What a load of bull, Mr. Picasso!!
A relative of mine started me griping on this one! Art!!
Let me explain!
Some years back now my uncle, who seems to believe that the love of ‘art’ is what marks you out as educated whereas the lack of understanding ‘art’ slots you firmly in to the weasel category of human hierarchy.
We are not talking any art here!! Oh no!! We are talking ‘His art’, the art he likes and true to prediction and very conveniently the art he likes is the art that has reached worldwide recognition.
Me, I don’t run with the crowd, I support the underdog, I need to be persuaded by passion, motivation, love, etc. . . .
The conversation went somewhat like this:
‘Erik, look at this painting’ (placing large, open catalogue in front of me showing a large picture - See below - ).
‘Isn’t it pure genius how Picasso managed to create this bulls head from everyday items?’
‘It’s a saddle and some handle bars!’
‘Yes, yes, but it is also a bulls head!’
‘Whatever!’
‘No, don’t you see . . if these items had been placed any other way it would not have worked!’
‘If you would place the handle bars below the saddle and upside down you’d have a skull with a moustache!! There!! I am Picasso!!’
‘You are missing the point! The genius of th. . . ‘
‘You are missing the point! I don’t give a rat’s arse!!’
‘Art like this is what sets us apart from animals!’
‘So what about a man with tattoos and various nails and studs through various body parts!? . . . . Art??? Masochistic nonsense??? . . . . something to set him apart from the animals or just a filthy animal himself??’
‘You can hardly compare that with Picasso!!’
‘No?? I believe I just did!!’
‘Picasso is untouchable as a master of art!’
‘Picasso sucks!!’
(Shuts catalogue violently and storms off)
Now I know that was naughty and I was out to wind him up as I really don’t care about Picasso either ways – as far as I am concerned he can have his fame!
I just don’t agree with anyone professing to be able to judge ‘Art’ and pigeon-hole people according to their interest or taste in it.
Surely art is subjective and might mean different things to different people?!
This blog site for example:
Some think it’s a steaming pile of manure whilst others look forward to reading it and having a giggle! Art?? Maybe!
Besides, I did not feel any passion in his voice or arguments apart from the ‘O, look how clever and High Society I really am!! I have come a long way since the animal stage and I am now superior!’
Well, uncle, good luck with that!
As for me . . . being the animal I am I can at least scratch my arse without anyone (including myself) being embarrassed and compliment someone on their newly acquired tattoo!
11 comments:
Hey Erik,
It seems we are in the same page today, as I just finish having a conversation about art with one of the providers here. We were talking about the type of art we enjoyed. For me art is something classical, this is to say, that I feel a true artist is someone who can create something most people cannot. Art for many is the idea of something “original” as creating the bulls heat with the bicycle material. For me, that is just an original idea, it doesn’t mean it art. As for Picasso I can appreciate him as an artist (many of his early work was very good) but it doesn’t mean that I appreciate his art. Like you said art is something each person has to decide for him/herself, something that calls to them in an emotional level.
See ya,
-yara
Well, thanks Yara! Finally someone on my wave-length! Hey . . aren't you supposed to be in Miami, girl??
Erik
Hahaha,
We need to start a revolution... "Art and you Emotions" . I wish I was in Miami now, I leave tomorow night. So, it's another day of work for me. :(
-Yara
I looked up 'Picasso is stupid,' 'Picasso is not that great,' and 'Picasso sucks' in Google because I was curious to see if there were any people out there who did not succumb to the extreme social pressure to 'understand and therefore appreciate' Picasso's work. I found two results overall. TWO.
It seems to me that Picasso was not the 'inventor' of cubism; he was an agent of bringing about this new artistic style but there were others also exploring the concept at the time. Also, Picasso was influenced by past successful artists. Also, apparently some other guy did an exhibit on cubism before Picasso. But in his case, everyone rejected the concept and he killed himself.
When I argued about the simplicity of Picasso's work, about how there were many people who would be able to do what he did, a teacher countered, 'But no one else DID do those things, did they?'
You know why they didn't do those things? Because they knew it was crap. Also, when learning about Picasso this year (Yes, I am relatively educated on the man; I'm not just a random ranting about something I know nothing about) I read many of his quotes. MY GOD, he was so unbelievably conceited. He did some great things, sure. But he was not second to God, nor a 'Genius of the Century', nor whatever else the zombies want to call him.
Do yourself a favour, kids: Don't assume Picasso's awesome just because everyone tells you he is. You can interpret that 'bull' artwork as deeply as you like; it's just a couple pieces of junk stuck together.
The only truly remarkable thing about Picasso was his fame.
wow. i love this comment. this sums up EXACTLY how i also feel about Picasso. He is a complete load of shit
Picasso Blows. I was in Barcelona last weekend. I had the chance to go to the picasso museum for free so I said what the hell, why not. I had never really liked any of his most popular work so I figured maybe he had some really good stuff that you don't usually see. All of it's garbage. I see better stuff on the art wall in middle schools. It even tells the story at the museum about how the artists would work together to promote each others works and build up their own fame. "Helllooooooo" Ending up having a fight with my wife about it on the way home. Picasso sucks chode is not a good way to start off a dinner conversation.
True art doesn't need to be "understood" or "interpreted" in order to have an effect imo. Bernini's Rape of Proserpina might have a story behind it but even if one had no clue what that was the piece itself could still move one to tears.
99% of Picasso's work is garbage as far as I'm concerned.
I get the impression Picasso was out to please the tastes and philosophy of the critiques of his day. Those folks had certain philosophies and corresponding esthetics that were purposefully distanced the good old 'common sense' of the 'everyday' man (deluded snobs). Whereas, I think, much of classical art had stable aesthetic foundations that where rarely at odds with most people's intuitions, in modern times, we've seen sloppy arguments in favor of views that were solely mandated by 'the critiques du jour', not by 'your gut feeling'.
The emperor's new clothes. A sugar pill. Ass kissing.
sorry, I meant critics. French/english mix up. #$%@#$#^$
crap
inter-racial romance.. religiosity.. quadraplegic marathon..
what do they have in common??
lol
That guy who fantasized about being eaten for supper.. eewww
picasso is a dung beetle
Post a Comment