 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Picasso...the overrated hack? posted by tinear on April 14, 2002 at 09:03:13:
I took a few great art courses at Princeton, one of which was a modern art course covering such greats as Picasso. I appreciated his contributions but always felt he was given way too much credit. I never thought any of his work was outstanding and felt he was given such praise mostly for a concept. I certainly don't think I was out of line calling him an overrated hack -- that's how I see it. In a hundred years, maybe the pseudo intellectuals will see the emperors clothes for what they are.I do enjoy art. Van Gogh has always been my favorite and the Van Gogh museum in amsterdam my favorite museum.
Follow Ups:
...how often people use the phrase "pseudo intellectual" and its variations to label something they dislike. What exactly about Picasso's art is pseudo-intellectual?
Nothing. I just consider art scholars who praise him like a god to be. Like I said, I feel he was given way too much credit for a concept.Obviously, those who like his work would disagree.
> > Like I said, I feel he was given way too much credit for a concept. < <Which concept of his do you mean?
nt
I don't think I get your point. Picasso was a pioneer of cubism[among other things], but you're saying that he got too much credit for it. In what way is he over-rated exactly? Just curious.
Picasso a pioneer of cubism...Dima, as many would say it was Cezanne who started it all.
"Nature should be handled with cylinder, sphere and cone".
But regardless, asking questions is easy, why don't you tell us why you disagree with him?
I find the "pseudo-intellectual, overrated hack" bit a little, how to say it...lame. Yeah, lame is the right word.
Bringing a movie-relevant comparison - Is Bergmann a "pseudo-intellectual, overrated hack"? Some say that too. Is it true, then? I suspect[:)!] you know the answer.
Now, that's the real question, Jimmy.
That is a hard one. We have two things to go by. One is the accepted norms. They say Bergman (Picasso) is NOT pseudo-anything, but rather the titan.Another approach is the nihilistic self-reliance. *I* and only I define what is intellectual, and if I, for whatever reason do not accept this form, it must be pseudo-......
Interesting here to note, that while the first one hardly ever changes (after all, it was some VERY smart people who already went that way for us) the second one is forever moving... as we grow.
I didn't see him say "overrated hack" - if he did, that would be trying to cross the line separating the first approach from the second one. Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack.
> > Another approach is the nihilistic self-reliance. *I* and only I define what is intellectual, and if I, for whatever reason do not accept this form, it must be pseudo-...... < <Fine, if you have done a lot of intellectual[!] analysis, you may arrive at the above conclusion about, say, Picasso. This in turn negates that artists who followed the idea, the style and the philosophy, and in turn influenced other artists, who then are themselves "pseudo-intellectual"[I still want to know what he meant by that] and "hacks".
By itself this isn't anything earth-shattering or big deal and has been done all-throughout history of the arts, but I'd think labeling someone of Picasso's clout an "over-rated hack" requires a bit of lengthy and solid basis, not a series of snippy one line repartes. All I wanted was an explanation.> > Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack. < <
Sorry, V, I didn't get that.
I don't think followers of Picasso's style are necessarily pseudo intellectuals (and after consideration, I now feel that that phrase is probably best left unused). Bashing the rabid praisers of Picasso doesn't negate the artists which follow in his style. Perhaps the artists are excellent. I just do not feel that Picasso deserved the extreme praise and reverence he got and do not consider him the great master as many do. For the type of work he did, I think he was maybe above average. That's it. If I saw just one of his works which I honestly felt was outstanding, I would change my mind. I have seen a few of his works which I consider very weak efforts. One obscure painting which was auctioned off about 10 years ago I felt was laughably bad. I wish I knew the name of the piece. I actually cut the picture out of the magazine and sent it to a Picasso praising friend of mine, who regrettfully agreed that the work was not very good.Picasso supporters will often argue that he had already demonstrated technical virtuosity in his realistic sketchings and paintings. I don't consider that point valid, as I wouldn't consider his realistic work very good.
It is pointless to argue the merits of the artist when there is just a difference of opinion. In matters of taste there is no dispute. Some of the compositions of his cubistic work are nice. I'd still consider the execution average. The composition of of much of his work strikes me as quite trite and the execution tiresome. I never felt his use of color (for example) was terribly interesting or complex. Like music that has no durability, I wouldn't care to take in much of his work for very long. The multimillion dollar price tags on many of his average works seem out of line. I find the works of many lesser acclaimed artists to be certainly equal to his work.
"Over rated hack" is most certainly not a wise phrase to use about a widely praised and respected artist, even though that is honestly how I see it. It was careless of me to bash a popular favorite when I really don't have much interest to discuss it. My viewpoint is not a popular one with art enthusiasts and certainly not likely to find any supporters around here.
I would definitely not put Picasso in the same class as Bach or Brahms as I feel his merits are not comparable and leagues below those composers. As opposed to those legitimate accomplished talents, Picasso has been given just insane amounts of praise for what has always struck me as average work. I have heard the arguments of Picasso enthusiasts before and have considered their points. It still comes down to the work, which I don't think is anything special.
Any further explanation would require me to refamiliarize myself with his body of work and all my thoughts and feelings about it. It's not a road I'd care to go down again.
Just a couple of observations.
Picasso did not originate 'cubism'. Georges Braque did.Cezanne was probably THE most influential artist of the last 2 centuries. Certainly on a very short list.
Picasso was unbelievably prolific and creative. That earns him enormous respect. He created art works of all levels of quality.
You may not like someone's art. That means exactly nothing about the quality of the art. You have to ask: why do art historians consider this guy's work great? Then see if you can discover for yourself.
There are a number of artists that garner respect that is questionable, in terms of just what they accomplished and the lasting influence on other artists. The DADA group immediately comes to mind. Even though
Duchamp created some early great works, his lasting influence is rather nihilistic and has actually set the whole art world back for the last 50+ years.But, hey everyone makes a mistake once in awhile, even the critics and historians.
But this is no art history class.
Is pseudo-intellectual an actual concept, or a political construct.Later
D
> > Picasso most certainly was NOW a hack. < <
***Sorry, V, I didn't get that.Was meant to be "Picasso most certainly was NOT a hack".
Meaning that it is hard to argue withe the contribution the man had made to art.
The discussions of the type "I don't like Brahms!" are not new. As one gets older one usually also gets cooler during those. Nihilist tends to dissipate with age... but you read Turgenev, I am sure.
Next time you're in Paris, check out the Picasso Museum. His drawings alone place him in a category quite above the considerable skills of V G. Then, take into account the complexity of Picasso's development beyond Cubism, i.e. the Blue and Pink periods. Well, V G is like the Beatles, every one likes him. He's very accessible for the masses, being one dimensional.Oh, by the way, Picasso is also generally considered one of the finest sculptors, in many mediums (clay, metal, etc). Regarding influence, he is indisputably the most important artist of the last 100 years. But, hey, some folks don't like Michelangelo...
I must say, in closing, it is outrageous to find an audiophile extoling the virtues of a gentleman who chopped off one of his hearing organs!
Restaurant in Las Vegas. No kidding. It's no doubt even more of a treat if you're a fan of his art.I'm going to San Franciso on the 24th and will most probably check out the SFMOMA. Maybe the "Torso de femme" (which looks like one of his better efforts) is more impressive in person. If I have anything positive to post, I'll make sure to do so. Otherwise, I'll keep my mouth shut which I should have done in the first place.
I AM a fan of the Jon Lovitz "Picasso" sketch on SNL.
Funny about the ear chopping.When I was in Paris, I didn't go to the Picasso museum -- I should have and will check it out next time. I have seen various periods of his and have never been impressed. Last year I viewed a few of his sketches showing at the Matisse museum in Nice (I really liked the Chagall museum as well, even though he was quite warped). I didn't make it to Paris last year (just visited Cannes, Nice and Monaco in May -- Cannes is great fun during the festival). In Paris, I only took in the museum for "the masses" -- the Louvre. By the way, I love the modern geometric entrance to the Louvre. (This is another viewpoint that would get me blasted by traditionalists, but feel the design is outstanding and appropriate).
I like many other modern and impressionist artists including Pollock, Pissarro, and many other lesser known artists in addition to standard favorites such as Manet and Monet. Still, I never get tired of Van Gogh -- especially in person -- just amazing composition, color and texture. I find some of Pollock's paintings absolutely stunning in person. Pollock would be one who is not typically for the masses and one I greatly prefer to Picasso.
They have a tremendous collection of modern work at the Albright Knox museum here, which I've enjoyed many times over the years. My family has a couple paintings from local artists who became quite well known -- Walter Pechownick and Walter Garver. For a while, growing up, I had a Walter Garver painting in my room. I feel it's one of his better works a slightly abstract depiction of a Dutch boy with his toy windmill. It's quite different from most of his offerings, and I think miles better. I prefer either of these relatively unknown artists to Picasso.
Picasso could be considered an artist for the masses, really. He's just as well known as Van Gogh. We all have different tastes. My view on Picasso is not a popular one, especially among academic types. I haven't had a Picasso discussion in well over 15 yrs and perhaps shouldn't have gotten into it. There was a time when I was well versed on it and used to like to discuss it. Even as I've aged and now like jazz rather than r&b, I don't like Picasso any more. As far as the Picasso's go, I think Paloma has done better work than Pablo.
There is a reason many people like the Beatles and Van Gogh -- they're good! I think Picasso's paintings brought more money in relation to Van Gogh's paintings 20 years ago than they do today. The Van Gogh's have been priced out of this world in recent years, which has not surprised me.
What do you mean with " warped" ?
Basically what I was talking about was his fixation with angel/Jesus/devil themes (with a side order of roosters/chickens?)and their portrayal.For example, "Abraham et les trois Anges" is an enormous canvas (all of his paintings in the gallery are enormous) of overwhelming dark red with three angels holding chickens(?) as Abraham looks on.
There was an after-world theme to many of the paintings in the gallery and some of them really struck me as funny or over the top. They reminded me of that comical painting in "Mickey Blue Eyes" where Jesus is mowing people down with a machine gun.
Not that I didn't like the paintings -- quite the opposite -- they just struck me as a little bent.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
