/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2026429
I still don't like Picasso. I think it's stupid when people suddenly like his stuff based solely on the fact that he is capable of doing realism, so that somehow gives him some superpower or something for everything else he does. They also really downplay how difficult GOOD realism is, and they overstate his abilities as a teenager. Yes, he was great for his age, especially by today's standards. but NO he was nowhere near Raphael's level like he claimed, and the stuff that "wows" people from his realism phase is really mediocre or plain bad when compared to mature artists of that time period.

But to answer your question, I guess Andrew Wyeth is the first name that comes to mind. When I first saw it I thought it was boring. But now he is one of my favourites, and I find I connect emotionally with his paintings moreso than pretty much any other artist. Plus I can really admire his composition and abstract qualities now. I think part of the problem was I initially saw poor reproductions of his work, but I suppose that doesn't fully explain why I didn't like him so much.

>>2026436
Also just remembered when I first saw Waterhouse I didn't understand the big deal with him. Now again, he is one of my favourites. Funny how that works. Usually it's the opposite, I like someone immediately then later my tastes shift away from it or my eyes become sharper and I can notice issues in their art.

>>2026429
Picasso, Pollock, Duchamp, probably others. Tough to remember how I used to feel about artists, much easier to recall who I continue to dislike today. Most of the time I feel lukewarm about artists, see nothing special or interesting, then learn to love them. Especially after reading their theory and understanding the context in which the works were created. Jasper Johns comes to mind.

>>2026467
That's odd. Waterhouse is one of those painters like Booguerreaawge and Tadema who make even laypeople go "wow" whenever they see their paintings.

>>2026429
lmao this is the dumbest picture i've ever seen
>his dad quit when he saw how good his son was
more like, his dad did all his work for him and picasso went all 'm-muh style' once his daddy couldn't paint for him anymore.

kids will use this to reinforce their own shitty art, saying that 'realism is boring' and 'i could do it if i want to, but i'm e-expressing myself'

Picasso even admitted his work was nothing more than an experiment, it was all for the money. He admitted it and still no one believes it! He was bad, he knew his work was bad, stop trying to find excuses for his work. I'm convinced people just don't want to feel they have been 'duped' and will parrot his crap and tell others they just don't understand it or it's too deep for them.

Alright, where's the citation for Picasso's father did all his earlier work? I see this said dozens of times on this board with no proof.

>>2026436
>>2026491
He changed stylistically over time, artist do that.

>>2026537
>Alright, where's the citation for Picasso's father did all his earlier work? I see this said dozens of times on this board with no proof.

You're literally autistic. No, you're never going to get a Wikipedia citation on that. It's impossible to prove this many years later. But his dad was an art teacher, and Picasso's extremely competent work at 14 looks A LOT like his dad's work. So, you do the math. Do you REALLY think Picasso was a master realist at 14? You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof seems like it would fall to you.

I don't get why it's so important for Picasso-worshipers to think he was an art prodigy. What bearing does that have on his later work? None at all... unless you want to argue that Picasso "surpassed" realism; that he 'mastered realism and then ascended to new heights.' This is an incredibly pretentious argument, but the idea that realism is less valid than post-modernism is almost ubiquitous among post-modernists.

It boils down to this: if Picasso was an art prodigy at 14, then that gives Picasso fans ammo to say that his later work was "better" than realism, and they want to keep that ammo. That's the only reason they get so butthurt when anyone suggests that his dad's hand is clearly evident in those early works.

Op here I'm still a newbie to art. I took a screenshot off a reddit thread in /r/music I just wanna see other opinions, I guess discussing about Picasso is cool, but I really wanted to see answers to the question.

>>2026559

But assuming his family had money he could easily devote his days to learning 2 art.

>>2026583
The truth of the matter is, even if Picasso did these paintings mostly by himself, why wouldn't his father help him here and there and make them look more professional? They lived under the same roof, he taught him about art, he gave him the ideas of the subject matters. Why wouldn't he supervise his son's work and when Picasso Jr. made a mistake he'd say "step aside son, let me fix it. Let me draw that hand. Let me block in that composition" etc.

It's literally impossible to prove his father had nothing to do with those paintings and it's only logical to assume that he did.

>>2026559
I don't worship him, I question the notion that there's this great conspiracy to prop up artist YOU don't like.

You said it yourself, his father was a goddamn art teacher, there's no reason he couldn't have been learning from an early age, or have been influenced by his father...the art teacher.

You also assume I need justification, I just think you're wrong. The fact is his worked veered into different territory as he got older. You don't like the that his cubism is recognized and praised as art, and so you're emotionally invested in the idea that the "Emperor Has No Clothes", and HE MUST have been a hack all along.

>>2026644
>How often do you beat your wife.
It's literally impossible to prove he painted his son's painting FOR him, and it's only because you're invested in that idea that you assume he did.

Why is it so hard to digest that an art teacher would teach art to his son, and he became proficient in his own right.

>>2026573
Sorry, If I had to say, it would probably be Rockwell. I had an admittedly immature attitude toward his kind of Americana. I discovered Edward Hopper and he kind of bridged "fine" art and illustration for me, so that I could appreciate both.

>>2026675
>Why is it so hard to digest that an art teacher would teach art to his son, and he became proficient in his own right.

Because the father literally had no reason not to help his son do his paintings, to make him out to be a child prodigy. What, you think Picasso senior hated money or something and went out of his way to never help his son during the painting process? He was living right there with him for fuck's sake and he taught his son all he knew about painting.

At what point did the teaching stop? Do you think at 14 years old, his father never looked at his painting process and said "no, that's wrong, let me show you how to do it".

>>2026675
don't even bother arguing with this guy, it's literally one autist on this board who keeps spouting this picasso conspiracy shit. you can see accomplished work by picasso even after his move to Paris, and his oeuvre shows his progression from realism to more modern forms of painting without the 'gaps' that the conspiracy theory requires.

you might as well argue with a creationist, it's not worth your time.

>>2026754
Yes, yes it was a big money scam that went viral in the 19th century.

>He was living right there with him for fuck's sake and he taught his son all he knew about painting.

Exactly. There's no reason to assume Picasso couldn't paint on his own, and that his father "just tweaked it for him", all in preparation for this century long con job.

I get it though, you've got an axe to grind, I'm going to take >>2026759 advice and tap out.

Here's some Bouguereau, known child rapist, he also murdered the girl portrayed in this painting.

>Hard Lesson indeed.

>>2026800
>Here's some Bouguereau, known child rapist, he also murdered the girl portrayed in this painting.
wat

>>2026800
no, it's fucking retarded. born of ignorance like fucking everything you dipshits say.

picasso painted better than his father. he didn't live with his father when he painting those pictures, he had been in the academy in barcelona for a few years.

i can't believe people are so retarded and find it so hard to understand primitivism that they literally can't understand why picasso painted like he did.

people are just soooooooooooooo fucking plebby it's insane.it's like making up conspiracy theories as to why a guy would play pop music if he were classically trained, sometimes simple and raw is better you fucks.

get a fucking brain.

>>2026810
>average picasso apologist

>>2026810
You won't find a wiki article about it but just look at that abomination!

>That leering gaze a innocent young girl's feet
>Those Dead eyes, a husk of a once vibrant young girl before the ANIMAL Bill Bouguereau stole her innocence.

>>2026823
I think you responded to the wrong post

>>2026829
>Poe's Law
>Lacking an sense of Irony

>>2026800
>Bouguereau, known child rapist
[citation needed]

>>2026866
It's literally impossible to prove he didn't rape children, and it's only logical to assume that he did.

>>2026583
>But assuming his family had money he could easily devote his days to learning 2 art.

Yeah, anon, keep telling yourself that the reason you're not a master realist painter at 14 is because you were too poor.

Every 14yo in a developed country can 'devote his days to art.' They just devote them to video games instead.

>>2026675
>I question the notion that there's this great conspiracy to prop up artist YOU don't like.

Hahaha, what a strawman argument. No one is saying there's a conspiracy. Literally autistic.

>>2026919
>conspiracy theory- noun: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups

>>2026919
conspiracy theory- noun: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups.

and if we're just talking about conspiracies generally, as opposed to conspiracy theories, you literally argued that picasso's father conspired to create paintings and pass them off as his son's work.

lrn2english

kek, that discussion again.

The thing about realistic stuff is you can express yourself with it and not have it turn boring or easy. The artsy stuff just doesn't click with me I guess.

Not a fan of picasso.

>>2026429
Your picture is full of shit OP

Picasso took his fathers academic paintings and changed the J in J Ruiz to P.

Ie. it is fraud.

>>2026869
haha

>>2026429
Setting aside the great masters of the universe. I personally had a hard time understanding why so many people loved craig mullins. And now that i have a better understanding of painting in general. I can't get enough of his art.

What if, picassos dad was taking credit for his sons work.

I really didn't think much of abstract art since one of my family members is an abstract '''artist''' but the abstract paintings in the DIA like the Picasso and Rothko they have are actually cool in person imo, not my totally favorite thing but much more interesting. Also contextually / in relation to the zeitgeist of the times there's a lot about art you don't know until you learn about it.

As kid, my first exposure to Norman Rockwell was when my family went to Hometown Buffet for the first time. As a kid I thought his art was boring.

Now I want to be able to tell a story the way he does.

>>2026935
Parents did worse.

>>2026559
>I don't get why it's so important for Picasso-worshipers to think he was an art prodigy

Because they can only say X is inferior to Y if Y is a subset of X. Ya dig? If Picasso couldn't paint academically then his painting style is not a choice due to superiority but rather his inability to paint academically.

>>2028523
People who want proof Picasso CHANGED THE SIGNATURE ON HIS FATHER WORK just look at this site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081025050122/http://www.picasso-fraud.com/art-fakes.html

I hated his fucking guts.
My family are Scottish, and I've always painted, and so by default that means I've been given Jack Vettriano prints/books/calendars for so many years. I was a goth, I found it boring as fuck.

Except the past couple of years I've learnt about how widely successful he is, and yet that the fine art world still refuses to acknowledge this because he is always seen as below it. I've read articles about it, and him and the way he feels about it.
He handles sunlight pretty well.

I've grown to respect him, even if I still don't like his work. I'm impressed by him, and look up to him.

>>2027620
Kids don't like anything good. What a bunch of ungrateful little shits. Throw em in a fire.

>>2028538
>Jack Vettriano

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=902K9eWfNX0

I liked seeing how he worked. Why do people hate him again? Cause he used reference?

Nigger every artist who isn't abstract use reference all the time.

>>2028556
They mention it in that show don't they?
I think it's mostly because his work as seen as tacky/kitsch illustrations rather than 'meaningful art'.
Basically, he isn't being ironic and 'common' people want their prints all over their house, and they hate that.

Bless him and his paints. Agreeing with >>2028552 the joy of growing old is admitting that we were wrong.