Picasso's Gertrude Stein
Marilyn Welch
There were about 80 sittings, it took long because of the
dialogue between the two strong, charismatic people
who admired each other intensely. Picasso, so used to
always being in control of every conversation, was
fascinated by Stein. He painted what he thought of her
- not a photo-realistic representation. The fact that
Gertrude Stein accepted and loved the portrait of
herself is living proof that the portrait was successful.
She herself, the subject, accepted the truth which
Picasso revealed about her in his image of her.
It is a poetic truth which is not to be analyzed
like a police identity photo of a victim.
Marilyn
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, mdeli wrote:
> A good early example of No Skill Realism is Picasso’s "Portrait of
> Gertrude Stein" (1906). I have seen it in the museum many times and
> always wondered why it should hang there.
>
> I challenge anyone here to deny that if this painting was hanging
> among others in some university hallway among the usual portraits and
> signed R. Mutt it would be judged the worst and would never get a
> second look. No street corner portraitist would get paid for such a
> hack work.
>
> Perhaps someone here will provide a more complimentary version of my
> critique.
>
> Picasso is said to have worked extremely hard on the Gertrude Stein
> portrait taking many sittings and then revising it without the model a
> year later.
>
> Here we have a very conventional portrait. The placement and
> composition are utterly conventional. The face and hands are solid
> although the rest is far less finished.
>
> The eyes and part of the mouth are like decals that have been
> transferred to a solid head which looks like it was sculpted in rough,
> carelessly tinted plaster. The wig looks like a mud flap that is
> beginning to slide down the face and along the side of a flat pancake
> ear. Unable to realistically separate the background and the cheek,
> Picasso drew a brown line around it.
>
> In order to get the best overview of the rest of this painting, cover
> the face with a scrap of paper torn to fit over it and look at the
> remainder of the picture. Note the "brown sauce" effect which is a
> term accusingly used to point out a characteristic of academic
> monotony. The solidity of the head and hands give way to a body which
> is little more than an amorphous brown blob. Under a little scrutiny
> the background deteriorates into a lot of dry brown crudely blended
> schmier. Even the color is terrible and doesn’t display Picasso’s
> colorist’s skill.
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
>
mdeli
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> Picasso, so used to
>always being in control of every conversation, was
>fascinated by Stein. He painted what he thought of her
>- not a photo-realistic representation.
So what does your higher intellect gather about what Picasso thought
of Stein from your looking at the portrait?
Bet she gives us her usual vacuous drivel or ignores the question.
> The fact that
>Gertrude Stein accepted and loved the portrait of
>herself is living proof that the portrait was successful.
Whether someone likes something or not in no way makes it a
masterpiece.
>She herself, the subject, accepted the truth which
>Picasso revealed about her in his image of her.
And what truth is that?
>It is a poetic truth which is not to be analyzed
>like a police identity photo of a victim.
Translation: it means I can't say anything more about my idiotic
statement.
Walter Idema
eloquently here. I had no recollection of the Gertrude Stein protrait, but
your perfectly detailed verbal representation brings it clearly to mind.
The mere fact that we are familiar at all with this work is the only reason
I would agree that it belongs in some sort of museum.
When I first discovered I had a natural ability to draw and paint I studied
informally on my own. I remember being amazed with Picasso's work as it
appeared in print. I made some modest pocket change with some of my work
intended for my own living room, but when I tried to get rich quick by
immitating the "great master" Picasso I received less money than open
contempt. I thought to myself what a genius the man must be, and wondered
what secrets I was lacking. I moved on with my own style, though I still
haven't gained any sort of big success, (much I will blame on illness). I
had taken some formal training and began to figure out that Picasso may well
have had some mad genius and a bit of luck to boost his career along with
charisma and connections, not to mention strong persistence. But if there
are any other secrets lurking within his actual work, I am quite satisfied
that they will not be included in anything else I produce as long I wish to
aspire to beauty and/or mastery.
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3900d374...@news.psi.ca...
mdeli
<dayd...@iserv.net> wrote:
>Well they asked for it Mdeli. You are extremely descriptive and expound
>eloquently here.
Thanks for making the point.
I have often described works here. It is unfortunate that we can't
show actual pictures here. Try looking on my website for the subject,
Behind the Behind" and you will see why I find this regrettable.
You will notice that my opponents here rarely answer any of my serious
points.
I believe that most artzy fartzies are so puffed up in religious
ecstasy that they fail to look carefully at what they admire and see
the devil in most contemporary work which shows superior craft. They
rarely compare anything and know almost nothing about the realities of
the art world and art history. They remind me of fundamentalists who
never did a carefully read of the bible but talk endlessly of their
love for it and are always ready to condemn anyone to the flames who
points out its contradictions, absurdities and ugliness.