So we’re back to “Picasso was a dick”…you realise Surviving Picasso wasn’t a documentary, right? Yes, the man could be a colossal dick, especially to his friends. But I’d really like some evidence for these “self aggrandizing stories that Picasso used to get his friends to spread around”, please.
See, now you’re just having to pull stuff out of your arse to put Picasso down. That his dad was a professor of Fine Art at a succession of schools is a matter of record, not some story Picasso made up. Some of his work is freely available to view online - he was an acceptable professional artist. Not a great one, and frankly a bit obsessed with pigeons (maybe that’s what sold at the time) but there are a couple of those pigeon paintings that are reminiscent of Dürer or the like.
And that Picasso got into art school at age 13, after an examination, is also not just a story. Richardson, in his excellent biography series, certainly doesn’t think so, and he had no quibble with showing Picasso’s dickish side.
I haven’t watched Surviving Picasso, so most certainly haven’t based my judgement on it.
As to his father being such and such, I do not dispute it, there was just a hint of irony in my previous, what I DO believe to be complete and utter B.S. is the story of his father being DISTRESSED because his son was SO very very talented, honest guvnor!.
Of course. But is this a story Picasso told? Richardson certainly debunks it in his biography, so it’s not as if it has any serious currency even if it was often repeated.
It’s like the crap about Washington and the cherry tree. Doesn’t mean Washington didn’t lead the Revolution to victory. And if Picasso’s dad didn’t hand over his brushes in shame, doesn’t make Picasso not a great painter.
Especially to women. But that has fuck-all to do with the worth of his art. Like I said before, Triumph of the Will is a celebration of one of the worst cultures that humanity has ever produced. But it’s a great documentary - possibly the greatest ever made.
If art needn’t have meaning, then what’s left? It needn’t be an actual representation of anything. It needn’t be made by humans, apparently. It needn’t be aesthetically pleasing. It needn’t be recognizable as distinct from mundane objects.