Do you consider Picasso traditional masterpieces more impressive than the art he made when he tried to imitate the art of a little child?Or do you admire more when Picasso dropped the complexity and focused on simplicity?
Pablo Picasso is the reason why I respect the Japanese so much.Picasso was reacting to the advent of the camera, and the fact that people didn't need realistic art anymore.He tried to find a way out for artists, a way to do things that the Camera couldn't.Unfortunately, he went in the wrong way and created monstrosities. On the other hand, the Japanese invented anime, the ideal aesthetic that cameras cannot capture.The Japanese perfected what Picasso spent his whole life pursuing.
Picasso’s early works were painted by his father. Picasso was a hack charlatan.
>>7157156This, he was a grift by his father who blossomed into a grifter himself
>>7157156The more I look into this, the more it does look true. Idc so much about that cringelord, but more about the art historians that are so hellbent to twist history in a way that it fits modernist ideology.
>>7156271I'm stealing that opinion, I like it. Lots of potential.
I loved both.I was introduced to the classic masterpieces as a little kid, and they stirred my imagination, and I ended up making a series of drawings for a while that bounced off of the feels and little puzzling ideas that cropped up while really looking at them.years later when i saw his more traditional work, i loved it again in an entirely different, more technical way, but the level of soul i felt from both was very nice, and the same.i like just about all the old masters’ work tho, especially when you place them in the context of their movement and time. i also like when you place picasso and all the outliers on the historical art-y timeline, you can see how much humans’ve played around with and tried to break through the limits of plateauing ideas in each age of what art was accepted to be, to see if they could expand it further i to some new and interesting spoke. kinda like the history of humans’ art journey’s a mirror to the jumps and plateaus of individual artists who stick with it and try more difficult things with more experience>tldr; i like them equally
>>7156271>Picasso was reacting to the advent of the camera, and the fact that people didn't need realistic art anymore.A realistic painting is very different from what a camera produces. In fact, exactly replicating life is but a training exercise for a realistic painter. The problem is that to people with no proper training can't see the difference.One example among many: landscapes; no-one will ever paint a Bierstadt from life, and a camera will never produce a Bierstadt. A camera can get closer with fancy digital manipulations, but we're venturing away from photography, and definitely away from what photography was by the time of Picasso.Anime pretty much falls into the heavy stylized category: that's pretty much every form of art but Western realism (trad Chinese or Japanese paintings, Western middle-age, you name it). I don't mean to be dismissive: I enjoy all forms of art. Some things are more conveniently expressed with the stylized approach of anime.>>7156268>Or do you admire more when Picasso dropped the complexity and focused on simplicity?Simplicity isn't the correct word here. There are very good realistic paintings which are nevertheless simple. I think "lazy" is more accurate. "Experimental" or "original" could work too if we wanted to be more generous.The way I see it, Picasso is just a guy who found a way to get fame and money with little effort. Some of his work has some merit, but it's not worth all that noise, nor those extravagant price tags.
