Picasso: genius taking the piss?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

bieber.jpg (160.83 KiB) Viewed 4350 times

I'm quickly out of my depth in any discussion of the visual arts but I'm sure the same subjective vs objective dichotomies must apply for all the arts. I've always had a passion for literature and yet there are some truly great writers who simply don't resonate with me. I can acknowledge their technical skill and compositional style and even declare it brilliant and yet to me they have the wrong "mood" to engage with me at an emotional level. Art to me is something which somehow must transcend the mere manipulation of its own symbols and tools and reach beyond a mere intellectual appreciation by me of its own intrinsic merits. To be really great art must bring a tear to my eye and force me to say "fuck I wish I could do that".

I think it's a lot deeper than that. Anyone could probably take a decent stab at copying the second Picasso. Many have. The point is that he was the FIRST to do it. He created a whole new style and way of looking at and perceiving artworks. Sometimes genius is only recognized through hindsight. Van Gogh was barely able to sell a painting, apparently only selling one in his lifetime.

Rubbish. He specifically copied children, by his own admission. So he was not the first to do it. He was the first to fool the art world that painting like a child was worth money.

So children inspired him. So what? I love children's art too, but could they paint the first picture? You have to have mastery of the rules before you can break them with mastery. Even if he was 'taking the piss', which is crap, so what too? He still created a new art movement, changed the art world, and painted in a way that no one had before and inspired future artists and emulators.
It hasn't been 'decided by an elite few' that Bach was a genius--it's accepted by anyone with even a smidgen of education you ignorant buffoon.
According to you Justin Bieber is just as much a genius as Bach or Beethoven. Good luck with that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It hasn't been 'decided by an elite few' that Bach was a genius--it's accepted by anyone with even a smidgen of education you ignorant buffoon.
According to you Justin Bieber is just as much a genius as Bach or Beethoven. Good luck with that.

You are such a stupid wanker.
I love Beethoven, Bach and hate Bieber. But that's my opinion.
I don't give a toss for the opinion of the art world. I prefer to chose for myself.

You prefer to pretend to like what you are told to. I'd rather think for myself.

Good luck with that.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It hasn't been 'decided by an elite few' that Bach was a genius--it's accepted by anyone with even a smidgen of education you ignorant buffoon.
According to you Justin Bieber is just as much a genius as Bach or Beethoven. Good luck with that.

You are such a stupid wanker.
I love Beethoven, Bach and hate Bieber. But that's my opinion.
I don't give a toss for the opinion of the art world. I prefer to chose for myself.

You prefer to pretend to like what you are told to. I'd rather think for myself.

Good luck with that.

You fucking moron. Go and learn some reading comprehension instead of making up bullshit in your tiny little brain that others haven't even said. I couldn't give a flying fuck what you like or don't like. It's irrelevant. What a fuckwit you are. And don't worry, there's no chance of you ever being thought of as a genius.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It hasn't been 'decided by an elite few' that Bach was a genius--it's accepted by anyone with even a smidgen of education you ignorant buffoon.
According to you Justin Bieber is just as much a genius as Bach or Beethoven. Good luck with that.

You are such a stupid wanker.
I love Beethoven, Bach and hate Bieber. But that's my opinion.
I don't give a toss for the opinion of the art world. I prefer to chose for myself.

You prefer to pretend to like what you are told to. I'd rather think for myself.

Good luck with that.

You fucking moron. Go and learn some reading comprehension instead of making up bullshit in your tiny little brain that others haven't even said. I couldn't give a flying fuck what you like or don't like. It's irrelevant. What a fuckwit you are. And don't worry, there's no chance of you ever being thought of as a genius.

You poor little thing. You really have lost the plot.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You never had a 'plot'. In fact, you appear so thick that you have to be a troll.

[Dalek Prime]

I forget where I read it, many moons ago, but Picasso had a really sadistic streak in him.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I forget where I read it, many moons ago, but Picasso had a really sadistic streak in him.

Yes he left a trial of broken hearted women. And was the cause of at least one suicide.

[mtmynd1]

"But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity."

It is obvious that you are trying to find someone to agree with you.

An artist paints what they feel at the time they are painting. They are not intentionally seeking fame or fortune from that which they are painting. They are capturing a moment of their creativity... in some cases an exploration or experiment that they are interested in pursuing. If anyone reading this has or does paint or make art of any type, they would more than likely have found out that there is a "force" of sort that leads the piece they are working on in a direction they follow... the painting takes on a character that was not necessarily intended. But the artist being an artist follow the Muse, trusting in outcome.

That being said, the Picasso painting you use for your title, "... taking the piss" indicates you have no interest in the painting and are merely being critical of said piece. It was not Picasso who priced this painting as it was passed from owner to owner, but rather priced by the market and the desire of a customer. Hell, Picasso himself *may* have chuckled or worse at the idea that this painting was sold for such a price! You are criticizing the the painter rather than the customer without knowing anything about either, the painting or the customer. Think about that the next time you what to air your criticism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

"But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity."

It is obvious that you are trying to find someone to agree with you.

An artist paints what they feel at the time they are painting. They are not intentionally seeking fame or fortune from that which they are painting. They are capturing a moment of their creativity... in some cases an exploration or experiment that they are interested in pursuing. I anyone reading this has or does paint or make art of any type, they would more than likely have found out that there is a "force" of sort that leads the piece they are working on in a direction they follow... the painting takes on a character that was not necessarily intended. But the artist being an artist follow the Muse, trusting in outcome.

That being said, the Picasso painting you use for your title, "... taking the piss" indicates you have no interest in the painting and are merely being critical of said piece. It was not Picasso who priced this painting as it was passed from owner to owner, but rather priced by the market and the desire of a customer. Hell, Picasso himself *may* have chuckled or worse at the idea that this painting was sold for such a price! You are criticizing the the painter rather than the customer without knowing anything about either, the painting or the customer. Think about that the next time you what to air your criticism.

You have a very naive view of artists in general and of Picasso in particular.
Picasso knew exactly what he was doing, and he took great lengths to carve himself out as a famous artist. He was feted by many other emerging artists of the time such as Dali - a man who was also a great self-publicist, arrogant and an exhibitionist of the worst kind. Picasso was something of a sociopath and sexual predator. It is perfectly consistent from his psychological profile that he might have been consciously "taking the piss", or just as likely was stoned out of his head on pot or heroin when he was (ahem) "inspired" to paint his lazy, distorted art.

Picasso did have a lot os artistic skill, and of the three pictures I posted I love two of them.
Maybe had you read the thread you would have understood that I am not attacking Picasso as such, but one example of his work.

How do you rate the 3 images yourself?

[mtmynd1]

... I am not attacking Picasso as such, but one example of his work.

How do you rate the 3 images yourself?

How can you admit you are "not attacking Picasso" but in the same breath say "but one example of his work"? You either accept what the man has done as he has done them (listened to his Muse) or you don't. Your 2nd example is what you consider to be the result of a piss. Compare your choice of paintings with that of "Dora Maar au Chat" which has some similarities, facial in particular. This painting sold for "a final bid of US$95,216,000 in an auction of Impressionist/Modern works held at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006 in New York, and make it the second-highest price ever paid for a painting at auction." What you feel is a "piss" is not a shared feeling, which is the point I am making "H.C."... and not everyone, myself included, will agree with you.


FYI: http://www.pablopicasso.org/dora-maar-au-chat.jsp

The first (top) image you provided is my least favorite followed by the third... the second I find most fascinating and attention grabbing which is a good barometer of my personal choices in arts of all types.

[Dubious]

Compare your choice of paintings with that of "Dora Maar au Chat" which has some similarities, facial in particular. This painting sold for "a final bid of US$95,216,000 in an auction of Impressionist/Modern works held at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006 in New York, and make it the second-highest price ever paid for a painting at auction." What you feel is a "piss" is not a shared feeling, which is the point I am making "H.C."... and not everyone, myself included, will agree with you.

Most people who pay these kind of absurd prices are less inclined to like the paintings they purchase - though they may - but as an investment independent of one's personal tastes. Almost every time paintings by the famous are auctioned it's usually always at a considerably higher price then previous. It's the kind of investment which only the very rich can afford to play. It's perhaps the most potent wealth asset and retainer there is which, unlike most of the other financial ones including real estate, only accrues value with each change in ownership. In short, price is not in any way allied to the merit of a so-called "art work" though it may in fact be one. It's the most propriety form of a stock purchase since it belongs to only one buyer.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Compare your choice of paintings with that of "Dora Maar au Chat" which has some similarities, facial in particular. This painting sold for "a final bid of US$95,216,000 in an auction of Impressionist/Modern works held at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006 in New York, and make it the second-highest price ever paid for a painting at auction." What you feel is a "piss" is not a shared feeling, which is the point I am making "H.C."... and not everyone, myself included, will agree with you.

Most people who pay these kind of absurd prices are less inclined to like the paintings they purchase - though they may - but as an investment independent of one's personal tastes. Almost every time paintings by the famous are auctioned it's usually always at a considerably higher price then previous. It's the kind of investment which only the very rich can afford to play. It's perhaps the most potent wealth asset and retainer there is which, unlike most of the other financial ones including real estate, only accrues value with each change in ownership. In short, price is not in any way allied to the merit of a so-called "art work" though it may in fact be one. It's the most propriety form of a stock purchase since it belongs to only one buyer.

It's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. People love Picasso, and that pushes the price up.

[Dubious]

Compare your choice of paintings with that of "Dora Maar au Chat" which has some similarities, facial in particular. This painting sold for "a final bid of US$95,216,000 in an auction of Impressionist/Modern works held at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006 in New York, and make it the second-highest price ever paid for a painting at auction." What you feel is a "piss" is not a shared feeling, which is the point I am making "H.C."... and not everyone, myself included, will agree with you.

Most people who pay these kind of absurd prices are less inclined to like the paintings they purchase - though they may - but as an investment independent of one's personal tastes. Almost every time paintings by the famous are auctioned it's usually always at a considerably higher price then previous. It's the kind of investment which only the very rich can afford to play. It's perhaps the most potent wealth asset and retainer there is which, unlike most of the other financial ones including real estate, only accrues value with each change in ownership. In short, price is not in any way allied to the merit of a so-called "art work" though it may in fact be one. It's the most propriety form of a stock purchase since it belongs to only one buyer.

It's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. People love Picasso, and that pushes the price up.

Totally naive! It's the power of the "Brand" whether or not people actually like the art behind it which determines these totally grotesque prices...which is exactly what "investors", not art lovers per se, are hoping for. I'm sure even Picasso would have thought "these guys are crazy!" but as a matter of fact they're not since there's more of the super rich than ever before driving the prices up as if it were the ideal stock with a far higher probability of going up than down.

Would I buy a total piece of shit for 50 million$ that I wouldn't mount over a toilet bowl if I was reasonably certain I could resell it for 10 million more in a year or so? Stupid question don't you think!

There's a huge number of people who don't love Picasso and his art is not what's driving the prices up. That part is due completely to it's investment value based on the brand of what is merely perceived to be art.

The following is an example of that. Unbelievable when you look at what caused the inflation...and there are plenty more examples. It's a business first and foremost. It's the art of making money not Art appreciation which is most appreciated by buyers, sellers and re-sellers...a unique club of the super wealthy.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... hter#img-2

[mtmynd1]

Most people who pay these kind of absurd prices are less inclined to like the paintings they purchase - though they may - but as an investment independent of one's personal tastes. Almost every time paintings by the famous are auctioned it's usually always at a considerably higher price then previous.

Dub, you're merely voicing an opinion that has as much value as a reader would like to place upon it. What is your definition of "absurd price"? Something that you yourself find objectionable, no matter what you feel about prices and art. The closer truth lies in the fact that paintings that command huge amounts of money will in all likelihood survive the pillage of time. Values place admiration on objects assuring future generations will be able to enjoy.

Totally naive! It's the power of the "Brand" whether or not people actually like the art behind it which determines these totally grotesque prices...

You ignore that "Brand" is created by public acceptance. Would "Elvis Presley" brand not have tremendous value had his music and overall career had not been admired by the public? Would Picasso's "Dora Maar" achieve the value it has if it wasn't for the artist's career and public acceptance? The list is long given the time and interest to pursue it.

Would I buy a total piece of shit for 50 million$ that I wouldn't mount over a toilet bowl if I was reasonably certain I could resell it for 10 million more in a year or so?

The key phrase (highlighted) is paramount to your foolish question. For you to purchase anything for $50M would require you having a tremendous amount of money available to you to even consider a purchase of that magnitude. If you're going to play the "assumption game", begin with the reality of where your wealth comes from? If your personal "value" so great to those you serve that spending that amount of money on an artwork is merely an investment for you? How much are you willing to spend on the security of such a piece, (think vaulting, humidity factors, long term security concerns, etc. which would account for the value of the future sale).

There's a huge number of people who don't love Picasso and his art is not what's driving the prices up. That part is due completely to it's investment value based on the brand of what is merely perceived to be art.

Ridiculous assumption, Dub, especially your last sentence. Art is art, period. Whether you as Joe Public enjoy an art piece is strictly on your own perception in what you are looking at - how does it make you feel? what is it that attracts you to it? would you consider purchasing the piece and hang it on your wall? what would your family and friends think of your choice in art? There are several factors one does consider before making a purchase dependent upon the original value placed on the piece.

The following is an example of that. Unbelievable when you look at what caused the inflation...and there are plenty more examples. It's a business first and foremost. It's the art of making money not Art appreciation which is most appreciated by buyers, sellers and re-sellers...a unique club of the super wealthy.

A "quick-to-criticize" comment that is ill-thought out. True one would certainly enjoy making some level of profit off an investment, but that is unrealistic. Think of the investment one makes in a home or an automobile... how about a musical instrument... do you fancy the object over the "future profit"? The super wealthy are in reality, no different from any of us other than they have more value than the majority, whether thru inheritance or self-made. Many of those wealthiest become caretakers of various objects of great value... a rather large responsibility to take on considering the cost one spends on such objects of art. To treat those objects carelessly would say they have no interest in their intrinsic value. Those people's wealth will quickly "piss away".


I watched a fascinating documentary on Gerhard Richter's art which showed the man at work, his studio, some of his shows, etc... and the one thing I kept thinking is how driven the man is to create and the communications he has with his pieces in progress (the artist and the muse). I'm sure he would be just as curious as to why his works command the money they do, especially after the initial sale... something the majority of struggling artist would envy, but not consider an end goal to their personal art path. Why is a painting from the Renaissance Period not as valuable as a modern piece of artwork? The mystery of art that brings so many levels of interest to it is what makes art what it always has been to mankind. Art is the only survivor of the past that we, the current generation, has to know of that past. Think of all the art that has been saved, salvaged and continues to be discovered... it is all art. There is very little written word or memories of song our distant forefathers amused themselves with other than pottery, statues, murals, etc...

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... hter#img-2[/quote]

[Hobbes' Choice]

... I am not attacking Picasso as such, but one example of his work.

How do you rate the 3 images yourself?

How can you admit you are "not attacking Picasso" but in the same breath say "but one example of his work"? .

Are you stupid?
I asked you how you rate the pictures and you quote me a price. Can't you think for yourself?
I've shown you three examples of his work and criticised ONE of them. Haven't you figured out who did the other two. If you want to contribute to a thread, it's usually a good idea to READ it.