/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

can't you see how incredibly good that is?

Picasso was an overrated talentless hack.

Looks an awful lot like the feel guy.

>>1813787
i'm starting to like picasso more and more. fuck photorealistic garbage, sometimes i want to draw simple, effortless shit too.

>>1813819
for you, anon.

>>1813825
Don't look up to him
Look down on him and tell yourself if you stop working hard you will be shit like him
With enough effort the greatest masterpieces will feel like simple effortless shit to you (of course that's assuming you live very long)

>>1813842
Good work.

>>1813845

>>1813842
Added to feelerino folder.

>>1813842
This is fucking hilarious

>>1813808
Yes but most artwork are only famous and valuable because of provenance. The life of picasso is worth more than his true art.

>>1813885
Sure even Picasso fans get annoyed when some of his shit work gets sold off for millions at auctions

This is a painting Picasso did when he was old. Show me evidence that Braque didn't make all of those analytic cubist paintings.

Why are you fags mad anyway? Did he maybe put on the price on his paintings?
You hate on guy who don't have a fucking idea his paintings are being sold for millions since he is dead.
If you reaally have to put your energy in hating someone in Picasso's case then hate the people who put the price on and the ones who buy it.

>people drawing shitty anime on an imageboard claim picasso is overrated

>>1813787
Why did Picasso waste so many years learning to paint like a child when he could have hired children to paint for him?

>>1814130

>>1814130
>Why did Picasso waste so many years learning to paint like a child when he could have hired children to paint for him?
Could it be that he actually enjoyed it? Could it be that being an Concept Art Industry Super Star was not what interested him?
Or is that too far-fetched?

>>1814141
b-but muh industry standards!

>>1814141
Anything that isn't a mech isn't art.

lol concept art is the western equivalent of anime

>>1813787
>>1813808
are you the same guy who always posts his bullshit theory about picasso here? provide one shred of evidence that his father did make his early work.

>>1814037
the conspiracy deepens!

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

>>1814230
Provide one shred of evidence that his father DIDN'T make his early work.

>>1814230
All his work when he was with his father was good
All his work when he left his father was bad

>>1814151
Word

>>1814234
that's not how this works. picasso was a talented artist who mastered realism and then began exploring new fronts. keep screaming 'missing links!' just like the creationists.

>>1814236
I'll bet you really believe that

>>1813808
you are disgusting, show some respect
picasso revolutionized the art community for years even after his death. you are obviously some kind of "special artsy snowflake!!!1!" for not recognizing a fucking master, don't be an idiot

>>1814244
keep in mind /ic/ is crawling with plebs who can't into anything other than realism and anime.

-Picasso made Bargue drawing copies
-The Bargue drawing course is for absolute beginners
-There's no way a technically competent painter like Picasso's father would be making Bargue drawings so late in his career
-Picasso's early classical work doesn't look anything like his father's work
-Picasso's work looks drastically different in every period he shifts into
-His classical work looks nothing like his impressinionist work, his impressionist work looks nothing like his proto cubist work, his proto cubist work looks nothing like his analytic cubist work, his analytic cubist work looks nothing like his synthentic cubist work, the synthetic stuff looks nothing like his neo-classical art, the neo classical work looks nothing like his neo-expressionist work.

>>1814264
hey faggot get the fuck out of here with your educated opinions

Also note the signature on this piece...

>>1814246
lol its crawling with plebs who cant do ether, good observation drawings are scarce as shit on this board

>>1814264
>Picasso's work looks drastically different in every period he shifts into
Everything but that one painting that gets posted every time (the one really done by his father) and his mother's portrait (guess he didn't have the guts to shit all over the face of the person who gave life to him) looks equally like shit though?

>>1814323

>>1813808
>doesn't look photorealistic with big guns and armor, must be shit

fucking pleb faggot, pls go

>>1814374
i could stick a paintbrush into my ass and paint better than that, the fuck makes picasso stand out other than retards pay millions for his name?

>>1814380
he was on the cutting edge every step of his life, and had an incalculable influence on modernism and 20th century art as a whole. If you can paint better than picasso (pic related), please show us.

>>1814234
Burden of proof is on the claimant. You're the one making these claims, so put up or shut up.

>>1814323

>>1814385
lel, if some anonymous guy posted that on /ic/ without comment they'd probably get shit on for its boring composition and value scale.

>MUH NOTORIETY

>>1814386
The initial claim is that he did all of his work himself, where's their proof nigga? lol

>>1814418
>using /ic/s response as a measurement of how good a piece of artwork is
shiggy diggy.

/ic/ is inhabited by actual retards who shit on absolutely any artist, even an old master, because they are insecure and angry. Though to be fair, if something that caliber was posted they'd immediately switch over to dick-sucking mode.

>>1814419
that's not just a claim, that's what the actual evidence supports. you're the conspiracy theorist, you're the one with the claim. It's cute that you fall back on this argument just because you have no actual proof.

>>1814419
also, in case you're really that dumb, the proof is in this thread. catch up.

>>1814419
>clumsy dodge
If you wanna challenge what's established, you must provide proof. You're the one making a claim here.

The fact that you DIDN'T just now shows how weak your position is. You rely on cheap antics instead of actual proof because you ain't got any.

>>1814419
You can make that claim about any artist, alive or dead. Without proof, you're just speculating.

>>1814423
>>1814424
>>1814425
>>1814426
I have the biggest smile on my face right now.

>>1814434
>>>/b/

>>1813787
>2014
>still not understanding what he was doing
>stay pleb

>>1814433
/thread

>>1814385
ill give you some of his shit can look nice, but i would also say van gogh did that style better...

it could just be me, but this style of painting just never looked impressive, if you know your colors you can do similar paintings too.

but things like that arent want picasso is known for, he is known for his fucking retarded self portraits that are done with a quarter inch wide brush black paint and at best 15 seconds of effort that start at 25000$ and only go up.

that picture, while i do like it full sized, i only realize that its a landscape when i full size it and notice the thing at the top is a... lets call it a plant, not sure if its a tree or not. from a distance i cant tell what it is because the plants are not very readable... i like the style, but poor subject material.

>>1814421
i recently looked up the old masters in another thread... their drawings and anything but the paintings are immaculate, and some sculptures i just don't believe will ever be matched, not because of skill, but the medium itself being expensive and a bitch to get your hands on...

but a good 4/5ths of the old masters, the moment they go to paint, they throw everything they knew from drawing out the fuckung window and adopt a very poor style at worst... there are quite a few that shine through as what i think of when someone says old master, but most of them... no...

they also make jesus... even when depicted alive... look like a zombie... that i found hilarious.

>>1814466
>he is known for
I think you mean "i'm a pleb and all only know 1% of the work picasso produced"

>>1814108
Word.

>>1814441
Did Picasso influence art more than Stravinsky influence music?

They're both the same in a way.

>>1814750
picasso is probably the biggest influence on art since titian. so more? i guess. perhaps the same.

>>1814240
>implying that shit painting is good

>>1814963
>implying none of the images posted so far are good
does it hurt to be this dumb?

>>1814986
>>1814246
>>1814385
These are beautiful, thanks for posting anon

>>1815006
Don't mention it

This one is probably my favourite of the analytic work. The multiple perspectives on the portrait is just unreal. It takes a while to read some of the more dense cubist pieces but once you get it down it's pretty amazing.

>>1815018
>multiple perspectives

Christ's sake.

They're literally just angular lines of no relation save for proximity you blissful boob.

>>1815010
saw it in person. I like picasso, but felt pretty meh about that one

>>1815020
do you actually not understand cubism at all?

>>1815021
I'd love to be able to see it in person. Saw some of his other stuff but missed out on this one.

>>1813787
If you look closely at this portrait there's actually another set of eyes painting inside of his eye.

>>1815096
Better version of this one.

>>1815116
Those cats in the foreground are really nice

I don't really get Picasso especially his most modernist works. Any good art criticism on him? I read a book that "disproved" the idea that he appropriated tribal art for his primitive paintings like d'Avignon and such. It didn't really convince me his primitivism was interesting or worthwhile though, just innovative.

>>1814467
sure, i know one percent... if that thing you posted was a picasso... i know 1.1% now and still think crap.

>>1815466
pretty much everything in this thread is picasso. are you really saying every image in this thread is crap?

>>1814151
a meth*

>>1815470
just went through, liked 17 and only 3 paintings. same problem with him that i see in the old masters, the moment they pick up paint everything they know and can do goes straight out the window.

>>1815475
>same problem that I see in the old masters
Firstly, that's such a broad group of artists that only a moron would make blanket statements about "the old masters." secondly, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>1815479
you posted right there what im talking about... these people know their shit, and if this is a picasso >>1815470 but than they make shit like that.
Peter Paul Rubens and his massacre of innocents, that just shows you don't need to make a painting look retarded to get a feeling across.

that shit is what people know picasso for, the i just stuck a paint brush into my ass and waved it around a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivid1T0VKl4
is another one, there was a worse one that really gets to me, it was a jug with a self portrait on it that was in the 25000 $ range and i just can't understand what people see in these retarded pieces.

if >>1815479 was done by any other person besides picasso it would have been forgotten and probably never saw the light of day.

>>1815486
no, educated people know picasso for much more than his neo-expressionist work. his blue period, rose period, analytic and synthetic cubism, and return to order all produced well-known and distinctive work.

you're talking about the kind of plebs who can't name an artist other than Picasso, Van Gogh, and Leonardo, who couldn't name a single painting by picasso. and who cares what they think of the man?

>>1815496
your not doing him any favors by posting crappy things he made.

and here is an interesting way to look at it.
on one end you have a market of billionaires who buy and sell paintings as an investment, and they want the market to go up.
than you have others like guernica that look like shit, that people think are good because of the person who painted it, and look at how much other shit he makes costs, and re affirm "it must be good"
then you have the rest of the people... the masses... and lets put it this way. if something looks absolutely retarded, and only 1 person of lets say 100 back you up saying it is good... are you really going to take that 1 person who for all you know is functionally retarded opinion over what many people say?

like i said, if pleb means that i hate the shit that looks retarded and not sucking his dick... than im proud to be pleb.

>>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

Just curious but is OP actually satisfied now, or is this conspiracy theory about Picasso still going to be around after this thread?

>>1815496
that is one cool painting

>>1813808
mmm yea fuck of pleb

>>1814152
no fucking sense

>>1814244
Yes, he revolutionized it - doesn't make them any less shit though.

He drew this at 13 for his art school entrance exam.

>>1817843
I'm sure he did

>Hating Picasso
>2014
I'm sorry, are we all regressing? Because I'd like to be told if we're going to regress.

>>1820437
>implying art didn't already regress when picasso influenced modern artistry

top kek.

>>1820441
>implying
>opinions

>>1820444
>opinions
>thinks his is worth shit

>>1820447
>assumptions
>flawed arguments
>opinions
debate skill 0/10

>>1820448
>still shit worth opinions

notworthdebating.jpg

>>1820441
>>1820444
>>1820447
>>1820448
>>1820450

>look at this guy shitposting, what a fag! i better tell him he's a fag.

>oh no wai! he called me a fag back! will his shit posting never end! i better tell him i think he's shit posting a lot.

>what! he just called me a fag again. what a shitposter! i better call him a fag again so he knows he's the fag no me

>ad infinitum

>>1820457
>shitpost more to stop shitposting
>ad infinitum
>the irony

>>1820458
no you're the fag. no me.

>>1820461
I can't say I like ponies but the geese are flying north next month

Picasso was a faggot and created a huge pile of of shit, but if he really just let his father do all his realistic looking stuff, I'm sure somebody would have already found out.

>>1820472
not if he killed every witness

>>1815479

WAIT why does he draw those shitty hands if he knew how to draw them properly?

Why the hands? Why does it make them look like shit?

>>1814130
>Why did Sargent waste so many years learning to paint when could have hired a painter instead?

wow this thread is trash. i knew /ic/ was full of contrary twits but this is ridiculous.

>>1820530
I... I'm pretty sure literally every other body part here looks like shit too and not accurate.

>>1820530
because realism isn't the goal of every work of art...

it takes a certain kind of pleb to not recognize picasso as a master. I can take someone disagreeing with his ideological content and personal credo but the man could put to canvas what was inside of him and he did so expertly. he was a man with a singular amount of visual ideas and artistic visions

how someone could look at

>>1815185
>>1817812

and not pick up on the personality, humor and energy emanating from the pictures is bewildering. I thought some of you were interested in cartoons

>>1820530
Because once you have made yourself a name big enough, you can paint all kinds of shit and idiots will even pay more for it, because it's so "deep", "original" and "inspiring".

>>1820701
so your theory is that picasso painted the hands in a naive style because cartoon hands are "deep" and "inspiring"?

It wasn't due to any influence from child or tribal art, or because he was flattening the picture plane a la Cubism. No, the reason he drew floppy cartoon hands is because, as everybody knows, that's "deep".

Please stop posting.

>>1820701

the exaggeration, flattening, distortion and manipulation of the hands is supposed to be expressive and relate to our understanding of hands as well as our understanding of the symbol of hands.
it's like in one of your mickey mouse cartoons, except that it's done in the service of something other than comedy

>>1820572
Maybe he didn't have the money to hire a painter

>>1820705
I'm just telling how people act when they like pictures like this.
If you don't like them, they will say you are just too much of a pleb.
Ie they think they have something "deep" about them which not everyone can understand.

I personally dont find them deep at all, I just think they are shit and a waste of paper.

>>1820711

how can guernica be a waste of paper when it's done on canvas you big doofus
also I'm not saying you're a pleb because you dislike them, you're pleb because you talk like a moron and the reasons you give are juvenile and indicative of an unimaginative mind

>>1820711
you realize you're the only one bringing 'deep' into this conversation, correct? stop fighting strawmen.

>>1820715
And I think you are really a special kind of snowflake and acting like a huge smartass.

>>1820717
You realize that when people say you are just too plebian to understand it, they mean it is literally 2deep4you?

Picasso is practically the defintion of a "2deep4you" artist.
Sadly, there is absolutely nothing deep about it.

>>1820720
>literally
you realize that you literally don't know how to use this word?

calling you a 'plebian' just means you're an idiot. it says nothing about what picasso was trying to do. if you've never had any sort of education in art history, speak out of your ass, or like thomas kinkade and leonid afremov, you're plebian.

it's because you're an uneducated jackass with poor taste and no real knowledge about the topic you're discussing that we call you plebian.

>>1820732
I'm pretty sure I have more knowledge about art than you do, smartass.
I bet you can't even draw properly.

>>1820732
>literally
>you realize that you literally don't know how to use this word?
Not him but this need to stop. There is NOTHING in the word "literally" that refers to "something real, not a metaphor". It comes from the latin words for letter, and it means just that "just like the letters". It's emphatic.
Look it up in a dictionary:
>in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
>following the words of the original very closely and exactly
>etc.
This other meaning:
>in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical
Is a misappropriation of the English language due to uncultured peasants not knowing what the word meant to begin with.
If you want to pick on a wrongly used word why don't you do that with "actually"? That means "as an actual or existing fact; really. " which is much closer to what people think "literally" means because some idiot started to spread this stupid argument which ignores semantics and etymology entirely.

>>1820736
I probably draw better than you, but that's irrelevant dick-wagging, and it has nothing to do with understanding Picasso, Cubism, or Modernism. Go take a 101 course, or read a book, or just a wiki article ffs.
>>1820762
we don't speak latin, and words develop new meanings all the time. languages evolve, just like organisms.

Maybe you should post better pictures like pic related, it almost looks like a photo x)

That Picasso guy really lacked dem loomis right guys? :9

How do you look at cubism? I find it really hard to read what I'm looking at

>>1820820
just keep in mind the idea is that 3-dimensional space is being flattened onto a 2-dimensional plane, and you can often see multiple sides of the same object, as cubism is rooted in the innovations of Cezanne, who would capture and object from multiple viewing angles.

here is a piece by Braque.

>>1820780
>has nothing to do with understanding Picasso, Cubism, or Modernism. Go take a 101 course, or read a book, or just a wiki article ffs.
So you mean if people don't like this kind of "art", then they just don't understand it. But thats exactly what I was saying. If you dont like it, then it just says "it's too deep for you", although its just shallow and primitive ugly crap.

I can't even imagine how much this retard harmed the art world.

>>1820884
>So you mean if people don't like this kind of "art"
nope, not what I said at all. I'm saying you should at least ATTEMPT to understand it before you dismiss it, and it's clear you have not. also please stop using your '2deep4u' strawman, no one in this thread has said that to you.

>>1820887
There is nothing to understand about it, dumbfuck.
Its not like I am looking at a riddle, which suddenly transforms into a masterpiece if you know how to read it, dispshit.

>>1813787
Looks just like feels guy

I grew up with this big book of picassos works that my parents gave me. This thread is giving me good feels. People that dont like picasso are faggots lol

>>1820780
>I probably draw better than you, but that's irrelevant dick-wagging
Its no irrelevant at all. You was talking about your oh-so mighty knowledge about art and how much your taste is superior to mine, blabla.

Well, if you really have such a better view at art, then you should at least be able to draw better than me.
Sadly, I bet you cant make anything but chicken scratches, and talking fency on imageboards.

>>1820899
>Stop disliking what I like bwahhh
Looks you are the real faggot here

>>1820907
>stop disagreeing with me!
no, anon. you are the faggot.

>>1820909
Where did I ever said this? I honestly don't give a shit what retards like you think.
Go ahead and eat your shit if it makes you feel better.
But dont get so defensive and mad if pthers call it what it is - shit.

>>1820912
>implying i give a shit what retards like you think

>>1820916
>bwahh why you dont like Picasso you faggot
>implying i give a shit what retards like you think

>>1820902
I'll show u mine if u show me urs

>>1813842
underrated post

underrated trolls itt

>>1820582
hey I drew this upside down

>>1821065
just say what's on your mind. say it. say picasso a shit.

Picasso just got over creating illusions and wanted to push new ground. Into what would later be jackson polocks pure expression of feeling and not looking into an illusion crafted on a canvas but instead, looking at the canvas itself.
This is not too hard to understand. Any further education that is past year 11 should have told you this.

"It took me 4 years to paint like Rafael, and a lifetime to paint like a child." -Pablo Picasso

>>1813787
objectively?

...shit sucks, yo.


2/10 would not hang on fridge

>>1821484
and the rest of the thread?

also
>"objective" judgment of a piece of art
topkek

>ITT weabos who sit in their room recolouring sonic characters accuse the most prolific and revolutionary painter of the 20th century of being a hack because he didn't draw Goku fighting furry Superman then wank into a sock.

>>1822763
>>ITT weabos who sit in their room recolouring sonic characters accuse the most prolific and revolutionary painter of the 20th century of being a hack because he didn't make all those paintings from his childhood.

FTFY

>>1815486
You did not just fucking say that about Guernica, holy shit you must know jack shit about Picasso to not know what's behind that painting, you have no right to talk about him.

>>1814466
>25000$

: )

>>1814752
>>>1814421

i vote for second as duchamp, then warhol maybe as third.

My favourite Picasso

>>1822770
but he did make those paintings.

>>1820803
2deepforme

>>1823558
best version of the penguin

>>1814385
Picasso's technicque doesn't matter. His innovation does.

dumping more picasso's

>>1824345
fucking sage already, I hate Picasso, shut the fuck up

>>1824347
>they see me paintin
>they hatin

>>1824392

last one

>>1814246
>who can't into anything other than realism
>Implying realism is easy to into

>>1824536
I think he meant easy to like, not easy to make.

>>1824536
I think he means easy to like, not easy make.

>>1820890
>He doesn't know how to read cubism
cancer