Picasso Was An Idiot - The Salon Said So! & Don't Burn You Beatles Records...

I used to think of Picasso as a prostitute; just a guy messing with the status quo. Then I started to see him as the art form. People would buy his work with the idea that they were actually buying into his "Bad Boy" lifestyle. That made me like him better. Then I ran across "Pablo's Confession', and I had a new respect for him, even though I didn't think much of most of his work. Here it is...

"From the moment that art is no longer the sustenance that nourishes the best, the artist may exteriorize his talent in all sorts of experiments with new formulas, in endless caprices and fancy, in all the expedients of intellectual charlatanism. In the arts, people no longer seek consolation, nor exaltation. But the refined, the rich, the indolent, distillers of quintessence seek the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, since cubism and beyond, I have satisfied these gentlemen and these critics with all the various whims which have entered my head, and the less they understood them, the more they admired. By amusing myself at these games, at all these tomfooleries, at all these brain-busters, riddles and arabesques, I became famous quite rapidly. And celebrity means for a painter: sales increment, money, wealth.

Today, as you know, I am famous and very rich. But when completely alone with myself, I haven't the nerve to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the word. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time. This is a bitter confession, mine, more painful indeed than it may seem, but it has the merit of being sincere."

PABLO PICASSO (FROM: ORIGIN 12, January 1964 Cid Corman, Editor Kyoto, Japan.; cited by Artcompasas Amsterdam

I used to think of Picasso as a prostitute; just a guy messing with the status quo. Then I started to see him as the art form. People would buy his work with the idea that they were actually buying into his "Bad Boy" lifestyle. That made me like him better. Then I ran across "Pablo's Confession', and I had a new respect for him, even though I didn't think much of most of his work. Here it is...

"From the moment that art is no longer the sustenance that nourishes the best, the artist may exteriorize his talent in all sorts of experiments with new formulas, in endless caprices and fancy, in all the expedients of intellectual charlatanism. In the arts, people no longer seek consolation, nor exaltation. But the refined, the rich, the indolent, distillers of quintessence seek the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, since cubism and beyond, I have satisfied these gentlemen and these critics with all the various whims which have entered my head, and the less they understood them, the more they admired. By amusing myself at these games, at all these tomfooleries, at all these brain-busters, riddles and arabesques, I became famous quite rapidly. And celebrity means for a painter: sales increment, money, wealth.

Today, as you know, I am famous and very rich. But when completely alone with myself, I haven't the nerve to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the word. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time. This is a bitter confession, mine, more painful indeed than it may seem, but it has the merit of being sincere."

PABLO PICASSO (FROM: ORIGIN 12, January 1964 Cid Corman, Editor Kyoto, Japan.; cited by Artcompasas Amsterdam

Picasso, easily the most overrated artist of the 20th century, was an insincere pig who laughed at the overfunded idiots who bought his paintings.

I can't blame Picasso for wanting money. If we could whip up some
art to make big bucks I thinkwe would be tempted as well. I find
his honesty that he left the world a truthful insight into his
situation admireable, He could have left us all the the dark.
Also it shows his genius that he figured it out how the art field
works. A bunch of intelectualizing idiots wanting the status of
being in the know about new trends and wanting to understand the
AWSOME supposedly deeper meaning the artist (being the GOD-LIKE
inspired being therefore worth big bucks) is trying to tell you
with thier art. Considering all society wants status, all want
money, all are looking for meaning and purpose in thier life
(all some rich have to contribute to get meaning is money) should
any of it surprise us? No matter how I look at it though his work
has never been to my taste. His work speak of how inventive he
was and what a think-out-side-the-box personhe was. His work does
show how he could take things apart and try to analyse the parts
as form shape, and color in a new expression (abstract way) Like
an inventor looks at a machine and goes if I take these parts and
add this I can create a lawn mower. I think his statement
undervalues his true inventive genius. I wouldn't want to own a
Picasso If we leave the financial aspect out of the equation but
he gave a contribution to art non-the-less in my view. A challenge
today is there are so many people and artists in the world we are
all a dime a dozen Its hard to stand out as an artist when you
aren't rare eg. being an antique is rare so valued. If you don't
like this type of art there is a zillion others and a zillion
artists to pick from why glorify any one artist the problem
remains Who gets VALUED and WHYremains with who we decide is
the EXPERTS (EDUCATED?) of our time and what taste they have in
art. Then your art is estimated as worth good money unfortunately
the experts have frequently been wrong about what historically
becomes good art. So if you are a master in some individual way
you likely won't make money in this life. So Picasso went for
MEMORABLE.
Thats also Genius! Look at the people trying in thier way to stand
out in the art field. I've heard they are making art from donuts
and somenone is making art from blood. They are using shock value
to make their work memorable.

oops

A genius for self promotion does not equal genius as an artist.

Besides which, fame and material success for an artist is almost entirely a matter of luck: being in the right place at the right time, knowing the right people, being capable of sucking up to them in a way that they find gratifying, and having whatever kind of art you are predisposed to make coincide with an existing trend.

as you know being a sociopath helps---helps what ? helps get the person noticed....so are all known or famous artists sociopaths ?

In today's cultural vacume where people are either bums or celebritys and walls are covered with flat screen bube tubes instead of art how does an artist get recognition without being sociopathetic creep ??????

Beats me ....... how do you make art when the game is about hussling ?

Who cares if Picasso was an idiot or not. He opens minds to VERY different kinds of art. I am an art teacher and we happen to be studying Picasso right now. We're looking at the relationships between color, subject matter, and emotion. The kids "get" Picasso. They are excited about his work. They are painting "emotion animals" like maniacs. They can see how "Old Guitarist" is so very sad, and "Guernica" is so excruciatingly angry, and they understand how art can express emotion. Kids are like good dogs who can sniff out character in people; they don't care what's supposed to be good or bad, they just honestly tell you what they think when you show them art. And they are moved by Picasso. Kids are like art barometers. I vote not to burn Picasso.

Found this thread and was very impressed... especially Pablo's confession..

I am far too ignorant about Picasso to make a valid comment about him, but the question of what constitutes true art is a question for the ages.

I was just recently rejected by a gallery and was told that my work lacked passion and was far too graphic for her tastes. I totally agree with the latter half of that statement, as it definitely is graphic. I was a graphic designer for over a decade, so that is simply how I view the world. Everything is a composition for me. But lack of passion? I would never paint anything I wasn't passionate about, and it is basically my life-blood being poured out on the canvas. It is bizarre to me, since one of the images I sent her just won a national award in Artist's Magazine. I'm not even angry with the gallery owner, because that is how she sees it, and we all have our own perspective.

But who is the final authority on what constitutes art? Though I've thought about it a lot, in the end, I choose NOT to think about it too hard! LOL.

It doesn't really matter is I think Picasso was great (I do) and someone else has a different opinion. What matters is that we are still talking about him and that his work has influence. The pros and cons are the stuff of art history debates. I recall many famous people have been told by someone in authority that they should just move on. They really didn't have what it takes. One of the most famous and recent would be Clint Eastwood who was told to quit acting by a studio functionary. Wonder where that guy is now?

Picasso also stands as a life lesson for me. One of the most famous artists ever and people still can't agree on his talent. So if someone (juries) reject my art I figure they just have their point of view and I have mine.

Too Graphic I expect most have heard that at some time in their careers. "Sniff" "Too much like graphic design" Heard it, rejected it.

About 25 years ago I had taken a trip to Mexico City. I have always love to go to the art museums where ever my life would take me. I was surprised to see at their Museum that they had Picasso work as their exhibit. There was about 45 pieces. The Museum was filled with people to admire his work. I wasn't an experienced painter at that time but I did learn something he was being honored for being different. My opinion I did not think it was very good. As I was being mentor I had told my teacher of that experience, and she told me that he was a realist painter and was very good but did not get any recognition for it . Then he became defiant against the world. Then he started painting as we know it. It worked but I don't believe at first he thought it would make the world turn their head's the reaction that they did. So then he went for it. I told my husband if I don't sell that many prints I'm going to a public place and I'm going to cut my ear off. Oh darn it's been done already. Paint from your hearts and the world will notice. Have a great life Linda

I never got the memo about burning Beatles records. When were we supposed to do that?

;-)

I find aside from Picasso, whom I don't know much about, but I know more about people like him who got famous after they were dead. There is a fine line between genius and crazy, and lets be honest you know a genius you know they jump the line. People who had an idea, a great idea, and tried to present it, were really considered off or a lunatic, people wanted nothing to do with them. After death when the personality to go with the ideas disappears and all you are left with is the idea then the idea gets recognition, and then the name follow the recognition of the idea. To me the best example and it may not be art but it qualifies is Mozart. He was not famous while he was alive, and we can surely say he was a genius. He was said to be rude and arrogant. To have to try to coincide someones work with the personality doesn't mix. After he was dead and all that was left was his music people only then realized how brilliant he was. The same goes with any artistic field, the personality of a person can be a distraction to the art you are looking. It is only until the personality is gone that you can really see the art. Just a theory, due to change with age. :-)