 
|
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: Re: It's funny... posted by highendman on April 15, 2002 at 16:48:18:
>>Like I said, I feel he was given way too much credit for a concept.<<Which concept of his do you mean?
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
