/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

PICASSO WAS A FAGGOT

>>2063138
Picasso was a fraud. That painting in OP is his father's work. He changed the signature to make it appear to be his own.

So, real quote should be:

"Despite a lifetime's work, I couldn't paint like Raphael, but at best could draw like a child"

http://ninja-art.freeforums.net/thread/13/picasso-fraud

If you take a dump on your front lawn, the world won't care.
If Obama takes a dump on your front lawn, historians will justifiably debate for years why he chose to do such a thing.

If you scribble on a canvas, no one cares.
If a master scribbles on a canvas, art historians will justifiably debate for years why he chose to do such a thing.

>>2063229
deep.

>>2063227
lol i wish i had this communication marketing intelligence to sell my art

you got to value the way he speaks

>>2063229
If you take a dump on all the lawns in your neighborhood and maybe surrounding ones, you become the serial shitter, get on the news, then everyone will justifiably debate for years why you chose to do such a thing.

You just gotta go about it the right way.

>>2063237
Pretty much that's all he was - a con artist. They knew it. Dali made it obvious when he sold blank canvases with his signature on it.

In a letter he wrote to Picasso:

>When Picasso exhibited his Fisherman of Antibes Dali wrote in his telegram:

>"Pablo thanks!
Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art. But for you with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of French prudence we should have had painting which was more and more ugly for at least one hundred years... you... have achieved the limits and the final consequences of the abominable in a mere few weeks... etc."

>Signed S. Dali

http://artrenewal.org/pages/archives.php?articleid=1752

>>2063252
haha oh wow

Dali rules

Her head is a dick.

>>2063227
>ninja-art.freeforums.net
is this is really the sort of scholarly research you use to back up your conspiracy theory?

>>2063229
there's no debate on why he chose to paint the way he did, he wasn't the single avant garde artist in the modern era. he built on the innovations of cezanne to form cubism, and he drew from tribal art for works like les demoiselles d'avignon.

>>2063252
>taking anything Dali said at face value
I'm disappointed in you anon

Just curious, is the whole thing about cubism showing objects from all perspectives really something Picasso intended? Or is it just the art historians?

>>2063227

Lol, that link.

>>2063353
Why don;t you visit the forum post and you'd see I link other sources, and well as posting some comparison pictures.

Picasso was a fraud. It's proven by the forged signatures on the early works falsely attributed to Picasso.

All you can do is say "conspiracy theory" and other ad hominem attacks. ic knows the truth. Picasso was 4chan tier shit at drawing portraits. Yet his father was an average academic painter. It's obvious.

>>2063373

Wow, two other bullshit conspiracy blogs.

Are you also an anti vaxxer?

>>2063373
the very fact that you come here linking your own posts as evidence that picasso is a fraud should tell you how seriously everyone else takes your claims.

>>2063391
Conspiracy blog? It's recognised by the Spanish ministry of culture that Picasso falsely attributed his father's work to himself.

Keep saying "muh conspiracy theory" like it's not obvious to anyone who can draw.

>>2063397
How do you know how seriously people take the claims bro? Have started a poll?

Stop projecting. It's obvious to anyone who has learnt how to construct a head AKA loomis that Picasso couldn't, but his dad could.

Laughing at how buttmad this guy is that no one cares about his shitty forum posts.

>>2063401
How do you know I'm "buttmad" bro?

How do you know I didn't make this Picasso thread on ic as bait to my forum? I could be making posts on here saying "Picasso was a genius stop linking to your forum" (to increase interest through the conflict) for all you know.

>>2063400

Well, in just about any professional field ever there's a thing called peer review where other people evaluate your claims and confirm/deny them.

"My evidence is because I say so." is literally toddler logic.

>>2063403
Bro you keep saying it's my conspiracy theory when in fact I'm just quoting a Spanish dude and articles on the subject:

"A comprehensive forensic study, dated 12-27-2002 of the authenticated works of the father of Pablo Ruiz Picasso, José Ruiz Blasco, fraudulently attributed by Picasso to himself since 1932.
- It is hoped that a forensic evaluation shall be provided by Universities throughout the world, the Picasso Administration, S.A., the Barcelona City Council, the French State, Christie's and Sotheby's, in relation to the present research.
FORENSIC SCIENCE 101

1891-1897: Works of José Ruiz Blasco, Picasso's father, attributed unlawfully to Picasso by himself. The "J" of Jose was often falsified to the "P" of Pablo.

- In regard to the works of Isidoro Brocos Gomez, a professor of sculpture at the Instituto Da Guarda in La Coruña in 1895, they were simply stolen and were also fraudulently attributed to Picasso.

- Picasso began to produce sketches in 1898 and paintings in 1900.
- Attributing works which predate 1898 to Pablo, a falsely defined "child prodigy" (age 10 to 16 ), is a monumental fraud. "

http://web.archive.org/web/20051217045655/http://www.picasso-fraud.com/

"Romulo-Antonio Tenes is a biographer of Picasso's youth. Author of the book "Picasso 1891-1897 Fraud" I.S.B.N. 84-609-6565-1, recognized as a scientific work by the Spanish Ministry of Culture."

http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/15386

>>2063403
If you like science, then why don't the owners of the disputed works submit the signatures to analysis via spectroscopy such as xray machine which can 100% objectively determine if they have been altered?

Is it because Picasso's works are worth billions? And if people knew he was a fraud ...

>>2063402

If it's a ploy to get people to your forum it's a sad one.

Almost all of the posts are yours. Not only that, but they read like everything else people regurgitate here every day.

>>2063413
>Not only that, but they read like everything else people regurgitate here every day.

So if you don't like ic, fuck off from ic. Why are you here sucking Pablo's cock all day? Are you paid to by art investors?

>>2063415

It's not that I don't like /ic, I just think it's really pathetic to copy/paste the culture that already exists here onto your shitty forum and then act surprised when no one really takes you seriously.

I could honestly care less about Pablo, it just seems daft when someone tries framing and argument with "look at my shit forum where I argued by posting memes."

>>2063424
>I could honestly care less about Pablo

The old lost the argument, pretend not to care ploy. But we kinda recognise your fag talk from this thread and the van gough one, so I'm betting you actually do care about this issue very much. What's the deal anons, can't you draw loomis? Look up to people who can't draw Loomis?

>>2063428

I never posted in the Van Gogh thread.

and no, it's not the "pretend not to care" argument, you just don't get the fucking point.

The point is that no one is going to take you seriously when your opening argument is memes and a link to a shitty forum post you made. The accusation that Pablo's early work may have been falsified isn't what bothers me, it's the ludicrous way you're trying to frame the debate.

>>2063428
You realize you're the only one taking your arguments seriously, right? Let me break it down for you, since you clearly have no grasp of art history or Picasso's oeuvre.

9- A decent 9 year old. Better than I was, anyway. Still no prodigy, but having an artist as a father seems to be helping.
13- His training from his father is evident here, and paying off. It's still very wonky in places though, certainly not his father's work, but the work of a student with plenty of room to improve.
16- His formal training under his father is evident, as well as his experience, however brief, at the Royal Academy of San Fernando.
19- Here we see the artist experimenting with a less realistic approach. One cannot claim it's the work of a naive artist, because Picasso is clearly following the example of El Greco, a giant in the history of Spanish art.
20- Living in Paris, he's no longer in the same country as his father. Yet he retains a firm grasp of the fundamentals, while experimenting with more recent impressionist and post-impressionist styles
22,24- In his Blue and Rose periods, he maintains a mixture of realistic and experimental approaches.
25- We begin to see the beginnings of Cubism. Picasso is drawing heavily from tribal art as well as Cezanne at this point.
29- full-blown (Analytical) Cubism.
37- While he is still mainly working in a Cubist mode, he occasionally creates more realistic paintings.
40- Picasso's neoclassical 'return to order' phase follows his Cubism.
49,61- His post-Cubist work during this era often veers into Surrealism.
89- Towards the end of his life, we begin to see premonitions of Neo-Expressionism.

>>2063442
I like your diagram, anon.

>>2063442
13 and 16 are not by him. He only started sketching in 1900, hence any works before that are fraudulently attributed to him.

Let me break this down for you.

1. The signature looks fake.

2. His father conspicuously has few works attributed to him (almost like someone stole his art ,,,)

3. Early works falsely attributed to Picasso show Loomis worthy construction, yet later works show he is a fucking noob, and it's not "muh genius"

4. Picasso was unable to draw a realistic Stalin even though he wanted to. Instead he copped out with this 4chan level shit.

5. It is very easy to exonerate Picasso, all that is needed to be done is to submit works like 13 and 16 to spectroscopic analysis which can differentiate between a legitimate signature painted at time x and a fake signature painted at x and y.

PS. so much for "not caring" you made that pic? and posted some shit you no doubt paid thousands of dollars to learn in highschool/uni lolololol

memes are what propogate dude memes are what will destroy the legend of picasso.

>>2063138
>- It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.

Last person I heard say shit like that was Rolf Harris.

Convicted pedophile Rolf Harris.

Only degenerates suck at art and have an obsession with childish drawing because they're scouting for their pedo buddies.

"Let me near your children I want to learn from them you can trust me I'm an art genius"

>>2063485
>so much for "not caring"
not that anon dipshit. you realize there are more than two people on this board, right?

no sense in addressing the rest, you're a broken record. You ignored the clear evolution of his work that I presented, the existence of technically-accomplished work AFTER his move to Paris, and the art historical context.

And then you go on repeating the same unsupported arguments you made on your silly forum and regurgitate here daily. I'm not sure if you're more amusing or sad at this point.

>>2063485
>posted some shit you no doubt paid thousands of dollars to learn in highschool/uni lolololol
And while I'm still feeding the troll, I'll go ahead and let you know that I paid for my BFA and art history minor with academic and art scholarships. Pays to not be a retard. Stay uneducated, stay jelly.

>>2063496
>You ignored the clear evolution of his work that I presented

You pointed out which works work fake. Show me a DA evolution that shows the artists knowledge of construction GOING BACKWARDS.

>unsupported arguments

There's a whole book on it recognised by the Spanish ministry of culture.

People keep saying I'm taking things seriously. But guys how can I when it's so lol?

>>2063485
>He only started sketching in 1900, hence any works before that are fraudulently attributed to him.

so his father made the derpy horse painting, not a 9 year old picasso? how very insightful, thanks for your valuable knowledge.

>>2063496
These are genuine Picasso drawings. And they're shit. Even after practicing for 23 years (he started sketching in 1900 in reality) he sucks and needs more Loomis. All the ingres style drawings by him suck. It's not muh genius it's muh style it just means he sucked.

>>2063501
>so his father made the derpy horse painting,
Did I say that? I pointed out the two works which are his fathers and it didn't include the horse.

If Picasso was such a great master at a young age, why didn't he sell any of these paintings at a young age hmmmm? Leonardo Da Vinci did ...

>>2063500
>There's a whole book on it recognised by the Spanish ministry of culture.
translation: there is a single individual in the entire world of art history that advocates your conspiracy theory. One guy. There are more scientists that believe in creationism than there are art historians that believe your BS theory. Try harder.

>>2063504
>Did I say that?
You did. I knew you were especially dumb so I even quoted it for you.

>>2063499
>I'll go ahead and let you know that I paid for my BFA and art history minor with academic and art scholarships

Doesn't change the fact that what u learnt in uni is crapola.

Do an engineering degree if you want a real education. Can't bullshit bridges to make them stay up.

Also so much for "I don't care" lololol you spent YEARS learning this Shit of course you fucking care and its obvious by ur posts u mad.

>>2063503
having fun picking cherries? I already provided a chart that shows much more accomplished works from age 16 to 60.
>>2063442
And there are many more I didn't have room for.

Just face it, you don't have a leg to stand on, and after months of trying to spread your ridiculous theory, you've converted no one. Do yourself a favor and give up the fight.

>>2063509
No I didn't. Your reading skills are zero. You quoted me saying he only started sketching in 1900. His derpy horse then is some shit he made AFTER 1900 and pretended he created BEFORE 1900.

>>2063512
>you've converted no one.

How do you know bro?

>I already provided a chart

No one gives a shit about your chart that mixes stolen art with Picasso's own shitty art.

Every Ingres style drawing he made sucked. Post a good one, try and find one. They all have shitty errors (muh cubism lol) plus look bland and boring. ic could do better.

>>2063510
>Doesn't change the fact that what u learnt in uni is crapola.
If you had an education, even if you were decently self-educated (hell, if you'd read a few wiki articles), you'd also be able to make the obvious connects to El Greco, Cezanne, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Surrealism, and Neo-Expressionism.

>Do an engineering degree if you want a real education. Can't bullshit bridges to make them stay up.
You seem to have an unhealthy pride in your lack of education.

>Also so much for "I don't care"
again, that was another anon. It's really not that hard to understand.

>Also so much for "I don't care"
I spent years learning art history, art theory, oil, acrylic, encaustic, watercolor, drawing, sculpture, pottery, relief printing, intaglio, lithography, screen printing, photography, animation, design... it wasn't a four year course on the life of Picasso.

And here's a question for all you neets on ic. Why didn't YOU get a scholarship to learn illustration? Because this fag and bullshitters like him are taking all the scholarships/grants and churning out ugly "modern" art and bullshit essays. If you neets want scholarships for illustration then you're going to have to destroy the Picasso myth.

Without the Picasso myth, SJW's like Zoe Quin would get laughed at when they presented their shitty art games. Yet another reason to read up on this stuff.

http://ninja-art.freeforums.net/thread/13/picasso-fraud

>>2063515
>You seem to have an unhealthy pride in your lack of education.

First you made up that I have no education, then you say I'm proud of it. Keep projecting bro.

>obvious connects to El Greco, Cezanne, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Surrealism, and Neo-Expressionism.

You've been refuted at art renewal, no one gives a shit about the gimmicky degenerate art and all the tags attached to them. Like we don't come up with a whole bunch of names for all the beginner mistakes, we just say "needs more loomis"

>Look at it this way, if one was to explain what is wrong with quack medicines and why people are taken in by them, would one carefully distinguish between sellers of snake oil, magnetic bracelets, and homeopathy? Or would one generalize about them all together?

https://www.artrenewal.org/pages/archives.php?articleid=1312

>>2063519
>obvious connects to El Greco, Cezanne, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Surrealism, and Neo-Expressionism.

Is this pic neo-expressionism? Surrealism?

So much genius on 4chan.

>>2063522
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. ”
-Pablo Picasso, referring to his fathers work?

>>2063516
This is the most self debasing shill I have ever seen on 4chan.

>>2063516
>implying Zoe Shill wouldn't get every scholarship there is, while a resurrected old master would be shown the door

The fuck is this thread?

>>2063547
Apparently she got some scholarship based on being from a rich dutch family or something. Hello? Check your priviledge?

Honestly guys where does the "thatface" meme come from? Because I see an UNCANNY resemblance to Picasso's sketch relating to a self portrait he made.

>>2063576
Here's an example of Picasso altering his fathers signature. See how he obviously changed the J to a P and tried covering up part of the J with a water mark? He didn't even bother with the Picasso part of the signature since his father left no room for it.

>>2063593
ahahaha

>>2063252
*sees reply claiming picasso was a fraud*
*yawns*

>>2063636
*le raises paw*

who is picasso xD

>>2063516
>he didn't pay for his own Atelier sessions

>call bullshit on one of the greatest painter of all time
>not even ashamed that they're completely missing the point of his art
>still value their education and opinions a lot
>buys conspiracy nonsense ignoring the facts

There are definitely myths surrounding famous painters and the Dali/Picasso duo is known to be into a money a lot
To me, it doesn't make their art any less legitimate and I don't think Picasso was a thief...
His technique is fucking real and you'd have to be an idiot not to feel it

>>2063699
go back to your grave picasshit, you're drunk.

>>2063703
Why so salty, it's art goddamnit
Why don't you go to /mu/ make a thread about how Led Zeppelin sucked because they were thiefs

>>2063561
shitposting and samefagging by a crusading faggot who doesn't realize everyone thinks he's a joke

>>2063516

This is too heavy handed now, you have to be trolling.

Either way, it's fucking sad.

What a stupid thing to say. He couldn't paint like Raphael. That would be like some 12 year old kid today who does Bargue plates perfectly (since it's an easy system) said he can draw like the old masters.

>>2063732
the pic in the original post (and several others from this era) come pretty close. either way, you don't have to take it so literally. He could paint like an actual child either. He was making a comment that he learned realism fairly quickly, but learning to loosen up and create more spontaneous work took much longer. that's it.

PICASSO DID GAMERGATE

>>2063732
Doesn't sound unbelievable. Bernini was also a child prodigy.

>>2063515
>I spent years learning art history, art theory, oil, acrylic, encaustic, watercolor, drawing, sculpture, pottery, relief printing, intaglio, lithography, screen printing, photography, animation, design...

What you listed seems like the usual things that one would normally encounter if one were to study in even a shitty college that doesn't have much to do with art. Hell, even community colleges have these courses. I doubt you spent years focusing on each of them. In the case that you did I feel even more sorry for you.

>>2063750
THIS IS PROOF PICASSO SUNK THE MADDOX

>>2063735
What I mean is Raphael is so much more than realism, and it does a great disservice for one to say he could paint like him because it disqualifies his rarer qualities. That's the opposite of taking it literally. If anything it's the ones saying he could paint like Raphael who are taking it more literally since they say it on the basis of ability to paint believable forms for the most part. Raphael was the manifestation of a much greater literary culture and genius.

>>2063750
If I spent years learning EACH of them I'd have gone to school for a minimum of 30 years. You realize this, right? Don't be dumb, I spent 4 years learning all of them. What did you learn in those four years?
>community colleges have lithographic presses and facilities
Confirmed for never even having made it to a community college. As expected.

Is this a real quote? I knew picasso was egotistical but is he really saying that he was at raphaels level with 4 years of work. That would mean that in the lifetime he spent his level was thousands of times greater.
What a fucking asshole

>>2063760
>raphael is easy mode h-haha, this is REAL art

>>2063759
>If I spent years learning EACH of them I'd have gone to school for a minimum of 30 years. You realize this, right?
Yeah, sure. I don't mean spend years on one only to the exclusion of others, especially since many of those overlap. But you can't really say you spend years learning all that in a college environment. That's stupid since most art classes are for dabblers, and some are general education requirements even, while I've seen plenty of people receive degrees not being able to draw well and only knowing some sorry excuse for art history and theory that they're expected to regurgitate.

Some community colleges DO have printing presses.

>What did you learn in those four years?
Don't turn this into being about me. You're the one who's been boasting about your oh-so superior education as if it's something extraordinary and makes you some sort of intellectual.

>>2063803
Easy =/= bad art

>>2063809
You're right, bad art = bad art

>>2063805
what you fail to realize is lithography requires more than a wooden spoon or a press. There's a print collective beside my studio with multiple presses, including a 100 year old letterpress, but they still can't make litho prints there.
>most art classes are for dabblers
most of the ones I listed are not.

but tell me more about sorry excuses for art history, you seem to be an expert.

>You're the one who's been boasting about your oh-so superior education
actually you were the one who brought my education into this.

>>2063843
same guy, same XD images, no one took you seriously the first time you trolled with this stuff, why do you think they will now? you've already been thoroughly refuted:
>>2063442
>>2063442
>>2063442

Whether he was capable of drawing well or not the fact still remains that he painted a load of shit that destroyed art.

>>2063843

This is seriously pathetic.

You're spending an inordinate amount of time making troll images about a dead artist no one here has any real investment in while baiting people into your shit forum.

>>2063843
>>2063860

how does it feel knowing that picasso is more successful that you'll ever be?

>>2063870
obviously not very good, judging by the amount of butthurt crusading in this thread. It's been more than 40 years since he died and they still can't stop talking about him, borderline obsession really.

>>2063593

>>2063870
Why do you measure money and popularity as success rather than looking at the effect he had on art
He was not a success, he contributed to the death of art

>>2063880
he contributed to the flourishing of art. art never died. art is still here. realism is still here. picasso forged new paths, allowing art to expand into new territory, influencing generations of artists after him. stop being a whiny bitch just because the art world isn't 100% realism anymore.

i have a strange feeling that this thread is gonna be the beginning of a beautiful trend

>>2063884
unfortunately it's not the beginning, dude has been around here for months trying (unsuccessfully) to spread his picasso conspiracy theory.

>>2063884
You must be new here
taste in art has been a popular topic since the birth of 4chan

reminder that /ic/ knows nothing about art

>>2063888
Link to this machine?

>>2063888
what is this program?

>>2063227
>ninja-art.freeforums.net

KEK

>>2063843
Nice one bro. He even did a realistic one in 1923.

30 years of practice and shows no improvement. In reality, 23 years of practice to catch up to his dad at drawing outlines lol.

>>2063861
A different dude made that one.

PS u mad bro

>>2063870
He fucked a really ugly Jewess to get as successful as he is.

I feel cool about my lack of success.

Would you fuck Gertrude for millions? Or stick to eating Ramen?

To anyone who knows anything about Loomis head construction, it's obvious picasso stole his dad's work.

>>2064095

>>2063888
Picasso sux, sauce.

>>2063850
>actually you were the one who brought my education into this
what are you talking about? you were all high horsing over that other dude calling him uneducated
if you didn't mention it there wouldn't have been anything to be brought up
>If you had an education, even if you were decently self-educated
>You seem to have an unhealthy pride in your lack of education.
Do you not see how much of an elitist prick you seem like for something to trivial?
>most of the ones I listed are not.
the only things that aren't for dabblers there are printmaking and maybe animation if you're planning on being an animator. even in those classes most people don't really take art seriously. there's probably a few that will but considering that they turn up people who seem completely content with what they're taught at university one can't really be impressed.

/ic has enough shitposting memes as is, I don't know why you're so eager to make it worse.

>>2064095
nah, it's obvious he was influenced by newer styles in art. impressionism, post-impressionism, surrealism, cezanne, even less realistic older artists like El Greco. this is documented shit anon

>>2064126
>that other dude
just be upfront about your samefagging, at the very least. fact is the conspiracytard brought up muh education, read the thread:
>>2063485
anything else?

>>2064126
also
>elitist prick for saying anyone who has read a few wiki articles knows this shit
top kek. reading wiki articles is now elitist.

>>2064126
>that other dude
just be upfront about your samefagging, at the very least. fact is the conspiracytard brought up muh education, read the thread:
>>2063485

also
>elitist prick for saying anyone who has read a few wiki articles knows this shit
top kek. reading wikipedia articles is now elitist.

>>2064165
>>2064165
>9- A decent 9 year old. Better than I was, anyway. Still no prodigy, but having an artist as a father seems to be helping.
>13- His training from his father is evident here, and paying off. It's still very wonky in places though, certainly not his father's work, but the work of a student with plenty of room to improve.
>16- His formal training under his father is evident, as well as his experience, however brief, at the Royal Academy of San Fernando.
>19- Here we see the artist experimenting with a less realistic approach. One cannot claim it's the work of a naive artist, because Chris Chan is clearly following the example of El Greco, a giant in the history of Spanish art. Notice how he lampoons the unoriginality of commercial art by combing sonic and Pikachu and claiming its a total new character
>20- After being sent to jail for protesting about Sonic art, he enters his Blue periods, he maintains a mixture of realistic and experimental approaches, and his characters take on a much darker tone

Anyone who claims 13 and 16 weren't drawn by Chris chan is a conspiracy tard.

>>2064232
Forgot pic.

>>2064081
I'd slam that old dyke to make that kind of bank, no problem.

>>2064280
>>2064280
Speaking of Gertrude Picasso did like 90 sittings for her portrait and it still looks like shit! So why is it he could paint his mother flawlessly when he was 15 but can't do a portrait to save his life in his 20s?

It's obvious he doesn't understand head construction or how to render skin or how AO works. Just fucking amateur.

>>2064533
I mean if Picasso could really draw like this why did he go hungry, burn his own paintings for heat. Why the fuck didn't he just do some portrait work if he was as good as they claim?

>>2064536
This is obviously a self portrait drawn by his father, not the work of a 15 year old dyslexic.

>>2064537
What's next, you're gonna tell me a 12 year old Picasso painted this???

I mean c'mon, he only claimed he did these works AFTER his father died. Why wouldn't everyone have known he was a child prodigy BEFORE his father died?

>>2064536
Especially in the late 19th century you would have had ateliers and academic art schools fighting each other for a 14 year old that could produce something like that.

>>2064559
he was already in the academy in barcelona at the time.

hate you people.

>>2064562
He dropped out by 16. He was basically under his father's wing by 13. Whether or not he passing off his dad's drawings then as his own is unclear. I mean Ruiz could have thought that creating a prodigy would garner more attention for his school and himself.

>>2064081

Any faggot who thinks picasso was a prodigy and did those master paintings is fucking braindead.

Like, just look at his fucking work kek.

So much for people that do "know about art".

>>2064562
In the academy = "in his fathers shitty school" or "place he dropped out of quickly"

Usually when people drop out it's because they suck at the subject.

>As for Picasso's side of the story. . .
Picasso started painting like, well, crap. He claimed that he had 'moved on' from the old garbage (traditional realism); I suppose you could say that he could do it so well that he moved on 'beyond' it. The only way for Picasso to say this, however, is if he was a fantastic artist at a young age (he started his more abstract stuff in his mid-late 20's). So, Picasso claimed that he could paint like the old masters by the age of 15.

Unfortunately, that's highly doubtful. You hear people talk about how he started training at such a tender young age at a well respected art institution. This is, sorry to say, garbage. What are the facts? Picasso started training at age 11-12; the same as the old Renaissance masters. Da Vinci didn't create his first well known piece of art until he was 24, and Michaelangelo around the same age. But Picasso claims to have done it by age 15?

How about his training? This "well respects art institution" would be moreso compared to a crafting class at Michaels. The 'art school' was actually just a small studio run by his father, where Pablo enrolled in painting and ornament making classes. I'm sure the Old Masters studied gift wrapping and crocheting too?

Pablo's art training was nowhere near the intensity of any given "old master." Yet he claims to have been better than them 10 years before them? He started training at 11-12, which seems young to us, but that wasn't that uncommon during the Renaissance and up until Picasso's time.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156386

>>2064659
I guess you're going to deny that Bernini was a child prodigy as well.

>>2064663
Show us Bernini's work as a child please. Thanks.

>>2064663
Just when I think you people can't get more retarded you reach new levels of idiocy, it's not even funny.

>Picasso, a clearly fabricated "prodigy" with shit skills that got famous by fucking a jew and literally died scribbling in the air like a retard = one of the most influential old master that was actually a genius and left a ireplaceable legacy after his death.

>>2064659
Pretty much bro. The works that Picasso passed off as his own had two sources (at least), his father, and some random sculptor dude. I mean you need to be a pro to tell which paintings are by picasso's father and which are by the sculptor. This one in my opinion is by the sculptor, like the other baroque portraits.

Yeah the art losers who pay tens of thousands of dollars to learn about picasso's genius are just reading crap written about a dyslexic hoaxer who couldn''t draw well. Money well spent?

And this is the one Picasso actually painted (and its shit because he's a fucking fraud).

>>2064667
How old was Bernini when he sculpted that???

>>2064667
What was retarded about that post?

>>2064672
looked it up he was 81 when he did that.

This one was done when he was 17 and looks a bit retarded but still props he was a prodigy.

Notice how Bernini's art got consistently better.

so. much. samefagging.

this has gone beyond trolling into full blown obsession. get help faggot.

>>2064659
>just look at his fucking work
okay. let's do that:
>>2063442

>>2064683
>so. much. samefagging.

Are you a mod? How can you tell? There are dozens of anti Picasso posts made in this thread not by me.

Not only can you not differentiate between posters, but you can't differentiate between Picasso's work and the paintings he stole from his dad.

>>2064691
not only can you not provide proof he stole anything, you can't stop talking about him. so I guess picasso wins in the end.

>>2064694
>not only can you not provide proof he stole anything

Proof? Like I said before, you guys can easily PROVE he didn't steal the paintings by submitting them to forensic analysis via xray machine which can differentiate between paint of different types/age and hence determine if the signature was altered. That has not been done.

Meanwhile we can point out the obvious inconsistencies. If there's no "proof" then why does the Spanish ministry of culture endorse the book pointing them all out?

People can't stop talking about Hitler but that doesn't mean he "won" ...

>>2064694
>Ms. Castlegrant continues: "These are the facts. My Aunt worked for the American Consulate in Spain in Madrid. She worked there in the late 1940's to early 50's. She went to Barcelona with the distinct intent on buying a Picasso. She went to his Studio and had seen literally hundreds of paintings. None of the paintings were signed, and none were dated. Something that Picasso did when he first started to sign Picasso. Picasso signed all of his own paintings, PICASSO. When his father died, Picasso received all of his father's work. What he did was erase the name P Ruiz from all of the paintings because his father fondly signed most of his work P Ruiz. The Picasso family knows full well that none of this work was done by Picasso. You can clearly see the difference in the work. Just take a look at an early Picasso portrait of Picasso as a young boy, painted by his father. It is painted in the way of the masters. [I've been unable to find any such painting.] Another portrait done in the way of Velasquez attributed to Picasso was clearly done by his father. The family sold Picasso's paintings for millions. Picasso changed his style and changed his name to distance himself from his father, [the latter part said to be true] because his father was clearly making money off of his son's name. Picasso took his mother's name, because his father was signing all of his own work, P Ruiz."

http://art-now-and-then.blogsp0t.com.au/2013/02/p-ruiz.html

>>2064719
So that's the alternative conspiracy theory that someone is putting out, that even though it's obvious works attributed to Picasso are done by his dad, it was his naughty Dad who faked the signatures.

There are so few works you can find by José Ruiz Blasco (Picasso's father). How on earth did he get his teaching job if he only painted birds???

>>2064721
>Another portrait done in the way of Velasquez

Can you tell which is the portrait by Velasquez, Sargent and the 15 year old Picasso? Do you honestly believe that a 15 year old can paint as well as an exceptional adult artist?

I guess the file names give it away.

>>2064728
Why was Picasso so good at anatomy as a 15 year old but his figures sucked so much balls later on?

>>2063373
Saying 'conspiracy theory' is not an ad hominem attack. Saying "You're an asshole who fucks dried dogshit and has the IQ of a broken pencil" is an ad hominem attack.

>>2064731
Please stop. His entire gimmick was trying to unlearn all that traditional stuff.

>>2064735

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>2064734
U mad bro. U mad.

The middle part of this painting Picasso did when he was 15, the rest when he was 25.

>>2064728
Saw a 14 year old in an airbrush course I took in highschool reproduce those ten dollar full size posters almost perfectly, shit wouldn't surprise.

>>2064749
Can you link to it? Sometimes things you thought were great when 14 look shit after you've developed your visual system as an adult. I mean when we're kids 7 fingers on a hand and no necks looks okay.

In all of Deviant Art is there one 15 year old who can paint a portrait as good as Picasso's dad?

>>2064691
Burned

>>2064755
Dude go on internet there are tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael.

Picasso was no different, sorry to bring it to you, a lot of masters like him are ridiculously good at an early age. He had the genes and the teacher since the very begining, look at Mozart, his dad was the best music teacher in europe in his time, his sister was a prodige, he had all the elements to become the next thing.

>>2064864
>tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael.
Post examples or I will be forced to proclaim that you are infact a jidf

>>2064864
>go on internet there are tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael.

>>2064864
You can stop posting now

>>2064864
>Dude go on internet there are tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael
Surely you can do better than this.

>>2064864
>Dude go on internet there are tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael.

>>2064719
>this woman said that her aunt said that the american consulate in madrid said that picasso wuz a fraud. I know it's true because I read it on blogsp0t
top kek

>>2064731
because of the influence of el greco, cezanne, post-impressionism, surrealism, etc. open a fucking art history book you dunce.

>>2064978
>I was influenced into making shit art! I promise!

This guy has to have a touch of the autism, a normal person would have given up by now.

>>2064716
>I'm right because there hasn't been extensive x-ray testing done to prove what everyone else on the planet already knows to be true
literally wut
so you admit you have no proof and your only argument is "inconsistencies." Sounds like a creationist pointing out "gaps" in the fossil record.

So where are these gaps? We see him return to realism periodically throughout his career, and you can look at the dating of his work and tie the more abstract styles to nascent modern movements. this is art history 101 level shit.
>>2063442
>>2063442
>>2063442
>>2063442
deb8 me, point by point. I explained nearly every stage of his career and how he relates to other artists in movements, and all you can do is repeat the same lines like a broken record "muh x-rays will prove me right!" "there's no wind on the moon!"

>>2064981
>literally ignoring what was going on in the art world at the time
Honestly I don't know how anyone can be this dumb.

That forum is still the saddest fucking thing I've seen in a while. Like one guy is responsible for nearly every post and it's just /ic tier gossip about /ic gossip.

>>2064982
on 4chan we welcome all of our kind

normalfags can just die

https://www.akiane.com/

type prodige child painter on google
I'm not gonna do it for you
here is an hint you talentless fuck

>>2065052
https://www.akiane.com/store/

>tfw I wasn't born a child prodigy
Only began drawing at 16 and I'm 22 now. Just near her talent when she was 12.

To be fair, the more i try to read up on picasso the more it seems that this crazy guys picasso is a fraud story makes sense.

If he seriously tried to "unlearn" his knowledge, he sure as fuck did a great job to get complete amnesia when he tried to do any serious work.

And the story of him taking credit for his fathers work would make a shitton more sense. Than the its my style story that is beeing passed on.

>>2065053
don't worry she is one out of a million, they are lot of child prodigy like her when you look at this on a worldwide level, 1 in a million for 7 billions people = 7000
she is now in the best artists worldwide only at 18 years old
she is also a blonde qt 3.14 and rich
(she is perfect)

>>2065060
We'll be rich child prodigies like Bernini in the next life, right?

>>2065062
only weak minds believe in after life
you have one life and it can stop today or anytime
just fuck cunts make art and enjoy yourself

>>2065052
> tons of kids ranging from 10 to 15 who can paint as well as Raphael
>anything she did before 16 was muddy spaghetti hair garish colored kitsch shit
>she still does kitsch shit right now
>paint as well as Raphael
>tons of
Akiane is only famous because her proud American parents pushed the "God is guiding her hand" thing. She is (was, she hasn't improved much in later years, guess God got bored with her or something) certainly good for her age, but that's about it.
John Everett Millais might have been able to paint as good as Raphael when he was young, and that's why he is on history books and Akiane is not. Or maybe she is in creationist art history books, who knows.
Pic related, something he did this when he was 17, entered the Royal Academy at 11.

>>2065060
>she is now in the best artists worldwide only at 18 years old
please stop. she's not even NEARLY one of the best 18 year olds.

>>2065060

I swear there was probably 50% child prodigy in her, and 50% her parents making her a prodigy by in some way making her improve drastically pushing her in that way and ofc marketing the fuck out of it.

She is basicly going to be the justin bieber of art world.

>>2064685
You're blind if you can't see it's garbage and never ever topped his "prodigy" work.
>b-but he transcended naturalism!
>It was on purpose!

No, it wasn't, daddy was dead and poor pablo couldn't make a living out of painting anymore, so he fucks a rich jew and gets advertised as "le child prodigy who stopped doing le boring realist garbage".

>>2065069
boring stiff poses
that's nothing compared to what klimt could do at this age

if you're going to cite an artist please pick a decent one

And oh, you're jealous of her, it shows, you can drop it already

>>2065082
>earliest Klimt available is one he did when he was 18
>missing the whole point about entering the Academy at 11
>somehow I'm jealous of Akiane but not of these other better artists
The poses aren't stiff. Why am I replying to bait though?

>>2065053
>https://www.akiane.com/

So to prove that Picasso didn't steal his fathers work you link to a child prodigy who many believe is taking credit for her mother's work?

> Akiane's mother is a painter, Akiane's paintings look just like her mother's (same style), and where painting is concerned, the style is rather "hack", or typical of people who eschew formal training or do not paint often. Her mother has prohibited Akiane from ever painting on camera, and no one has ever seen her paint a painting besides her parents. In response to critics calling her a fake, her mother released a heavily doctored video, basically stop motion, of Akiane working on a painting. It was immediately dismissed as a fraud.

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=4405&start=20

>>2065103
Do you guys believe a 9 year old painted this?

>>2065055
>literally has no understanding of modern art
read more than half a wiki article. try sitting in on an art history 101 course. believe it or not, realism wasn't the only style throughout the ages, and people intentionally diverge from it.

In fact I even showed where when and why he diverged. what artists and styles he responded to. it's all right here:
>>2063442

>>2064734
That's an insult. Ad Homonem is dismissing someone's argument by attacking personal characteristics instead of the actual argument.
Literally 2 min. Wikipedia tier knowledge.

You people are fucking retarded.

>>2065079
The graph shows Picasso making accomplished work after he moved away from Spain and his father, as well as after his father died. It shows his interests in specific artists like El Greco and Cezanne, as well as in nascent art movements like Impressionism, Post-Impressionism and Surrealism. This is ,objectively, an informed argument.

You counter with
>b-b-buh le meme arrows
and ignore everything I pointed out, without even an attempt to rebut it.

It'd be funny if it weren't sad.

>>2065111
>muh modern art is gut n deep u don get it
>appeal to authority try to reed mur
>I showed how shit he obviously was but I keep saying he wasnt shit

How much are you getting paid for this? after all, any kind of art that deviates from traditional foundation is nothing but critical theory/cultural marxism applied to the arts.

>>2065113
an insult to someone's intelligence is an ad hominem attack if it's in response to an argument.

I don't expect someone who is unable to spell "ad hominem" correctly to know this.

>>2065119
>responds to reasoned arguments with more greentext strawman
At least give an effort anon.

>traditional
>muh marxism
So medieval artists were creating more symbolic than realistic artwork because... Marxism. And tribal artists in the Pacific? Marxism. Goddamn you're retarded.

>>2065116
I can't believe this guy. How many posts has he spammed his shitty graph and his shitty history of what supposedly was on Picasso's mind at the time?

>24. Now Picasso has moved away from realism and is fucking Gertrude Stein for shekels. His self portrait lacks immediacy since he can no longer look himself in the mirror. Some say at the time he would sit at cafes in Paris wearing a bag over his head with the phrase "I am not famous" written on it.

30. The influence of Cezanne will propel him to develop expressionism. Picasso paints at night and sleeps during the day, haunted by the memory of Gertrude's cunny.

Literally who cares.
Are people fucking autistic.

Holy fuck.

>>2065116
Yeah buoi, his work is shit on purpose, he's just following different movements! totally not a hack that never really progressed.

Get real, I don't have anything to debate.
You keep trying to justify his shit but always forget the fact that his work never improved at all, unlike bernini, who started more or less good and ended truly as one of the greatest that ever lived.

>muh unlearn
get the fuck out of here, and "unlearn" all this garbage justifying the destruction of art.

>>2065116
>The graph shows Picasso making accomplished work

It shows him doing FiRez tier portraits and muh style paintings.

>>2065126
>cezanne
>expressionism
I don't know why I even post on this board.

>>2065130
Did you notice that his post was a joke? are you autistic? maybe that's why you post on this board!

>>2065128
most the shit on the "modern" side is contemporary. there's a reason this debate is occurring, and it's because you don't even understand the basics of what you're trying to discuss.
>>2065129
I'm sure you can do a better pencil portrait than the one he made at 19 in Paris. I'll just wait in this thread for you to post it.

>>2065087
Do I look like I'm going to debate with some autist that can't formulate arguments unless it's edgy greentext

>>2065133
how would anyone know, unless you posted a picture of yourself looking incredulous?

>>2065132
>post ur work

How is that relevant.

The paintings in that graph don't even come close to the shit he supposedly did when he was 15.

>>2065130
>>2065130
>>2065130
Was that the only bit I got wrong?

Looking at this pic of Gertrude I'm wondering if cunny is wrong...

Also, if you don't like ic then fuck off. No one's paying you to shitpost here.

Or are they ? ...

>>2065132
>I'm sure you can do a better pencil portrait than the one he made at 19 in Paris. I'll just wait in this thread for you to post it.

Can you link to the exact work so I know what you're asking me accomplish; Also like give me 48 hours since I have a freelance gig atm.

>>2065138
Shit forgot pic.

That's Gertrude. The woman. Supposedly.

>>2065123
Here's the deal retard, medieval artist and cavemen weren't "unlearning" shit nor trying to transcend anything, they were genuinely tryng their best to portray reality whilst being unaware of the knowledge required to do so.
>>2065132
Again, appeal to authority.
This argument is happennig because you're unable to look past your bullshit and see picasso's work for what it is, always shielding it in "muh knowledge justifies his lack of progress and the incredibly suspicious fact that he never topped, not even once, the work that gave him the label of prodigy".

>>2065138
>if you don't like ic then fuck off
I think I will actually. This place is a bad habit for me. I post on /b/ for pointless religion and social debates,I post on /ic/ to argue with 14 year olds who've never studied art. ADIOS

>>2065128

Oh look, cherry picked garbage.

>>2065119
Isn't that a troll image?

>>2065293
Yes yes you're right. I'm sure if we went to a whore house in Victoria england we'd see some girl twerking, or an insane asylum we'd see a woman covered in her menstrual blood, or some pirate ship on a long voyage we'd see some homo faggot shit and blood. Yes they're totally the same, he just cherry picked to make them look different.

>>2065390
no
>>2065293
>"cherry picked" is a valid argument
Lel the very fact that anyone can list this sort of shit is proof enough than anything not involving traditional foundation is grabage.

>>2065398
>implying those are the only things that make up contemporary art and culture
now you're just being willfully ignorant. there's no denying it's cherry picked, not up for debate. learn what the term means.

>>2065426
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

great pic.

>>2065431
Bro the whole point of Art is selection, as in " What are you glorifying?" Clearly modern art is about glorifying - cherry picking - what was the worst about previous ages.

Cherry picking examples which TYPIFY an art movement make your point clearer.

Your objections to cherry picking are stupid as are you.

Hitler had dogs and was a vegetarian and painted some nice water color pics but we seem to cherry pick the whole WW2 millions dead thing when talking about him.

>>2065431
>Art is creation. But to create (— more precisely, to transform something into something else, for the concept "creation" is strictly speaking meaningless, since nothing can be created out of nothing; what actually always occurs is transformation of one or more things into something else, for example of paint and canvas into a painting —) one needs first to select — creation presupposes selection; indifference and arbitrariness are therefore out of the question in the artistic act, for one never selects arbitrarily — "arbitrary selection" is a contradictio in adjecto; that the selection process might be carried on to a great extent unconsciously (as it often is in great art) is no objection to this proposition. Either way, whether selection occurs consciously or unconsciously, criteria and value judgements are, as I have already explained, continuously at play, and in the last resort even the highest consciousness contains in it — is based upon — a certain degree of unconsciousness. Therefore, since art entails selection, and since selection is a form of affirmation — art is affirmation and cannot be conceived of otherwise (— let alone as negation, which finds expression in destruction; as the exact opposite, that is to say, of the necessarily creative artistic act).

http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

>>2065435
modern art ended decades ago. Get over it already.

>>2065435
also modern art was an era, not a movement.
>ur stupid
and you call the contemporary era "the modern art movement." If I'm stupid, you're retarded. read a book.

Picasso, Rothko, Hundertwasser and the modernists were products of their time. Shitty products but products nonetheless. If you try and follow in their footsteps these days you're a goddamn fool and an unoriginal twat besides despite your best effort.

>>2065440
>also modern art was an era, not a movement.

Already answered this shit.

>Look at it this way, if one was to explain what is wrong with quack medicines and why people are taken in by them, would one carefully distinguish between sellers of snake oil, magnetic bracelets, and homeopathy? Or would one generalize about them all together? Of course this would be almost certain to raise the ire of practitioners of one or the other of these "cures", but that doesn't mean that the broader issues aren't basically the same for all of the sub-categories. I'm doping the same thing when I talk about abstract expressionism, pop art, post-modernism, and all the rest by a single name rather than enumerating each individual sub-category one at a time.

https://www.artrenewal.org/pages/archives.php?articleid=1312

No one cares about what is cubism, what is expressionism, it's all shit. Shitty time = era, shitty bunch of people taking collective action = movement. No one cares what the degenerates want to call their eras/movements just like I don't care that pedophiles prefer to call themselves "child lovers" - they're sickos just as modern artists are sickos.

Lot of modern artists were pedos. There's studies that show pedophiles have poor visual skills so it should come as no surprise.

>>2065457
You'd have to have poor visual skills to make shitty modern art. Anyone who could appreciate beuty couldn't dedicate their lives to making that shit. Just like poor eyesight would help fucking Gertrude Stein.

>>2065457
oh, you're THAT guy. that's a relief. I thought this entire board was full of retards, but it turns out it's just one retard posting in every fucking thread.

>>2065506
Weren't you supposed to have said ADIOS to ic? Can't stop posting here can you?

U mad bro. U very mad.

>>2065506

>>2065511
>>2065535
samefag detected

>>2065459
Underrated

>>2065549

Guys, the way things are right now won't always be

Don't forget guys that even though Picasso totally painted those awesome paintings when he was 13 - we can trust his impeccable honestly - nonetheless he cheated using a lens/camera obscura like all artists did those naughty frauds keeping it a secret until David Hockney set the record straight. I repeat NO ONE CAN DRAW A FACE WITHOUT TRACING DAVID HOCKNEY SAYS SO.

>>2063408
>>2063227

Am I the only one who bothered looking through those sources? They all amount to 'art experts' who are known for hating modern art giving their totally 100% swear-its-true opinion that Picasso was a fraud. If there's one thing I hate it's people who try to use scientific terminology to give their bullshit an air of truth to it. You should be ashamed.

>>2065110
I believe anyone can paint anything if they look hard enough at a picture of it and copy

Which is clearly what her mother did... Shes pretty good at realism, too bad there's more to good art than that.

>>2065552
>that's the joke
congratulations

>>2065624
>They all amount to 'art experts'
Except it's only one "art expert." A single book by a single quack.

>>2065624
>If there's one thing I hate it's people who try to use scientific terminology

He hired forensic experts. For example handwriting experts are used in court cases and he hired one to examine Picasso's signatures from a note he made, and those of the paintings actually by his father.

He also had his own Picasso painting scanned using an xray machine, showing there was a J Ruiz painting underneath it.

That's what science is. Using theory, models and measuring devices to evaluate hypothesis. In this case, did Picasso steal his father's work?

There's nothing scientific about the claim he didn't. We're just taking Picasso's word for it. If you want to prove he did, have the works submitted to spectroscopic analysis to "prove" no alterations took place.

> It has been estimated that more than 15% of the paintings sold throughout the world are fakes (1). So beauty nowadays is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in the lens of the spectroscopist—as spectroscopic techniques such as X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF), laser-assisted Raman, FTIR, and others provide an invaluable adjunct to the educated eye and suspicious nature of the art expert in the identification of fakes, frauds, and forgeries.

>Other spectroscopy techniques to analyze artifacts and detect forgeries also rely on identifying pigments. Researchers at Monash University (Clayton, Australia) have teamed with Florence’s CNR Electromagnetic Wave Research Institute to develop electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy. Using low-power microwaves to “fingerprint” the minerals contained in paint pigments, they have adapted the technology used previously to identify faked gemstones. The team is working to develop a system that can scan entire paintings and not just small areas. This is especially important for identifying alterations to canvases that might not show up in point-sample analysis

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/tcaw/11/i03/html/03lesney.html

>>2065655
He doesn't show up any results on Google Scholar. Amazon has no reviews of his book. It doesn't seem like any actual scholars in his field even bothered reviewing it. There's barely any information on it available for free on line, especially in English. The little that is available is what you've been repeating over and over, which makes me wonder: have you even read the book? Are you even literate in Spanish? Or did you find this online and cling to it without reviewing it or researching its credentials?

Picasso is a huge name, you don't think it odd that he's completely alone in his views on this? Look at the guy's twitter page, he's a man obsessed with this single theory, posting constantly about museums exhibiting "fake picassos" and ignoring the fuck out of him.

>>2065655
There was nothing scientific about anything he did. You should feel embarrassed falling for hacks who want to distinguish themselves from the other intellectuals by claiming to be 'experts' hiring other 'experts' to back them up with science all while keeping hush hush about the whole process..

>>2065660
>Amazon has no reviews of his book

Because its in Spanish?

You mad bro.

Spanish ministry of culture endorses it. He also shows a collection of newspaper work.

>have you even read the book?

Nope. But there are excerpts on his site.

>Are you even literate in Spanish?

Nope. OMG am I the only one on ic who can't speak spanish omg so much shame.

>without reviewing it or researching its credentials?

I looked at the signatures bro and its clear they've been altered. I also know a lot about drawing portraits as do many into Loomis on ic and its easy to tell Picasso's work and his fathers show different skill levels.

>Picasso is a huge name, you don't think it odd that he's completely alone in his views on this?

I think its odd that the owners of those paintings don't simply submit them to authentication via spectroscopic analysis.

>>2065672
>There was nothing scientific about anything he did.

Explain in detail, I'm waiting.

>>2065691
>have you even read the book?
>"Nope"

stopped reading there. you're basing your entire argument on a single book that you haven't even read.

L
O
L

>>2065691
>Spanish ministry of culture endorses it. He also shows a collection of newspaper work.

Spain's conservative party endorses a book that denounces modern art? Nope, nothing political about that decision.

>I think its odd that the owners of those paintings don't simply submit them to authentication via spectroscopic analysis.

What would the owners of the paintings possibly have to gain from proving that their paintings are forgeries after expensive testing?

>I looked at the signatures bro and its clear they've been altered. I also know a lot about drawing portraits as do many into Loomis on ic and its easy to tell Picasso's work and his fathers show different skill levels.

I bet you think work like this shows poor skill levels too.

>>2065701
forgot to put in pic

>>2065694
No you. Oh that's right you can't because you have to take his word that his experts were right ;)

>>2065704
Or you know, keep in mind the fact that picasso was shit, never improved, and got money from fucking a jew.

>>2066281
Jesus, you're still trying? After admitting your entire argument is based on a single book that you haven't even read?

Unless you have new "evidence", there's no point in humoring you anymore.

>>2065701
>Spain's conservative party endorses a book that denounces modern art? Nope, nothing political about that decision.
>Implying political ideologies have nothing to do with art.
>Implying political bias discredits the aforementioned observations

Isn't it funny that the right wing always promotes the most skilled artforms whilst
faggot pinkos get off on framed shitstains?

>>2066286
I'm not the same guy kek.
Anyway, I don't know why you think you won the argument, the only thing you did was to point out that the book that other guy is using has a political bias.
You still need to adress the inconsistencies in the work by itself, oh, unless you can't tell the obvious decrease in quality and the lack of progress, which I'm sure you can't.
But let me guess, he just UNLEARNED those stuffy fundamentals right?

>>2066286
What more evidence do you need tho?
Observing his work yields the conclusion that he never really improved and resorted to trendy gimmicks to pass his work as "revolutionary", looking at his life you see that his jump to fame was mostly a product from leeching from gertrude's shekels, looking at his dad's work, it's pretty obvious that he did the "prodigy" paintings, and looking at picasso's work again, you realize that nobody has issued official investigations regarding the legitimacy of the "prodigy" myth, because it is the only thing keeping people throwing money at museums and colectors, no one would buy that shit should they discover they were masterfully rused into believing that crap was worth something because it was made by "one of the greatest that ever lived".
It wouldn't be much of a racket though, hacks like picasso are being fabricated everyday to keep the money flowing.

>>2066300
so you're saying the other guy was using a biased book he hadn't even read as a source, whereas you have absolutely nothing in support of your claims, other than your opinion that realism is da best and his early work was more realistic so there must be a conspiracy?

Come back when you've found a single reputable art historian that supports your argument.

>>2066300
so you're saying the other guy was using a biased book he hadn't even read as a source, whereas you have absolutely nothing in support of your claims, other than your opinion that realism is da best and his early work was more realistic so there must be a conspiracy?

Come back when you've found a single reputable art historian that supports your argument. Until then, the long-standing evidence that he was inspired by Oceanic tribal art and nascent modern movements still holds.

>>2066312
>you realize that nobody has issued official investigations regarding the legitimacy of the "prodigy" myth, because it is the only thing keeping people throwing money at museums and colectors, no one would buy that shit should they discover they were masterfully rused into believing that crap was worth something because it was made by "one of the greatest that ever lived"

Translation: I've never been in a contemporary art gallery before and I'm proud of it. I've also never been in a modern art gallery because It's all the same shit lol XD

I went to a Picasso exhibit in person before where they arranged all his artwork (including rough sketches, lifedrawings, doodles) from beginning to end, as if to prove to the more cynical people that yes he knew how to draw, and there was a clear progression.
It was as if he was saying to himself "okay, cool I can copy Rapheal now, time to do more academic style art , nice, now I'll try my hand at more impressionistic stuff, okay I can do that too, I'll try to do german expressionist stuff, okay I'll do more trendy stuff (which was primitive art at the time). Oh look at these cool paintings my friend Braque is doing, I'll try that too (cubism). I'm bored I'll come up with some completely new styles now. and on he went"
Even if you don't accept his earlier work as his Picasso was very prolific and had an extremely wide range. Probably the clearest signs of technical ability.

You also can't call him a hack without revealing how ignorant you are to his massive influence. Everything from Hannah Barbara cartoons to playboy illustrations can trace their ancestry back to Picasso.

Here's a background from 101 dalmations.

>>2066468
oops, pic related

>>2066470
Here's Guernica

>>2063138
>- It took me four years to paint like Raphael

This reminds me of noobs on /ic/ who think that they can get to Jaime Jones level in 2-4 years.

If Picasso actually knew anything about art, he'd know that, A: his alleged early work (that his dad probably did) was not anywhere near on the level of Raphael, and, B: it takes a lot longer than 4 years to master painting.

>>2066585
>If Picasso actually knew anything about art
lol
never change /ic/

>>2066600

yeah, see, that's the difference between critical thinking and just blindly buying into hype.

hype would tell you that Picasso is the greatest genius artist who ever lived, and anyone who implies otherwise is a dummy. that's marketing for you. some of us buy into it easier than others, though.

>>2066607
>blindly buying into hype.
yeah that really grinds my gears too. here's a good example:
>random spanish guy claims picasso is a fraud in some shady corner of the internet
>OMG GUYZ PICASSO IS A FRAUD ITS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THE UNITED NATIONS CONFRIMS IT

tell me more about critical thinking

>>2066612

>posts example of hype that has nothing to do with hype
>tell me more about critical thinking

ok. not only are you bad at it, but you're also bad at knowing the meaning of words.

so by hype you mean commonly accepted? like the moon landing being real, or 9/11 being a terrorist attack, or bigfoot not existing?

super dubs

>>2066659

see, if you knew more about critical thinking, you'd have realized what a retarded false equivalence you made there and not posted that.

but you are dumb so you did.

Stop bumping your shitty thread. no one wants to go on your forum.

>>2063424
>I don't care about picasso.
>I'm just upset that someone posted a link to a comment on a forum, which I probably didn't even read.
Kill yourself.

>>2063499
Ok there is no way this is not a bait.

He's a genius either way, bottom line. I've stood in front of Guernica, a few in our tour group wept.

>>2066840
>insults someone for not reading a rambling forum post that is entirely based on a book he never read.
how do you expect us to take you seriously?

>>2066468
>Translation: I don't get easily swayed by random shapes and colors just because it's in a museum and I'm being told the author was a genius.
FIFY

>I went to see Picasso's to prove people he knew how to draw
And here you prove that, besides being an arrogant cunt, you don't know how to draw.
>"I can paint like a master but lol yolo fuck that let's smear some shit on canvas and NEVER paint like a master again"
Said no one ever, except picasso, of course.
>Painting shit in different ways, all without foundation, is a clear sign of skill
Here, you again prove you don't know shit about drawing.
>Picasso was massively influential
Most of his influence comes from his ties to gertrude's family and the fortune spent in giving him gigs and media coverage, just like with pollock, when you get paraded as hot shit, even if you aren't, people believe the hype.
Also, >>2066470 only alludes to the fact that picasso, like all abstract shit really, is only good to get ideas for color palettes, and even then, where is your proof that this is based on picasso? ever heard of color temperature?
Look, I found another background inspired by picasso!

>>2066885
>He's a genius either way, bottom line. I've stood in front of Guernica, a few in our tour group wept.

jesus that's embarassing.

>>2066885
>he's a genius because some faggots cried in a museum.

>>2067168
The style of backgrounds from 101 dalmatians was pretty much lifted directly from the new UPA style animations whose whole design ethos was to copy from modern artists like Picasso and cartoonists like Searle. It goes much deeper than colour palette. For example picasso's cubism tried to show objects in their true 3d instead of the 2.5 D of looking at something from only one view. That influenced those retro post-card illustrations with faux perspective that artist's like Mike Yamada are inspired from. Picasso's influence is MASSIVE. If you can't see the differences in design immediately before and after Picasso you are literally ignorant.
Also are you implying that you know how to draw and make good colour palettes?

>>2066387
Get a pair of eyes and learn to draw, maybe then you'll find the evidence you need in the work itself.
Bernini was mentioned in this thread as a "prodigy" too, why is that no one raised questions about his expertise then? because by looking at his work you only find mastery, and it is obvious he was the author of it.

The argument sustaining that picasso was a "vanguardist genius" is literally sustained with pincers (i.e. hurr durr he was inspired by tribal art and modern movements), if you look past this, you find terrible work with an unwarranted reputation, but people like you never get past the bullshit.
Seriously, UNLEARN?.

>>2067235
Something I've noticed in a lot of his work is that a lot of supposedly abstract people look like they're drawn by an amateur, rather than being deliberately stylized. I'm wondering if he relied so heavily on reference, that part of his abstract style is a simple inability to draw without reference.

>>2067201
I saw people cry at a Guns n Roses concert. You know, the one with only Axl and bunch of random guys.
Must be a genius.

>>2067231
If you read again, you'll notice that I never denied picasso's influence, I just pointed out how it stems from money and connections and not from genuine skill and appeal.
>when you get paraded as hot shit, even if you aren't, people believe the hype

>cubism tried to show objects in their true 3d instead of the 2.5 D of looking at something from only one view.
This is complete and total bullshit, maybe that's what he said he was trying to do, but cubism is comprised of collections of badly drawn shitstains that do not show, not even remotely, all the sides of on object at the same time.

>Also are you implying that you know how to draw and make good colour palettes?

No, I'm implying you don't know.

Everything you have said about picasso is nothing but subjective hearsay (I personally saw a picasso therefore he knows how to draw) and false associations (everybody emulated picasso therefore it proves he was a prodigy).

>>2067257
That's a pretty accurate description. They're supposed to be like a painting dropped on the floor and shattered into many pieces of glass to show all sides of the cube. It's drawn only in brown to emphasize form. They are literally all brown (every single one of them).

I don't why you're bringing up color palettes but here's some color thumbs I've done. Your turn?

>Everything you have said about picasso is nothing but subjective hearsay (I personally saw a picasso therefore he knows how to draw) and false associations (everybody emulated picasso therefore it proves he was a prodigy).

As opposed to your objective opinion that he wasn't talented.

>>2067242
This makes a lot of sense, but you know, he used ref to paint this >>2064533 , so it seems more like he wasn't good at drawing propperly when he jumped to the muh style wagon.

>>2067290
>As opposed to your objective opinion that he wasn't talented.
Derived from keen observation.
>but muh reputable experts
Appeal to authority, think for yourself, does it really look like his work?
Why is that he never painted like that again? Frantizek kupka is a great refference point for this reasoning, he knew how to draw and gave in to "muh abstrks", but he kept on painting using foundation, why is that picasso didn't?

Anyway, my tablet broke and never did color palettes, but here is something I did before the fact.

>>2064095
are 11 years supposed to be missing there

>>2067309
Can you post the original wallpaper please?
I had it some time ago but accidentally deleted it.

>>2067309
>Derived from keen observation.
>trust my son I've seen a few paintings in my day,I'm an expert.
No.

I've said before even if he didn't paint those earlier works his later works show his talent. You aren't going to listen to my subjective opinion that I like his works and you don't care about any of the countless artists who have been inspired by his works because all artists are hacks before a certain date, so what do you want?

>>2067319
I don't have it either lel, but it is a spot in the grand canyon, google search yielded this.

>>2067321
>All that implying in only one post
Got triggered or sumthin brah?

>You aren't going to listen to my subjective opinion that I like his works
Point proven tough, this argument is nothing but emotional vitriol on your part.
You don't need to be an expert to see he stole his dad's work, neither an historian to know he was a fabricated sensation and his influence comes from money and not popular appeal.
The artists that drew inspiration from his crap were only emulating something they were told it was popular and made by a genius, because who doesn't want to follow the steps of a genius?

The truth is that, hadn't he fucked gertrude, he wouldn't be in history at all.

>>2067338
Found the non-tacky version.

>>2067338
I like a lot of his works and think he's talented though I wouldn't say he's one of my favourite artists.

The artists that drew inspiration from his crap were only emulating something they were told it was popular and made by a genius, because who doesn't want to follow the steps of a genius?

You've already made up your mind that he's a hack based on your subjective opinions so I guess there's no convincing you. All of those artists must be hacks as well.

>>2067359

Even nature goes full notaste-pleb sometimes.

>>2067361
>"if you think picasso is a hack then you must also think everyone drawing inspiration from him are hacks too!"
Being a hack depends entirely on your personal skill and your means of work, not on what you like.
Wait, are you trying to put words in my mouth to make me look bad? kek
Anyway, stop with the false associations already.

>>2067396
Yea, that's the implication of your posts. Picasso is a hack and he was the father of modern art (therefore modern art is all hacks, aren't I clever for not falling for it?). I don't know why I'm still responding to this troll thread.

>>2067409
You weren't talking about modern artists, just people who drew inspiration from picasso, but if you now are, in that case, yes, I must say that they're all hacks >>2065443

Anyone who doesn't use foundation is a hack regardless of what kind of shit he does.

>>2067421
Schopenhauer was a NEET though who had little real-world experience.

>>2067235
>if you look past this, you find terrible work with an unwarranted reputation, but people like you never get past the bullshit.

It's just marketing. There's a reason companies spend trillions of dollars on it: about 30% of the population eats it up and becomes rabid fanboys. Doesn't matter what it is: Apple products, car brands, console game developers, modern artists; if it's marketed right, some people will fall in love with it and rabidly defend it on message boards.

No one can explain why Picasso is better than all the millions of modern artists with similar work who's careers never took off. All they can do is recite the marketing hype about how he was a genius who mastered realism at 12 and then transcended it to become the god of all art. The fact that they love Picasso and you don't see what's so great about him makes them feel even more sophisticated and elitist. It's no wonder they fly into hysterics when you suggest that maybe his dad did those early works and perhaps Picasso wasn't a master painter at 12.

Just marketing. It's like arguing with Nintendo fanboys or Apple hipsters.

>>2067431
>real-world experience
My sides

>>2067435
wahts so funny u little hbitch

>>2067409
>I don't know why I'm still responding to this troll thread.
there's really no point in arguing with an idiot. if you say anyone can see his progression and influences, he'll call you brainwashed. If you point out that practically everyone in the world of art and art history agrees with you, he'll say "appeal to authority!" If you ask for any shred of evidence that picasso is a fraud, he'll just say "well I can't find any reputable sources that agree with me, but it's obvious, isn't it?" there's literally nothing you can say or show that will change the mind of a conspiracy theorists. you'll have better luck arguing against creationists at a revival.

>>2065128
>calling post post-modern things modern

>>2070128
shit=shit, no matter the color/density/consistency or who made it and when.

picasso discovered an elemental thing, on his context: capitalism mythologized the art market, so shit without standards turned to be valuable more than anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>>2070297
Capitalism isn't the right term to use, given how the art community is far left-wing.
I think it's the vapid idea of giving meaning where there is none that socialists love to do that's behind art being thought of as some mystical, incomprehensible entitiy.

>>2070306
I've made a tesis about this relation, but it's spanish so can't share it. It's due to economical changes that went in the way of more market freedom that allowedthe standards' fall, it was pushed up to the top over the last centruys and nowadays because of the merchant figure, art demand changed after medieval centurys because of prosperity due to the change of rich class, they were no longer default rich or empowered by familiy fortune

>>2063227

Oh yeah, flood the thread with garbage, that will totally prove picasso was a master.
Notice how absolutely none of this tops the "prodigy" paintings in the slightlest.

>>2070306
This.

>>2070558
Not even him, but you are seriously exaggerating how good that painting is because of it's polish. I've worked with oils before with the same kind of slow careful process you would expect from a painting like that and it's much easier to do than you think. Many of his sketches are more impressive technically.

>>2070558
his works in 1900 are pretty damned good considered (according to the conspiracy theory) that's the year he started painting. and you continue to make the assumption that the "goodness" of a work is equivalent to how realistic it is.

I mean, it's fine to like his early work, just admit that you like Picasso's early paintings instead of pretending he didn't paint them. there's really no reason to be so buttblasted about his choice to forgo realism.

>>2070558
The majority of those prodigy works are terrible, only a couple are decent. His "first communion" piece in OP's pic is very obviously a site/size painting and it shows in how boringly stiff the figurative work is.
Pic related is one of his so called prodigy paintings, you honestly think that this is better than the other stuff posted that you're calling garbage?

>>2063932
>>2063227
kek'd
bigger chance i would believed that without the 'source'.

>>2063398
that image wrecked my shit.
>>2063699
your point is only valid for people that understand his art and feel that it stands on it's own. for those who were told that he is great and honestly don't get how is that called art, proving that he was a freud is like proving that his art as a whole is a "king's new clothes" type deal.
honestly don't know where i stand on this.

>>2071343
>that image wrecked my shit.
Here's another one you might like...

>>2071343
>>2071420
Here's the source in case you were curious.
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-of-an-Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches/page49
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/870-Journey-of-an-Absolute-Rookie-Paintings-and-Sketches/page50