For Picasso's Naysayers ...
Will Call
For all the Picasso naysayers out there who denounce
Picasso as an artist who had no real skills, if you are
able to, don't miss the current exhibit discussed in the
following clips from a much longer text / review:
By age 25, the painter had already produced a rich body of work
and experimented with many styles
Was there a Picasso before Cubism? The answer, made clear by the
National Gallery of Art's ``Picasso, the Early Years, 1892-1906,'' is
a resounding ``yes.''
In 152 paintings, drawings, pastels, prints, and sculpture from
this period, some borrowed from as far away as Russia and the Czech
Republic, we see Picasso's restless search for new kinds of
expression. They also show the artist's passion for, and obsession
with, the human form, and his use of the human figure in all his
styles and expressions.
As exhibit co-curator Jeffrey Weiss emphasizes, ``Picasso set a
quick pace of change in these early years. He was omnivorous in moving
from style to style.''
Mr. Weiss characterizes this early work spanning 14 years, ``as a
separate and definite body of work, distinct from his other styles,
and having a beginning, a middle, and an end.''
'Picasso, the Early Years, 1892-1906' remains at the National
Gallery through July 27 before appearing at the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, from Sept. 10 until Jan. 4, 1998.
-=-=-
Elliot Iver
It isn't the early stuff that Picasso naysayers remark on, it
is the stuff AFTER 1906.
And, what is the big deal about going from style to style? Henri
Rousseau
was a much greater painter than Pablum, and he knew it, acknowledged it.
Picasso offered nothing more than the progressive schematization of
the
human form. Other than the 'Weeping Woman' I have never found his work
to add up to much, and add up is what one needs to do, because none of
his
paintings hold water alone.
IMHO, of course
Elliot Iver
RoyGBivart
Dear Elloit:
You are an idoit! Before you make stupid statements about Picasso, you
should do a little study.
Picasso was unique because he was ahead of society for decades. Most
successful artists have only one period when they are ahead of society.
Picasso had 5.
You are so ignorant I don't have the energy to try and teach you. You are
a lost cause. I hope that you one day see the horror of Guernica and try
to portray it. I hope that you find a bicycle seat and handlebar in the
street and try to create something. I hope you go back to the same THREE,
(not one, stupid), subjects throughout your psudo-career, and constantly
re-interpret...making them relevent.
Your moronic statements in your letter are not worthy of consideration.
(Note: I am not considering them, I am telling you that you know
nothing!)
Sincerely,
Roy
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
RoyGBivart wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Dear Elloit:
<BR>
<BR>You are an idoit! Before you make stupid statements about Picasso,
you
<BR>should do a little study.
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you disagree but but I think you are bing foolish for being so enamored
of Picasso. Of course to even insert a comment into your foolish
rant makes me just as foolish. It is just that I don't have that
much respect for Picasso's overall performance.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Picasso was unique because he was ahead of society for decades. Most
<BR>successful artists have only one period when they are ahead of society.
<BR>Picasso had 5.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
What's this ahead of society crap. The society hasn't caught up to
Alfred Sisley yet. And you think Picasso was something to rave about.
And I aint speking conceptually here.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>You are so ignorant I don't have the energy to try and teach you.
You are
<BR>a lost cause. I hope that you one day see the horror of Guernica
and try
<BR>to portray it. I hope that you find a bicycle seat and handlebar
in the
<BR>street and try to create something. I hope you go back to the same
THREE,
<BR>(not one, stupid), subjects throughout your psudo-career, and constantly
<BR>re-interpret...making them relevent.
<BR>
<BR>Your moronic statements in your letter are not worthy of consideration.
<BR>(Note: I am not considering them, I am telling you that you know
<BR>nothing!)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Your attitude is only worthy of your egotistical stance as some kind of
authority. Your teaching is crap if it is grounded in Picasso's aesthetic.
Anyone can throw words around. You horrify me with your arrogance.
Oh, yes let's bow down to the great god of 20th Century stardom.
Pablo Picasso. He can kiss my ass.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Sincerely,
<BR>
<BR>Roy
</BLOCKQUOTE>
--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR><A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions.com">http://www.worldlightproductions.com</A>
<BR>'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
RoyGBivart
Dear William:
It is quite obvious you not only know nothing about Picaso, but you know
nothing about art. It is amaising you can comment on subjects and
examples that you know nothing about. Do yourself a favor...go to your
grade school art teacher and repeat what you wrote, using my examples. (I
say grade school because no one in a higher grade could be so lacking in
knowledge as you.
Fact: Picasso changed the art world.
Fact: If it wasn't for Picasso, the wonderful experimetation and open
mindedness that today exists in the art world would not exist.
Fact: Picasso is considered the prime artist of the 20th century.
Fact: You have no knowledge and probably, judging on what you say about a
giant, no talent.
Sincerely,
Roy
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
RoyGBivart wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Dear William:
<BR>
<BR>It is quite obvious you not only know nothing about Picaso, but you know
<BR>nothing about art. It is amaising you can comment on subjects and
<BR>examples that you know nothing about. Do yourself a favor...go to
your
<BR>grade school art teacher and repeat what you wrote, using my examples.
(I
<BR>say grade school because no one in a higher grade could be so lacking in
<BR>knowledge as you.
<BR>
<BR>Fact: Picasso changed the art world.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I think Picasso changed to meet what he saw were the
demands of the marketplace. I think he was more a product of the
art world than the great 'innovator'.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Fact: If it wasn't for Picasso, the wonderful experimetation and
open
<BR>mindedness that today exists in the art world would not exist.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I think he owed his career to the great innovators and true modern masters.
Artists like Alfred Sisley, Cezanne, Monet, Van Gogh, Degas, Le Trec,
Manet, Pissaro, Morisot, Gauguin, Bernard, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Fact: Picasso is considered the prime artist of the 20th century.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously not by everyone.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Fact: You have no knowledge and probably, judging on what you say
about a
<BR>giant, no talent.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Among dwarfs he is a giant.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>Sincerely,
<BR>
<BR>Roy
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Sincerely,
<BR>
<BR>--
mdeli
Although Picasso painted considerably better than most of what
followed as supposedly great art, he just doesn’t rank as the great
artist critics make him out to be. At his best his draftsmanship is
ordinary. It is his most realistic work which fetches the highest
prices. I believe this occurs because those richies enamored with
Picasso have gotten so used to Picasso’s brand of incompetent ugliness
that when they sense even a touch of beauty from their idol the
richest of the lot shells out the cash. The ordinary every day mass
produced common Picasso trash feeds the slum dweller class of the
poorer rich.
Picasso’s great influence mainly inspired later generations of art
hacks to ever increasing degrees of incompetence. Even Picasso was
wary of Abstract Expressionism. The present results are twits the
likes of Twombly, Rothko and de Kooning.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Robert J. Fusillo
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) wrote:
: Although Picasso painted considerably better than most of what
: followed as supposedly great art, he just doesn’t rank as the great
: artist critics make him out to be. At his best his draftsmanship is
: ordinary. It is his most realistic work which fetches the highest
: prices. I believe this occurs because those richies enamored with
: Mani DeLi
: ...no skill no art
As with many other things, Mani is wrong about the market. The
Cubist works get the highest prices by far, follwed by the 20's and 30's
stuff. The early, pop-simple stuff such as is showing in D.C. is loved
and reproduced a lot, but doesn't get nealy the prices of others. Evebn the
generally diosmissed late stuff gets more. See your oocal Sotheby's
catalog,
A Parable
Some years ago, while hitchhiking in England, I was picked up by the
president of the Oxford Society, a group dedicated to proving that
Shakespeare was "really" the Earl Of Oxford. She had spent a life
of arguing, writing, and lecturing in The Cause. I has just seen
a marvelous production of Richard III at Stratford, and asked her
( she lived twenty miles away) if she had seen it. " Oh, no," she said
"I never see the plays!"
I cannot but wonder if the Mani's and others like her ever
look at paintings.
But don't be hard on Mani. She is obviously a Puritan who
feels guilty with the idea of any pleasure outside a carefully
proscribed boundary.
No New Experiences, No Need To Be Awake
RJF
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
mdeli wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Although Picasso painted considerably better than
most of what
<BR>followed as supposedly great art, he just doesn’t rank as the great
<BR>artist critics make him out to be. At his best his draftsmanship
is
<BR>ordinary.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I would like to comment here. To me Picasso was a great draftsman.
I love the simplicity and directness. It shows great mastery.
Do you consider it ordinary because of its simplicity? It is
no easy feat to be so direct and skillful. I think you betray your
neo-classical sensibilities with this comment.
<BR>
<BR>-snip-
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> Mani DeLi
<BR>...no skill no art
</BLOCKQUOTE>
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
An apology here. I feel rather foolish for saying Picasso can kiss
my ass. That was a barbaric sentiment and my apologies for all who
care. I have a great deal of respect for Picasso actually.
I think he was a failed genius. I think he was a victim of the times.
Of course he shows genius. It is just that the domination of his
name in twentieth century art history is in my opinion quite destructive,
and serves the marketplace more than it does the art, as Picasso himself
did. I don't believe he had the depth of understanding of a Cezanne
or a Monet. He didn't dig as deep or go as far. If one takes
a work by the man and examines it. You find that the image dominates
the painting. So what if the image is twisted or convoluted.
Yes, that can be interesting, but why is that any more important
when speaking of the art of painting than an image that does not distort.
Why is it any more interesting? I could care less, myself.
What is important is a balance of motif (image, subject matter, that which
moves the artist), brush, color, composition. Whenever the subject
matter is the dominant event whether that subject matter is abstract or
representational, you are in the realm of the conceptual, of what Cezanne
called the 'literary spirit' and out of the realm of 'Painting'.
that which concerns itself with the rythyms and harmonies of brush and
color, conducted by the artist's thought and feeling, in relation to the
motif. Thus it is not the image which dominates but the artist's
handling of the medium and what that says about the artist's consciousness.
<BR> I mean, it is bullshit when a portrait by Picasso
done of the Poet Apollinaire (I believe) sells for 24 million. Bought
by Andrew LLoyd Webber's Foundation for some London Museum. Feel
free to correct if my facts are off. It's not a bad portrait.
But I would venture to say there are many portraits by artists alive today
that are as profound. Wouldn't it be much more intelligent to actually
go out and build a new museum and fill it full of portraits for the same
amount of money and benefit the artists alive and struggling? Well
maybe that purchase and the money transaction actually have nothing to
do with art. Is it possible? Maybe it only has to do with what
'appears' to be a financial transaction. Maybe someone out there
could explain.
<BR> Anyway God Bless the working artists. May we all
keep on keeping on.
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
RoyGBivart
Dear Hugood:
If one was to pick an art movement to describe your knowledge of Picasso,
it would be Minimalist. You know nothing about Picasso, and your
observations are worthless. Why don't you, (and those like you), do some
serious study before you open your mouths. I can't believe you can really
believe such tripe.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
William DeRaymond wrote:
>I would like to comment here. To me Picasso was a great draftsman.
>I love the simplicity and directness. It shows great mastery.
>Do you consider it ordinary because of its simplicity? It is
>no easy feat to be so direct and skillful. I think you betray your
>neo-classical sensibilities with this comment.
I have no neo-classic sensibilities. The average student imagines that
a rejection of Modern Academic Art entails a return to the subject
matter of the past. This is the sort of stuff art teachers who have no
skill tell their students in order to avoid any demands from them to
be taught skill and craft.
In judging the boy academic Picasso critics take great pains to point
out his classical ability. They love to assure us that, underneath it
all, Picasso, even then, was a most sensitive and able classical
draftsman. This admiration for the academic Picasso is often used as
an excuse to help justify his questionable later works. When someone
points out an error in Picasso's drawing or sloppiness in his
painting, the critic can retort, "This only looks bad to you because
you don't really understand; a look at Picasso's student work should
easily convince you that he could really draw well whenever he wanted
to!"
MAA critics who use this argument must be blind to skill. For any
careful viewer of these early works can see that here at his very
beginning is exactly where Picasso lacked skill. These academic works
already hint at his future. They exhibit careless proportion and most
important, a lack of ability in creating detail. Even at his best
Picasso was a mediocre draftsman early on and always thereafter.
In his 1897 "Science and Charity," [ILLUSTRATION] one can clearly see
all kinds of errors even in small reproductions. This picture, which
is very large and very uninteresting, shows no originality. The aim of
the picture was to portray sentiment and realism in the academic
style. Here, especially in rendering the cloth, Picasso sacrifices
care to speed. Neither the mirror over the bed nor the wall cabinet is
in perspective with the flat looking bed. The face of the nun and her
hand are carelessly rendered. The stripes on the blanket are wrong.
Errors here show rather glaringly because the aim of this painting was
full realism. Any form of highly realistic painting magnifies even the
smallest error. With MAA almost any "error" can be made to disappear
and just about everything can be left askew. Much MAA could be seen as
a balance of errors which the critics call distortions. All this
passes unnoticed to an eye which has grown accustomed to seeing these
so called distortions.
Picasso's best most technically correct early portraits are in reality
little more than correct. They are conventional and show no particular
creative flair. None really outranks the work of a very ordinary,
though perhaps older, street-corner portraitist. In truth these works
are far less amazing than ecstatic MAA critics like to make out.
It is certainly true, as some critics claim, that Picasso painted like
a twenty-year-old at the tender age of fourteen. However, his academic
abilities did not improve beyond those of a very average
twenty-one-year-old. This was really no great achievement for one who
is sometimes ranked among the "greatest artists who ever lived."
I know of no academically well-trained artists who once having had the
ability to draw in a masterful academic manner consistently turn out
poor, error-riddled drawings. On the other hand the untrained MAA
practitioner doesn't turn out fine drawing simply because he can't.
For the requirements of MAA, however, Picasso's academic knowledge was
exceedingly substantial. It went far beyond that of his competitors.
It was from this academic training that Picasso learned one of his
many secret methods, namely the ability to produce some degree of
three dimensionality, a degree which always managed to make his work
look at least one notch rounder than that of his competitors. Picasso
was the MAA practitioner with the greatest number of little secrets at
his command.
mdeli
Dear Roy,
I've been reading this sort of crap here for the last two years.
The fact is that you don't know anything about what I know. Your
knowledge about me is nil.
As to your statement about serious study etc. I can only say pass out
homework to your students. This sort of patronizing bullshit doesn't
rank here. I haven't read anything by you that says more then
permutations of the statement, " I like Picasso."
For starters you can criticize my Picasso Challenge and inform us of
some of you vast Picasso knowledge.
mdeli
RJF wrote:
> I cannot but wonder if the Mani's and others like her ever
>look at paintings.
This patronizing nitwit imagines that anyone who disagrees with him
about painting "never looked at paintings."
The fact is that most Modern Academic artists don't know anything
about the Academic art of the 19th century and only know the history
of the crap that hangs in the modern sections of most museums.
> But don't be hard on Mani. She is obviously a Puritan who
>feels guilty with the idea of any pleasure outside a carefully
>proscribed boundary.
> No New Experiences, No Need To Be Awake
>RJF
You are the one who is locked in a " proscribed boundary" of utter
conformity. Modern Academic Art is an antiquated put-on for those who
confine their viewing to almost nothing else.
James Thomas
Wow!!!! Another typical Roy posting. Come on Roy, get with it. Define
Minimalist Movement. Who were the predoment artist during this Minimalist
Movement? Study???? Why do we need to study when we can wait for his
eminance, Old Roy, to give us the Art 101 on the newsgroup. Please Roy,
define tripe.
The Artist,
Ron
RoyGBivart <roygb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970416182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Elliot Iver
William DeRaymond wrote:
>
> Anyway God Bless the working artists. May we all keep on keeping
> on.
And thank God we live after Picasso. Picasso ruined the art world.
Picasso was the first artist who's work needed an intellectual
justification
which was an a priori necessity before 'appreciating' his work. Each
painting
became a stylistic march toward greater degrees of deconstruction.
Nothing too difficult there, since it doesn't matter what you paint.
This gave helped to evolve what is now a purely market driven art
world.
I feel for the legions of painters who died for Picasso's sins. The
many
who will always be nameless because they could only produce 20
paintings
a year instead of 5 a day.
The complete and total ignorance of technique is Picasso's legacy,
and that
is all, because there is no legacy, unless you call total reductionism
and the
violation of the basic conditions by which a painting is understood a
legacy,
along with false notions of avant-guardism.
A lot of this is unfortunate, and much was not intentional on his
part,
granted. Picasso was valuable as an icon of Genius, and a standard of
value
in a world gone mad. He had a great heart, and helped a lot of artists
get
out of Europe. His comment to Peggy Guggenheim, 'the bargain section
is
downstairs' was great.
La Guernica was nice for a third grade trip to the museum.
Elliot Iver
Elliot Iver
Apologies for the reader/writer errors.
Elliot
Paul Hutchinson &/or Dale Copeland
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear Paul:
>
> There is no such thing as Post Modern Art. It's Post Modernist Art. Pick
> up a dictionary and look up post, Modernist and art. I'm sure you will be
> able to figure it out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Roy
Dear Roy:
Silly me ! Of course you are right. Though perhaps you should heed your
own advice. I suggest you pick up your own (well thumbed I am sure)
dictionary and look up the words: pompous, patronising and (perhaps most
pertinently), prat.
Sincerely,
Paul
--
Puniho Art
mailto:pun...@netsource.co.nz
http://www.co.nz/puniho
Paul Hutchinson and/or Dale Copeland
mdeli
On 17 Apr 1997 07:29:34 GMT, "James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net>
wrote:
>Wow!!!! Another typical Roy posting. Come on Roy, get with it. Define
>Minimalist Movement. Who were the predoment artist during this Minimalist
>Movement? Study???? Why do we need to study when we can wait for his
>eminance, Old Roy, to give us the Art 101 on the newsgroup. Please Roy,
>define tripe.
>The Artist,
>Ron
I'll do it.
Minimalism, is the direction of all Modern Academic Art.
The idea rests on the pseudo philosophical idea, that by eliminating
as much as possible from an artwork, the artist in effect has
preserved the essence of practically everything .
Modern Academic Art of this century started by modestly eliminating
what was in the past considered essential to an artwork. Gradually the
minimalist painter produced works exhibiting a minimal of skill,
ideas, and intellect. His only talent if any lay in the verbiage he
produced in order to excuse the lack of content in his artwork.
This has given writers an opportunity to practice Maximalism; that is
the ability to expand ad nauseum what can be written in a few words.
It has also given museum curators an opportunity to express their
favoritism and work in collusion with dealers and critics.
The successful minimalist is a rare specimen. He is ultimately gauged
by how much currency he can get out of a rich buyer who is betting
that the value his purchase has not yet reached its maximum.
But the vast majority of minimalists are failures who complain that
they are neither the subject of maxamilist writers, the beneficiaries
of rich buyers or the darlings of museum curators. They never seem to
understand why they earn such minimal amounts of money.
Mani DeLi.
...no skill no art
RoyGBivart
Dear Elliot:
You know not about what you speak. So foolish and moronic. Just one
example of the thousands of artists who needed intellectual justification
befor Picasso: Domenico Theotocopoulos. As a side note, I feel he is the
greatest painter of all time.
Enough said! Your absurdities deserve no further thought.
Sincerely,
Roy
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
mdeli wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><I> </I>
<BR>
<BR>I have no neo-classic sensibilities.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I only seem to hear neo-classic sensibilities come from you. Sorry.
<BR>-snip-
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>MAA critics who use this argument must be blind to skill. For any
<BR>careful viewer of these early works can see that here at his very
<BR>beginning is exactly where Picasso lacked skill. These academic works
<BR>already hint at his future. They exhibit careless proportion and most
<BR>important, a lack of ability in creating detail.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, i do think I understand how you perceive skill and technique.
To my way of seeing, Picasso could do what he wanted.
<BR>And he did. I personally think he made some bad choices, but we tend
to be ruled by the times we live in.
<BR>
<BR>I don't think we can ever agree, but I will try to explain to you there
is more than one level of detail. You have the simple first level
of being able to reproduce the detail that you see, or think you see before
you. Truth is there is nothing more detailed than nature herself.
The awesome detail of nature. Impossible to reproduce in truth.
She moves too fast. One can only reproduce the illusion of that reality.
When you start to move into the realm of art, your skill or technique then
serves your vision and feeling and thinking. Detail starts to enter
into the realm of aesthetics. What might seem rough and unfinished
to the neo-classical mind set (which seems to prevail generally in the
masses because it is the easiest to see, 'obviously that artist is
good, look how well he can copy 'reality'), is actually a higher order
of detail. The artist might actually be showing the wonderful aesthetic
skill of mixing and expressing color and brush in terms of the subject
matter, instead of having the color and brush be dominated by the subject
matter. Why, what a novel concept! There is an infinite
field of color and relationship to explore. Why one might actually
be saying all sorts of things both witty, and humorous, and more profound
and philosophical and be painting a simple still life of apples and a vase.
Why, how remarkable! Maybe there is such a thing as a language of
painting. Do you think it's possible? Can you imagine that
maybe one could actually express themselves in terms of this mysterious
language. And not even be understood till they are dead. It
is hard to conceive of such a thing.
<BR>
<BR>-snip-
<BR>
<BR>I see picasso as a master draftsman, who drew with wonderful accuracy and
spontaneity. Sometimes he got hung up on the neo-modern subject matter
he was dealing with and his drawing suffers( by drawing I mean that flow,
that movement of pen and hand that doesn't get hung up in the conceptuality
of image, yet shows the wonderful dance that the medium can be. Everything
in that dance revealed to the viewer. No mistakes, just the purity
of self expression.) But he had the ability and expressed originality.
I don't see how you can say he lacked skill. I can imagine the wonderful
drawings of the Sculptor and models. The absolute subtlety and directness
of line and the amazing compositions. You cannot do that unless you
are a master. I'm sorry. That is the truth.
<BR>
<BR>Degas loved Cezanne's drawing. So do I, and many others. They
are aesthetic statements, very personal. You can see his early academic
drawings also. He took another road than the academic and raised
the artform into a higher aesthetic realm. Sorry, it is the truth.
Bottom line.
<BR>
<BR>'To each according to their karma.'
<BR>--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR><A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions.com">http://www.worldlightproductions.com</A>
<BR>'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
RoyGBivart wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Dear William:
<BR>
<BR>Interesting you should mention Cezanne when talking about Picasso.
The
<BR>fact is Cezanne was alive when Picasso's career started. Cezanne's
<BR>statement about Picasso was, "That young man is a great draftsman.
His
<BR>construction techniques are complete and wonderful." You know,
when you
<BR>bring up an artist when talking about others, you should know what the
<BR>position was of the person you mention.
<BR>
<BR>Sincerely,
<BR>
<BR>Roy
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Just because Cezanne appreciated the young Picasso's gifts, doesn't
mean picasso truly understood what Cezanne accomplished. I also appreciate
the young picasso and older picasso's as well, I just don't feel or see
that he understood painting as well as the generation before him.
In a way he was the first pop artist, riding on their energy, and waltzing
through the door they opened. Is he more advanced. I don't
think so. My feeling and thinking and teaching is that you must go
to impressionists and post impressionists to understand modernism, not
to picasso or matisse or kandinsky. To me , they are what I
call neo-modern, just the other side of the coin from the neo -classical.
Both put more emphasis on the image as the dominating event, as opposed
to the expression of the artform, of which the image is only a part, 'real'
or 'abstract'. For me that's the bottom line. of course you
are free to hold a different opinion.
<BR>
RoyGBivart
Dear William:
Interesting you should mention Cezanne when talking about Picasso. The
fact is Cezanne was alive when Picasso's career started. Cezanne's
statement about Picasso was, "That young man is a great draftsman. His
construction techniques are complete and wonderful." You know, when you
bring up an artist when talking about others, you should know what the
position was of the person you mention.
Sincerely,
Roy
RoyGBivart
Dear William:
You just can't see.
I would bet an arm that Cezanne would have been doing work very much like
Picasso if he had lived into the 30's...just not quite as good. Why don't
you read some of Cezanne's statements and writings about the future of
art? You have to remember, you are talking about a great that was part of
a movement, (though slightly to the right), that was the advent of the
changing of the defination of art. There are many writings about what
brought this group to their revoultionary stance.
Sincreely,
Roy
Wanax
>
> RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear Elloit:
>
> You are an idoit! Before you make stupid statements about
> Picasso, you
> should do a little study.
>
Here is the typical hoseheaded roy response to an adverse opinion. Well he has accused
me of not having an opinion. O.K., roy, here is my opinion:
Picasso was an utter bum. He drew with less skill than my children, and his paintings
are ugly non-things. He is revered soley because most of his generation were psychotic
in an existential realization of thier failure as a culture. The great experament of
world domination through cultural superiority was wrong and dead; now they had no hook
upon which to hang their greatness. Picasso's rubbish is simply a visual representation
of a poor underclass retched bum's perspective of a non-thing. Total crap!
If Picasso were to draw brokendown cities with youth wearing fatmen's pants in total
dispare with his disfunctional style this day in time, he would be laughed out of the
smallest gallery. His work is simply flat, ugly, and uninteresting. It is a glimps of
the mental disturbance of a bum. A topic I don't care to know much about visually.
Thanx.
Artists never determine what is art, thank God, and artists are always the worst art
critics; if someone finds Picasso's work good, then I'm happy for you. Try Goya for a
while, then if you prefer continue smoking your own brand. I'm not big on analisys
usually, but on Picasso I'm very clearly not in favor. IMHO, he has buggered modern art
as an expressive form and brought about the POP art culture that finally killed the
value of *fine* art. Cheapen, reduce, mass--the watchwords of Picasso's legacy.
Wanax
critical and unfair....too bad :(
Wanax
I speak for no 1
RoyGBivart
Dear Wanax:
Thanks for your opinion.
I must point out, your comment about, "...your children...." is a typical
one from people who have no knowledge. I'm glad people like you don't buy
art. You would never appreciate it. Better you buy an assembly line
seascape or landscape produced in Portugal or Spain with a phoney
signiture. That is your style.
The difference between your children and any artist is in comprehending
what is trying to be accomplished.
And...speaking of being psychotic...have you ever heard that people that
live in glass houses...as proven by your assanine statement about world
domination. Tell me, do you keep loaded guns in your house for your
children to play with? You know, for protection. I bet you do.
Your comment about children in the city....sounds like Clara Ford, a great
American painter from the 1950's and 60's. I have never seen anybody
laugh at any of her works. Also, I am the proud owner of two of her
works. Years ago we exchanged. I was honored.
Wanax, your position, by your own statements, is defeated. Keep trying,
though. One day you might say something worthwhile. You know, I bet it
will be a mistake.
Sincerely,
Roy
Wanax
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear Wanax:
>
> Thanks for your opinion.
>
> I must point out, your comment about, "...your children...." is a typical
> one from people who have no knowledge.
You are such an ass, Roy. I really don't think your working definition of the word
"knowledge" is viable, and your sentense structure above is abominable. Perhaps you
knowledge of grammar equals your knowledge of painting.
I'm glad people like you don't buy
> art.
Wrong.
You would never appreciate it.
Wrong again. Amazing how you jump to two immediate and wrong conclusions based on my
opinion of Piccasso's dirt washed vomit.
Better you buy an assembly line
> seascape or landscape produced in Portugal or Spain with a phoney
> signiture. That is your style.
And yet a third inncorrect conlusion. Your batting 1000 Roy.
>
> The difference between your children and any artist is in comprehending
> what is trying to be accomplished.
So, if you puke on the carpet as a simbol, then I should interpret it as having more
meaning than a child puking due to illness?
> And...speaking of being psychotic...have you ever heard that people that
> live in glass houses...as proven by your assanine statement about world
> domination.
Well, I see you didn't even read the post, as I was expressing the well documented agnst
of a generation that brought us WWI and II. Sorry to dip so far from your shores of
knowledge.
Tell me, do you keep loaded guns in your house for your
> children to play with? You know, for protection. I bet you do.
Yet a forth conclusion drawn from my opinion of Piccasso that typically has nothing to
do with the subject.
> Your comment about children in the city....sounds like Clara Ford, a great
> American painter from the 1950's and 60's. I have never seen anybody
> laugh at any of her works. Also, I am the proud owner of two of her
> works. Years ago we exchanged. I was honored.
And of course the finish with your typical spin off into orbits of totally irrelevant
and unrelated blather. The point here, Roy, was that Piccasso's tripe would buy him
coffee in modern times, and would be indistinguishable from most worthless modern
boobism art.
> Wanax, your position, by your own statements, is defeated.
What position, and how is it defeated, and what the F are you talking about now. Do you
see these debates as some fencing contest? Do you really see yourself taking on the
rest of the world as a crusader for art understanding? Do you notice people avoiding
you at parties, on buses, always?
Keep trying,
> though. One day you might say something worthwhile. You know, I bet it
> will be a mistake.
Nothing can be said by anyone worthwild here, as you continue to batter anyone with an
opinion for the sake of being on the attack. Your inferiority is showing, better zip up
while you can.
If that is really what you want, to be important because you irratate people, then I
suggest you try alt.flame instead of rec.arts.fine. At least there you'll be amongst
your own ilk.
Wanax
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Roy
GymbooAndie!
In my opinion Picasso opened the doos to art more then the creator that
give you hands! If that is called cheapened, then buy yourself a gumball
and chew it while watching your sitcom tv!
Gymbo!
David Falk
Wanax (bo...@lyon.york.lib.sc.us) wrote:
: And of course the finish with your typical spin off into orbits of totally irrelevant
: coffee in modern times, and would be indistinguishable from most worthless modern
: boobism art.
One small point. You can't take an artist out of his cultural
context, then compare him to current artistic sensibilities.
The genius of Picasso or any great artist is that they did
their great works in their own times. And while today, there
are many works that emulate the style of Picasso, in his time
Picasso was among the first of his kind. This is not to say
that some of his paintings weren't failures, but then an artist
who never fails, never tries to expand his horizons. And
clearly, Picasso was attempting to expand his horizons, at least
he was clearly doing this in the early stages of his career
when he was jumping from style to style.
However, your comment does bring out an interesting point.
On the one hand, a good majority of modern art is not given
any respect outside of the art world, while on the other
classical art is stone cold dead and impressionism is passe.
There are no more new styles in this era of transavantegardism.
Perhaps, all that an artist can do now is to follow the aesthetic
path, and hope for the best. In short, a modern painter should
do what he wants, and let the critics sort out the rest.
As an aside, IMHO, Picasso's art is an aquired taste like fine
wine. Not everybody can appreciated it.
Talk to you later....
Dave.
--
David Falk URL http://www.sparrowarts.com
(da...@sparrowarts.com) Sparrow Arts Gallery
Sparrow Arts has moved! Check out the new Sparrow Arts Web site.
Jeweler, Artist, Bladesmith, Philosopher, SysAdmin, Danzan Ryu - Rokyu
mdeli
On 1 May 1997 17:34:13 GMT, da...@sparrowarts.com (David Falk) wrote:
>One small point. You can't take an artist out of his cultural
>context, then compare him to current artistic sensibilities.
Nonsense. For example, I can compare two portraits done centuries
apart. I can compare techniques and subject matter.
>The genius of Picasso or any great artist is that they did
>their great works in their own times. And while today, there
>are many works that emulate the style of Picasso, in his time
>Picasso was among the first of his kind. This is not to say
>that some of his paintings weren't failures, but then an artist
>who never fails, never tries to expand his horizons. And
>clearly, Picasso was attempting to expand his horizons, at least
>he was clearly doing this in the early stages of his career
>when he was jumping from style to style.
>
This is the mistaken idea that doing something first has infinite
artistic value. The first nitwit to do a stripe painting or a maga
drip is supposedly great and all others mere imitators. I reject all
stripe and drip paintings because the have no quality worth
considering. Interestingly no one can prove who the first stripe or
drip painter was. There were idiots long before Mondrian who painted
stripes and the great mural painters of the past created large dipped
drop cloths which for good reasons get no credit.
>However, your comment does bring out an interesting point.
>On the one hand, a good majority of modern art is not given
>any respect outside of the art world, while on the other
>classical art is stone cold dead and impressionism is passe.
To someone like you who only looks at modern art. Speak for yourself.
>As an aside, IMHO, Picasso's art is an aquired taste like fine
>wine. Not everybody can appreciated it.
No, Picasso is like crappy wine for one who doesn't take the
opportunity to taste anything else.