I was in Antibes last week and on a wet Tuesday popped into the Picasso museum. Ok so the boy could turn his hand to many different mediums. Plus he was able to make money selling pictures of people with the eyes in the wrong places. But honestly was he any good at all? He really was selling emperors new clothes with stuff like Nature Morte a la sole et aux trois oursins. In my opinion that was just a waste of a good crayon. In the end I felt underwhelmed by the bits of stuff he produced. I thought the best on show was by Bernard Pages. But all in all you feel the whole lot would make Vermeer turn in his grave.
For the time period he was alive, then yes he was probably a genius. Thing is though, as time moves forward the more modern people will look down on the works of old and be more critical. It's a valid point of view of course, anyone alive back then would probably look at today's Tate Museum for example and be taken aback the wonder of it all. I absolutely love technology and science, so when I visit London that's the first place I visit.
I don’t agree with this. I don’t think art forms “improve” over time in the same way that technology does. They just change. We still think Mozart, Rembrandt, Shakespeare are geniuses. As for Picasso, his fame lies partly in his sheer output, and partly in the fact that he was right at the forefront of new genres. Personally I can take or leave him although, as I posted on another thread, ‘Guernica’ is an astonishing piece of art.
Art just is, I dont think you can over or underrate it. Art just captures a moment in time and opens a windown into how the artist was feeling at the time and what was in their mind. What is "art" anyway, all down to your own perspective. Some people like pretty pictures of flowers in a vase, some people like death metal and some people like both. I still think it was cheeky Citroen named a weird shaped car after Picasso though, "what are we going to name this abject shape of a car Francois?". If art makes you think then it has done its job imho.
‘Guernica’ reminds me of one of my favourite quotations. Angry German army officer to Picasso: “Did you do this?” Picasso: “No. You did.”
To you it isnt but some would argue that creation itself is an art form. Pickled animals do nothing for me personally but I can appreciate why others do find it interesting.
My favourite painting of all time. Title: Mr. and Mrs. Andrews Artist: Thomas Gainsborough Year: 1748-1750
The nudes from a couple of centuries back or so depicting religious icons or other themes were definitely porn commisioned by the rich at the time in my mind. Even if they werent graphic by todays standards they were clearly quite naughty at the time. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20190214-is-the-renaissance-nude-religious-or-erotic
None taken, it's your opinion and your welcome to it. I actually prefer how nudes were drawn/painted back then to what they are now. To me, (and my very non-artistic eye) they seemed more 'genuine' and 'real to life' than the photoshopped/airbrushed ones we usually see nowadays. Whether or not those were drawn from memory or still life is obviously impossible to tell. There is an elegance of beauty about them, as they depict the human body in it's most simplistic forms.
It is the original idea that is the genius in most cases and not just in the arts . It then gets copied and eventually the younger generations say "meh" . L.S. Lowry , the Cruyff turn, Kraftwerk are all a bit boring to today's youth but they are unbelievably influential in their respective fields .
Hate Lowry. Remember his mates Brian and Michael on TV singing about 'matchstalk cats and dogs' in that awful song.
Everyone must get called an ******** at least once in their life surely. Edit - Asshole is allowed but ar$ehole isnt, wild.
Bless, has nothing to value to add so $hits on somebody elses idea of a nice painting. Same as every other clown in here with daft comments because they feel intellectually inferior. Did your mothers not pay you enough attention when you were children or something?
I tell you what is underwhelming, the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo. There are a multitude of more interesting paintings at the Louvre.
