Picaso Art In Titanic
B.C.
I have a question for all art buffs out there. My art history is rather
lacking, but am I correct that some of the Picasos that Rose has at the
beginning of Titanic exist today?
If yes, how realistic is this section of the movie? After all, if those
painting were on the ship, we would not have them today.
What is the explanation? Were they copies of the paintings (could they do
that back then?) Or perhaps I am wrong in that they weren't actually
Picasos?!? Or maybe Cameron just didn't care about this detail?
Please, someone help, this bothers me every time I see the movie.
B.C.
Albert Yang
B.C. (bre...@cheerful.com) wrote:
:
: What is the explanation? Were they copies of the paintings (could they do
: that back then?) Or perhaps I am wrong in that they weren't actually
: Picasos?!? Or maybe Cameron just didn't care about this detail?
It was certainly possible to copy a painting then.
--
Albert Yang apy...@ucdavis.edu http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/
"It's not so easy to go out there and get a hit even when you're
playing every day. When you're not playing, it's kind of harder."
-- Andruw Jones
Warchild
People would buy copies of paintings that they liked as we would buy prints
today.
They would buy some art student's copy.
See, anything can be explained away ;-)
----------
In article <6991im$3g...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>B.C. wrote in message <69675l$9na$1...@news.aros.net>...
>>I have a question for all art buffs out there. My art history is rather
>>lacking, but am I correct that some of the Picasos that Rose has at the
>>beginning of Titanic exist today?
>>
>>If yes, how realistic is this section of the movie? After all, if those
>>painting were on the ship, we would not have them today.
>>
>>What is the explanation? Were they copies of the paintings (could they do
>>that back then?) Or perhaps I am wrong in that they weren't actually
>>Picasos?!? Or maybe Cameron just didn't care about this detail?
>>
Gary Pollard
The Picasso painting that Rose is carrying is a cut down version of "Les
Demoiselles D'Avignon", one of the most significant paintings in the history
of modern art, and one that Picasso did not paint twice. You can view it on
the MOMA web page.
Either he was playing down to his audience or he does not know better
himself.
Gary
Gary Pollard
So Rose had bought a forgery of "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" done by some art
student. Doesn't sound very discerning of her. No wonder Cal said it was
worthless. We actually may have found a redeeming quality in Cal. He had
more artistic sensibility than Rose.
Gary
Warchild wrote in message <6996oq$1b$1...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>...
>People would buy copies of paintings that they liked as we would buy prints
>today.
>
>They would buy some art student's copy.
>
>See, anything can be explained away ;-)
>----------
>In article <6991im$3g...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
><gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
Albert Yang
Gary Pollard (gpol...@asiaonline.net) wrote:
: So Rose had bought a forgery of "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" done by some art
: student. Doesn't sound very discerning of her. No wonder Cal said it was
: worthless. We actually may have found a redeeming quality in Cal. He had
: more artistic sensibility than Rose.
Didn't he also say that Picasso wouldn't amount to anything?
Gary Pollard
Yes, but if the previous poster was right he was not looking at the real
thing anyway.
Gary
Albert Yang wrote in message <6998o5$ovr$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Tingli Pan
|Demoiselles D'Avignon", one of the most significant paintings in the history
|of modern art, and one that Picasso did not paint twice. You can view it on
|the MOMA web page.
|Either he was playing down to his audience or he does not know better
|himself.
Or what Rose had wasn't the real one.
--
Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼
Tingli Pan
In article <6998o5$ovr$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Albert Yang <apy...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
|Gary Pollard (gpol...@asiaonline.net) wrote:
|: So Rose had bought a forgery of "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" done by some art
|: student. Doesn't sound very discerning of her. No wonder Cal said it was
|: worthless. We actually may have found a redeeming quality in Cal. He had
|: more artistic sensibility than Rose.
|
|Didn't he also say that Picasso wouldn't amount to anything?
So he could get Picasso himself cheaply.
Bil Simser
B.C. wrote in message <69675l$9na$1...@news.aros.net>...
>I have a question for all art buffs out there. My art history is rather
>lacking, but am I correct that some of the Picasos that Rose has at the
>beginning of Titanic exist today?
While there was a lot of paintings lost on the Titanic, this was not the
case with this one. Les Demoiselles D'Avignon (the painting seen in the
movie) was painted in 1907 and now resides in the Museum of Modern Art in
New York. This was a fake as admirers of artwork then (and now) enjoyed
having reproductions of pieces. The only thing is that Picasso wasn't that
famous in 1912 so his work wouldn't had been expensive for the originals. In
any case, Rose was a fictional character so Cameron had artistic liberties
he could take with her and her surroundings (the Heart of the Ocean for
example).
-Bil
Gary Pollard
Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature on it.
Gary
Bil Simser wrote in message ...
Albert Yang
(Regarding the Picasso painting in Rose's room)
Gary Pollard (gpol...@asiaonline.net) wrote:
: Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature on it.
:
: Gary
If the painting was copied, why not the signature?
Bil Simser
Gary Pollard wrote in message <69a42i$mu...@news.asiaonline.net>...
>Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature on it.
Sorry, maybe my term fake wasn't quite right. A copy really. For hundreds of
years students and people wanting to get rich would copy master paintings
(including the signature). Most of these would show up in people attics and
everyone would get all up in arms about missing paintings but for the most
part, they're not the real thing. There's also a Monet in the scene that has
always been in the Louve (sp) I believe.
-Bil
Gordon Werner
Gary Pollard wrote:
> Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature
> on it.
>
> Gary
no...they never mentioned or showed picaso's signature...all they said
in the film was they were by "Something Picaso" They could very easily
have been reproductions of his work, or additional coppies he made.
Gary Pollard
If it had a signature, Rose had bought a forgery. And the comments about the
"great use of colour" show a lack of artistic sensibility.
Gary
Albert Yang wrote in message <69a8ts$em6$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>(Regarding the Picasso painting in Rose's room)
>
>
>Gary Pollard (gpol...@asiaonline.net) wrote:
>: Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature on
it.
>:
>: Gary
>
Gary Pollard
From the script::
CAL
Those mud puddles were certainly a waste of money.
ROSE
(looking at a cubist portrait)
You’re wrong. They’re fascinating. Like in a dream... there’s truth
without logic. What’s his name again... ?
(reading off the canvas)
Picasso.
CAL
(coming into the sitting room)
He’ll never amount to a thing, trust me. At least they were cheap
Gary
Dennis Ferguson
Gary Pollard wrote in message <69c7o5$7s...@news.asiaonline.net>...
>From the script::
>
>ROSE
>(looking at a cubist portrait)
>You’re wrong. They’re fascinating. Like in a dream... there’s truth
>without logic. What’s his name again... ?
>(reading off the canvas)
>Picasso.
Yeah, that's what the script said, but that's not how it played out in the
movie. Rose says 'something Picasso' as she's handing the painting to
Trudy; she's not reading anything off the canvas.
This has to be somewhere on the "You know you've watched Titanic too many
times when..." list. It's my own fault for telling everyone I know that
it's a good movie.
Dennis
----
df...@erols.com (Erol's Internet)
dfe...@gl.umbc.edu (UMBC)
Charlotte
Nah I'd say that Cameron just didn't know. Can you really imagine him
sitting there thinking "We'll have these two paintings, which are actually
still around and it will show that Rose bought a copy." I mean, what's the
point? We've got to remember it's a movie and so people will make mistakes.
Just going along with the idea that it WAS a copy though (as I said before
what's the point...) wouldn't Jack as an artist know? I don't know that
much about art so I wouldn't know if he would but I was just interested.
Charlotte
Wil Baden
Charlotte (m...@same.com.au) wrote:
They are _lost_ pictures. Picasso, Monet, _etc_. are known to have painted
pictures that disappeared. It's a nice conceit that they went down with
the Titanic. Of course they'd be different.
--
Wil Baden Costa Mesa, California
Gary Pollard
Doesn't work. No-one making a copy would crop the painting, even if they did
it to a different scale.
Gary
JLW3000 wrote in message <34bc7440...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Well considering the size of the painting was off, it was most
>definately a copy.
Gary Pollard
A copy of a painting WITH a signature is a forgery. That's the definition.
So Rose was buying forgeries.
Gary
Bil Simser wrote in message <$d6u.3$I36.116664@kidd>...
>Gary Pollard wrote in message <69a42i$mu...@news.asiaonline.net>...
>>Except it wasn't a fake. It was supposed to have Picasso's signature on
it.
>
>
Rumble in the Hsiao
In article <69blcv$ns...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>If it had a signature, Rose had bought a forgery. And the comments about the
>"great use of colour" show a lack of artistic sensibility.
I know this is really, really (*really*), reaching, Gary, but one can
consider the difference in size as a sign that perhaps Picasso sold a
different version to Rose. I know some artists paint several different
versions of a given painting--sometimes using a smaller one as a
"prototype" for a larger work.
Can...almost...maybe...get...there...Just...beyond...the...fingertips!!!
*shrug*
James
--
James T. Hsiao Remove '+NOSPAM' to reply
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may
each and every one of us always give the devil his due" Neil Gaiman
Paul Adams
Once again I have to admit that I haven't seen the movie. But...
It sounds to me like there are two reasonable possibilities.
either:
A) The movie explicitly made it clear that the Picaso art was fake (and no
one so far has said this)
or:
B) It was a flaw in the film.
People have a tendency, when they want to believe in the consistency of a
film to come up with plausible explanations for the flaws which are not
necessarily directly supported by the film itself. But the fact is that
this Picasso painting question has confused a lot of viewers and raised a
lot of doubts, and so it should probably be regarded as a flaw.
Jeffrey Davis
Paul Adams wrote:
> It sounds to me like there are two reasonable possibilities.
>
> either:
>
> A) The movie explicitly made it clear that the Picaso art was fake (and no
> one so far has said this)
>
> or:
>
> B) It was a flaw in the film.
It isn't a flaw. They're rich people and they collect things. Rose
collects
art. The pictures are simply some of the things in their fictional
entourage.
On a par w/ the fictional diamond, the fictional Cal, the fictional
Rose,
the fictional Jack etc.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Now available on SpitToons: (div. of SJSP&L)
"I used to know when to say when" by Somebody Shake Louise
Peter Lowry
> Once again I have to admit that I haven't seen the movie. But...
I have.. and I actually noticed the painting and that it was a Picassco
long before the characters even began to talk about it. The one that I
noticed had six women with weird faces which if memory serves me right is
one of his most famous and in tact portraits. I believe what Camron was
trying to do was explain how much treasure really went down with the boat.
While it doubt it was that painting that was on the boat, I think the art
of Picasso's Rose had purchased was some of his pre-Cuba work that was
probably made in Paris.. which was before 1912. (he did pass away in 1915
if once again memory serves me right. I was forced to do a report on a
1000 page biography on this artist. The fact that there was a 25 page
chapter on just that painting in question lead me to believe that it could
be one of his most popular which I doubt was on Titanic)
> A) The movie explicitly made it clear that the Picaso art was fake (and no
> one so far has said this)
It wasn't Picasso that the movie was doubting. Rose had (And remember
she was a character of fiction, so her poscessions could have been too)
bought the art possibly before the artist had become as popular as he did,
but I think if was just an attempt at humor.
But I am quite sure the art was fake since I doubt any gallery would
allow a movie production to burrow any of his work, let alone one of his
most famous works. I believe that Cameron had someone paint a copycat
idea of his most noticable work in the hope that people could notice it
before the character brought up the subject.. just a theory.
> B) It was a flaw in the film.
> People have a tendency, when they want to believe in the consistency of a
> film to come up with plausible explanations for the flaws which are not
> necessarily directly supported by the film itself. But the fact is that
> this Picasso painting question has confused a lot of viewers and raised a
> lot of doubts, and so it should probably be regarded as a flaw.
It was only an attempt to do two things. Make a little humor in a movie
that actually is very sad. The second is to try to explain exactly how
valuable a lot of stuff was when it all went down with the ship. I
remember watching the little sub push aside art frames to get though to
the safe, but if Paxton knew those were Picasso paintings he was moving
aside, he would've flipped.. (the art is quite priceless now..) it was a
joke that actually had more than one ironic punchline. Quite humorous
actually..
Peter
Matthew Butcher
Peter Lowry wrote:
> I have.. and I actually noticed the painting and that it was a Picassco
>long before the characters even began to talk about it. The one that I
>noticed had six women with weird faces which if memory serves me right is
>one of his most famous and in tact portraits. I believe what Camron was
>trying to do was explain how much treasure really went down with the boat.
>While it doubt it was that painting that was on the boat, I think the art
>of Picasso's Rose had purchased was some of his pre-Cuba work that was
>probably made in Paris.. which was before 1912. (he did pass away in 1915
>if once again memory serves me right.
1973, but close enough.
>I was forced to do a report on a
>1000 page biography on this artist. The fact that there was a 25 page
>chapter on just that painting in question lead me to believe that it could
>be one of his most popular which I doubt was on Titanic)
"Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" is quite famous, yes. Which leads to
the question -- and sorry if this has been covered before, I skimmed
through most of the "Titanic" postings in a rapid blur -- wasn't
Picasso famous enough by 1912 that Cal would at least have considered
his art a good investment? And Monet and Degas, from an earlier
generation, were certainly well-known. Would a present-day Cal
dismiss Andy Warhol?
I'm baffled by these claims that the paintings were meant to be
copies. They're obviously meant to be originals; Cameron, concerned
as always about reaching a wide audience, had his crew mimic actual
paintings rather than the artists' general style, just as he gives
Jack the "use of colour" line rather than a more sophisticated bit of
art criticism. When it comes to a decision, he prefers to err on the
side of accessibility.
Any famous art works that *did* go down on the Titanic? It's been a
long time since I read "A Night to Remember," and all that comes to
mind is the jewel-encrusted copy of the "Rubaiyat." Jacques Futrelle
brought some unpublished short story manuscripts on board with him,
but I doubt that anyone much cares besides me.
--
Matthew Butcher | You'd better think twice at least once more.
but...@math.ubc.ca | -- Neil Innes
MuseMalade
Paul Adams wrote:
<<Once again I have to admit that I haven't seen the movie. But...
It sounds to me like there are two reasonable possibilities.
either:
A) The movie explicitly made it clear that the Picaso art was fake (and no
one so far has said this)
or:
B) It was a flaw in the film.>>
It was a flaw. Mr. Pollard's in a situation where he the boy who cried wolf,
but I can't see how he's wrong on this matter. As I've posted previously, it's
clear that the painting in the movie is supposed to be a real Picasso, and not
only that but Les Demoisselles d'Avignon, one of the landmarks of modern art.
My friend, an art history major, snickered to me about how the painting was not
only not on the Titanic, but it's the wrong size. There are people here who so
want to believe in the infallibility of James Cameron that they're to spin a
blatant flaw into outlandish explanations that test the boundaries of common
sense.
Mike D'Angelo
MuseMalade (musem...@aol.com) wrote:
: As I've posted previously, it's clear that the painting in the movie is
: supposed to be a real Picasso, and not only that but Les Demoisselles
: d'Avignon, one of the landmarks of modern art. My friend, an art
: history major, snickered to me about how the painting was not only not
: on the Titanic, but it's the wrong size.
I only took one art history class in college, but it seems to me that the
"incorrect" size of the picture is a point in Cameron's favor: is there
any particular reason why it couldn't have been a *study* for
'd'Avignon'?
Mike "now if it had been the Venus of Willendorf..." D'Angelo
--
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo
"No, that's toward Sears."
Gary Pollard
Perhaps because it's extremely unlikely Picasso would have done a study. It
was not his general practice. And particularly one with the poor composition
that results from lopping off one side of the picture.
Gary
Mike D'Angelo wrote in message <69h2ks$r...@panix.com>...
MuseMalade
The Man Who Viewed Too Much remarked:
<<I only took one art history class in college, but it seems to me that the
"incorrect" size of the picture is a point in Cameron's favor: is there
any particular reason why it couldn't have been a *study* for
'd'Avignon'? >>
A good point. I have a Picasso coffee table book right in front of me, and
yes, there were studies done for d'Avignon. They were all studies for single
figures, however. And there's no documentation to support the notion that a
study for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon perished with the Titanic.
Obviously, Cameron wants to make his point about Cal being a philistine and
such. But why use something that so perilously resembles one of Picasso's most
famous works, if in fact it *isn't* the d'Avignon? Couldn't any number of
other, more obscure works have made the same point, without creating this
confusion among the knowledgable art-lovers out there?
To be even more cynical, I have the feeling he included the Picasso just so he
can use that "Picasso. He'll never amount to anything" line. If that line was
actually funny, this little indiscretion would've bothered me a lot less.
Agtabby
I thought it was just dumb. They set up the rich guy to be too stupid, too
boring, too mean. That was just a dumb gimick, way too heavy handed!
just like the thing about Freud. Dumb.
"this ship can't sink" blah blah blah
Andrew
Mildred Perkins
Dumb? Why is it dumb? That was a direct quote from a newspaper article
and widely re-used both before and after the accident.
Same as the Freud comment. He wasn't as famous then as he is now. It's
perfectly reasonable that a man buried in his work and
none-too-knowledgable
about the "outside world" would have no clue about Freud. (Which, if
you'd
been paying attention, was exactly the point Rose was trying to make.)
Lastly, the "rich guy" was a stereotype. You get stereotypes when
certain kinds
of people - in this case, young, rich men in the early part of the
century - tend
to exhibit similar behavior. Young, rich men in the early part of the
century did
tend to act just like this fellow.
hamilton
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.98011...@ganymede.cs.mun.ca>,
Peter Lowry <plo...@ganymede.cs.mun.ca> wrote:
> > Once again I have to admit that I haven't seen the movie. But...
>
> I have.. and I actually noticed the painting and that it was a Picassco
> long before the characters even began to talk about it. The one that I
> noticed had six women with weird faces which if memory serves me right is
> one of his most famous and in tact portraits. I believe what Camron was
> trying to do was explain how much treasure really went down with the boat.
> While it doubt it was that painting that was on the boat, I think the art
> of Picasso's Rose had purchased was some of his pre-Cuba work that was
> probably made in Paris.. which was before 1912. (he did pass away in 1915
> if once again memory serves me right. I was forced to do a report on a
> 1000 page biography on this artist. The fact that there was a 25 page
He most certainly did not 'pass away in 1915' -- he was barely getting
started then. His first great breakthrough painting was only a few years
before this and he lived to be a very old man. I can't recall when
he died, but it was more like 1965 than 1915.
k
David Kam
Mildred Perkins wrote in message <34BCEA...@indiana.edu>...
:Agtabby wrote:
:>
:Lastly, the "rich guy" was a stereotype. You get stereotypes when
:certain kinds
:of people - in this case, young, rich men in the early part of the
:century - tend
:to exhibit similar behavior. Young, rich men in the early part of the
:century did
:tend to act just like this fellow.
And how do you know this? Get real. The character was overdone and
one-dimensional. Stop rationalizing.
Check out PINHEAD, the on-line 'zine of humor and weirdness.
http://home.earthlink.net/~davidkam/
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
Peter Lowry wrote:
> (he did pass away in 1915
> if once again memory serves me right. I was forced to do a report on a
> 1000 page biography on this artist.
You should've read it all the way through. Picasso died in 1973, a very old
man. He was 30 at the time Titanic sank. ;-)
------------> Andy Hall
Matthew Butcher
MuseMalade wrote:
>A good point. I have a Picasso coffee table book right in front of me, and
>yes, there were studies done for d'Avignon. They were all studies for single
>figures, however. And there's no documentation to support the notion that a
>study for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon perished with the Titanic.
I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here. Even if such
documentation existed, it wouldn't show Rose as its owner. Any
paintings Rose has are necessarily going to be fictional, and
a nonexistent "Demoiselles" study doesn't seem any less
plausible than any other nonexistent painting.
>Obviously, Cameron wants to make his point about Cal being a philistine and
>such. But why use something that so perilously resembles one of Picasso's
>most famous works, if in fact it *isn't* the d'Avignon? Couldn't any number
>of other, more obscure works have made the same point, without creating this
>confusion among the knowledgable art-lovers out there?
I imagine Cameron's more worried about confusion among the
ignorant art-nonlovers out there, who won't necessarily realise
the significance of any old portrait with oddly placed eyes but
might have vague memories of "Demoiselles." So, is this
pandering? It's a judgement call. There are several things in
the script that seem needlessly stupid, but I don't think this
is one of them.
>To be even more cynical, I have the feeling he included the Picasso just so
>he can use that "Picasso. He'll never amount to anything" line. If that
>line was actually funny, this little indiscretion would've bothered me a lot
>less.
Yep. This part was definitely overplayed, and I could also
have done without the knowing allusions to Freud. I'm sure
Cameron would have had Rose chatting away about Einstein if he'd
only been able to drag black body radiation into the plot.