/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1814152
what does that have to do with picasso?

>>1761286
oh, you're still posting the exact same cherry-picked graph too? you never learn
>mfw you're still butthurt about picasso

>>1744535
>cherrypicking
Every artist has stronger and weaker works. the work you posted isn't even weak, it's just in a style you don't like. I've already shown that he had the ability, unless you think his father is still coming over and painting for him at 20, 30, 40...

>there is not a single work that tops his 14-15 yo works
that's a matter of taste. all that can be said is he doesn't approach that level of realism, which upsets you for some reason. He mastered realism, and then went on to change to art world forever. I'm very sorry that realism is the only sort of art you can appreciate, but it has no bearing on Picasso's talent or your wild conspiracy theory. This was just a man who was so cutting edge even neckbeards on 4chan can't deal with it 100 years later.

You said he sucked at 18, I proved you wrong, then you cherrypick and pretend the more realistic works never existed, which would conveniently prove that the stylistic approaches you deem "poor understanding" are actually intentional. I'd rather argue with a creationist, believe what you want.

Picasso at around 37. I think I've made my case. He's always been a badass, haters gonna hate.

>>1677273
no dude, if it isn't realism it isn't beautiful.

>>1509825
Lazy niggers will always be lazy niggers. What about the legions of legitimate artists that came after and were inspired by Picasso? And I'm not talking about the most ridiculous avant-garde stuff you can come up with with.

Also Picasso put tons of effort into his foundational skills, so anyone thinking they could skip all of that and be a Picasso is just totally ignorant of the man's life.

Whatever though, haters gonna hate.