Picasso challenge
mdeli
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 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
Mark Harden
Nice to see you back, it's been pretty thin around here: but isn't
this a rerun?
Mark
In order to foil bulk emailers, my email address is incorrect. To send me email, please remove the "xxx" from the beginning of my email address.
James Thomas
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<33552e50...@news.interlog.com>...
>
> I challenge anyone here to deny that 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.
>
on this particular painting. Personally, I thank that the painting may
have been a study done by Picasso, not intended to be a finished work.
Only Picasso, personlly, could verify otherwise. Probably some Roy type
found it and said, "Wow, a Picas, must be worth thousands" and proceded to
pretend to like it so he could sell it to the university.
Watchout, here come da Roy -----
Ron
Robert J. Fusillo
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) 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.
: 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.
: …no skill no art
Mani here is unhappy because P follopws convention. Elswhere she
is unhappy that he doesn't ( which she automatically assumes means can't).
In another posting, Mani does what appears to be her mindreading
act as usual -- she knows what Picasso, and other can and can't do,
what they think, and what their skills are. She knows these things
instinctively, I assume. She also, from one simple posting, knows about me,
and attacks my limited boundaries. In fact, I am failry well known
collector ( dozens of my things good enough to reproduced in books and
mags) writer, and museum lecturer. My collection includes Ancient greek
and roman artifacts, medieval manuscripts, 14th to 18th century
Indian sculpture, 19th cent. French painting ( Corot, Millet), 20th cent.
British painting and sculpture, and even, by God, two Picassos.
Mani seems to have such a large chip on her shoulder she can't see
around it in any direction. So she just keeps repeating the same old
arguments and accusations she appears to have copied from the popular
press of the 1920's. No new ideas, no need to make new sentences, I
suppose. But as long as she continues to practice criticism thru
mindreading, people will continue to laugh at her.
rjf
RoyGBivart
Dear Mani:
You picked a very interesting work by Picasso, the 'Portrait of Gertrude
Stein'. Perhaps a little history might help you.
Ms. Stein went for years to a friend of Picasso asking for him to arrange
to have Picasso paint her portrait. For years this friend tried, Picasso
always refusing. Finally, Picasso gave in, and Ms. Stein showed up at his
studio. The first problem...Ms. Stein wanted to dictate posture, dress
and background. From there it got worse.
Finally, Picasso told Ms. Stein and his friend that he could not do the
painting. He had no emotional tie with the subject matter. She insisted
on seeing the work as he progressed, and would make suggestions. He felt
that he could not find any emotion in the subjest. He would work for a
day, and the next day have no connection with what he created. So, he
stopped working on it, refusing all offers of money to continue.
A year later he finished the painting, as a dual statement: 1) Why
artists should not do work they have no feeling for, (unless for study).
2) His feelings for Ms. Stein.
You are right, the work is not one of his best. Perhaps his statements
are worth study? I feel they are. Finally, all artists, even the giants
do work that is not superior.
Sincerely,
Roy
RoyGBivart
Dear Rjf:
Perhaps Mani should know some history about 'Portrait of Gertrude Stein'?
After all, she did pick one of his lesser works.
Ms. Stein went for years to a friend of Picasso asking for him to arrange
to have Picasso paint her portrait. For years this friend tried, Picasso
always refusing. Finally, Picasso gave in, and Ms. Stein showed up at his
studio. The first problem...Ms. Stein wanted to dictate posture, dress
and background. From their it got worsee.
Finally, Picasso told Ms. Stein and his friend that he could not do the
painting. He had no emotional tie with the subject matter. She insisted
on seeing the work as he progressed, and would make suggestions. He felt
that he could not find and emotion in the subject. He would work for a
day, and the next day have no connection wirth what he had created. So,
he stopped working on it, refusing all offers of money to continue.
A year later he finished the painting, as a dual statememt: 1) Why
artists should not do work they have no feeling for, (unless for study).
2) His feelings for Ms. Stein.
Mani was right, the work is not one of his best. Picasso would agree
quickly. Perhaps his statements are worth study? I feel they are.
Finally, all artists...even the giants, do work that is not superior.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
On 17 Apr 1997 14:05:16 GMT, rfus...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu (Robert J.
Fusillo) wrote:
>mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) 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.
>
>
>: 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.
>
>Mani here is unhappy because P follopws convention.
The usual psychobabble from a jerk who has nothing to say.
> Elswhere she
I'm a male but you can address me as you wish.
>is unhappy that he doesn't ( which she automatically assumes means can't).
> In another posting, Mani does what appears to be her mindreading
>act as usual -- she knows what Picasso, and other can and can't do,
Right, Picasso lacks skill, he's a third rate draftsman and doesn't
deserve to be called a great artist.
>what they think, and what their skills are. She knows these things
>instinctively, I assume. She also, from one simple posting, knows about me,
>and attacks my limited boundaries. In fact, I am failry well known
>collector ( dozens of my things good enough to reproduced in books and
>mags) writer, and museum lecturer. My collection includes Ancient greek
>and roman artifacts, medieval manuscripts, 14th to 18th century
>Indian sculpture, 19th cent. French painting ( Corot, Millet), 20th cent.
>British painting and sculpture, and even, by God, two Picassos.
Frankly I don't give a shit.
I'm also a collector I have Jap. prints and classical graphics and
contemporary paintings, illustrated books and my paintings are in
collections. This doesn't give you or I any authority here whatsoever.
What is said here is judged on the basis of its content and you
haven't said a damned thing refuting any of my statements. Stating
your pedigree is fine for your ego and your lectures where I'm sure
people come to agree with you. This is the internet and things aren't
that way here.
> Mani seems to have such a large chip on her shoulder she can't see
>around it in any direction. So she just keeps repeating the same old
>arguments and accusations she appears to have copied from the popular
>press of the 1920's. No new ideas, no need to make new sentences, I
>suppose. But as long as she continues to practice criticism thru
>mindreading, people will continue to laugh at her.
>rjf
Always glad to make someone laugh. I suspect its more than you've ever
done.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
mdeli
On 17 Apr 1997 20:19:21 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Perhaps Mani should know some history about 'Portrait of Gertrude Stein'?
>After all, she did pick one of his lesser works.
>Ms. Stein went for years to a friend of Picasso asking for him to arrange
>to have Picasso paint her portrait. For years this friend tried, Picasso
>always refusing. Finally, Picasso gave in, and Ms. Stein showed up at his
>studio. The first problem...Ms. Stein wanted to dictate posture, dress
>and background. From their it got worsee.
Excuses. Modern Academic Art is 90% excuses.
>
>Finally, Picasso told Ms. Stein and his friend that he could not do the
>painting. He had no emotional tie with the subject matter. She insisted
>on seeing the work as he progressed, and would make suggestions. He felt
>that he could not find and emotion in the subject. He would work for a
>day, and the next day have no connection wirth what he had created. So,
>he stopped working on it, refusing all offers of money to continue.
>
>A year later he finished the painting, as a dual statememt: 1) Why
>artists should not do work they have no feeling for, (unless for study).
>2) His feelings for Ms. Stein.
>
What counts is what hangs on the wall. Not the artists intentions,
feelings, emotions or whether he had herpes. As such this portrait and
most of Picasso's other of his portraits are third rate abominations.
>Mani was right, the work is not one of his best. Picasso would agree
>quickly.
Its also not one of his worst.
> Perhaps his statements are worth study? I feel they are.
>Finally, all artists...even the giants, do work that is not superior.
So name one of his great portraits!
RoyGBivart
Dear Mani:
Hope you caught my little history about the painting you are talking
about. It should answer your claims. You pick a painting that was shown
only to make two statements. I don't feel the need to go into all this
again. Find another work from Picasso that shows such weakness, or admit
that you know nothing about the great man. You only say such tripe to get
attention.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
From my book No skill no Art
"Picasso prince of ugliness and Matisse pauper of skill"
...The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
technical superiority. Yet even here in a work which can not be
accused of flatness, ugliness, gross distortion or even poor
drawing, I still maintain that although a careful look reveals
Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
student standard.
His "Paulo on a Donkey" a painting of his son, is another matter.
Copied from a photograph, this painting not only exposes the
artist's leanings toward utter incompetence but also his
ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste, which appears when he
lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
his usual intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real Picasso,
really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who just
entered art school, it would not merit a comment. It exhibits all
manner of drawing errors and laziness. Even some outspoken
critics get meekly negative about this sort of Picassoid drivel
modestly saying, "Not his best."
Many of the works of this period were done from photographs and
are composites of other pictures. They are rearranged tracings of
other pictures which were then blown up to proper, regulation
M.A. sizes with an opaque projector. As to copies and imitations,
Picasso did more doctored versions of old master paintings than
any other artist.
Perhaps it was by use of photos, opaque projectors, cutouts and
tracing rearrangements, that Picasso came up with the idea for
his famous "wiggle face." [illustrate] This devise of
superimposing a profile on a front view has become perhaps the
most identifiable of Picasso subjects; a signature of sort. It
makes a Picasso as genuine as the "genuine oil' advertised on
television. Picasso painted them ad nauseam. It first prominently
appears in the "dames de Avionion" and dominates almost all of
his hastiest work--work that he knocked off at a rate of three an
evening. Easy to draw, even if the artist was tired, it was
always available to put a saving face on any otherwise awful
work. The wiggle face is especially apparent in his late
"Thalidomide Period" when it was continually placed on
pathogenic figures which had flat flippers as arms and legs.
Picasso had handful of these logo-like artifacts which he used
like decals, repeating them throughout his career. There was his
hairy bull, the bearded Greek, the face with the bridgeless nose,
the little naughties he pasted here and there, and the young girl
with the big eyes (to which Keene applied modelling and a bit of
detail and a small touch of superior skill in his successful
campaign to flood the market with his ubiquitous Goo-goo eyed
"Keene Kids"). etc.
mmw
mdeli wrote:
A lot of vented spleen about Picasso. So, okay you don't like his
work but does that give you the right to condemn it? and Matisse as
well!
About Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein,
She said, "It doesn't look like me."
He said, "It will."
And it did.
You simply refuse to accept stylization and distortion because you
are stuck in the man-in-the-street, 17th century definition of painting.
Quel dommage!
Marilyn
RoyGBivart
Dear Mani:
It's unbelieveable how totally ignorant you are. 90% excuses? You have
no excuse. This statement only shows your total and inescapable lack of
artistic undrstanding.
Lets see now:
1) An artists intensions don't count.
2) An artists feelings don't count.
3) An artists emotions don't count.
You know what that means? The viewers intensions, feelings and emotions
don't count.
You know, you are a total fool.
A great portrait by Picasso? How about 'Ambroise Vollard'.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
On 18 Apr 1997 14:16:41 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Dear Mani:
>
>Hope you caught my little history about the painting you are talking
>about.
History certainly makes artwork that has merit more enjoyable.
But one needn't know any history in order to admire artwork. Fine
artwork stands on its own and doesn't need any talk .
> It should answer your claims. You pick a painting that was shown
>only to make two statements.
Paintings contain subjects they don't make statements.
> I don't feel the need to go into all this
>again. Find another work from Picasso that shows such weakness, or admit
>that you know nothing about the great man. You only say such tripe to get
>attention.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
mdeli
mdeli
sOn 19 Apr 1997 00:27:14 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Dear Mani:
>
>It's unbelieveable how totally ignorant you are. 90% excuses? You have
>no excuse. This statement only shows your total and inescapable lack of
>artistic undrstanding.
--nothing said
>
>Lets see now:
> 1) An artists intensions don't count.
> 2) An artists feelings don't count.
> 3) An artists emotions don't count.
>You know what that means?
Yes, it means that what is on the wall counts not some bullshit about
the artists problems etc.
>The viewers intensions, feelings and emotions
>don't count.
That is your statement not mine. Viewers ultimately rate artwork not
the artist.
>You know, you are a total fool.
I presume you believe all who disagree with you are fools. Art schools
are filled with incompetent failure teachers and students who harbor
this opinion. It comforts them.
>
>A great portrait by Picasso? How about 'Ambroise Vollard'.
>
Done in pencil approx. 18x12 Met museum..
Except for a little trouble with the hands and the right sleeve and
the perspective of the chair an ordinary portrait. Not something
worthy of being labeled great art. There are lots of similar portraits
which rate as nothing special because they aren't signed Picasso.
How about the self Portrait on the front cover of Retrospective MOMA
catalog-1980. Better still the self portrait -1906 in the Philadelphia
museum. I like the hand the schmiery background and the finger
sticking thru the pallette.He was too lazy to get the line of his
pants right. A real stinkeroo.
I never saw a portrait by Picasso that had any new idea or was
anything more than conventional. Name one if you can.
My all time favorite is Paulo and the Donkey. How about an opinion on
this abomination.
You indicate that you know a lot about Picasso's intentions, feelings
and emotions. I don't know how you know about this but I doubt that
you know much about his paintings.
MD
...no skill no art
mdeli
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:27:50 -0700, mmw <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>
>A lot of vented spleen about Picasso. So, okay you don't like his
>work but does that give you the right to condemn it? and Matisse as
>well!
>
Picasso is a genius compared to Matisse.
>About Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein,
>She said, "It doesn't look like me."
>He said, "It will."
>And it did.
>
>You simply refuse to accept stylization and distortion because you
>are stuck in the man-in-the-street, 17th century definition of painting.
>Quel dommage!
>
What is that definition pray tell.
The Stein portrait contains no stylization or distortion. It lacks
skill and is utterly conventional incompetent crap.
If you want stylization and distortion look at Dali or El Grego.
mmw
> Picasso is a genius compared to Matisse.
> If you want stylization and distortion look at Dali or El Grego.
I don't care for Dali's work and I have never heard of El Grego,
oh you must mean El Greco. Ever heard of spell-check?
And why do people refer to you as "she" and then "he" - are you
androgynous as well as adamantly anti almost all art?
Marilyn
peter james kashur
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear Mani:
>
> It's unbelieveable how totally ignorant you are. 90% excuses? You have
> no excuse. This statement only shows your total and inescapable lack of
> artistic undrstanding.
>
> 1) An artists intensions don't count.
> 2) An artists feelings don't count.
> 3) An artists emotions don't count.
> don't count.
>
>
>
>
> Roy
Why does defense of modernists resort so consistently to personal
insult?
One would think, considering all the words written to justify the stuff,
its appeasers would be more adept in its defense.
"Picasso’s Confession to Giovanni Papini, Nov. 1951. From the Black Book
NEW GOGS DIARY
Vallechi, Publisher
It occurred to me, what can an artist do who clearly sees this near
end?
It would have been very hard to change my trade, and it could have been
also risky from the viewpoint of earning a living. To be amusing and to
make money.
From the moment that art ceases to be the food that feeds the best
minds the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the
intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to
receive consolation from art.
The refined, the rich, the professional do-nothings, the distillers of
quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric,
the scandalous in today’s art. And I myself, since the advent of cubism,
have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with
all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my head.
The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through
amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and
very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent
affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich.
But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an
artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto,
Tiziano, Rembrandt and Goya, they were great painters. I am only a
public clown.
I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the
vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this
confession of mine more painful than it may seem. But at least and at
last it does have the merit of being honest. "
-A similar declaration in Leica Photo Fotographic-Nov. 4,
1959 made in Madrid in 1952.
Roy, do you presume to argue with the person that you defend, and who,
it seems, had so little respect for his defenders?
pjk
p.s. The viewers intensions, feelings and emotions don't count.
RoyGBivart
Dear MD:
The artists problems? Here you go again...no mind, no thought. Who was
talking about the artists problems? I was talking about your problems.
Disagreement is valued learning tool. However, those that don't have to
knowledge to contribute, and condem with no effort to gain knowledge, I
DESPISE! I have been carring on a dialog with a young man from France
over the net, thanks to this site, which began with a disagrement on this
site. He is searching for knowledge, and will not give up. I have
congratulated him on his persistance, and have very much appreciated his
comments and criticisms.
The fact is, I met Picasso. I'm sure that's more than you can say about
knowing him. I also have a personal collection of many films and tapes of
him working, including one that has been called a National Treasure of
France. Further, I have in my library numerous books about Picasso. You
know, I don't feel like going on.
The paintings you mentioned...what is there to say other than they are
fine examples of the period each was done in. ENOUGH!
Sincerely,
Roy
Wanax
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Disagreement is valued learning tool.
Is that why you disagree with everyone? In order to learn?
However, those that don't have to
> knowledge to contribute, and condem with no effort to gain knowledge, I
> DESPISE!
rrrriiight :)
I have been carring on a dialog with a young man from France
> over the net, thanks to this site, which began with a disagrement on this
> site. He is searching for knowledge, and will not give up. I have
> congratulated him on his persistance, and have very much appreciated his
> comments and criticisms.
Sure sounds like he is more interested in knowledge than you. Why don't you go over
there and help him look around?
>
> The fact is, I met Picasso.
Oh, My, GOD! No wonder you're an expert! Tell us, did he bestow his knowledge upon you
in gas form, or was it transfered via the psychic friends network?
I'm sure that's more than you can say about
> knowing him. I also have a personal collection of many films and tapes of
> him working, including one that has been called a National Treasure of
> France.
don't you think you'd better give it back? I mean, if the French find out you have a
national treasure, they might go postal on your empty head.
Further, I have in my library numerous books about Picasso. You
> know, I don't feel like going on.
Thank God! What a complete and utter jerk you are, Roy. I have a film and some books
on Pissassole, so I'm smarter than you....nany nany pooh pooh... This is the extent of
your arguement here. Pathetic and worthless as usual.
> The paintings you mentioned...what is there to say other than they are
> fine examples of the period each was done in. ENOUGH!
Are you the dictator of when discussions end?
>Sincerely,
>
> Roy the bubblehead
Wanax Andron
RKiggins
I don't think Picasso intended the portrait of Gertrude Stein to be a
great manifesto attempting to redefine western art. Rather it was a
painting initiated primarily out of obligation. Perhaps the reason for
its significance rests in the fact that Picasso perpetuated most of his
career based on myth and mystique which ultimately defined who he was. (as
a man and an artist)
As with most artists who have obtained such a high level of post-mortem
celebrity, the narratives surrounding Picasso's art (fact or fiction) aid
in appreciating his value as an artist. That's where the portrait of
Gertrude Stein seems to fit... The success and failure of the work
itself will always be open to debate (subjectivity has a tendency to do
that), but a characteristic which is pretty well grounded is the
painting's ability to transcend the properties of simply being a work of
art. Similar to other works by Picasso, the portrait has more to do with
anthropology than with art history. It has become an artifact which is
more concerned with presenting a sociological narrative, reflecting
integral moments of 20th century culture, rather than contributing to the
dialogue of modern painting.
Besides reflecting the "new" European interest in primitivism
(indigenous-tribal art, masks, etc) as well as foreshadowing the
development of cubism, the portrait represents a particular stance or
allegiance between Picasso and Gertrude Stein. ( a relationship which
proved to be invaluable in terms of Picasso's career.)
During the hieght of their collecting, both Gertrude and Leo Stein had
tremendous influence on determining the development, promotion, and
legitimacy of artists and artistic movements within Paris (Europe) during
the early 20th century. The unique aspect of the painting was that it was
commissioned at a time when Gertrude and her brother, Leo were at a
professional and personal crossroads. Leo leaned more towards the Fauves
(Matisse) as being the more relevant movement, while Gertrude (pre-dating
Kahnweiler) supported Picasso during the very, very early developments of
cubism. An interesting conflict of interests. (Imagine how devastated
Leo Stein must have felt when Derain shifted away from Matisse, towards
Picasso and Braque)
Anyway, to make a long story short, these issues do not directly comment
on the painting itself. However, they are (in my opinion) indirectly
responsible for its notoriety and status. (agree or disagree, reputation
is a permanent component of western culture) Society seems to have placed
more value on the portrait than Picasso could ever have intended. Because
of its myth, because of its position in art history, the painting
maintains an uncontested level of relevance.
William Markiewicz
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:15:10 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (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.
>
>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.>
>…no skill no art
>
past presidents and more recently, over the past few years several
friends have been hospitalized and, passing through the lobby I've
seen many an official portrait of some benefactor or another, painted
by competent portraitists. I longed for the refreshment of art in
these circumstances. Some days after a visit to a patient I'd visit
these portraits also, looking at each one with a ready spirit, wishing
to find something alive in any picture. After all, these were painted
by my fellow artists, most of whom, somewhere along the line shared
some of my preoccupations. The answer is that there may be a spark of
life here and there in these portraits but -- well why not go and just
take a LOOK? I don't think I have to explain.
I prefer the Gertrude Stein portrait, flawed or not flawed. It's a
solid portrait. The face is a mask but it breathes. The pose suits the
subject but it is not a conventional pose for a woman. Gertrude Stein
fills the canvas like a dignified monarch or perhaps a beast and she
didn't mind. It's a troubling uneasy picture and it's alive. Nobody
can deny that Picasso could draw in the classical academic sense and
his knowledge of drawing is apparent in the portrait you have such fun
ridiculing. Go ahead if you enjoy it. There is a struggle in this
portrait -- that's part of what I enjoy -- but it's not the struggle
of an unskilled artist.There are other portraits I prefer to the
Gertrude Stein portrait. But up to now I haven't seen a portrait in a
university hallway or hospital lobby that I want to return to for a
second look
Nikole (at William's email)
William
http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
mdeli
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 02:00:54 +0000, peter james kashur
<pka...@accent.net> wrote:
He quote the following publication.
>"Picasso’s Confession to Giovanni Papini, Nov. 1951. From the Black Book
>NEW GOGS DIARY
>Vallechi, Publisher
>
> It occurred to me, what can an artist do who clearly sees this near
>end?
>It would have been very hard to change my trade, and it could have been
>also risky from the viewpoint of earning a living. To be amusing and to
>make money.
etc,
You may dislike Picasso as much as I do but I have an allegiance to
truth here. The above quotes are a fabrication, check it out.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
On 23 Apr 1997 19:25:38 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Dear MD:
>
>The artists problems? Here you go again...no mind, no thought. Who was
>talking about the artists problems? I was talking about your problems.
>
Nothing said.
>Disagreement is valued learning tool. However, those that don't have to
>knowledge to contribute, and condem with no effort to gain knowledge, I
>DESPISE! I have been carring on a dialog with a young man from France
>over the net, thanks to this site, which began with a disagrement on this
>site. He is searching for knowledge, and will not give up. I have
>congratulated him on his persistance, and have very much appreciated his
>comments and criticisms.
>
Do you also pass out medals?
>The fact is, I met Picasso.
Impressive. Did he give you a finger wave?
> I'm sure that's more than you can say about
>knowing him.
Indeed, now you can write a monograph about his belly button.
> I also have a personal collection of many films and tapes of
>him working, including one that has been called a National Treasure of
>France. Further, I have in my library numerous books about Picasso.
I still have several five pound Picasso books left in my collection.
> You
>know, I don't feel like going on.
Why try you have nothing to say. You never answered any of my
points.
>The paintings you mentioned...what is there to say other than they are
>fine examples of the period each was done in. ENOUGH!
Enough for a moron like you and an average parrot.
You can't even explain why a hand done by Picasso looks like a smudge
and why he can't get the line of some ones pants straight. I would
presume any Picasso freak could do better.
Roy is a pompous ass teacher who isn't used to being contradicted or
having someone point out the errors of his idols. He becomes enraged
because he can't pass out failling grades here. Art schools are
filled with these sort of idiots who work on the production line
turning out failure artists.
Bless his soul. If teachers didn't teach Picasso, Matisse, Mondrian,
Pollock and de Kooning students might choose to learn their craft
instead and the market would be flooded.
Take heart, no skill, no competition. The more Roys the better.
mmw
Regarding the portrait of Gertrude Stein by Picasso:
"The sittings started in 1905 and went on for almost a year. He set aside
the canvas for a while, and in the end completed it, in the fall of 1906,
without the model. It was a powerful composition, all in earthy tones.
The forms were sculptural, sturdy, and simplified, quite architectonic in
the ancient Iberian mode yet the treatment of the hands - the foreshorten
ing of one hand and the sensitive modeling of the other - bespoke a
skill inherited from the Renaissance. All in all, it was a striking piece
indeed. At first Gertrude liked it as a painting, but she did not think
it resembled her. Picasso reassured her that even if it didn't...
she in time wold come to look like it. Whether or not she was
convinced, she declared herself satisfied."
I posted the above before but I repeat it here.
MDeli and others confuse simplification and stylization of forms with
"lack of skill" and so I don't believe that it is worthwhile trying to
reach their closed minds and
misunderstanding of modern art.
It seems that they think that skill is the ability to convey
a good representation. The invention of cameras has allowed painters
to become poetic, but some people will not accept this.
Marilyn
Marilyn