/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1815498
I'm posting a variety of work, the image you're whining about wasn't posted to support a particular argument. I'm well-aware of how the art market works, but you seem to think that anything avant garde is worthless and successful modernists must all be scams. That ain't so. Guernica is a moving image no matter who made it, and beyond that, it shows stylistic developments that are at least as important as the technique.

>im proud to be pleb
you sure are

>>1761183
>citation needed

>>1744762
>the gap in his formal artistic skill
I've asked you repeatedly to point out when this gap occurred, but you'll keep ignoring any challenges to your 'theory' and keep spouting the same arguments.
>you can experience firsthand by simply comparing the qualitiy of works
I've done just that in this thread, so again, where does this gap occur?
>masking mistakes with "style"
Because cubism is just a result of picasso's poor understanding of perspective? you're a joke.
>biased by the weight of his name alone
you mean like blindly attacking him with unsupported theories that I can't convince anyone with, just because he's popular and someone wants to be le edgy?

Pic related to your laughable argument, I'm sure Picasso was trying to paint a naturalistic portrait of a woman, definitely not an intentional style.

>>1677261
He could have been one in a never-ending line of "good" realist painters. Instead he changed the art world entirely. Picasso probably had a larger impact on modern and contemporary art than any other individual. He invented entire movements, was always on the cutting edge of the avant-garde, and introduced painters into entirely new modes of working. Magellan could've been a great farmer had he stayed at home, but instead he chose to explore.