovative technique that he used to paint puppies and girls playing piano, with the occasional noteworthy work. But Picasso maintained his position at the top of the art world for decades and his works still command attention. He is one of the handful of mid-20th-century names that will endure like Hemingway, Sinatra, Bogart. Dismiss him all you want, but results matter. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/62 "2011-11-22T15:31:25Z")
Workmanlike? suuuure :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/63 "2011-11-23T15:11:26Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Yes Picasso could craft a workmanlike realistic depictional work, though he was anything but gifted in this discipline, but he turned to non depictional art as a way of disguising the fact that his artistic talent was never anything exceptional. > > Lacking genuine creativety he turned to the bizarre, the experimental again and again in a desperate efort to gain (successfully as it turned out) notoriety. No gift - check! No talent - check! No creativity - check! That must be the biggest con in art history. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/64 "2011-11-23T16:13:25Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > As an artist he was certainly no Van Goch, or for that matter, no Dali. Ah, Dali – there’s one of my personal art “con men.” But, whatever, tastes differ so who am I say that Dali’s work was full of shit and that you and the art world are a load of suckers for buying into his self-promoting hype machine? I don’t get the adulation for his work at all, but that’s fine. Obviously people get something out of it. Why is Dali not a “con man” by your standards? Because you perceive him to have gift, talent, and creativity, while Picasso does not? And that everyone else who claims that Picasso had these three (which I clearly do) is simply buying into some kind of art world hype? And you’re so clever because you can see through this ruse? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/65 "2011-11-23T17:52:47Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Ah, Dali – there’s one of my personal art “con men.” But, whatever, tastes differ so who am I say that Dali’s work was full of shit and that you and the art world are a load of suckers for buying into his self-promoting hype machine? I don’t get the adulation for his work at all, but that’s fine. Obviously people get something out of it. Why is Dali not a “con man” by your standards? Because you perceive him to have gift, talent, and creativity, while Picasso does not? And that everyone else who claims that Picasso had these three (which I clearly do) is simply buying into some kind of art world hype? And you’re so clever because you can see through this ruse? Give me a break. Yes Dali WAS a con man a lot of the time, and knowingly so. But he did have genuine talent. I always say that Dali was a genius who thought that he was a con man, and that Picasso was a con man who thought that he was a genius. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/66 "2011-11-23T17:58:18Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > No gift - check! > No talent - check! > No creativity - check! > > That must be the biggest con in art history. Could well be, Mondrian didn’t do half as well. Cons in the Art world are like an avalanche, once they reach the critical mass of aclaim then they can no longer be debunked . No matter how much a fraud and a phony the so called "artist "is. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/67 "2011-11-23T18:08:23Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Could well be, Mondrian didn’t do half as well. > > Cons in the Art world are like an avalanche, once they reach the critical mass of aclaim then they can no longer be debunked . > > No matter how much a fraud and a phony the so called "artist "is. Well then, thank Og you know better. :rolleyes: Time tells the tale. Vanilla Ice bursts on the scene, sells 10 million albums and then everyone figures out he’s a fraud and he (more or less) disappears. The Sex Pistols appear like an obvious, provocative marketing ploy with no other purpose than to tweak the nose of the establishment, yet Never Mind the Bollocks… holds up to this day as a great punk rock album with great songs. Picasso’s work endures and his stature remains strong, and may even be increasing, in the art world. You are totally welcome to your opinion, but you have to acknowledge it is in the minority… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/68 "2011-11-24T07:14:03Z")
See. I could _maybe_ buy this “but he turned to non depictional art as a way of disguising the fact that his artistic talent was never anything exceptional” argument if it happened with some artist today, because I don’t doubt that there are mediocre talents who turn to abstraction because it’s “easier”. But I don’t buy it for Picasso because a) his representational talents were _not_ mediocre. You just have to look at his life drawing sketches to see that, or anything from the Blue and Rose periods. Art schools in the Academic tradition didn’t admit “mediocre” talents at 13. b) this was not some safe avenue waiting for him to explore. He (co-)invented that shit. He was already successful and lauded before then. Picasso didn’t invent Cubism because he _couldn’t_ paint. He invented it because he _could_. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/69 "2011-11-24T09:13:23Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Could well be, Mondrian didn’t do half as well. > > Cons in the Art world are like an avalanche, once they reach the critical mass of aclaim then they can no longer be debunked . > > No matter how much a fraud and a phony the so called "artist "is. The term “con man” has literally no meaning in this context. None. It’s a nonsensical concept to apply to the creation and evaluation of a commodity whose value is purely subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/70 "2011-11-24T18:38:32Z")
Even when he thought that his own works were fakes ? The difference between art and beauty (or whatever impression is is left in the consciousness), is the intent behind it. An incredible sunset is not art because though it is beautiful there was no conscious act behind its formation (Lets PLEASE no get sidetracked by religion here) A painting of a beautiful sunset that is intended to convey the impression of its beauty to the viewer IS art. A painting that is intended to convey nothing, or if it is intended to convey a specific impression by the artist but leaves the viewer not getting the artists message, or getting no message, or getting a completely different message from what the artist was thinking when he created it… Is NOT art. Its a failure to communicate. If you ask the artist what he was trying to get over to the viewer and he answers, "Well I’m not sure really etc.etc. then that isn’t art either. So no art isn’t completely subjective, just as art isn’t some arcane mysterious entity that many would like it to be. Usually unscrupulous dealers, or untalented would be artists (like Picasso himself), and of course business corporations with millions tied up as investements in art works bought with no artistic intentions but purely as money makers. And while this is the case you can be sure that the status quo will never change, whether its tripe churned out by Picasso, Mondrian, Grand Ma Moses, Tracy Emin, or Old Tom Cobbley and all ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/71 "2011-11-24T19:45:38Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Even when he thought that his own works were fakes ? Yes. Not that he did - he was just being wry (I assume you’re referring to the story Koestler relates in _The Act of Creation_?) > [@](#): > > A painting that is intended to convey nothing, or if it is intended to convey a specific impression by the artist but leaves the viewer not getting the artists message, or getting no message, or getting a completely different message from what the artist was thinking when he created it… > > Is NOT art. No, wrong > [@](#): > > Its a failure to communicate. It may be that too. That doesn’t make it not art. > [@](#): > > If you ask the artist what he was trying to get over to the viewer and he answers, "Well I’m not sure really etc.etc. then that isn’t art either. No, wrong. Incoherent art _may_ possibly be bad art. That doesn’t make it “not art”. [quote] ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/72 "2011-11-24T19:54:14Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Even when he thought that his own works were fakes ? > > The difference between art and beauty (or whatever impression is is left in the consciousness), is the intent behind it. > > An incredible sunset is not art because though it is beautiful there was no conscious act behind its formation (Lets PLEASE no get sidetracked by religion here) > > A painting of a beautiful sunset that is intended to convey the impression of its beauty to the viewer IS art. > > A painting that is intended to convey nothing, or if it is intended to convey a specific impression by the artist but leaves the viewer not getting the artists message, or getting no message, or getting a completely different message from what the artist was thinking when he created it… > > Is NOT art. > > Its a failure to communicate. > > If you ask the artist what he was trying to get over to the viewer and he answers, "Well I’m not sure really etc.etc. then that isn’t art either. > > So no art isn’t completely subjective, just as art isn’t some arcane mysterious entity that many would like it to be. > > Usually unscrupulous dealers, or untalented would be artists (like Picasso himself), and of course business corporations with millions tied up as investements in art works bought with no artistic intentions but purely as money makers. > > And while this is the case you can be sure that the status quo will never change, whether its tripe churned out by Picasso, Mondrian, Grand Ma Moses, Tracy Emin, or Old Tom Cobbley and all Well, I quite possibly disagree with everything in this post. Suffice to say, you go on believing what you think is art, and I’ll go on believing what I think is art and continue getting enjoyment and satisfaction out of it. Picasso doesn’t really do it for me, I must be clear, but I’m sure you’d have the same reaction to my love of Pollocks and Kandinskys. Art needs no meaning. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/73 "2011-11-24T20:06:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Art schools in the Academic tradition didn’t admit “mediocre” talents at 13. On this point, one could mention that his dad was art teacher. The stronger argument is the fact that his dad became somewhat distressed that a child not even in teen years had developed technique and artistry that took him years and years. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/74 "2011-11-24T23:12:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > and it’s not my favourite. I prefer _Starry Night_, _Nighthawks_, _I & The Village_, just to name some. I think that it would be useful and relevant to the OP’s inquiry if you could explain why _Guernica_ is the greatest painted work Modern Art has ever produced, and, say, _Starry Night_ is not. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2011, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/75 "2011-11-25T08:15:48Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I think that it would be useful and relevant to the OP’s inquiry if you could explain why _Guernica_ is the greatest painted work Modern Art has ever produced, and, say, _Starry Night_ is not. _Starry Night_ just pleases me more aesthetically, with the colours and the movement, but it doesn’t make me feel emotions as strongly as _Guernica_ does. The fact that the feelings _Guernica_ evokes are not pleasant ones, is a strong reason why it is not my favourite. _Starry Night_ is **beautiful** , and it speaks to me about the wonder of Nature, but it’s not as powerful an emotion as _Guernica_ evokes in me. Continuing with the others I mentioned: In _Night Hawks_ I appreciate the message of alienation both **intellectually** and aesthetically, but it’s an almost-Vulcan appreciation - it actually has some slight tincture of the intellectual smugness some people have been saying is the basis of Picasso’s fame, although overlain with genuine aesthetic appreciation as well. _I and the Village_ is complex and **dreamlike** in its imagery - God forbid I ever have a dream like _Guernica_, I don’t think I’d stop screaming for hours when I woke up. It’s like - Pollocks I’ve seen in the flesh, stun me with their **complexity** , but it’s not a fearful or an angry stunning, and certainly not paralytic. _Guernica_ makes me want to hurt somebody and cry while doing it, and it did this _before_ I even knew the background or had seen it in person, and it still does that every time I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/76 "2011-11-25T13:58:36Z")
Some interesting insights. Thanks. This is what you say about _Guernica_: It makes you feel emotions strongly. The feelings it evokes are not pleasant ones. It evokes a powerful emotion in you. God forbid you ever have a dream like _Guernica_. You don’t think you’d stop screaming for hours when you woke up. _Guernica_ makes you want to hurt somebody and cry while doing it, and it did this before you even knew the background or had seen it in person, and it still does that every time you see it. So, it seems that you consider _Guernica_ to be the greatest painted work Modern Art has ever produced \*because \* it evokes strong unpleasant emotions in you. Is that right? Or is there something else missing? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/77 "2011-11-25T15:48:50Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Is NOT art. > > Its a failure to communicate. This assumes that the primary purpose of art is to communicate something. But, that’s not how art works. If it were, most instrumental music from the last 500 years wouldn’t count as art. It would mean that _Peter and the Wolf_ is a greater artistic achievement than meaningless trash like _Toccata and Fugue in D Minor_. The purpose of art is to structure an interesting aesthetic experience for the audience. Sometimes this experience results in the communication of a message, and sometimes not. And sometimes what the audience gets out of the piece is something entirely unimagined by the creator. As long as the result is interesting to listen to or look at, it doesn’t really matter if it means anything. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/78 "2011-11-25T19:05:10Z")
Just chiming in to agree with people like **The Hamster King** that art can be art without the artist having a specific “message” to convey. Some art has concrete meaning, some has ambiguous meaning, and some has no meaning at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/79 "2011-11-26T09:48:36Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > On this point, one could mention that his dad was art teacher. The stronger argument is the fact that his dad became somewhat distressed that a child not even in teen years had developed technique and artistry that took him years and years. That sounds like one of the typical self aggrandizing stories that Picasso used to get his friends to spread around as part of his self publicising. I’d have thought if it really was the case that a parent would be proud and gratified if his offspring turned out to be so talented, rather then distressed. But if true it would suggest that he had a very loving, and more to the point loyal, father, who would say such things (actually its quite common amongst parents), or that he wasn’t a very good artist himself, teacher or not, and that maybe that he had rather low standards as a general rule. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332/80 "2011-11-26T10:28:37Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > So, it seems that you consider _Guernica_ to be the greatest painted work Modern Art has ever produced \*because \* it evokes strong unpleasant emotions in you. Is that right? No. It’s just the _strength_ of the emotion it invokes, not the unpleasant nature of it - if it evoked as strong an emotion, but it was a pleasant one, it would still be successful. I merely emphasises the unpleasantness to say why it’s not my _favourite_ and those other ones aren’t, and yet I can consider it greater than them even though I prefer them. And it’s great not just because of the emotional impact, but a combination of that as well as an aesthetic appreciation for the skill of the composition and an intellectual appreciation for the semiotic complexity at play and a political appreciation for the message imparted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-me-about-picasso/603332.md?page=5)