>>2335960 He had mastered realism by his mid-teens, then kept barreling forward. he was alive for a lot of different movements, and played a key role in many of them. he invented cubism along with braque, created a lot of surrealist work (inspiring a young Dali), and anticipated neo-expressionist trends in his later career.
he was prolific as fuck, too. always pumping out work and trying new media. he had that thirst that every successful artist must have- to always be creating, pushing the boundaries, and trying new things.
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.
>>2335996 our choices are sculpted by the incentives of our world if central banks low interest rates, we get more credits if there's a huge cult of new ignorant burguesy with a lot of money who are part of the fiction of the select culture (fresh and unique art forms), he's making more money playing that role and doint the shit people demand and value the most
actually, post once more: are you the same faggot who constantly throws around this conspiracy theory on this board? the guy who admitted he got the idea from some book written by a laughing stock conspiracy theorist in spain? the guy who admitted he hadn't even read said book, because it was in a language he didn't understand?
Or are you another faggot entirely, with even less evidence?
>>2336150 >all of a sudden. uh, no. even in paris you see a lot of work that leans toward realism and shows strong fundamentals, much different than the styles he experimented with later.
Just look at this pic: >>2335974 you see his art evolve from childish scribbles at nine, to wonky realism at 13, then developed realism at 16. and you still see reality-based work after his move to paris (early 20s). The reason his style changed is because (as the graph and text very clearly show), he was influenced by El Greco and nascent impressionist tendencies.
but continue pretending he lived in a vacuum and no other styles existed at the time. I've presented a sensible explanation that takes into account his actual influences, but you'll respond with more greentext and avoid presenting a shred of evidence for your conspiracy theory.
>>2336197 how to prove that those art deviations were trending on that age? the same reason pinneapples were priced as gold at some point in the time, people with money behaves like idiots following new trends of what is unique and that's what exactly happened with art
I'm not discussing your point, I'm setting more dimensions to it, and this is the main thing, without the industrial revolution there would have been nothing to do with liberal art, as there wouldn't have been fucking new fresh rich people who just wanted to show their success
choices are determined by incentives, it's how it is, it applies for fucking everything, wish you luck to check something against this
First a bit of backstory: The cubists were trying to capture the passage of space and time, for them the idea of a static image from a constant point in time was to be destroyed. So they did this by trying to smash various discreet images into each other from different perspectives and arrangements to give an idea of the object-ness or a feeling without resorting to autistically rendering near perfect realist shit. There were a few artists trying to capture space/time/motion in the early 20th century. The Cubists managed to capture points in space and passage of time fairly well, the Futurists tried to grab onto motion but failed horribly and the Vorticists which managed to capture both the feeling of motion and its path but blew away the figurative and consequently space.
So here I have started to create a cubist work, to show the methodology. I'm a non-figurative painter not a draftsman so apologies about the terrible linework.
So the first three images are just still life set ups from what was on my table. A pack of darts, my debit card, a polaroid I took with my girlfriend while out yesterday and a ivory black paint stain on my table. The fourth is a overlay of these images I can't into digital so what the fuck is GIMP even. The fifth through seventh progress shots of my canvas.
First we sketch out the three scenes in different coloured thinned paints (or pastel) on the canvas. This gives us a chaotic framework from which to simplify.
Next we create forms from the chaos that are pleasing and showcase features we deem interesting. By removing a majority of the chaos we create simple forms with recognizable features. A arm bends into a dart, the hair into a frame, etc.
Now all the construction lines are removed. With a painting, these would be lightly left in as guidelines for the overpaint. Because lets face it, closed form painting is fucking gross. This isn't illustration tier shit here Ricky. Part 2 inbound
Attached is a good cubist work by Picasso. Look at the perspective, we see a straight wall that obtusely has a 90deg corner in it. This isn't poor construction, this is by design.
Now the fun part, choosing colours and reconciling the clusterfuck of imagery into some kind of cohesive form. Look at photo 5 in the previous post, this wasn't available until the late 90s to most. To a painter in the 1930 or whatever this method of transparency stacking wasn't a conception. Oh and colour cameras weren't a thing, and photo bashing is still some bullshit. We are painterly fucks.
So we have these under drawings and need to fill the forms in some way. easiest way is to average the colour between perspectives and block fill the forms. This is gross and leads to neutralized shit and bad design. We can emphasize details and linework, but then jazz becomes discontinuous. maybe get a feel for the hue and push it to max chroma. There are a assload of ways to reconcile this, it comes down to what the artist deems effective.
Now those goddamn eyes. Those forward facing eyes were just Picasso making a stylistic choice within his framework. Just like in my collage I remove any facial elements. Fuck faces.
The cubists gave the framework, Picasso just churned out paintings quickly and was a charismatic goon. He achieved what a basement dweller could not. He pulled bitches into the studio, fucked them raw, painted like a madman and sent them off. He was a hack because he found one thing, and stuck with it for the better part of his life. That is disgusting and on par with flower painting. Push the state of the art, don't accept it.
But the cubists could not capture motion, why? The still life. Bless the curves of the Vortex, Blast the 1/2000 shutter.
>>2336341 I am clueless concerning art history and I am pretty new to drawing, but I just wanted to point out some facts that are flat out wrong that get repeated here constantly:
> Look at photo 5 in the previous post, this wasn't available until the late 90s to most. To a painter in the 1930 or whatever this method of transparency stacking wasn't a conception.
This is nothing than making multiple exposures, no need of modern technology. In fact this is still that works better with film due to the nature of digital sensors and yes it was always a popular concept. The integration of time in images was natural, especially due to the slow film emulsions that ran in the one or two digit ISO range.
>Oh and colour cameras weren't a thing
Always surprises me how many people take this as fact. The autochrome process has been used even prior the 1900s. It was patented in 1903 and was used in the 1800 along with other processes that went back to 1850. No wonder that Kodachrome came out 1935 for the general consumer. Think the technology is ancient and outdated? Take a look at the last roll that was shot by the famous National Geographic photographer.
Not attacking your general points, in no way I am qualified to discuss Picasso and Cubism with you guys, as someone who owns a darkroom, these posts grind my gears a bit.
>>2336378 Yes of course, I wasn't implying that Picasso used it. In fact I am hearing most of the stuff the first time here in this thread.
>>2336379 Yeah no worries, it's just because the technology is old and many people here never came in contact with it. The evolution of photographic technology was very counterintuitive, there were a lot of step backwards in the past. The darkroom today has still it's place, but obviously I use it alongside digital because the convenience and speed is unbeatable.
Maybe I am too nostalgic, but sometimes I want to raise some awareness about the glory of old film like Kodachrome and old 4*5 cameras. No, your Iphone can't match the image quality of an ancient camera, it's just more convenient and faster. Most people don't know that the Tarantino, Christopher Nolan (Batman, Inception, Interstellar) are still shot on film made by Kodak.
Now go on with your discussion, I am curious about this topic, I love threads like this one.
Neither do you that it was actually picasso who did the early works, oopsie. Use your goddamn eyes, man. I'm still certain that it was naivete is what made picasso make his 'cubist' choices in his actual work and you unskilled faggots regurgitating hipster art historians can't convice me otherwise. Guernica would make a much bigger impact on -anyone- if it had been painted like his so-called early work, for example. It's an ugly piece of shit and if you're seeing it without reading its backstory beforehand it there is no emotional impact whatsoever.
Wouldn't showing a late painting/study that resembles the realism of his early work be enough to settle this discussion? There must be some stuff out there that he did in his later years that wasn't too abstract.
>>2337042 >There must be some stuff out there that he did in his later years that wasn't too abstract. No, there really mustn't.
It's pretty easy to see that the 'daddy did it' theory is bullshit anyway. it relies on his work immediately becoming childish shit as soon as he moves to Paris. But such a point doesn't exist, his work only gradually changes into different styles.
And trolls can shit on art history all they want, but history is a valuable tool that tells us what actually happened in the past. Picasso's work is realistic when he is training under his father and at the academy, it resembles El Greco when he is in Spain, and the French impressionists when he is in Paris. When the French began expanding into Sub-Saharan Africa, they began shipping African art back to France, which is when we see Picasso's African Period develop. Next, he invents Cubism along with Braque, expanding upon the theories of the painter Cezanne.
This is a logical, observable explanation for his career that neither lacks evidence nor relies on a conspiracy.
Art historians are the last people I would look to if you don't mind. Thanks to them proficient draftmanship is not taught anymore in 99% of art schools and untalented hacks like your picasso, pollock and hirst are worshipped and I refuse to take part in that. I'm done with this, you keep blindly gobbling art historian cock if you like it so much without developing aesthetic taste yourself, I'd rather look at art that took skill to produce.
>>2337079 >Thanks to them proficient draftmanship is not taught anymore in 99% of art schools That's the responsibility of the fine art department, not art history. I'm not sure if you know this, but not all art historians are teachers, and those that are teach the history of art, not practice.
>>2337088 Using the method >>2336322 outlined you could dynamically generate picassoesque work using openCV or some shit pretty easily. hook up some cameras as inputs, hide a beefy rig and bam. Instapicasso.
>>2337676 that's not a method, it's just shit. if you have any idea where he was going with that confused mess, you're the only one. looks more like chunbum than picasso, picasso (and other modernists) often worked from direct observation, despite their abstract handling of the subject matter.
>>2336748 >thinks they have the moral high ground >talking about people like they're specimens
So are you going to refute the fact that the Stein family collected and promoted most Modern Art which created artificial demand for what we now see in the 21st century as some of the most degenerate art ever created (pollock, warhol, richard prince, fairfield porter, dieter roth, "crapstraction")?
Degeneration is a logical end to Modern Art. When you eliminate one artistic standard or convention, and give it a price tag $10 million, is it not wonder than people will think eliminating more will lead to greater and more expensive art?
So, are you really blind to the deliberate downtrend that artistic standards have taken? Can you really not see how it is entirely linked to the people who collect and sell it, and those who are paid to rationalize and give it a facade of intellectual credibility?
"Art" and "Trend" are not terms that have had any real meaning next to each other since the 60s or 70s. The existence of modern art is incredibly important for trying new things; but it's not like realists just evaporated or all demand for realistic art went away, it's just that the fine art community depends on having shit that nobody has ever seen before, ergo, they hunt for something new - in the case of art this often means finding something that breaks a new rule.
The vast, vast majority of artists don't follow any particular trend because breaking into the extremely narrow clique of fine art and making money at it is not a particularly common occurrence. "Downtrend" in "artistic standards" is a nonsense statement. Nobody has stopped making any sort of art. If anything it's much easier today to find a market for almost any sort of art than it is ever has been in history. You just won't get rich doing it.
For the record its worth noting that pop surrealists like James Jean have recently moved from the world of illustration to the world of fine art. If anything, pop surrealism is a step closer to older trends rather than some abysmal landslide theory of art moving closer to some hypothetical collapse. Popularity is cyclical. It's only a matter of time before some 9-year-old wunderkind makes a million dollars on neo-realism or something.
>>2338342 >the existence of modern art is incredibly important for trying new things
You baselessly rationalizing Modern Art. What does "new" mean? Why do we have to keep making it? Aren't all things that are ever made again new, as they exist in the present and not the past? No, your definition of "new" like all modern and post-modern artists is the removal of standards, piece-by-piece from western art. First let's take away perspective ("it's new!"), now let's take invent the term "picture plane" and then take it away ("new again!"), and so on and so forth. All that "new" art is, is a simple formula of subtracting from all the knowledge which we have collected, gathered and refined for centuries and centuries in western civilization.
>the fine art community depends on having shit that nobody has ever seen before
you sound incredibly brainwashed by modern art propaganda.
>the vast majority of artists don't follow any particular trend
You do realize this is a very recent trend in and of itself, don't you? The arts were always a trade, rebellious special-snowflakeism, i.e. romantics, impressionists, abstract-expressionists, etc etc, were a degeneration of the past couple centuries (roughly).
>"Downtrend" in "artistic standards" is a nonsense statement >nobody has stopped making any sort of art >it's much easier today to find a market for almost any sort of art than ever before
I'll agree with the last statement because there is evidence for it, but the first two- what brought you to those claims? Have you been paying attention to changes in the art market and art schools for the past hundred years? Admission to Cooper Union, one of the most prestigious institutions of Art and Science in the country, literally does not require you to "know how to draw" for admission. Do you understand what this means?
Artistic knowledge has become so marginalized that you have to enroll in small pretentious "ateliers" just to learn how to hold a fucking pencil.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.