Is Picasso the shitposter of the art world?

>>3103451
>it's a "Im 13 and my teacher just told me about impressionism" thread

>>3103451
How's so? Picasso was creating technically skilled veristic portraits at like age 12. Are you one of those idiots who actually thinks Picasso just didn't understand anatomy or anything so he "developed" this edgelord style?

>>3103451
bad bait

>>3103572
lol my 10 year old sister is learning about impressionism at school right now. She calls it wacky art. She's gonna make it

>>3103451
No, he was the ironic shitposter of the art world.

Pollock was the shitposter of the art world.

File: Picasso_The_Weeping_Woman_Tate_identifier_T05010_10.jpg (31KB, 286x348px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 286x348px

Picasso is one of the easier and more accessible abstract artists to understand. You don't have to like it but if you can't understand Picasso then might as well quit art.

>>3104853
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."

An essential quote to keep in mind for the artist.

>>3103451
>literally shitposting while accusing someone (who, whatever you think of his work, was prolific as fuck) of being a shitposter
plz kys why did I respond brb kms

A lot of people consider realistic, representational art boring. I'm not among them, but it's true. And if a lot of people are bored by realism, then there's a market for crazy shit. Don't hate the player.

>>3104895
Why did he want to paint like a child when he could paint like Raphael?

Because he wanted to sell art and be famous. Patrons of his time didn't want a pre-raphaelite dreamscape hanging in their Jetsons-looking atomic age apartment.

File: tumblr_ot08wbTkxs1u80v6co1_1280.png (400KB, 705x661px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 705x661px

>>3105324
cos it looks pretty

>>3105324
Because Surrealism, which was mostly what Picasso was, is deeply rooted in Freudian analysis of dreams. In this regard, painting like a child means catching a glimpse of what it is to look at the world through the eyes of a child.

Maybe you all should start studying art theory and do actual master studies instead of circle jerking about techniques and realism and lowbrow art like manga.

>>3105354
why this child fixation? picasso more like pedo
>freud
an incestuous pedo

>>3105324
but children are dumb. Nobody wants to make music like a child or write books like a child

>>3104840
but pollock was actually good, even if u dont like his drip paintings, his non abstract works are miles better then hack-ass-o

>>3105363
>>3103787

Post their non abstract art.

>>3105360
Not true, there is an entire niche culture around those things specifically, and cultures around things that are at the very least inspired by the idea of a child making them.

>>3105359
Because in freudian psychoanalysis it's all about childhood and according to Freud many things from our childhood manifest in our dreams - which brings us to C.G. Jung. In Lancanian psychoanalysis it is also concerned with childhood because childhood is the only point in time when humans are ever able to see the world as it truly is.
Generally, the surrealists were very big on dreams. They had magazines where sometimes people would print what they had dreamt and Meret Oppenheim, one of the big geniuses of Surrealism, is notorious for her dream diary. The goal of the surrealists was to see, what their inner life consists of and that's why they invented automated drawing. This also is important because surrealism existed between two world wars, they saw the dangers of war, of slavery and of genocide.
To say it in Meret Oppenheim's terms:
In our deeply nationalistic world art is the only thing that can bring us back to our true selves and reconnect us to nature. Intellect is destructive - it can construct things, it can destroy things, but it cannot produce. Nothing new will ever come out of intllectualism.

Generally speaking, Surrealism is art focused in both form and content on the psychological disposition of the artist and tries to lay open what a human being actually is. You can argue that some of this is contradictory, some of this is a little naive - but it's undeniable that the surrealists have had a major impact on the art world and the world in general. It would take 60 years until a new movement developed that was just as impactful.

>>3105363
I don't think I've ever seen a non abstract Pollock painting. Show me.

>>3105391
Oops, read that as Picasso. Don't mind me.

File: pp-e4.jpg (115KB, 725x567px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 725x567px

>>3105382
Early Picasso.

>>3103451
Are you the shitposter of /ic/?

>>3105363
I love pollock but that's bullshit and you know it

>>3103451
Maya looks so modern... by contrast "the weeping women" pictures don't seem to have aged well.

https://youtu.be/-EMg12QBUx4

File: 14597353748_d48caa9271_o.jpg (51KB, 522x426px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 522x426px

I don't think I've read a single accurate statement about modern art in this thread. Picasso is not a Surrealist; his images might have surreal aspects, but he never participated in the idealogical imperatives of the Surrealist movement of the early 20th century.
Picasso may abstract(verb) and simplify the figures and subjects in his images, working under respective cubist and primitivist visual strategies, but he never was an essentially abstract artist.

Please stop making threads where you profess your disgust with "modern art" just to have counter-pseuds rush in and spew more incorrect shit or digress into shitty "art theory" or "psychoanalysis"

Quit lamenting about "horrible" artists and artworks that've already been cemented into art history, go back to drawing your anime boobs on a computer tablet and stop whining. Fucking pussies.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x350px

>>3103451

File: going-west.jpg (212KB, 1056x758px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1056x758px

>>3105363
Never saw his non-abstract impressionist paintings before (not a huge fan of impressionism). They're actually pretty interesting, but I wouldn't say they're miles better than Picasso.

I respect Pollock for his shitposts anyways. He actually tried to get good at impressionism and nobody gave a fuck so he threw everything out the window and just shat on the canvas. And then for some reason people liked it. I'm not sure if I would be laughing or crying after making his revelation at the time that nobody actually cared about skill or style and just wanted shit they could act pretentious over.

Still like Picasso better in terms of actual art, but Pollock is definitely a legend for how hard he fucked up the art community.

>>3103451
Everyone ITT is wrong

Duchamp is

>>3105490
that's not impressionism nigga

File: 181090_full_758x1024.jpg (200KB, 758x1024px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 758x1024px

>>3105464
>Picasso is not a Surrealist; his images might have surreal aspects, but he never participated in the idealogical imperatives of the Surrealist movement of the early 20th century.
He was definitely allied with, influenced by, and influenced the surrealists
>Though Breton admired Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp and courted them to join the movement, they remained peripheral.

You can see Picasso responding to surrealism, to the "return to order", anticipating neo-expressionism... he goes through a range of styles, he's the Forrest Gump of the art world, living through a pivotal era and taking part in all of it first hand.

It's true he was never an actual member of the movement and his focus was never on non-representational art (but certainly abstraction was key). And generally you're right that this board is fully retarded when it comes to art history, I just wouldn't divorce him from the surrealists entirely, or say that none of his painting qualify as surrealist.

picasso is popular for two reasons: highschool art teachers pimping him as the greatest artist ever, and pretensions people who want to feel artsy but don't know much about art.

>>3105581
oh that's why he was a fucking monolith in his own time, long before he was taught in art 101. maybe he's popular because he took part in (or created) many important movements in art history and, whatever you think of his work, was an innovator who influenced generations of artists and anticipated trends in the art world (i.e. neo-expressionism toward the end of his career)

>BUT I DON'T LIKE IT SO THERE'S AN ACADEMIC LIBRUL CONSPIRACY TO BRAINWASH ME REEEEEEEE

>>3105581
Picasso was famous in his own time.

>>3105572
that's a rad painting

>>3103451
when you see these threads and people ragging on good art you have to wonder if they're like the visual version of illiterate

but then i see kids sometimes say that shakespeare is over-rated, so hopefully it's just a hipster thing

>>3105719
Picasso was meh and child style perspective is still garbage. We get what he was doing and it still looks like shit.

>>3105584
>>3105711

Picasso was good at self marketing. Turns out, that's much more profitable than being good at art. Who would have thunk it.

>>3106371
see that's just the kind of comment you 'get what he was doing,' but that doesn't matter really. that's why i wonder if there's something you 'can't read' about the paintings. you apply the same logic to understanding them as you would to duchamp's fountain, like you completely ignore the design and basically everything else about them that isn't conceptual.

>>3103451
he stopped painting what he sow and started paainting what he felt

>>3103451
Yes, he created modern cartoons.

>>3104853
>You don't have to like it but if you can't understand Picasso then might as well quit art.
>You have to "understand" Picasso's shit paintings to GitGud
Qué?

>>3106388
>than being good at art

>implying Picasso isn't good at art

kek,

>>3106619
it clearly says if you don't like picasso it's fine but if you can't understand picasso then you're dumb

seeing as that's not hard to understand perhaps you are dumb

>>3106644

Perhaps I don't really care to understand something that doesn't speak to me in any way just because it speaks to some faggot on the internet.

Ever thought about that?

>>3106663
it doesn't matter if it 'speaks to you' (aka you like it) it only matters that if you are going into arts you should have an intrinsic understanding of art in general which should mean you understand why picasso is good (if you can't understand picasso then you're dumb.)

Picasso was good he just got bored and created an original style. Something that genuinally wasn't seen before yet had a good merit of skill

Problem now is that a large portion of people are trying to one up each other with there liberal arts garbage without understanding that people like picasso were legitimatly good artists. You need to know the rules in order to break them.

>>3105581
Picasso is one of the most important artists in recent time. Unlike """modern""" artists he actually knew his shit before he got into impressionism and abstract works. He pushed the impressionist idea of capturing the essence of a scene instead of just photo-realistically copying it, eventually developing original style in the form of cubism, something that hadn't been fully explored before.

If you think he isn't good because his famous works don't resemble classical masters, then you're missing the point. He could and did paint like the masters, but he found that was boring and wanted to work on pushing the limits of what a visual work could EXPRESS. It's important to note that he was born after the invention of photography and lived through the rise of film and television, so he knew that making photo-realistic works wasn't something special. What was special were things that could only be created by hand.

>why picasso is good
I'm not saying picasso isn't good, or whatever, I'm talking about the kind of art in the OP, it sucks in my opinion, and there's no value in it for someone who wants to learn how to draw and paint well.

Stop being a sperg.

>>3106703
Not all art is created for other artists to learn from. It's important for people to be aware of Picasso and why he was good, but I totally agree that people shouldn't look up to him as a role model or reference his works and use cubism as a reason to be lazy and not actually study fundamentals.

People need to understand that Picasso was an accomplished artist who worked for years before he started experimenting with abstract impressionism. They need to understand you can't just draw random shit and expect it to have any value. The value in Picasso's work comes from his understanding being used to experiment beyond the norm.

File: a9f147e0ecfd3f717f317f09f5ff8aca.jpg (14KB, 210x292px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 210x292px

>>3105408
He's dad finished it off for him. True story.

>>3106388
>ok fine now I have a new reason why he was successful
almost like there are a multitude of reasons for his success

File: pablo.jpg (47KB, 635x464px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 635x464px

>>3106701
>Unlike """modern""" artists
You mean contemporary artists?

>He pushed the impressionist idea of capturing the essence of a scene instead of just photo-realistically copying it, eventually developing original style in the form of cubism
The development of cubism owes more to Cezanne than Impressionism.

>he was born after the invention of photography
Not actually true.

>>3106701
>He could and did paint like the masters
how this makes he a better abstract artist?

>>3106392
You seemed to take that personally. Art doesn't need anyone to defend it. And it doesn't always need to be understood.
That's what makes it interesting. Picasso will still make people argue for decades to come.
Better artists need to be discussed here.

File: 166351_full_859x1024.jpg (240KB, 859x1024px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 859x1024px

>>3106783
it means he could understand form, color, light, line, etc, all of which play a role in non-realistic and abstract art (understand we are just talking abstracted representational art and rarely non-representational art). And understanding the essence of shapes, colors, and forms helps one simplify or contort them.

>>3106823
yes, it really means that. But its not necessary to paint like a old master to understand all that

File: IMG_2549.jpg (47KB, 640x475px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x475px

>>3103451
Nah, Dali was the biggest shitposter. He pissed off his fellow surrealists for painting Hitler and Nazi shit too much and openly hating communism.

>>3106823
also with the picture you posted, it's important to understand that the art of the masters wasn't "realistic" it was idealized. They weren't great painters because they could capture exactly what they were looking at, they were great painters because they knew what to change in what they were looking at to make it "better" than nature, more human, and more like art.

That's what Picasso was doing with neo-classicism. That's what Ingres did, what van Gogh did, what Michelangelo did. They created ideal versions of nature and the human form. It's just that by the time Picasso was painting, the idealized human figure had become much simpler. The painting you posted is following the same rules of idealization as the sistine chapel, just according to the painting style of the time.

Artists have been abstracting nature since the Renaissance.

File: Heather.png (16KB, 575x1212px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 575x1212px

>>3106783

You don't see how this is related? If you've mastered form, proportion, etc. you can start to play around with these things in a creative way well.

Take this "Total Drama Island" character for example. She's drawn in this very harsh, geometric style but the artist who designed her clearly understands human anatomy.

>>3106930
>better than nature
>more human
The contradiction of realism laid open in broad daylight. Thank you for this.

>>3103572
Picasso wasn't an impressionist, you fucking moron.

>>3105354
Picasso was not a surrealist. The surrealist camp claimed him as one of theirs, but whenever he showed work at surrealism shows, he showed cubist paintings.

>>3105387
>tfw not sure what this means because childhood wasn't anything special

>>3106701
Most influential, possibly. Most people know the name, but most people would fail to name a single painting, or it's influence on the art world.

I dislike Picasso, and his work, not because it existed, but because others less talented than him, or having no talent, took what he was doing and declared it the only way to make art, and created a near-religion around it. Picasso's work honestly does not speak to me at all, I find it crude and at best, vaugly interesting for the rabbit hole he went down. Everything after him has slowly turned to shit, because the ignorant masses declared his experiments to be the only true art, and it was the beginning of the turning away from art, and moving into commercialism and politics.
Picasso, I believe, was disgusted by it all himself in the latter years of his life, and just soaked the rich for as much money as he could. He knew a scribble by him on a napkin could be sold for a lot of money, and he took full advantage of that. But I also think he saw how empty the soul of the art world was becoming, and how he helped create it. I think WWII had a dramatic impact as well - he was an elderly man when it happened, and I think, like a lot of people, it kicked the guts out of him emotionally. I think he embraced the identity of a shitposter then.

I appreciate who he was, and the effect he had. I just don't like either. But that's more on the shitheads in the artworld, than on him. He was just experimenting.

>>3106774
>The development of cubism owes more to Cezanne than Impressionism.

Partly. It was Cezannes retrospective that inspired him, but it was also the rivalry with Matisse and the Fauvists that really spurred his drive towards Cubism.

File: E56BF27C-CE3C-40DC-B720-A5C99FD5E019-10060-0000086E0DF2E5E5.jpg (68KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x640px

>>3105363
Nice b8 , m9

>>3105324
because cameras were becoming mainstream and realistic painters were dying since why paint it when you can just take a pic of it. so he came up with the quirky abstract shit to stay alive

>>3103451
no
duchamp is

>>3105324
Pablo's father was a painter himself who painted in a very traditional way typical of late 1800s neoclassical french painting. He taught Pablo how to paint early on and teaching him very strict rules. Pablo found this to very boring and contrived, impressionism was already the new fad and other artist began to experiment. If you look at Pablo's early paintings they often depict boring subjects and are full of muddy colors, in contrast to Renoir, Monet, Manet, and so forth which are full of color and more expressive. Pablo wanted to move to something like that rather than stick to an antiquated form of art, in his famous "paint like a child" quote what he's saying is that it took him a lifetime to free himself of the strict rules he was taught as a child and in his adult life he was finally able to paint freely what he wanted full of color and expression.

>>3105324
Because he couldn't paint like Raphael. The realistic paintings you see by him are actually his father's work, there is some fuckery going on with the signatures. His father's work was good, but not even close to what Raphael produced, but Picasso's father would never claim something outrageously stupid like that. Anyone putting in the work to get decent would never say shit like that, unless you are a scam artist like Picasso. It just blows my mind how people buy into his shit, like he was a decent painter at 12 and somehow never drew anything that resembled good draftsmanship afterwards. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't buy into that retarded bullshit. Don't get me wrong, kids can get really good at an early age (look up Michelangelo's early works), but Picasso stole his father's work.

>>3107309
His work wasn't generally surrealist from a stylistic point of view. However he still took part in the discourses of the movement.

File: AAAAAHAHAHAHA.jpg (55KB, 680x598px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 680x598px

>>3105353
>picasso's garbage is even remotely pleasing to the eye

>>3106688
>>3106701

this

>>3110381
>taking a meme this far
Down a notch

>>3110476
The question is if I am the memer or you are falling for a meme "Man he totally transcended traditional painting, too boring for his genius, it was time he moved after he hit puberty!"

>>3110561
The question is answered. You cling to a conspiracy theory that holds no water and isn't supported by a single reputable scholar. Literally an /ic/ meme, brought to the board by one nutjob (maybe you) who read a single excerpt from a paper written in Spanish (that he hadn't read and wasn't even capable of reading), which was written by another nutjob with zero credibility as an art historian. But believe whatever crackpot theories you want.

>>3103451
He'd either shoot You, or beat You pretty savagely for even saying that kind shit about Him, or His works.
And nobody would intervene.
You are the shitposter.
Paint some stuff before Ya KYS, so We can keep laughing though.

>>3105324
Fuck You're dense.
Study up & sort Yourself out.

>>3105359
Neck it.

>>3103451
He was fucking crazy.