Are there any exposes on picasso?
Richard
Are there any books exposing him for the fraud and swindler that he
truly was?
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Lauri Levanto
try Mani's book. He has been a forgerer himself,
he knows the subject
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
> A wild guess,
> try Mani's book. He has been a forgerer himself,
> he knows the subject
>
> -lauri
>
>
> Richard wrote:
>
>
>>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>
>>Are there any books exposing him for the fraud and swindler that he
>>truly was?
I don't see Richard's post on my list, so I'll respond through your reply:
John Berger, "The Success and Failure of Picasso."
But be warned, it's isn't exactly the sort of disparagment you [Richard]
are looking for, but you'll learn a lot about art by reading it.
Erik
bruin70
confession by picasso himself of his fraud upon the art world.
G*rd*n
| in the november '90 issue of the national review, there is a printed
| confession by picasso himself of his fraud upon the art world.
Could you possibly copy it into a posting? Not all of us
have archives of _NR_ going back to 1990.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Mani Deli
>Huffington is a socialite and right-wing commentator who had previously
>written a hatchet-job book on Maria Callas (she was an opera singer,
>Richard).
She isn't a right winger and writes political commentry regularly in
Salon magazine on the internet.
> Huffington's purpose in writing the book was to provide a
>completely negative rehash of his personal life. I think you would like it.
The book is pretty accurate in that respect. Having read the book I
found that part in boring detail. However factually there is lots of
information about his friends dealings, and artwork. the book doesn't
pan Picasso. Except for a questioning statement at the end I thought
H. respects him as a genius.
>As the reviewer in ArtNews (an art-world magazine) said, 'Huffington
>doesn't know anything about Picasso's art, or care. This book is trash.' Go
>for it!
Its is indeed "trash" for artzy fartzies who want Modern Academic Art
mythology. When one writes the usual "doesn't know anything" statement
you know you are dealing with a jerk.
Included are 30 pages of notes and references.
The final statement in the book which I don't find at all negative.
Excerpt Page 475:
"He brought to fullest expression the shattered vision of a century
that perhaps could be understood in no other terms."…."He took to its
ultimate conclusion the negative vision of the modernist world."
This is followed by an opinion which is probably all the reviewer read
before becoming inflamed.
Page 476:
"His tragedy was that he longed for the ultimate in painting and died
knowing that it had eluded him. Unlike Shakespeare and Mozart whose
prolific genius he shared, Picasso was not a timeless genius. I began
this book feeling like millions of pilgrims to the Picasso
retrospectives, all to eager to place him on that narrow peak. I ended
convinced that he was in fact a time bound genius. a seismograph for
the conflicts, turmoil and anguish of his age."
I don't think someone who pans Picasso would write, "With prodigious
skill and complete mastery of the language of painting, inexhaustible
versatility and monumental virtuosity, ingenuity and imagination.
Picasso showed us the mud in our frog pond and the night over it."
The fact that I think Picasso was an incompetent charlatan doesn't
prevent me from reading scholarly books on important people who
influenced the 20th century. I think Picasso, Hitler and Freud were
among the major charlatans of the that century.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
>in the november '90 issue of the national review, there is a printed
>confession by picasso himself of his fraud upon the art world.
Picasso never made the statement. It is an invention of an Italian
journalist
Richard
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:27:10 -0800, "Roadside Artist"
<pag...@nospam.roadsideartist.com> wrote:
>But why do you want to find a book that trashes Picasso, hmm? Need your
>personal prejudices fed? Sure, he was a jerk in his personal life. Creative
>people tend to be demanding and unwilling to conform to the world. So what?
That's not my beef with him. He was a con artist who played a major
role in trashing traditional art while making money for himself. He
cranked out 60,000 of his crap paintings. Obviously he was
deliberately just cranking out worthless junk as fast as he could out
of greed. And he had some people in positions of influence promote him
as an artistic genius, which is a load of crap. At the same time, he
bought a large collection of 19th century realist artwork, because he
knew these were great treasures with timeless value. He probably
bought them cheaply, thanks to the attacks on 19th century realists by
the same people who promoted picasshole. Now those paintings are
valuable again and rising in value. I wonder who has them now,
picasshole's descendants? Now you have all these gullible fools in the
world believing he was a genius. Now you see kindergarten doodles by
picasshole selling for one to three thousand dollars on Ebay just
because of his name. Some of those doodles must've taken less than a
minute to scrawl out. If you or I made crap like that and tried to
sell it, people would laugh. Picasso's life was one big money making
scam. To make it worse, this dickhead influenced generations of
gullible people. If I keep taking art classes in college, I am going
to be required to waste my valuable time studying that motherfucking
worthless cubism, thanks to that goddamn picasshole! This is the worst
thing of all for me. I would like a book that blows the lid off of
picasshole's life as a con artist, swindler, scammer, and charlatan.
He was no artist, let alone an artistic genius.
Richard
I have another thing to add. I'd just like to sum up what I think of
picasshole with this: Picasshole and his cohorts did to art what Pol
Pot and the Kmer Rouge did to Cambodia. They murdered and butchered
everything that was good and replaced it with terror and madness which
lasted for decades. Hopefully the madness is starting to run out of
gas and sputter out. Acting crazy may be fun for a while, but I would
think it would become tiresome after a while and lose its freshness.
bruin70
do you know the circumstances of this "piece of fiction" and how it was exposed?
Tina Mammoser
Richard, have you studied any of Picasso's early work? You might like it.
Realism, portraits, very traditional, very fine paintings. Before you trash
someone it's usually wise to find out more about where they came from and WHY
they did what they did. So Picasso cranked out paintings, so what? You don't
want to be that kind of artist. So don't. Greater artists than him did it much
earlier. Heck, some didn't even paint their own paintings (thinking old masters
here - using apprentices and such). For what it's worth I do not like
Picasso's work. But I took that as a starting point and decided to read about
it. So now I have great respect for what he did, even though I still don't like
it personally. I recommend this for ANY artist you have an unsubstantiated
opinion about. You'll have far more credibility later on in life and be taken
seriously in debate if you can show you made some effort to educate yourself
about art history.
Tina.
--
********************
CHARITY RAFFLE FOR THE LIVING PAINTINGS TRUST
Win my "One House Two House, Red House Blue House" painting!
http://www.tina-m.com/onehousetwohouse.jpg
Please donate here, tickets are £1.50 each. Please remember to put your email
or phone number (if UK) in the comments box so I can contact you if you win. :)
--Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes direct from the artist!--
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
-----Limited editions and original prints from London artists!-----
HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTNEWART.COM
mailto:ti...@brightnewart.com
********************
gaynorgallagher
> are looking for, but you'll learn a lot about art by reading it.
>
> Erik
see also Hal Foster "The Primitive Unconscious of Modern Art" in Phaidon's edition of 'Art in Modern Culture' 1992.
again not really what Richard is looking for but part of the revisionist writing tradition like John Berger.
gaynor
--
less heat to reply
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> writes:
...
>I have another thing to add. I'd just like to sum up what I think of
>picasshole with this: Picasshole and his cohorts did to art what Pol
>Pot and the Kmer Rouge did to Cambodia.
Millions failed to die in the Abstract Expressionist purges
of the 1960's.
Matisse and the fauvists inexplicably forgot to kill anyone
with Khmer Rouge (not to mention agent orange).
Picasso didn't destroy 1000-year-old art such as Angkor Wat.
Pollock died in a car crash without (IIRC) killing anyone else.
Pol Pot didn't.
I've been to exhibitions I hated. But nobody died. No tragedy.
It's just marks on paper/canvas. Please learn to deal with it.
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
John Rune
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk () wrote:
>In article <701ouu4ktrjopaock...@4ax.com>,
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> writes:
>...
>>I have another thing to add. I'd just like to sum up what I think of
>>picasshole with this: Picasshole and his cohorts did to art what Pol
>>Pot and the Kmer Rouge did to Cambodia.
>
>Millions failed to die in the Abstract Expressionist purges
> of the 1960's.
That is just the kind of liberalist propoganda that enabled Australia
to conquer the South Pole in only 13 years!
>Matisse and the fauvists inexplicably forgot to kill anyone....
Matisse did in fact conquer three halves of the civilized world.
>Picasso didn't destroy 1000-year-old art such as Angkor Wat.
Picasso was, however, a big pussy. He loved the idea of boxing, and
enjoyed strutting around as the macho man, but he couldn't take it.
He liked to hit, but not to be hit. So he was not only a pussy, but a
bully. And quite a few other nasty things.
It's said that you should never meet your heroes. I think Picasso is
an excellent example of this bit of wisdom. Was he a great artist, or
a shitty little excuse for a human being who produced great art? You
decide. <shrug>
>Pollock died in a car crash without (IIRC) killing anyone else.
....
Like all alcoholics, he was dead long before he died.
>I've been to exhibitions I hated. But nobody died.
But they should have? Isn't that what you're implying? <g>
>No tragedy.
Every tragedy is an exhibition, but not every exhibition is a tragedy.
Just most of them.
>It's just marks on paper/canvas. Please learn to deal with it.
You are truly wise, master Yoda.
The force be with you.
Peace!
Blessed is he who is easily amused,
John the Red
G*rd*n
| I have another thing to add. I'd just like to sum up what I think of
| picasshole with this: Picasshole and his cohorts did to art what Pol
| Pot and the Kmer Rouge did to Cambodia. They murdered and butchered
| everything that was good and replaced it with terror and madness which
| lasted for decades. Hopefully the madness is starting to run out of
| gas and sputter out. Acting crazy may be fun for a while, but I would
| think it would become tiresome after a while and lose its freshness.
I don't like the influence of Picasso either -- I think one
Picasso was quite enough -- but I don't see the influence as
anything like terror and madness. I think Picasso's work was
very carefully assembled, largely by lifting ideas and material
from other people, and accompanying this by a highly rational
public-relations campaign. Picasso was, after all, a very
competent technician and could probably have produced just
about anything he wanted in the area of painting and drawing.
It is evident that what he wanted to do was gain money and
repute by pleasing a class of people who had the power to give
him these things. This was the sort of rational behavior
which Adam Smith assures us will generally lead to the greater
good; if Picasso had employed underlings to actually paint
his works while he directed from afar, we could even call him
a model capitalist. Many lesser artists, observing and desiring
similar rewards, seem to have followed. Too bad, but even
though Pic seems to have been a rather nasty fellow personally
(going by what one hears) one can't blame him for serving his
market, certainly not with "terror and madness" but cool,
calculated rationality.
Modernism ran out of gas about 40 years ago, by the way. In
the end, it turned out there was nothing crazy about it, and
fat books were written.
John Rune
>Richard <cool_a...@z.com>:
>> I have another thing to add.
I never would have guessed.
>Modernism ran out of gas about 40 years ago, by the way. In
>the end, it turned out there was nothing crazy about it, and
>fat books were written.
On the other hand, Richard will be positively _full_ of gas for at
least another 40 years. (Just look at Mani if you don't believe me.)
Please God, someone light a match.
John the Red
PS: It isn't nice to call big books "fat." Some of them can't help
it. It's genetic or something. Oprah said so.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| >Modernism ran out of gas about 40 years ago, by the way. In
| >the end, it turned out there was nothing crazy about it, and
| >fat books were written.
John the Red/tact...@ptd.net:
| On the other hand, Richard will be positively _full_ of gas for at
| least another 40 years. (Just look at Mani if you don't believe me.)
|
| Please God, someone light a match.
Careful! It could be an important source of renewable energy.
| PS: It isn't nice to call big books "fat." Some of them can't help
| it. It's genetic or something. Oprah said so.
I think of it as a compliment. _Prosperous_, one might say.
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxxxxislandnet.com> wrote:
....
>His ex-wife Francoise exposed Picasso quite candidly in 2 books,
>but then again she admired him as an artist. Their relationship was
>complex and Picasso was a volatile complex person. Therefore
>any honest 'expose' of the man would be above Richard's
>simple-minded craving for some sleaze on a great artist.
Interesting how an amoral misogynist is dotingly described as "a
volatile complex person" and his abusive, failed affairs as "complex
relationships."
<shrug>
John
Nikolaus Maack
> Interesting how an amoral misogynist is dotingly described as "a
> volatile complex person" and his abusive, failed affairs as "complex
> relationships."
Artists are allowed to do anything. Society expects us to cross
uncrossable lines and push envelopes so far they get shredded. That's
our role. This means we can steal, cheat, lie -- do whatever the hell
we want. At the end of the day, people will rationalize it for us.
"Oh, but you have to understand -- he's an artist!"
"I'd be upset with her, but she's a painter and a performance artist,
and you just have to expect that kind of behavior from them."
"Gee, my entire life is ruined. But at least it was ruined by an
artist, and not some ordinary person."
Do you think I paint because I want to? Hell, no! Like so many other
artists, I chose the life for the "Get Out of Personal Responsibility
Free" card. Now after I fuck up someone's life, steal from them, get
them pregnant and drag them to the abortion clinic kicking and
screaming, run off with her best friend, kill a puppy in a fit of
rage... After the fur and feathers have settled, I just say:
"Hey, babe. You knew I was an artist when you met me. What did you
expect -- stability and sanity? I don't fucking think so."
And my victim laughs and says, "Oh well -- at least you're fascinating,
complex, and enigmatic, bringing a twinkle of creativity into my
otherwise shitty and empty life."
"Darn tootin!" I reply. And then we inject ourselves with heroin,
sharing the dirty needle, and have unprotected sex on top of the coffee
table, while her six year old daughter pretends to sleep not five feet
away from us.
If you want to be a respectable and responsible citizen, become an
accountant. Artists have no choice -- by definition we must be
irresponsible, self-absorbed, destructive, dangerous lunatics. Most art
schools won't even let you graduate unless you can prove you've been so
cruel to someone else that they've been institutionalized.
So get with the program. Quit your whining about "Picasso was so mean
and self-centred!" Of course he was. He helped create a world where we
artists can get away with anything. Don't judge him -- get down on your
knees and thank him. He's why you can housesit for a friend, drink all
their liquor, and spend the weekend filling their bathtub with your
vomit. When your friends get back from Maui, they won't be upset --
they'll just shake their heads and smile, saying:
"Oh, that irrepressible artist!"
John Rune
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>John Rune wrote:
>> Interesting how an amoral misogynist is dotingly described as "a
>> volatile complex person" and his abusive, failed affairs as "complex
>> relationships."
....
>Quit your whining.
....
Fine, go ahead and crucify me. See if I give a shit. <g>
Just another victim of r.a.f.'s anti-ism propaganda,
John the Red
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>> John Rune wrote:
>> > Interesting how an amoral misogynist is dotingly described as "a
>> > volatile complex person" and his abusive, failed affairs as "complex
>> > relationships."
>>
>> Artists are allowed to do anything. Society expects us to cross
>> uncrossable lines and push envelopes so far they get shredded. That's
>> our role. This means we can steal, cheat, lie -- do whatever the hell
>> we want. At the end of the day, people will rationalize it for us.
>
>Oh Bullshit! Picasso was not a criminal. He had affairs with women,
>that is, consenting adult women. He once accepted stolen goods and
>had them returned - that was as close as he came to breaking the
>law.
The old bastard is long dead and he's still getting humped. If I
didn't already have a girlfriend I'd be so f*cking jealous that I'd go
dig him up and tear his withered nutsack off!
Damn, I'm jealous anyway! <g>
>Lame attempt at satire snipped.
A little sophomoric perhaps, but lame? That seems awfully harsh,
Marilyn.
Your close personal friend,
John the Red
Nikolaus Maack
> Why hold back, show your true feelings!
Exactly! You're an artist! You're peferectly entitled to respond with
the full force of your feelings, concealing nothing. Why should you
display qualities like tact or reason? That's for normal, non-artistic
people. By all means, tell me my satire is shit and you hate me and
you'd kill me if you could. You're an artist, and this is perfectly
acceptable behaviour for one of our kind.
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>John Rune wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 11:42:42 -0800, Marilyn Welch
>> <mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >x-no-archive: yes
>> >Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Rune wrote:
>> >> > Interesting how an amoral misogynist is dotingly described as "a
>> >> > volatile complex person" and his abusive, failed affairs as "complex
>> >> > relationships."
>> >>
>> >> Artists are allowed to do anything. Society expects us to cross
>> >> uncrossable lines and push envelopes so far they get shredded. That's
>> >> our role. This means we can steal, cheat, lie -- do whatever the hell
>> >> we want. At the end of the day, people will rationalize it for us.
>> >
>> >Oh Bullshit! Picasso was not a criminal. He had affairs with women,
>> >that is, consenting adult women. He once accepted stolen goods and
>> >had them returned - that was as close as he came to breaking the
>> >law.
>>
>> The old bastard is long dead and he's still getting humped. If I
>> didn't already have a girlfriend I'd be so f*cking jealous that I'd go
>> dig him up and tear his withered nutsack off!
>>
>> Damn, I'm jealous anyway! <g>
>
>Why hold back, show your true feelings!
>
>>
>>
>> >Lame attempt at satire snipped.
>>
>> A little sophomoric perhaps, but lame? That seems awfully harsh,
>> Marilyn.
>>
>
>I got impatient and as Dan would say "I lost my aplomb." Sorry Nik.
>
>>
>> Your close personal friend,
>> John the Red
>
>Yikes, I hope not. You are scary!
Only at the genetic level. <sniffle>
Totally depressed,
John the Red
Nikolaus Maack
> That'll be the day.
It takes two to play that game! What a fine kettle of fish this is.
The jig is up! There's not room for the both of us in this pennywhistle
town. It takes all kinds. Sometimes it's cruel to be kind. Money
makes the world go 'round. Two to tango, three's a crowd. Fore score
and seven years ago... Seven eleven. Twelve monkeys. Unlucky thirteen...
> Because I civilized.
There are times when typos say so much. Thank you, Freud, for putting
me in touch with this level of thinking. "If it's not one thing, it's
amother."
> There is no such thing as 'normal people.'
Please remind yourself of what you purport to already know -- what I was
typing was satire. In other words, FIND the level of thinking we're at
and STAY there for the entirety of the conversation. Stop losing your
sense of irony.
> I don't belong to 'our kind.' I am an individual.
The mob at the soccer riot says the same thing once the blood's mopped
up. It's one of the more common illusions people carry around -- "I am
a unique individual."
> You have lived up to your own stereotype,
> with this rant. Not me, I'm cool.
You're "cool"? My god. Are you alright? Can the doctor's do anything?
I despise the word "cool" -- it implies an emotional detachment, an
inability to be phased by anything. I am far from "cool" -- I am
"personal". I think that should be the new "cool" for our pathetic world.
"How you doing?"
"I'm personal."
"Did you like that movie last night?"
"It was totally personal."
"Hey, guys -- leave Jimmy alone. He's one of us. He's personal."
Cool is for psychopaths in leather jackets who ignore the car accident
in front of them, stepping up on to the curb so the splash of gore
doesn't stain their sneakers. That's "cool".
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>Nikolaus Maack fumed as he wrote:
>
>> Marilyn Welch wrote:
>> > Why hold back, show your true feelings!
>>
>> Exactly! You're an artist! You're peferectly entitled to respond with
>> the full force of your feelings, concealing nothing.
>
>That'll be the day.
>
>
>> Why should you
>> display qualities like tact or reason?
>
>Because I civilized.
In a cute dyslexic sort of way. <g>
>> That's for normal, non-artistic
>> people.
>
>There is no such thing as 'normal people.'
>
>> By all means, tell me my satire is shit and you hate me and
>> you'd kill me if you could.
>
>Your satire needs improvement. It held no surprises and
>lacked humour and wit. It was predictable and trite.
>
>I don't hate anyone and I am non-violent.
I've overheard women say that just before they kneed some idiot's
gabones into this throat for getting a little too touchy-feely. So
much for non-violence. :-)
>> You're an artist, and this is perfectly
>> acceptable behaviour for one of our kind.
>
>I don't belong to 'our kind.' I am an individual.
>
>Hey Nik, if you want to perpetuate a stupid
>stereotype of ARTIST, you go right ahead.
>I will never accept them.
>
>You have lived up to your own stereotype,
>with this rant. Not me, I'm cool.
Watch it Nik, her knee is twitching. <g>
Just another old bouncer,
John the Red
Nikolaus Maack
> I cool.
Cool off, evidently. That hot head of yours has probably gotten you
into your share of jams (and marmelades). But better a hot blooded
conversation than a cold blooded constipation, I always say. Well, not
always. Occasionally I say other things.
In case you are confused, I have some respect for Picasso. It's the
same kind of respect I have for the drunken poet, Charles Bukowski.
Both Buk and Pic made some great stuff -- but they should have been a
little more selective. About 20% of what Bukowski wrote was brilliant.
The other 80% could have been thrown out the window.
Same with Picasso. He was prolific, that's for sure -- but who wouldn't
be if even a hastilly scribbled rough draft can be considered a
"masterpiece"?
And both Buk and Pic had what I'd call personality problems. It seems
all the great ones are totally self-centred. That's probably how they
get to be great in the first place. They walk around like they should
constantly be the centre of attention, and human beings accomadating
types, put them there.
"Oh, you think you're god? Then I guess I'd better get busy worshipping
you."
I have to wonder... If I could maintain that level of hubris long
enough, would I find myself waist-deep in flung panties and hotel room keys?
John Rune
<mwe...@xxxislandnet.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>Exactly. That is what makes a person interesting: the contradictions.
>
>When I think of Picasso, I think of his work.
When someone mentions Picasso, of course I think of his work. But you
were talking about the man.
>You on the other hand seen to take a god-like position and give
>him the "Clinton judgement". That is, forget every contribution
>the man has made and judge him on his sexual indiscretions
>with consenting adults.
I hope to God you're not implying that Clinton deserves any kind of
consideration. He is the worst of us. A buffoon, a puppet, a coward,
a parasite born to privilege and put into a position where he did
untold damage to this nation on every level. I have an honorable
discharge from the USAF, what does Clinton have other than a sad
excuse for cowardice? I feel ashamed for him. He is the worst of us.
>Or maybe you hate his work too. Whatever.
No, I don't hate Picasso's work. And I don't judge his paintings
according to my opinion of his character. What would be the point?
They are, after all, only paintings. My interest in Picasso the man
is merely academic.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if all of this art which we
think is so important were to suddenly disappear? If all of the
knowledge and skill leading to its creation suddenly forgotten?
Doesn't it seem more likely than not that everything forgotten would,
in the fullness of time, be rediscovered, reinvented? That everything
destroyed, recreated? In spirit if not in fact? Doesn't it seem as
though there is an inevitability to the "course of human events" which
cannot be circumvented?
Damnit! I just missed the beginning of Sealab 2021 on the cartoon
network. Shit!
Gotta go,
John the Red