I think anyone who lives that long will do a number of decent paintings. I like Guernica of course, but I can't see a great deal in this, Les Demoiselles D'Avignon, where he seems to have taken something from Cezanne's Bathers and made it shit:
Then there's cubism, according to Picasso himself a very idea. Well, I'm buggered if I see it. Something about giving "multiple facets" or suggesting 3 dimensions in a new way. If so, what the hell is the point of Cubist sculpture?
Anyway how can you be moved or impressed by something when you can hardly see what it is? Is it like a Magic Eye puzzle (I never got those either)? Actually they at least could show fairly complex images- cubism can barely do the most obvious bits of still life.
Before all this we have the Blue and Rose periods. OK but hardly justification for the oft-expressed view that he'd done it all and had to try something as perverse as cubism.
He makes a pig's ear of the crucifixion in 1930, coming up with something that does neither surrealism nor horror properly:
And, after sundry nasty pictures of twisted women and bits of spontaneity (better than working for a living) we get this unbelievably shit reworking of one of the greatest paintings ever:
Well, it's on the right side, it's powerful. And it's the right theme at the right time for someone who draws distorted people and Minotaurs all the time.
Posts: 18279 | From: Georgica | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
He's not overrated but he is overexposed. There must be a Picasso exhibition opening, closing or on view in almost every major city in the world at any given moment (right now the Vollard Suite is on show here.)
He's the bulge in the snake of 20th century painting isn't he? You can't ignore him, anymore than you can ignore the Beatles if you want to know about 60s music. He was enormously talented — some may say facile — and extremely sharp in detecting where the aesthetic winds were blowing: never quite first on the spot but frequently second. Most of the time I don't find his work all that interesting, it has a chameleon-like quality which doesn't engage or intrigue much. In think the 1930s were his golden decade, especially the drawings (he was a superb draughtsman.)
I always think it's unfair to directly compare images across decades, even if the later one is based on the earlier. Picasso was not attempting the kind of naturalism that Manet was aiming for after all. And viewers, unless they've researched the paintings, don't pick up on the connection.
Posts: 7138 | From: here you can't get there | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |