/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2086232


because it sells.

the thing is, today's "art world" hit a certain cap in which technical skill, even symbolism is not looked at anymore, it is considered secondary, even tertiary, sometimes not even looked at. all that matters now is the artist's life/reputation, edginess and mostly money. Picasso's reputation is basically evergrowing because of mouth to mouth, bullshit quotes and documentaries made on him again and again. I think there's more on him than there is on newton or Da vinci which is sad.

If you ask what those so called experts see in picasso's paintings, lay back, take a drink and enjoy all the nonsensical bullshit coming at you. Probably not even coming from artists themselves.

Is this painting thought provoking ? yes, people will wonder what the fuck they're actually supposed to see. will it provoke any other thought ? highly unlikely.

>pic related
this stuff will be posted somewhere about picasso's life only, after a totally anonymous guy said it, every students asked to do something about picasso which means a shit ton, will search and some will find this on Fb, spread it, and another myth is created.

>>2059580

art was shit, symbolism was almost decent, marketing was genius.

he was considered a hack by most at his time certainly is. considering it's him and not his father's work his "realism" work was still shit, mediocre at best.

>pic related is how myths and absolute horse shit stories about him are created.