/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Consider the possibility that he was never actually a good painter

>paint like a five year old
>lock myself in a room for months
>continue painting like a five year old

It's really quite a shit story

>>2875729
He was like 12 years old when he mastered academic painting, wtf are you on about. Anyways when he went abstract, he didn't forget about composition and that's all that really matters.

>>2875743
Did you know that his father was a successful painter and his paintings look exactly like picassos paintings when he was young

>>2875729
>>2875723
you guys just dont get it
its ART it doesnt have to look "good"

>>2875751
Define art

>>2875767
>what is a google
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

>>2875743
There's no evidence that the supposed works of his childhood were actually his, because he didn't produce anything requiring any level of skill for his entire adult life. Whether he suffered a severe stroke or claimed credit for his father's works, I don't know, but I doubt he was a capable artist since he first gained any notoriety.

>>2875723
>Why was this guy famous again?
The "modern art movement" which was spawned for two reasons:
1. Actual masterpieces took an actual master, and often took them months to produce one piece. If you can call someone a master, and get them to produce three "masterpieces" a day, you can make a whole lot more money.
2. A means for wealthy people to launder money.

>>2875723
the real art is to become famous.
the real art is to sell ideas.

>>2875770
appreciated by whom?

>>2875804
>A means for wealthy people to launder money
I always read this meme, but is it true? because I think even the most traditional and academic stuff can be used for this purpose.

>>2875723
It was about breaking the rules of art which were still pretty standard most of the time (kinda like today where anything not realism or really good stylization is viewed as unworthy of being art, hence this discussion in the first place).

Do I find the works very impressing? No, but I appreciate the experimentation behind them since that's a lot of what art is. Sometimes you draw something and objectively, it's shitty, but you think there's something cool or meaningful behind it so you hold onto it anyway, maybe even post it. I view it kinda like that. It's not so much about making a piece people will like, it's about doing what YOU want to do with the piece even if others think it's stupid or weird. I don't think he set out to make a movement in that style or anything either I think people sometimes just like weird shit.

That being said he was an amazingly talented man and learning more about him as a person and less about his art is a little more interesting to me personally if that makes sense, op.

also epic rap battle of history between him and bob ross is my favourite, so something good comes out of Pablo being famous.

>>2875904
>It's not so much about making a piece people will like, it's about doing what YOU want to do with the piece even if others think it's stupid or weird. I don't think he set out to make a movement in that style or anything either I think people sometimes just like weird shit.
Isn't this what happens today?

>>2875904
That being said I personally hate anyone who does "childlike" art in this day and age because no one does anything INTERESTING with it. "Ohh you splattered colors on a canvas, hm, yeah, where have I seen that before?" Why look at a nobody do it when you can look at a famous painting in the same style I guess is the mentality. A "who cares it's been done before" thing.

I hate anything non-representational in general.


But god my local museum once had an exhibit and it was literally some guys doodles. Like shit most people would probably erase or do mindlessly in a class.

all wih pretentious ass names like it has some deeper meaning other than being a shitty drawing of a cup of coffee.

some art is stupid but there will always be someone who likes it, even if the only someone who does is your mom.

>>2875906
Yeah see
>>2875907
This post for the rest of my explanation.

Christ the conspiracy theorists are back. Reminder this tinfoil hat shit is based on one disgraced "scholar's" book that no one here has read.

>>2875907
People are doing it because Pablo became successful. Hate him or love him, his work became well known.
What those artists or almost everyone from /ic/ don't understand is, if you want to break the rules, you have to understand what the rules are first. Which is what Pablo did. Seriously though, if you wanna be "unique" in your own right, you have to understand what's the norm, learn it and then twist it. It's not as easy as it sounds, it's not as easy as splattering paint on a canvas and saying it's done. It's much more than that.

Looking at some of out-of-style work, it does look a bit mediocre.

>>2876063
No such thing as out-of-style, he was alive and working and innovating so long you can't pin him to one particular style. That one in particular is similar to tons of his "return to order" work.

>>2875723
it might be hard for you to believe, but art doesn't have to be souless, overrendered chinese bullshit in order to be good

>>2875723
Because a lot of people are retarded and cave to social pressure. Picasso is basically one of the best examples of the emperor's new clothes.

>>2876130
very impressed by your abject objectivity and cunning, you see right past their ruse, clever girl!

>>2875904
>kinda like today where anything not realism or really good stylization is viewed as unworthy of being art
That's not what it's like at all.

Google something like the "top ten up and coming artists", and you'll only find conceptual bullshit with absolutely no skill or talent behind it, and it'll be selling for millions.

Representational art is rarely considered fine art. You'll only find that in commercial art.

>>2876140
>Representational art is rarely considered fine art. You'll only find that in commercial art.
absolute bullshit

>>2876144

>>2876134
Yes, thank you for embodying the kind of idiocy I was pointing out.

>>2876146

>>2876147
He's not my favorite artist, and I flat out don't like a lot of his work, but pretending that people who like him are all SHEEPLE and u see thru the veil to the truth is some conceited bullshit. different people have different tastes, better come to terms with that early in life.

>>2876151
If people are incapable of describing any positive qualities of his art, without using completely subjective terms that people don't even agree over, then it's not good art.
But sure, you go on bleating about how everything is subjective and that there are no standards to measure anything by. Ironically a rule set in stone by the retards who whine about subjectivity.

>>2876154
oh, art and the concept of goodness are objective now. that's very good to know. because if people can't use pure logic and science to explain to you why a work of art qualifies as "good", then it's le emperor's new clothes. you can find loads of resources online if you want explanations for why people appreciate his work.

here are a few of my own observations of the work ITT
>>2876139
I dig the graphic style and bold use of outline
>>2876137
the solid, simplified cylindrical forms are very pleasing, they have a great sense of weight, especially with the high contrast semi-outlines (seen best on the two touching arms in the top left) that is reminiscent of cezanne
>>2876135
the pale, sickly colors give a creepy vibe, playful brushstrokes in the background contrast nicely with the more controlled figure.

What are the objective measurements of goodness? Share the criteria with the group.

>>2876137
This painting evokes a sense of panic inside me that I used to feel a lot when I was younger.
It makes me really uncomfortable.

>>2875804
>>2875751
>>2875770
>>2875904
"Modern" Art was created by (((them)))

Has no one in this thread heard of cubism? Reading through these posts it's astounding how ignorant of art people are on board about art.

>>2876189
/ic/ is an illustration board, not an "art" board

>>2875767
Something performed that does not pertain to survival or reproduction.
Math, Engineering, Football, Gymnastics, Plumbing, Drawing, Astronomy
...it's all art.

>>2876130
wow babys first fucking thoughts right here.

>>2876165
I really like this one

>>2876154
>If people are incapable of describing any positive qualities of his art, without using completely subjective terms that people don't even agree over, then it's not good art.
wrong

he was good while he was young so everyone considers that his credibility for his later works, much as how sycra is a good artist because he used to make good drawings.

>>2875907
You sound like boring autismal fucking teenager.

>>2875723
>>2876130
>>2876154
>>2876151

Consider this:
>Bouguereau produced barely over 500 pieces in a productive life
>his paintings were already sold before he even began painting them

From a market / art dealer perspective, this isn't good, because many rich costumers don't even get to buy your product, because you can't keep up with the production. The impressionists improved that situation a bit:

>Monet produced 2500 without spending nearly as much time as Bouguereau

But compared to Picasso's estimated 80.000 works, it's still nothing. You want to to have a limited amount of 'greatest artists' but want them to produce as many works as they can. This was revolutionary for the art trade economy.

>>2876326
Standing ovation from me.

K anon, it's your turn to take one for the team

"I'm completely historically illiterate and don't understand modernist aesthetic philosophy" the thread.

>>2876189
Cubism is shit

>>2876472
Do you even know what cubism is?

>>2876477
Yeah, shit.

>>2876479
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
Read a fucking book you plebeian.

>>2876481
Instead of just reading about something, some people actually know the real versions desu

>>2876484
>"Reading is dumb"
>"My uneducated opinion means something because it makes my feelies tingle"
>"Desu"
Literally rip your own throat out with salad tongs.

>>2876487
>I know i'm eating shit
>but loook at this paper, someone wrote 'shit r good'
>therefore i am a SMART
Nice comebacks buddyolpal

Agreed, most of his work was shit. He was just good at marketing.

He was the "mr brainwash" fake of the 20th century.

>>2876188
It was a natural process like any other cultural development, but only gained noteworthy popularity because of ulterior motives.

>>2876489
Modernism, broadly, is essentially the tale end and fruition of the counter culture that sought to destabilize the French academic tradition.
This movement began with impressionism and, via the transitional era of post impressionists like Gauguin, moved into Cubism, De Style, Expressionism, and general abstraction based movements in the 20th century.

Picasso, specifically, represents a very important chapter in the transition of art as philosophical format from the bland, NeoPlatonic framing that had dominated for hundreds of years to the newer psychoanalytical field.

The psychoanalytical and formative powers of art is certainly questionable, as demonstrated by post modern artists, but to ignore it as bad work simply because it makes you uncomfortable is ludicrous, it's SUPPOSED to make you uncomfortable.

>>2876506
So you're saying because he tried to ruin art, he's good?
Just proves how triggered you are, are you mad leftie?

>>2876508
Are you arguing that NeoPlatonism is a functional philosophical basis for art? Tell me, when's the last time you sent forth your visual specie in search of compatible and formally edifying material specie in the form of art in the aims of elevating your animus through contemplation but accidentally saw a real breast and then transformed into a degenerate?

>>2876506
>makes you uncomfortable
I don't get uncomfortable when I see a child's scribbles, I just recognize that the piece lacks any semblance of skill or training, so I ignore it as 'bad art,' which is the only thing Pablo Picasso created in his entire adult life.

>>2876517
>he was a child prodigy and could paint better than you at age ten

>>2876519
>thinkign he was good at any time in his career

>>2876526
Age 11

>>2876526
Age 15

>>2876515
>So you're saying because he tried to ruin art, he's good?
>Are you arguing that NeoPlatonism is a functional philosophical basis for art?
Why the fuck are you drawing this conclusion from him? Have you learned so much that you've closed your mind to the perspectives of others?

I think an individual understanding/opinion of beauty is the basis for artistic quality, and that the vast majority of viewers do not see "beauty" when they look at Picasso's works. Picasso started the trend of explaining art to the viewer, to dupe them into thinking it's deeper and more skillful than it actually is. If a piece needs to be explained, it isn't good, and I personally don't see beauty in his works.

>>2876519
> at age ten
> his entire adult life.
Nice job ignoring the context, you fucking idiot.

There's no evidence that the works he claimed as his own were his, he never created anything requiring skill for his entire adult life. I personally think those "early works" were actually his father's, but perhaps he suffered a massive stroke around age 16. In either case, the works he's known for show no artistic capability.

>>2876532
"I think an individual understanding/opinion of beauty is the basis for artistic quality"
That's like, your opinion, dude.
Memes aside, I think you're taking an incredibly closed minded perspective here, further, a perspective that denies art a place in philosophical discourse.
Picasso's paintings aren't pretty, they're very ugly to most people, me included, the point is that Picasso and others established a framework for other artists to use when they engage in dialogue with their art and that he engaged with dialogue with his art.
If you read up on his philosophy and that of his contemporaries there's literally no way for him to one, expressive his thesis in a pretty way, two, if he ever publicly released pretty work it would invalidate his point.

His parents, friends and teachers confirm that he painted and drew those.

Think from the perspective of someone who could paint like a master by twenty, wouldn't that feel pretty lame, never having to have worked for that?

>>2876530
>>2876531

These are not great and would only pass as mediocre in any "classical" school. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between mediocre studies and excellent ones is one of the reasons you were fooled into thinking Picasso was great to begin with.

Look at any school in China that still trains students "classically" and you will see students of the same age or younger with much greater skill, and in much larger quantity.

Picasso wasn't a genius, you were simply one of the millions who were conned by the Steins, without whom you would not even know who Picasso was. You don't *actually* think he was the only 12 year old in Europe that could copy a Bargue plate, do you?

>>2876559
for 15-16 I'd say it's pretty good. no reason to be jelly about it, he had training from his father at an early age and was encouraged on this path. and no one thinks his early work is genius, just typical realism. he's valued for his experimental work later in life. After his realistic/academic early years he was inspired by and worked in the styles of impressionism, post-impressionism, and symbolism, as well as individuals like El Greco. Then his blue period, rose period, and african-influenced period. Then he went on to invent analytic and synthetic cubism with Braque, then became an important figure in surrealism, the "return to order", and by the end of his career he had anticipated neo-expressionism. On top of all this he made sculptures, ceramics, prints, etc. These are the reasons he influenced so many artists and is held in high regard in art history, not because he painting boring pictures at 15.

>>2875743
>He was like 12 years old when he mastered academic painting

the only kind of art that Picasso ever mastered was the art of marketing. people are still parroting his advertisements today...

>>2876559
>The fact that you cannot tell the difference between mediocre studies and excellent ones is one of the reasons you were fooled into thinking Picasso was great to begin with.


so. much. this.

>>2876613
>now that think I know why my art sucks, I can apply that to master works to discredit them and feel better about being shit.

>>2876275
Really made me think.

Haven't posted on /ic/ in years, looks like you guys are still a bunch of dumb angry niggers who can't into art.

>>2876658
>t. manlet 'muh subjectivity'

>>2876659
>Thinks objectivity can be applied to art

>>2876668
>thinks that it cant

>>2876659
>t. wtf is book

>>2876659
figures someone this retarded would reach for the manlet meme for no apparent reason. art is subjective. 'good' is subjective. this isn't physics, these aren't scientific laws, it's aesthetics, and is highly subjective. this doesn't mean it's useless to learn how to paint and draw well, or that basics like form, line, color, etc. don't matter. it just means people have different tastes. most adults are capable of dealing with this fact without screeching
>REEEEEEE cuck manlet stop liking what I don't LIIIIIIIIKE

>>2876671
>posts an ebay hoax that no one ever actually paid for to prove... something
ok

>>2876680
>makes post on 4chan that no one actually cares about to prove... something
ok

>>2876531
I like this one a lot

>>2875904
Bob Ross vs. Pablo Picasso was nice. What are your other favorites? Mine's Stephen King vs. Edgar Allen Poe

God, you people are dumb.

>>2879558
reading this was actually cathartic, and i didn't even read anything on here

why the fuck is illastrat pretending to be picasso

>>2876559
Can you provide some excellent ones and show a comparison? Beginner here and wants to be able to tell the difference.

>>2876041
This anon gets it.

>>2876559
found the ARC™ Approved™ Living Master™

>>2875804
>inb4 Greenberg cries and Fried has to wipe up the tears