is this a fucking joke?
>>7242877>Was.checked.
>>7242877looks cool and really clearly conveys the idea of "portrait drawn from multiple different perspectives at once"
picasso is just pre internet sovl the dude was so good, he eventually just drew "bad" on purpose. He interacted with Dali but you could obviously argue that Dali was superior in terms of rendering, but picasso just clicks some times, it scratches an aesthetic itch. Its art for arts sake, and let's be honest, if Picasso were alive today he'd be cancelled.
>>7243003>the dude was so good, he eventually just drew "bad" on purpose.How confused does one have to be to actually believe that? There's not a single panting of his that doesn't look like shit. You're confusing him with Klimt, although Klimt never painted "badly", he just ventured into a more primitivistic approach at a certain point. His early academic works showed as a firm grasp of fundamentals as there could ever be.
>>7243138>picasso had no fundamentals, not a single of his work look realistic=goodoh shut up, retard
>picasso predicted woke robocop sequelsspooky
>>7243138pyw
>>7243138I'll give you some credit for appreciating klimt BUT Klimt has far less variety than Picasso, by far. I love klimt, I've seen pic related irl and it moved me, even inspired me a lot to continue drawing to this day. An artists measure of success should be in their fulfillment of their vision, and if they are committed the world will bend towards their vision. You can "hype up" bullshit for a lifetime, but it becomes clear after the zeitgeist has faded who truly stands the test of time. People gravitate towards authenticity in all fields and while there is an entire world of modern art that can be easily ignored as money laundering, paintings, when you see them in person, and see the individual brushstrokes, it either resonates with you as an artist or it doesn't. All my idols are more or less dead, but when I see a good painting in a museum, I just suddenly understand why I am here: to ultimately motivate the next generation when I'm long gone, and who knows, maybe some kid in the future will be calling you overrated on some image board.
>>7243822This was also in the same museum, probably nothing special to most people, but to me its perfect aesthetics.
>>7243245you extensively misconstrued what he said. for one, anon said there's not a single panting of his that doesn't look like shit. and then you posted a mediocre study with with zero paint. >the dude was so good, he eventually just drew "bad" on purpose. Are there examples of Picasso's work that is "so good"?
https://youtu.be/zy9V7jYABOA?si=EXj95OD8Rkr4zonB
