redpill me on pablo picasso.

he was attending secret mexican sugardancing festival every season until his death

he would have been told to fuck off to the /beg/ thread if he ever posted here

Great artist.
The only thing you could say about him is he did not invest cubism. He's just a poster boy.
You could also say he appropriated 'primitive' African art. But even then it's a stretch.
Fantastictist, huge range, last real master.

File: 1498573970598.png (201KB, 788x520px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 788x520px

>>3046359
He was absolute shite. There's a meme that says he was intentionally bad or something, but there's no work that proves his worth (his father mainly did the early stuff under his name)

>inb4 "stop fapping to academic drawings of old man knees"
I'm not a fan of that stuff myself. Technical skill is just a means to an end, but Picasso was shit regardless

File: 910iUYWhaeL._SY550_.jpg (40KB, 352x550px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 352x550px

>>3046517
>his father mainly did the early stuff under his name

>>3046359
He was an incredible genius who had already surpassed da vinci in terms of technical skill by age 5, and went on to create literally the most creatively revolutionary works of art ever conceived in the universe ever.

>>3046515
he co-invented cubism along with braque. they shared a studio. looking back, they couldn't even remember who painted some of the paintings if they weren't signed. it built upon ideas introduced by cezanne, but it was still picasso and braque who invented cubism. The African-inspired work(les demoiselles d'avignon, etc) predates his cubist work, be careful not to conflate the two. Picasso moved through many different styles through the course of his life.

>>3046521
redpill=conspiracy shit, OP asked for this

>>3046359
Try to ask someone to give you an objective evaluation of what makes his art good. That's all the redpilling you need. All you ever hear is how important he was to art, which I'm not going to deny, but that has nothing to do with the actual quality of his art, but more about the political and philosophical zeitgeist of his time. You're not going to find anyone who talks about what makes his art objectively good, though. Picasso's fame is more about him as a person, his influence and the context of his paintings, than the quality of his art.

Seriously, Google it. The question has been asked thousands, if not millions of times, and the answers always boil down to the same mental masturbation and word soup that you'd expect from quasi-intellectuals who like to hear themselves talk.

>>3046637
>objective evaluation of art

you can more or less objectively evaluate someones craft but successful craft (especially in regards to realistic portrayal of our world) =/= successful art in the fine art world

did he ever make anything good?
i like most 20th century art even alot of stuff that ic might consider too jewish, but pretty much everything ive seen by Picasso has been shit.

>>3046655
That's my point. There is obviously a huge subjective property to art, but there is also an objective quality to art. If you remove the objective quality entirely, you're left with nothing but the subjective, which is utterly meaningless.

It seems that artists and art critics in the 20th century forgot that art is a visual medium, and decided that the idea and the context trumps all, relegating the craft itself to the back row.

>>3046359

His father painted his first works. After the death of his father, he was contacted by CIA to destroy European art in order to give Americans a chance to finally shine. Because he lacked any kind of idea, he stole African art and claimed it as his own. Then he tried to study Drawbox but failed.

My favorite artist is Bouguerau.

On a more serious note, he himself was a master bullshiter who was smart enough to sell his genius persona: his first words were supposedly 'pencil'.. not like we have a proof of that. Also his father cut his $ because he was slacking as a student and didn't even bother to attend the courses, which people interpret generously as him being a bored genius who supposedly haunted museums during that time.

Fact is, he marked the History of Art. You don't need to be the best if you paint Guernica at the right place and time. That's what makes an artist relevant, he's answering the interrogation of his time.

Also he painted like Raphael at 15, at least according to him. Fuck his father was really good.

File: Frederic_Edwin_Church_-_Niagara_Falls_-_WGA04867.jpg (141KB, 1280x594px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x594px

Prodigy who got bored. I prefer Frederick Edwin Church!

a meme
literally bold and brash tier but everyone falls for it

"is he bullshitting" the man

>>3046359
He ascended

>>3048116
How do you snap a moment in time like that. Water constantly ripples and moves, how do you so accurately see what the fuck is going on when watching a river

>>3048331
observe the general idea of what's going on and reconstruct based on that

the fortunate thing is you don't have to be accurate, you only need to LOOK accurate. there's no photo anyone can compare to

>>3046359
He was a Jew.
>>3046515
Nigga was a hack.

>>3046661
And it was bound to happen at some point

I never understood Picasso until I got better at art. I realize why he stopped painting realism. While it's great to know how to do it for work related things I probably wouldn't do it for personal work. I much prefer cartoony proportions of someone like kokimantarou than going for photorealism. Plus it's more fun. Knowing anatomy and volume helps make it even better though so it's important.

File: pablo-picasso---birth.jpg (16KB, 300x170px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x170px

ayy