One of his girlfriends commited suicide. I wonder why. Also he left one woman Dora after nine years unexpectedly for another woman. Dora said all his paintings of her were lies. His ex wife Francoise gilot had to leave because he was very abusive. He tried to ruin her career after she left him. She was an artist as well and had painted since five years old and was highly educated. She painted till the day she died at 101 just recently. She is an accomplisged painter yet she was blacklisted at the time for leaving picasso. She wrote a book years after she left him depicting her time with him. He was not a good person.
You forgot: possibly the biggest troll in history. I'm convinced in his later years he thought to himself "I could literally shit onto a canvas" and it would be "genius!"
If anyone is pulled toward the intersection of diffrent art forms, for example literature and painting, there is a marvelous short story by the masterful Ray Bradbuty, titled “In a Season of Calm Weather” from the collection A Medicine for Melanchoy. In the story, an American tourist visiting the French Riviera chances upon an old man drawing in the wet sand with a stick from an ice cream bar. At first amused, as he approaches him and sees the fantastic, intricate forms the man is making in the sand, he is entranced, then shocked when he takes a good look at the old man; it is Picasso, his idol, his reason for living in fact. He wonders how he could possibly preserve the spontaneous piece of art. A plaster cast? Digging it up very carefully? A photograph? Alas, he doesn't have his camera on him. The man smiles at him, seeming to understand his desire, his agony in knowing that the drawing will not endure. They both are momentarily distracted by the beauty of the setting sun. Then Picasso says good evening and departs. The American stands wistfully for a while longer. Later that night, with his wife, he hears the sound of the ocean. and is at once melancholic and accepting and sad. His wife asks him what's wrong. He replies, "Nothing, just the tide. Just the tide coming in."
Connecting the dots between African art and Picasso's Demoiselles and cubist work is a huge Ah-ha! for me. How could I not have seen this earlier? The influence is so very clear. Understandable that he did not want to cop to this and undermine his mythological identity as an Original. Which he was anyway in western art and culture. Thanks for including John Berger, an undervalued beloved in my book. Excellent doc and narration. Thank You!
Thousands of books written that point out the fact that modern art was hugely influenced by tribal art. Modern art is based on the ocult and mysticism. IE Satan.
I was taught that in art school in Puerto Rico, I never knew that he denied it. When you see those African sculptures with a modern art perspective, you can see how advanced they were. Some Central American indigenous art too. And they’re made by anonymous artists… Picasso was a great artist, but his ego was too big
no mention of Georges Braque who probably invented cubism and collage. His father was a qualified house painter . in those days they learned how to imitate woodgrain and marbled surfaces etc. Techniques that Braque would incorporate in his art and Picasso could copy.
It's an unfortunate omission. My original script was 8,000 words. The video isn't really about cubism so I ended up cutting a lot things including that Picasso and Braque's paintings looked nearly identical for a time. I also wanted to talk about Guernica, World War II, and fascism...
Jesus love you, he died on the cross for you, accept him as your lord and savior he can change everything. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16) But you must repent too. From that time Jesus went about preaching and saying, Let your hearts be turned from sin, for the kingdom of heaven is near. (Matthew 4:17):
Collage is about as old as paper and glue, the urge to credit it's invention to some Great Artist is younger than the technique itself. (For one neat historical example: Mary Delany used collage for botanical illustrations in the 1700s.)
My local Mausoleum of Fine Art has a good Picasso, and a bad Picasso. A great Picasso exhibit there about 10 years ago, however, was uniformly beautiful.
He's the myth of the power of curiosity for the unknown ... Anything with unknown qualities gets mythologised to gigantic proportions ..... For example, fear of the unknown afterlife creates religious beliefs and cultures ...... unproven rumored creatures like Nessie creates such curiosity it spawns a tourist industry ...... unsolved serial murderers acquires a legacy of conspiracy theorist books and movies made after them ..... Picasso intentionally included random elements and disregarded proportions and perspective to confound the art critics who dare not criticise his art for looking childish but instead convince themselves there might be something meaningful beneath the seemingly random paintings ... Warhol did that too, simply creating an impression of mystery and unknown qualities to arouse curiosity and off they went to the bank !
Picasso’s goal was to culminate his talents into his own immutable style. He gave permission for high level personal style. Personal Expression over technique.
I doubt it. The dude would use his fame as a form of payment. He’d go to the grocer with no money & instead of paying, he’d jot down a quick sketch because it was an “original Picasso” & more valuable than the items he wanted. He wasn’t interested in personal expression, he was only interested in HIS own personal expression. He didn’t care about art, he only cared about Picasso & how far he could push his fame & convincing people he mattered more than he actually did
@@koobs4549 You're 100 % Wrong. I merely stated his impact on the world of Art. Those things are real and are indelible. You can't imagine Modern Art without Picasso. It's like trying to imagine EDDIE VAN HALEN out of Rock Music. He may have been a jerk. You may be a Marxist professor working in Yale's art department. History will remember things accordingly.
Me too! I was just thinking about that exhibition yesterday. I haven't been back to see the actual MOMA, but it was cool to see that "conversation" between Picasso and Matisse and their works placed side by side. Very memorable!
Upon visiting Reina Sofia in Madrid I was taken aback at how his work seemed so disjointed. Although carefully arranged by period, it did not seem as a gradual shift but rather jolting transitions, seismic leaps in style and approach, likened to the sea during a maelstrom where the turgid water threatens to engulf the shore. One espies the earlier influences of Purvis de Chavannes and later Picasso's coconspirator George Braque. But then he bursted the constraints of cubism in Les Demoiselle d'Avignon. Nah, forget the labels. Upon looking at this retrospective of Picasso, one sees complexity straight on as tangled vines lost in a labyrinth where one no longer finds his or her way around.
Great video! I loved it. I think it’s better to say “girls” rather than “women” when you’re talking about the people Picasso was preying on, since they were in fact, young teenage girls. 🤢
Unfair generalisation. Only Marie Therese was under 20 when they met. Like the others (perhaps half a dozen over half a century) they would become his muse and transform his art.
So many angles on Picasso in this one short video. I learned a lot. Appreciate that you chose to end it by talking about his abusive relationships. No amount of genius can excuse the way he treated people
The Mystery of Picasso, the movie, is like an edge of your seat action movie for artists. The changes he makes are scary as he keeps ruining perfect composition to make another and another, matador style action - it will get artists to freak out.
Agree. The last part with Picasso painting a huge wall mural timelapsed over a few days is a roller-coaster ride. My take was paintings or images he did previously was used in the mural as a component, a letter or word in the larger composition. So, similiar to writing a rough draft erasing, crossing out a section Picasso would ad hoc create a painting putting down a pre-formed image then painting over or scraping it off the ground as he improvised it.
14:27 - 14:45 YES YES! This articulates it perfectly. I had always thought of art being magic, but never found a real way to define it. But this! This! It's perfect.
No, not what art is at all. It's two utilitarian objects that both function exactly the same... so which one do you choose? The one that looks more elegant to you. The one that might evoke a certain feeling. The one who's colors might put you in a certain mood. Now take two objects that have no utility at all, and apply the same rules. Which one would you want to hang on your wall and wake up to every morning. At least that's my definition. It has to be something I want to keep looking at. And that makes me feel something. Something that has emotional tones that are incredibly unique. Music is similar in that regard.
Pablo wouldn't know what "Divine or Sacred" creations are if his life depended on it.💀He is as guilty of steeling from the indigenous as much as the colonialist rapists who built the Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro,
Shows that people will believe anything if it's pushed hard enough , so the art world found a way to make more money.Picasso understood that there in lies his genius!Now everyone and anyone can call themselves an artist.He didn't have to compete with the greats and he was laughing all the way to the bank followed by one desperate penniless model after another.
In Malaga Spain I saw the film where he painted on glass, it was then washed and another black and white painting began. It was genius to me. It was mesmerizing.
You truely missed out watching this video ! It explained, shared great info I didn't know prior, n partially glorified him n his genius, even when he was warped....a true master of his art n world's !!!❤
This man took up the eradication of love from his heart and mind...and accomplished its avoidance as a misanthropic 'champion' in the lurid Pantheon men have made of such "gods". Despite his canonization by those envious of his temporal success, I doubt he has maintained any affection for the cult he so assiduously practiced at one time.
14:11 'He said this (regarding African art and masks) after visiting the Trocadero Museum "To examine these masks; all those magical objects people had created with a magical purpose, to serve as intermediaries to them and the hostile forces that surrounded them, thereby trying to overcome their fears, leaving them color and shape and then I understood what painting really meant. it is not an aesthetic process. It is a form of magic that stands between us and a hostile universe. A means of taking power. Imposing a form on our terrors as well as our wishes. The day I understood that, the day I found my way. "'
He also nursed a terminal girlfriend with cancer to death! It's trendy to call him mysoginist and forget how fabulous a painter he was! I notice nobody knocks Georgia O Keefe for living alone in the desert relinquishing relationships so she can concentrate on her artwork! They'll never forgive Picasso for being a workaholic something admirable in others who strive for excellence! How much is jealousy envy and desire to be as famous as him! Plus he's first to admit Velasquez was probably the greatest of all time and he couldn't paint like him until his 70's and his exhibition in UNSW art gallery was absolutely brilliant and overwhelming!
Sorry but disapproval of his abusive attitude does not makes us jealous. I'd disapprove of such attitude in ANY person. His style has a place in art history, but as a person he is not likeable, and don't ask us to be enablers. Just because someone is successful at something that does not excuse him being and a****.
I see Picasso as the greatest gaslighting scam of his time. His works are grotesque, admired by those who like to pretend they “understand” some deep inner meanings, but in actuality are as gullible as the people who fall for pyramid schemes. I don’t begrudge Picasso the enormous wealth and fame he got from tricking people into and “emperor’s new clothes” type of grift. It must be human nature to rob those who beg to be robbed.
@@docinparadise - It's the countless modern "conceptual" artists who came after Picasso who are the true gaslighters. Picasso had a full range of skills and did traditional works of great beauty, but also experimented endlessly with form, creating what was "grotesque" to the casual observer. Sure, much of it appears strange and ugly, but look at the totality of his work.
@@jlovebirchi dont find his work great and also dont find it strange or ugly enough to be good. Its creative and has some skill, but its doesnt come further than creative experiments and illustration. It doesnt have charm or depth
@@BakkerSamuel Art (and the perception of greatness) is a subjective experience. With Picasso, he mastered every style and kept moving forward and exploring. There's something for everyone in his vast mountain of work, some of which has great charm and depth. See the video "Why Did Picasso's Style Transform So Drastically?" for a well-researched overview.
Lovely video, just one nitpicky note: 18:55 The Dutch name "Piet" sounds like the English name "Pete". A lot of people might claim otherwise, but none of them will be Dutch. Fijne dag!
After his teenage years his painting was abismal and he knew it but didn't care. He was more interested in selling paintings with minimal effort. A pure materialist with an unclean soul.
Well if you think about it, on the pure business side its a pretty efficient model, and on the personal art creation side, you can do whatever the hell you want, so he is winning on both sides 🤔
He discovered his own unique style. And left an important mark in art history, regardless of that that he was being abusive. It would be very boring if he just kept painting realism.
What a trove of documentary film that I have never seen before of this master of art. I am surprised at the churlish tone of so many comments here. Can there really be any controversy that he was the primary mover of modern art?
Really? Like you hate all of it? I find this hard to believe, have you seen how much his style changed over time? I can understand if you don’t like the style he is most famous for but even his earlier work looks like some of the masters. It’s not like he’s Jackson Pollock & only painted in a single technique
@@richiejohnson you think you’ve made a really profound point here but it doesn’t say anything about me other than that fact that I hate the art of Picasso …..and if you’ve looked at my comment I have already made that perfectly clear and I’m within my own rights to feel that way.
He would love your response. It seems sometimes impossible to engender or reach any passion in the audience, as an artist (musician, dancer, actor etc..).
I think Picasso was a bit of a one trick pony style wise, but it was nonetheless visually pleasing. He was more than his paintings though and I don’t begrudge his success. The element of promotion and knowing what to be influenced by is a huge talent in itself.
One trick pony, are you serious? Love him or hate him, his style changed considerably over the years. Not to mention all of the different mediums he used. Saying Picasso was a one trick pony is one of the most uninformed things I've heard in a long time.
@@cdronk his blue phase was nothing significant. Once he found his style he stuck with it. Nothing wrong with it, but it’s not like he reinvented himself multiple times.
No, I disagree. He wasn't the "inventor of cubism" (he hated that they described his work as cubism). He learned cubism from Georges Braque. A great artist Picasso was, but not truly for what he is acclaimed to be. He personified art because he was prolific with mediocre works (much the same as Stephen King is synonymous with horror). He is more an enigma whose fame is perpetuated with uninterrupted promotion by those who profit from it. There is no mystery other than that... He is endlessly promoted, just as Van Gogh and Leonardo are.
I don’t disagree. But I would say no one person invents anything. I’m presenting the mythology of Picasso in the beginning of the video. The reality is that Picasso made a huge contribution to the development of Cubism but that the invention of the genre was a collaborative effort. I don’t think there was another painter that contributed more to the rapid abstraction of art in the early 20th than Picasso - which includes many art movements. I’ve heard Picasso called the father of cubism. I’ve also heard Cezanne referred to in the same way. I think there are a lot of ways to frame the argument. Art history books typically refer to Les Demoiselle d’Avignon as “proto-cubism” which is another way to think about it.
@@TheConspiracyofArt I, myself, have never heard of Cézanne being referred to as an experimenter of cubism. I agree that he is somewhat talented as an artist but I fail to see him as "great" without the art world declaring him a force of climactic change, nor without their causal-course deeming him as such. He may have liberated Matisse and Picasso (along with other, more obscure artists), but in that sense he would have been more of an "artist's artist", as the vast majority of would-be-artists became marginalized by the modern movement and chose different career paths. Picasso is probably the most difficult of artists to talk about (from my experience) and with good reason. For all his prolific talent (discovered or still yet to be uncovered and discussed), he will forever be a thorn in every artist's vine of artistic understanding.
I think the idea is that Cezanne’s analytic approach broke-down composition geometrically and this is at the heart of cubism. I agree Picasso is hard to talk about. Like Warhol and countless other artists, he could speak in riddles and admitted to contradicting himself or making things up if pressed for a remark.
@@TheConspiracyofArt There are many great artists who have contributed to many different styles, but, as you say, none of them have any right to be proclaimed the inventor of a style by themselves. That being said, artists are either deemed great for their body of works and subtle contributions or changes they have incorporated, or some combination of styles or, perhaps, something intangible. How we choose to study and critique these works is an intangible unto itself, of course. I admire your effort in dealing with some of the highlights, lows and social aspects of Picasso, as I know it to be trouble even reiterating what has been proclaimed in hundreds of books about the man. It is still a great topic of discussion if you can find willing participants to converse with.
@@TheConspiracyofArt The "mythology of Picasso" may just be that we cannot see the woods for the trees, as well. By seeing him as a powerful limiter of the art world, I am giving him the same power that he went against when he challenged the rules set by his contradictory father. In his own right, he was faced with limitation set upon him by outside forces which he banished from his mind and liberated himself, thus creating his need to continue creating and building himself up. The contradictions he faced in his youth may have at the same time alienated him from society even more than a normal artist would be. This is not as clear to me, however, to explain Cezanne the same way, as I would need to further study him. So, in hindsight, perhaps it should be easier to celebrate Picasso as a sort of "liberator" of the art world after all. Thank you, I really needed this realization that your docu vid actually helped me see.
Far more than enough total crap from that moron, that petty criminal, who never learned to paint properly. Someone gave him a box camera with broken lens, that's the origin of his segmented figures, no vision, no nothing. What a charade!
Nah, Picasso paintings were just like the "the Emperor's New Clothes". Art sellers marketed his work because he could make 100+ paintings in a month while traditional painters sometimes didn't complete 1 in that time. Art houses wanted to make more money, so they convinced everyone Picasso was the 'hot new thing' and his confidence as a narcissist helped to sell it. These days people are finally seeing through the BS that was the tasteless scribbles of this art period and Picasso's work is LOSING value. The paintings at auction are quietly being sold for less than ever before. Meanwhile masters like Bougerou who lost some popularity after his death and the rise of abstract art like Picasso, are now proudly displayed in galleries again and selling for record highs. THIS man painted with such skill and heart, he had a sound work ethic, he had integrity, and he supported and taught female artists in a time no one else would. The modernists were simply in rebellion against the skill and control the old masters, their literal former teachers including William Bougerou, had. Being original just to be different is both immature and adds no value to society. And to assume new is always better is just the arrogance of the young.
I was wondering how far down the comments section I would have to go before I would find the first rational response to this video. Thank you for your post. You will probably get a kick out of this analysis of Picasso th-cam.com/video/cOQhVMxzCqs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb
Art market is still selling a lot and making a lot of profit. It is about capital. Nobody cares what kind of a bastard the artist is. It depends on the times what sells best. Actually the modernists were rebelling against class division not just traditional painting techniques. They hated the polished finished academic paintings which allowed portrayal only of rich people or mythological beings. Those polished academic paintings were serving like a beauty filter for the rich. To idolize them. And only the rich could afford them of course. Modernists challenged that. They wanted to paint everyday people, not just the rich or mythological beings. So you are discrediting them here. Their work was valuable in its own ways. Take pointillism for example. They discovered optical mixing of color. Today, scientists know that our visual system in our brains has the ability to mix color like that. Modern artist discover that, not the traditional ones. Because they dared to paint differently and break off with tradition. They didn't tried to be different just for the sake of being different like you claim.
Damn, I was hoping there was a conspiracy theory that he never existed, or was actually some other very staid and traditional artist who made him up. You know, The History Channel stuff. 😁
I recently found a motherload of Picasso's mostly jewelry pottery and decor a few other really random thing that scare the shit outta me.. unexplainable things.. like he chose me to own his works as many are engraved to me.. my full name. They will say like to Carl Faberge on a few.. then for.. and my name😳.. and I am afraid to show anybody because the extent of what I've found and the images that are behind the works are extremely explicit and demonic.. a statue I found dripping in gold blindly attached me to it at a thrift store like a magnet without even seeing it and when I grabbed it an unexplainable surge of ominous energy jolted through my body like I've never felt or experienced.. an unholy almost violently powerful feeling.. but what I experienced once I brought it home was unbelievable and insane, I don't even want to talk about it.. I've got 100s of pieces signed Picasso a bracelet I found has a picture of me in it.. wtf is going on?
Picasso wasn't great. He just had massive support from galleries because he could knock out 10 paintings a day. The man completed 150,000 paintings in his time. Galleries loved this and jumped on it, because that is $10,000 x 150,000 instead of like $10,000 x 10,000 from other artist on the high output. Galleries love fast turn arounds and if you can accomplish this you can make it in the artworld through galleries. Your art can be shit, the gallery will make the sheep believe it is good.
Can we start talking about the artists that are alive more please, I know one should know history but this is becoming an echo champer, of the same dead white male artists
I understand where you are coming from. 99% of western art history is dead white men. Interestingly, it was critic John Berger’s writing about Picasso’s relationship with women that led to the concept of the male gaze that became widely influential in feminist theory. Talking about Picasso provides a way to talk about the trajectory of art and culture in the 20th century like no other artist. As my channel grows, I plan on covering lesser known artists. If I were to do this now, no one would watch the videos. Plus, I teach part-time so these videos help me do that. TH-cam is an imperfect platform. Art 21 has great video profiles on living artists.
10:10 People in this time were so much more dramatic in how they saw art. If Picasso had a tiktok account and posted something like that in today's age, he'd probably just get a lot of comments saying it's cringe lol
Compared to ancient African and Central American art you find in museums, he was just as good (not better)… that’s why he later denied being influenced by African sculptures. He was too narcissistic to admit that so many anonymous artists were as good as him long time before he was even born. And he is one of my favorite famous artists
I saw many of his paintings in a cubist exhibition at the NYC Museum, next to it at the same floor there was an exhibition of indigenous Central American art and next to it an ancient African art exhibition, all made by anonymous artists. If that art was made by modern artists, they would all be famous and financially successful. But Picasso was a pioneer in painting, because he managed to paint (2D) what other artists before him sculpted (3D)..
❤ Picasso was African, North African Berber. One his parent , hus mother was black . The father was a Spaniard. He was leaving a message behind for future generations. Picasso was rebelling against western civilisation. Those African masks in picasso paintings was his black identity. That is when he became conscious diaspora. His name Picasso means the cunning and wise spider. In African traditional folklore, the spider is regarded as the wisest and most cunning person. Picasso name is African. Mendes Trube. .
Well, the real myth is that he was a great artist. The quote where he confesses in Life magazine to being a total fake who set out to make fools of critics ad inf is assailed as spurious, but the shoe sure fits!
Picasso was a genius of that there is no doubt but Picasso did not "invent" Cubism. The cubist concept is contributed to Cezanné. Cezanné was captured by new scientific knowledge at the time on how we visually perceive reality. We have two eyes and therefore the brain receives two slightly different angles of what we are looking at. So if we close one eye and then alternate that with both eyes you will experience this slightly different angle of what we see. So the brain then puts those two angles together and this is what gives us the ability to determine depth. If you ever get to see an original Cezanné painting you will have the same experience of this alternating perspective as though opening an closing your separate eyes. (This effect does not work when you see a Cezanné painting in a boo k- you need t see the original because printed versions can not render the colours the same) Anyways, this effect Cezanné created took him his entire adult life living alone dedicating himself to achieving it. This is an astonishing and astounding achievement in art history and one Picasso himself attributed to Cezanne and why he called Cezanné: "the father" . An excellent video but it is important to give accurate information on history and art history is no exception. No creation happens in isolation. Picasso had to get inspiration from somewhere, he did not just pluck it out of his head. Even his distorted imagery came from an exhibition of African art that he saw in a museum. Picasso, and other people we call "geniuses," are merely conduits for the collective consciousness of which we are all part. Everything and everyone are all connected and we need to start seeing reality in that context instead of making certain individuals into some form of God. No one ever achieves anything alone.
Only partly true. The young Picasso explored the work of many older cutting edge painters. He went through a Lautrec phase, Gaugin, Cezanne, African art, Japanese woodcuts. His genius lies in synthesising all these elements and creating something unique to him. More than any other artist he constantly refreshed his work and diversified into collage, sculpture, lithography etc. Cubism is just one small part of the body of work he produced over his lifetime.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree no artist really invents anything out thin air. One of the challenges of making these videos is trying to go deep enough to not be boring for those who know about art, be also trying not alienate those who have never thought about art. Inventing new genres is part of the mythology of Picasso - the truth is much more complicated as you point out. I am definitely what people call a postmodernist. I am more interested in the fabric of art history than attributing authorship, but part of taking on the mythology of things like the “genius artist” involves understanding how the mythology arose, which is what this video is about.
@@TheConspiracyofArt I think there are the occasional genius artists through history. Leonardo da Vinci must fall into that category. Durer, Michelangelo, Van Eyck, Caravaggio, Picasso. Possibly Goya, Rubens perhaps. Some of the names are debatable but a few are stone cold certainties.
@@TheConspiracyofArt I understand and take your point. I actually thought your video was excellent and very positive. Speaking as someone who has been living as an artist for pretty much my entire life, my perspective on art has evolved gradually and certain perspectives I have arrived at are important to me, and one of them is that I believe it is on time we, collectively begin teaching history in a way that shows that those we call genius's are not Gods. I feel it is unhealthy and does not evolve us collectively. For example very few know that Einstein's wife was just as much a genius as him. He would tel her his thoughts and she helped to define many of his theories. However, they had a son with schizophrenia and she dedicate her life to helping him while her husband went on to divorce her and went on to fame and fortune. But history conveniently over looks this because we are so obsessed with wanting people to be geniuses. Look at Van Gogh. He could never have lived as an artist if it was not for his brother Theo funding him for ten years of his life. When Vincent died, his brother died six months later leaving a wife and baby. In those days there were no Govt security pay checks and for a widowed woman with a child it was bloody hard going. And even so she dedicated her entire life to getting her brother-in-laws art known to the world. Of which, as we know, she achieved. Without Johanna Van Gogh doing what she did no one today would ever have heard of her. What she did was astounding in my book. And yet hardly anyone knew this until only the last few years. But again the world Van Gogh on the genius pedestal. For 25 years I worked tirelessly to get Johanna Van Gogh the recognition she deserved and finally they made a film about her life. It was long over due. My intention is not to criticise you, as I said, I think you work is excellent. My meaning is to merely try to spread the message that we need to start teaching history in a more truthful way, as in; nothing happens in isolation. For one person to shine on stage there needs to be many people working behind the stage and thus they to should be given credit. However, I know full well there is only so much you can pack into a video and you have to be aware of the viewer's attention span. Anyways, keep up the good work - I subscribed btw
@@mesolithicman164 I think you actually only just proved my point. " The young Picasso explored the work of many older cutting edge painters. He went through a Lautrec phase, Gaugin, Cezanne, African art, Japanese woodcuts" Like I said; nothing happens in isolation. If Picasso had lived in an isolated prison cell for his entire life; would he have become Picasso. I highly doubt it. And what about the fact that he survived WW1. As the late great art historian Robert Hughes said; "Art ideas were booming during the turn of the century with many exceptional artists ready to take apart artistic traditions. I often wonder how many Picasso's died on the battlefield who never got to live to become a Picasso?" Nothing in art is ever entirely original. It is always based on the seeds planted by others before them.
Stands testament of the greatness of his art that it continues to provoke controversy a century later. Count yourself lucky if it gets under the skin .
He pilfered African art, wholesale- and shamelessly. Like Picasso himself said: "Good artists borrow, great artists steal".
One of his girlfriends commited suicide. I wonder why. Also he left one woman Dora after nine years unexpectedly for another woman. Dora said all his paintings of her were lies. His ex wife Francoise gilot had to leave because he was very abusive. He tried to ruin her career after she left him. She was an artist as well and had painted since five years old and was highly educated. She painted till the day she died at 101 just recently. She is an accomplisged painter yet she was blacklisted at the time for leaving picasso. She wrote a book years after she left him depicting her time with him. He was not a good person.
Pablo was one of the Great salesmen. A legend in marketing and self promotion, a truly monumental ego.
You forgot: possibly the biggest troll in history. I'm convinced in his later years he thought to himself "I could literally shit onto a canvas" and it would be "genius!"
@@Oracol he knew what he was doing his whole life. He use to paint realism at his young age. He was good
@@IblewuponyourfaceIII Yes, he was talented, as demonstrated at an early age, but I feel he was trolling hard in his latter years
Precisely
I agree with you.
If anyone is pulled toward the intersection of diffrent art forms, for example literature and painting, there is a marvelous short story by the masterful Ray Bradbuty, titled “In a Season of Calm Weather” from the collection A Medicine for Melanchoy. In the story, an American tourist visiting the French Riviera chances upon an old man drawing in the wet sand with a stick from an ice cream bar. At first amused, as he approaches him and sees the fantastic, intricate forms the man is making in the sand, he is entranced, then shocked when he takes a good look at the old man; it is Picasso, his idol, his reason for living in fact.
He wonders how he could possibly preserve the spontaneous piece of art. A plaster cast? Digging it up very carefully? A photograph? Alas, he doesn't have his camera on him. The man smiles at him, seeming to understand his desire, his agony in knowing that the drawing will not endure. They both are momentarily distracted by the beauty of the setting sun.
Then Picasso says good evening and departs. The American stands wistfully for a while longer. Later that night, with his wife, he hears the sound of the ocean. and is at once melancholic and accepting and sad. His wife asks him what's wrong. He replies, "Nothing, just the tide. Just the tide coming in."
Ray Bradbury spent some years living in Europe, and he was around more or less the same years as Picasso....chances are this story was real.
I will find this and read it!
@@javieralvarez1072 Perhaps not true, but real nonetheless.
Connecting the dots between African art and Picasso's Demoiselles and cubist work is a huge Ah-ha! for me. How could I not have seen this earlier?
The influence is so very clear. Understandable that he did not want to cop to this and undermine his mythological identity as an Original. Which he was anyway in western art and culture.
Thanks for including John Berger, an undervalued beloved in my book.
Excellent doc and narration. Thank You!
Thousands of books written that point out the fact that modern art was hugely influenced by tribal art. Modern art is based on the ocult and mysticism. IE Satan.
I was taught that in art school in Puerto Rico, I never knew that he denied it. When you see those African sculptures with a modern art perspective, you can see how advanced they were. Some Central American indigenous art too. And they’re made by anonymous artists… Picasso was a great artist, but his ego was too big
I'd always assumed he was influenced by African artwork. I had no idea he insisted otherwise.
African “art”
no mention of Georges Braque who probably invented cubism and collage. His father was a qualified house painter . in those days they learned how to imitate woodgrain and marbled surfaces etc. Techniques that Braque would incorporate in his art and Picasso could copy.
It's an unfortunate omission. My original script was 8,000 words. The video isn't really about cubism so I ended up cutting a lot things including that Picasso and Braque's paintings looked nearly identical for a time. I also wanted to talk about Guernica, World War II, and fascism...
@@TheConspiracyofArt will definitely wait for the Part2!
Jesus love you, he died on the cross for you, accept him as your lord and savior he can change everything. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16)
But you must repent too. From that time Jesus went about preaching and saying, Let your hearts be turned from sin, for the kingdom of heaven is near. (Matthew 4:17):
I much prefer Braque. In my opinion a better artist than Picasso. Picasso leaves me with no other feeling than boredom...
Collage is about as old as paper and glue, the urge to credit it's invention to some Great Artist is younger than the technique itself. (For one neat historical example: Mary Delany used collage for botanical illustrations in the 1700s.)
My local Mausoleum of Fine Art has a good Picasso, and a bad Picasso. A great Picasso exhibit there about 10 years ago, however, was uniformly beautiful.
He's the myth of the power of curiosity for the unknown ...
Anything with unknown qualities gets mythologised to gigantic proportions .....
For example, fear of the unknown afterlife creates religious beliefs and cultures ...... unproven rumored creatures like Nessie creates such curiosity it spawns a tourist industry ...... unsolved serial murderers acquires a legacy of conspiracy theorist books and movies made after them .....
Picasso intentionally included random elements and disregarded proportions and perspective to confound the art critics who dare not criticise his art for looking childish but instead convince themselves there might be something meaningful beneath the seemingly random paintings ...
Warhol did that too, simply creating an impression of mystery and unknown qualities to arouse curiosity and off they went to the bank !
P R E T E N S I O N
Françoise Gilot is still alive at 100 years old
Not any more🤷♀️
@@dpelpal that's true. She will be missed. She led an incredible life
Picasso’s goal was to culminate his talents into his own immutable style. He gave permission for high level personal style. Personal Expression over technique.
I doubt it. The dude would use his fame as a form of payment. He’d go to the grocer with no money & instead of paying, he’d jot down a quick sketch because it was an “original Picasso” & more valuable than the items he wanted. He wasn’t interested in personal expression, he was only interested in HIS own personal expression. He didn’t care about art, he only cared about Picasso & how far he could push his fame & convincing people he mattered more than he actually did
@@koobs4549 You're 100 % Wrong. I merely stated his impact on the world of Art. Those things are real and are indelible. You can't imagine Modern Art without Picasso. It's like trying to imagine EDDIE VAN HALEN out of Rock Music.
He may have been a jerk.
You may be a Marxist professor working in Yale's art department.
History will remember things accordingly.
@@reethkitchardsuhhhh but the way modern art (because of picasso?) kinda sucks!!!! Things went downward instead of forward
@@BakkerSamuel Blame Critical Theory and talentless Marxists with tenure in MFA programs.
I went to the Picasso Matisse show at the MOMA when they were temporarily in Brooklyn. Very memorable. Fascinating.
Me too! I was just thinking about that exhibition yesterday. I haven't been back to see the actual MOMA, but it was cool to see that "conversation" between Picasso and Matisse and their works placed side by side. Very memorable!
Upon visiting Reina Sofia in Madrid I was taken aback at how his work seemed so disjointed. Although carefully arranged by period, it did not seem as a gradual shift but rather jolting transitions, seismic leaps in style and approach, likened to the sea during a maelstrom where the turgid water threatens to engulf the shore. One espies the earlier influences of Purvis de Chavannes and later Picasso's coconspirator George Braque. But then he bursted the constraints of cubism in Les Demoiselle d'Avignon. Nah, forget the labels. Upon looking at this retrospective of Picasso, one sees complexity straight on as tangled vines lost in a labyrinth where one no longer finds his or her way around.
I appreciate your very intelligent production. 🙏
Great video! I loved it. I think it’s better to say “girls” rather than “women” when you’re talking about the people Picasso was preying on, since they were in fact, young teenage girls. 🤢
picasso was a pedophile and thats the only legacy he should have
Yep
Omg smh the unsettling feelings I felt that are looking true should have known smh him and his boi Balthums.
Unfair generalisation. Only Marie Therese was under 20 when they met. Like the others (perhaps half a dozen over half a century) they would become his muse and transform his art.
So many angles on Picasso in this one short video. I learned a lot. Appreciate that you chose to end it by talking about his abusive relationships. No amount of genius can excuse the way he treated people
What an extraordinary analysis, GREAT JOB 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
The camera is at the heart of it all, change was needed otherwise just take a picture.
So true. One forms is so many others and forms within forms…and it’s true it’s never finished. Thanks for this docu
Brilliant video essay. I’m tempted to read his ex-lover’s scandalous biography now… Thanks for making this!
Thanks million for your amazing sharing!
The Mystery of Picasso, the movie, is like an edge of your seat action movie for artists. The changes he makes are scary as he keeps ruining perfect composition to make another and another, matador style action - it will get artists to freak out.
Agree. The last part with Picasso painting a huge wall mural timelapsed over a few days is a roller-coaster ride.
My take was paintings or images he did previously was used in the mural as a component, a letter or word in the larger composition. So, similiar to writing a rough draft erasing, crossing out a section Picasso would ad hoc create a painting putting down a pre-formed image then painting over or scraping it off the ground as he improvised it.
@@vincentgoupil180 yeah, you get it. I just rented it from the library the other day and it never gets old. Peace ✌
this is far from an artist freakout
@@modestrocker1 didja see the whole movie, I think it's on kanopy for free
Picasso was not an artist, just a degenerate.
14:27 - 14:45 YES YES! This articulates it perfectly. I had always thought of art being magic, but never found a real way to define it. But this! This! It's perfect.
No, not what art is at all. It's two utilitarian objects that both function exactly the same... so which one do you choose? The one that looks more elegant to you. The one that might evoke a certain feeling. The one who's colors might put you in a certain mood. Now take two objects that have no utility at all, and apply the same rules. Which one would you want to hang on your wall and wake up to every morning. At least that's my definition. It has to be something I want to keep looking at. And that makes me feel something. Something that has emotional tones that are incredibly unique. Music is similar in that regard.
Pablo wouldn't know what "Divine or Sacred" creations are if his life depended on it.💀He is as guilty of steeling from the indigenous as much as the colonialist rapists who built the Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro,
Shows that people will believe anything if it's pushed hard enough , so the art world found a way to make more money.Picasso understood that there in lies his genius!Now everyone and anyone can call themselves an artist.He didn't have to compete with the greats and he was laughing all the way to the bank followed by one desperate penniless model after another.
I tell my students at the Angel Academy of Art, Florence, that one can sell anything for a million euros if one spends 900,000 euros promoting it.
The ones who just copy and you can't tell their paintings apart because they all look like as if painted by one person?
Excellent content, keep ‘em coming! I just subscribed!
me To!
to learn copy painting realistically it took 4 years.but
to learn draw like a children it took a life
his drawings were trash. marxist filth
What a cute thing to say. Foolish, but cute.
@@michaeljohnangel6359
Once a salesman, always a salesman
Bullsh!t!!!!!
Sensational and extremely educational in the best of ways!!! Thank you!!!
Yeah because it didn’t mention Picasso was a communist. His art was as distorted as his philosophical worldview.
In Malaga Spain I saw the film where he painted on glass, it was then washed and another black and white painting began. It was genius to me. It was mesmerizing.
You truely missed out watching this video ! It explained, shared great info I didn't know prior, n partially glorified him n his genius, even when he was warped....a true master of his art n world's !!!❤
Brilliant sales pitch. The musings of those that attribute all kinds of fancifull motives and powers to artists.
Top mysoginst polished turd artist... By far.
ur take on his art is subjective, anyone can argue something they dont like is polished shit.
@@modestrocker1 unfortunately true.
Thank you . This " artist " makes me vomit . I know what he did .
Brilliant. Please make one outlining the mining of Asian art in the Renaissance
This man took up the eradication of love from his heart and mind...and accomplished its avoidance as a misanthropic 'champion' in the lurid Pantheon men have made of such "gods". Despite his canonization by those envious of his temporal success, I doubt he has maintained any affection for the cult he so assiduously practiced at one time.
Hey just wanted to say I love your stuff! Please keep going at it. From another art lover from Boston
Thanks, I appreciate it.
The concept of modernity seems lacking ought to be called momentum instead. We've gained so much speed that we've blew through several ions already.
ballin video man
Great video, fresh look!
Very nice 👍,
I see many postcards from my personal collection with details on painting and artwork that have no explanation.
GOATED video, thanks I really loved it.
Excellent production, very good narration, and an informative pleasure to watch. I want to paint a few Picasso knock offs now, just for fun!
Picasso is always more famous than good!
14:11 'He said this (regarding African art and masks) after visiting the Trocadero Museum "To examine these masks; all those magical objects people had created with a magical purpose, to serve as intermediaries to them and the hostile forces that surrounded them, thereby trying to overcome their fears, leaving them color and shape and then I understood what painting really meant. it is not an aesthetic process. It is a form of magic that stands between us and a hostile universe. A means of taking power. Imposing a form on our terrors as well as our wishes. The day I understood that, the day I found my way. "'
Read Picasso's friend Andre Derain took him to see a collection of African masks for the first time. Derain wrote Picasso was disgusted seeing them.
good video glad i watched. kind of a chilling ending as well haha
He also nursed a terminal girlfriend with cancer to death! It's trendy to call him mysoginist and forget how fabulous a painter he was! I notice nobody knocks Georgia O Keefe for living alone in the desert relinquishing relationships so she can concentrate on her artwork! They'll never forgive Picasso for being a workaholic something admirable in others who strive for excellence! How much is jealousy envy and desire to be as famous as him! Plus he's first to admit Velasquez was probably the greatest of all time and he couldn't paint like him until his 70's and his exhibition in UNSW art gallery was absolutely brilliant and overwhelming!
A “terminal girlfriend?” Well, if she had “cancer to death” I guess, yeah, she was a terminal girlfriend.
Sorry but disapproval of his abusive attitude does not makes us jealous. I'd disapprove of such attitude in ANY person. His style has a place in art history, but as a person he is not likeable, and don't ask us to be enablers. Just because someone is successful at something that does not excuse him being and a****.
Dude. Hella well made video.
No myth, just relentless hard work and incredible creativity.
He did not have incredible creativity. He was a degenerate and did not make art.
I see Picasso as the greatest gaslighting scam of his time.
His works are grotesque, admired by those who like to pretend they “understand” some deep inner meanings, but in actuality are as gullible as the people who fall for pyramid schemes.
I don’t begrudge Picasso the enormous wealth and fame he got from tricking people into and “emperor’s new clothes” type of grift. It must be human nature to rob those who beg to be robbed.
@@docinparadise - It's the countless modern "conceptual" artists who came after Picasso who are the true gaslighters. Picasso had a full range of skills and did traditional works of great beauty, but also experimented endlessly with form, creating what was "grotesque" to the casual observer. Sure, much of it appears strange and ugly, but look at the totality of his work.
@@jlovebirchi dont find his work great and also dont find it strange or ugly enough to be good. Its creative and has some skill, but its doesnt come further than creative experiments and illustration.
It doesnt have charm or depth
@@BakkerSamuel Art (and the perception of greatness) is a subjective experience. With Picasso, he mastered every style and kept moving forward and exploring. There's something for everyone in his vast mountain of work, some of which has great charm and depth. See the video "Why Did Picasso's Style Transform So Drastically?" for a well-researched overview.
Lovely video, just one nitpicky note:
18:55 The Dutch name "Piet" sounds like the English name "Pete". A lot of people might claim otherwise, but none of them will be Dutch.
Fijne dag!
Thanks :)
Juist, wij bekijken dit tenslotte niet voor Piet Snot!
I never cared for his art, and now I learned he was even more arrogant than I knew. Dali was better.
You might enjoy this hilarious takedown of Picasso th-cam.com/video/cOQhVMxzCqs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb
New video lesssss goooo
Thx for sharing his a genius and talented.🙌🏻🙌🏻
so weird how no matter how well known the artist is. there will ALWAYS be 1,000s of better artists that arent famous
There weren’t. That’s why Picasso is a legend.
@@optimisticboy8603 oh no there are
@@aspirindamage5152 There are now but there weren’t
Better in which way?
@optimisticboy8603 u say there weren't that was known is said better.
Really great peice thank you for sharing...
Great docu, well done.
Great vid. Uber great channel. Gold.
After his teenage years his painting was abismal and he knew it but didn't care. He was more interested in selling paintings with minimal effort. A pure materialist with an unclean soul.
Well if you think about it, on the pure business side its a pretty efficient model, and on the personal art creation side, you can do whatever the hell you want, so he is winning on both sides 🤔
@@edo_moya that's a materialist way of looking at it and you are 100% right.
He was talentless scum.
He discovered his own unique style. And left an important mark in art history, regardless of that that he was being abusive. It would be very boring if he just kept painting realism.
Excellent video.
Matisse and Picasso were frenemies
Great channel! Just subscribed.
Can you please do a video on Dali?
What a trove of documentary film that I have never seen before of this master of art. I am surprised at the churlish tone of so many comments here. Can there really be any controversy that he was the primary mover of modern art?
juxtapositions very good. will think about "all" this. thank-you.
nice work
just subbed 👍
trolled us all for eternity :)
I haaaaaate the art of Picasso with a passion
Really? Like you hate all of it? I find this hard to believe, have you seen how much his style changed over time? I can understand if you don’t like the style he is most famous for but even his earlier work looks like some of the masters. It’s not like he’s Jackson Pollock & only painted in a single technique
@@koobs4549 It only makes sense to hate (all of) Picasso's "art." It is dead boring. He is the Tiny Tim (the singer) of the art world.
That says everything about you and nothing about picasso
@@richiejohnson you think you’ve made a really profound point here but it doesn’t say anything about me other than that fact that I hate the art of Picasso …..and if you’ve looked at my comment I have already made that perfectly clear and I’m within my own rights to feel that way.
He would love your response. It seems sometimes impossible to engender or reach any passion in the audience, as an artist (musician, dancer, actor etc..).
I think Picasso was a bit of a one trick pony style wise, but it was nonetheless visually pleasing.
He was more than his paintings though and I don’t begrudge his success.
The element of promotion and knowing what to be influenced by is a huge talent in itself.
One trick pony, are you serious? Love him or hate him, his style changed considerably over the years. Not to mention all of the different mediums he used. Saying Picasso was a one trick pony is one of the most uninformed things I've heard in a long time.
@@cdronk his blue phase was nothing significant. Once he found his style he stuck with it. Nothing wrong with it, but it’s not like he reinvented himself multiple times.
No, I disagree. He wasn't the "inventor of cubism" (he hated that they described his work as cubism). He learned cubism from Georges Braque. A great artist Picasso was, but not truly for what he is acclaimed to be. He personified art because he was prolific with mediocre works (much the same as Stephen King is synonymous with horror). He is more an enigma whose fame is perpetuated with uninterrupted promotion by those who profit from it. There is no mystery other than that... He is endlessly promoted, just as Van Gogh and Leonardo are.
I don’t disagree. But I would say no one person invents anything. I’m presenting the mythology of Picasso in the beginning of the video. The reality is that Picasso made a huge contribution to the development of Cubism but that the invention of the genre was a collaborative effort. I don’t think there was another painter that contributed more to the rapid abstraction of art in the early 20th than Picasso - which includes many art movements. I’ve heard Picasso called the father of cubism. I’ve also heard Cezanne referred to in the same way. I think there are a lot of ways to frame the argument. Art history books typically refer to Les Demoiselle d’Avignon as “proto-cubism” which is another way to think about it.
@@TheConspiracyofArt I, myself, have never heard of Cézanne being referred to as an experimenter of cubism. I agree that he is somewhat talented as an artist but I fail to see him as "great" without the art world declaring him a force of climactic change, nor without their causal-course deeming him as such. He may have liberated Matisse and Picasso (along with other, more obscure artists), but in that sense he would have been more of an "artist's artist", as the vast majority of would-be-artists became marginalized by the modern movement and chose different career paths. Picasso is probably the most difficult of artists to talk about (from my experience) and with good reason. For all his prolific talent (discovered or still yet to be uncovered and discussed), he will forever be a thorn in every artist's vine of artistic understanding.
I think the idea is that Cezanne’s analytic approach broke-down composition geometrically and this is at the heart of cubism. I agree Picasso is hard to talk about. Like Warhol and countless other artists, he could speak in riddles and admitted to contradicting himself or making things up if pressed for a remark.
@@TheConspiracyofArt There are many great artists who have contributed to many different styles, but, as you say, none of them have any right to be proclaimed the inventor of a style by themselves. That being said, artists are either deemed great for their body of works and subtle contributions or changes they have incorporated, or some combination of styles or, perhaps, something intangible. How we choose to study and critique these works is an intangible unto itself, of course. I admire your effort in dealing with some of the highlights, lows and social aspects of Picasso, as I know it to be trouble even reiterating what has been proclaimed in hundreds of books about the man. It is still a great topic of discussion if you can find willing participants to converse with.
@@TheConspiracyofArt The "mythology of Picasso" may just be that we cannot see the woods for the trees, as well.
By seeing him as a powerful limiter of the art world, I am giving him the same power that he went against when he challenged the rules set by his contradictory father. In his own right, he was faced with limitation set upon him by outside forces which he banished from his mind and liberated himself, thus creating his need to continue creating and building himself up. The contradictions he faced in his youth may have at the same time alienated him from society even more than a normal artist would be. This is not as clear to me, however, to explain Cezanne the same way, as I would need to further study him. So, in hindsight, perhaps it should be easier to celebrate Picasso as a sort of "liberator" of the art world after all. Thank you, I really needed this realization that your docu vid actually helped me see.
Saw the retrospective of his work at MoMA in 1980. Can't get enough Picasso; Guernica, sculpture, etchings, later works, can't get enough.
That's cool.
@@TheConspiracyofArt When watching your video, I finally broke down and ordered Francoise Gilot's 'Life with Picasso'.
@@pottersjournal Hah. Yeah I think it's an important piece of the puzzle - and she was smart and talented.
@Debed Thanks. I know interviews with her are fascinating to listen to.
Far more than enough total crap from that moron, that petty criminal, who never learned to paint properly. Someone gave him a box camera with broken lens, that's the origin of his segmented figures, no vision, no nothing. What a charade!
Nah, Picasso paintings were just like the "the Emperor's New Clothes". Art sellers marketed his work because he could make 100+ paintings in a month while traditional painters sometimes didn't complete 1 in that time. Art houses wanted to make more money, so they convinced everyone Picasso was the 'hot new thing' and his confidence as a narcissist helped to sell it.
These days people are finally seeing through the BS that was the tasteless scribbles of this art period and Picasso's work is LOSING value. The paintings at auction are quietly being sold for less than ever before.
Meanwhile masters like Bougerou who lost some popularity after his death and the rise of abstract art like Picasso, are now proudly displayed in galleries again and selling for record highs. THIS man painted with such skill and heart, he had a sound work ethic, he had integrity, and he supported and taught female artists in a time no one else would.
The modernists were simply in rebellion against the skill and control the old masters, their literal former teachers including William Bougerou, had. Being original just to be different is both immature and adds no value to society. And to assume new is always better is just the arrogance of the young.
BOUGUEREAU.
I was wondering how far down the comments section I would have to go before I would find the first rational response to this video. Thank you for your post. You will probably get a kick out of this analysis of Picasso th-cam.com/video/cOQhVMxzCqs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb
boring
I was already rolling my eyes at this pearl clutching take on modernism. Then you go and mention Bougerou 😂
Art market is still selling a lot and making a lot of profit. It is about capital. Nobody cares what kind of a bastard the artist is. It depends on the times what sells best.
Actually the modernists were rebelling against class division not just traditional painting techniques. They hated the polished finished academic paintings which allowed portrayal only of rich people or mythological beings. Those polished academic paintings were serving like a beauty filter for the rich. To idolize them. And only the rich could afford them of course. Modernists challenged that. They wanted to paint everyday people, not just the rich or mythological beings. So you are discrediting them here. Their work was valuable in its own ways. Take pointillism for example. They discovered optical mixing of color. Today, scientists know that our visual system in our brains has the ability to mix color like that. Modern artist discover that, not the traditional ones. Because they dared to paint differently and break off with tradition. They didn't tried to be different just for the sake of being different like you claim.
That last part...wow...😮
Firstly. Picasso stole from African art and distorted the faces….And Matisse called it cubism. Narrators always failed to make mention of that.
He also took from Gauguin, who took from Polynesia.
🙄🙄🙄
Grotesque features are not exclusive to African art.
@@Pantano63 ok.
@@Makonen442 Yea.
I'm not going to watch this. Picasso was real!
The video is still quite good.
A real ass
no he wasnt
A real colonizer
A real colonizer
Damn, I was hoping there was a conspiracy theory that he never existed, or was actually some other very staid and traditional artist who made him up. You know, The History Channel stuff.
😁
That sounds better than what I made.
Picasso could NOT emulate Velasquez.
Picasso was a fraud, and he even stated it himself.
ok.
100% absolutely right
The rest of us know this ..and the museums, galleries and auction houses laugh all the way to the bank..
“It is impossible to look at his art without thinking about him.”
That’s not good or bad.
Picasso normalized adults buying expensive children’s art made by other adults.
How is Picasso art children’s art
I recently found a motherload of Picasso's mostly jewelry pottery and decor a few other really random thing that scare the shit outta me.. unexplainable things.. like he chose me to own his works as many are engraved to me.. my full name. They will say like to Carl Faberge on a few.. then for.. and my name😳.. and I am afraid to show anybody because the extent of what I've found and the images that are behind the works are extremely explicit and demonic.. a statue I found dripping in gold blindly attached me to it at a thrift store like a magnet without even seeing it and when I grabbed it an unexplainable surge of ominous energy jolted through my body like I've never felt or experienced.. an unholy almost violently powerful feeling.. but what I experienced once I brought it home was unbelievable and insane, I don't even want to talk about it.. I've got 100s of pieces signed Picasso a bracelet I found has a picture of me in it.. wtf is going on?
i appreciate the nod to african art!
This is a really incredible video, thank you for putting this out
Legend🔥🖼🎨
Okay, formalism.
Picasso wasn't great. He just had massive support from galleries because he could knock out 10 paintings a day. The man completed 150,000 paintings in his time. Galleries loved this and jumped on it, because that is $10,000 x 150,000 instead of like $10,000 x 10,000 from other artist on the high output. Galleries love fast turn arounds and if you can accomplish this you can make it in the artworld through galleries. Your art can be shit, the gallery will make the sheep believe it is good.
Inspiring video! Thanks. Easy sub :)
Pollock worried him, no matter what he said. He always reckoned Matisse was better than himself.
I don't understand this "better" or "worse" , art is not competition. Comparing two different artists is like comparing apples and bananas.
@abstract3213 Well, that's your opinion.X
Can we start talking about the artists that are alive more please, I know one should know history but this is becoming an echo champer, of the same dead white male artists
I understand where you are coming from. 99% of western art history is dead white men. Interestingly, it was critic John Berger’s writing about Picasso’s relationship with women that led to the concept of the male gaze that became widely influential in feminist theory. Talking about Picasso provides a way to talk about the trajectory of art and culture in the 20th century like no other artist.
As my channel grows, I plan on covering lesser known artists. If I were to do this now, no one would watch the videos. Plus, I teach part-time so these videos help me do that. TH-cam is an imperfect platform. Art 21 has great video profiles on living artists.
Destroy the patriarch is also an echo chamber. Look at the latest Whitney biennial. Lol
10:10 People in this time were so much more dramatic in how they saw art. If Picasso had a tiktok account and posted something like that in today's age, he'd probably just get a lot of comments saying it's cringe lol
Compared to ancient African and Central American art you find in museums, he was just as good (not better)… that’s why he later denied being influenced by African sculptures. He was too narcissistic to admit that so many anonymous artists were as good as him long time before he was even born. And he is one of my favorite famous artists
I saw many of his paintings in a cubist exhibition at the NYC Museum, next to it at the same floor there was an exhibition of indigenous Central American art and next to it an ancient African art exhibition, all made by anonymous artists. If that art was made by modern artists, they would all be famous and financially successful. But Picasso was a pioneer in painting, because he managed to paint (2D) what other artists before him sculpted (3D)..
Just before it crashes, an ailing society tends to feed itself to the collective ego of the psychopathic type.
i thought this vid was going to debunk something.
I did also, a little click bait on the title.
❤ Picasso was African, North African Berber. One his parent , hus mother was black . The father was a Spaniard. He was leaving a message behind for future generations. Picasso was rebelling against western civilisation.
Those African masks in picasso paintings was his black identity. That is when he became conscious diaspora. His name Picasso means the cunning and wise spider. In African traditional folklore, the spider is regarded as the wisest and most cunning person. Picasso name is African. Mendes Trube. .
She also played 'Einstein'. See 'Super Recognizer'.
Demoiselles d'Avignon is reversed in the museum shot. Mirror image left to roght invrrsion.
This was EXCELLENT .. thank you for your work
Ten minutes in, and you make no mention of the myth of Picasso.
@16:01 Les Demoiselles D'Avignon is horizontally flipped
Well, the real myth is that he was a great artist. The quote where he confesses in Life magazine to being a total fake who set out to make fools of critics ad inf is assailed as spurious, but the shoe sure fits!
Amazing Video keep it up
Convo i had:
"If you could have dinner with any deceased person who would it be?"
"Picasso"
"Why"
"So I can kill him myself"
killing picasso would have done way more good than the attempted murder of andy warhol
Picasso was a genius of that there is no doubt but Picasso did not "invent" Cubism. The cubist concept is contributed to Cezanné. Cezanné was captured by new scientific knowledge at the time on how we visually perceive reality. We have two eyes and therefore the brain receives two slightly different angles of what we are looking at. So if we close one eye and then alternate that with both eyes you will experience this slightly different angle of what we see. So the brain then puts those two angles together and this is what gives us the ability to determine depth. If you ever get to see an original Cezanné painting you will have the same experience of this alternating perspective as though opening an closing your separate eyes. (This effect does not work when you see a Cezanné painting in a boo k- you need t see the original because printed versions can not render the colours the same)
Anyways, this effect Cezanné created took him his entire adult life living alone dedicating himself to achieving it. This is an astonishing and astounding achievement in art history and one Picasso himself attributed to Cezanne and why he called Cezanné: "the father" .
An excellent video but it is important to give accurate information on history and art history is no exception. No creation happens in isolation. Picasso had to get inspiration from somewhere, he did not just pluck it out of his head. Even his distorted imagery came from an exhibition of African art that he saw in a museum. Picasso, and other people we call "geniuses," are merely conduits for the collective consciousness of which we are all part. Everything and everyone are all connected and we need to start seeing reality in that context instead of making certain individuals into some form of God. No one ever achieves anything alone.
Only partly true. The young Picasso explored the work of many older cutting edge painters. He went through a Lautrec phase, Gaugin, Cezanne, African art, Japanese woodcuts. His genius lies in synthesising all these elements and creating something unique to him.
More than any other artist he constantly refreshed his work and diversified into collage, sculpture, lithography etc.
Cubism is just one small part of the body of work he produced over his lifetime.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree no artist really invents anything out thin air. One of the challenges of making these videos is trying to go deep enough to not be boring for those who know about art, be also trying not alienate those who have never thought about art. Inventing new genres is part of the mythology of Picasso - the truth is much more complicated as you point out. I am definitely what people call a postmodernist. I am more interested in the fabric of art history than attributing authorship, but part of taking on the mythology of things like the “genius artist” involves understanding how the mythology arose, which is what this video is about.
@@TheConspiracyofArt
I think there are the occasional genius artists through history. Leonardo da Vinci must fall into that category. Durer, Michelangelo, Van Eyck, Caravaggio, Picasso. Possibly Goya, Rubens perhaps. Some of the names are debatable but a few are stone cold certainties.
@@TheConspiracyofArt I understand and take your point. I actually thought your video was excellent and very positive.
Speaking as someone who has been living as an artist for pretty much my entire life, my perspective on art has evolved gradually and certain perspectives I have arrived at are important to me, and one of them is that I believe it is on time we, collectively begin teaching history in a way that shows that those we call genius's are not Gods. I feel it is unhealthy and does not evolve us collectively. For example very few know that Einstein's wife was just as much a genius as him. He would tel her his thoughts and she helped to define many of his theories. However, they had a son with schizophrenia and she dedicate her life to helping him while her husband went on to divorce her and went on to fame and fortune. But history conveniently over looks this because we are so obsessed with wanting people to be geniuses. Look at Van Gogh. He could never have lived as an artist if it was not for his brother Theo funding him for ten years of his life. When Vincent died, his brother died six months later leaving a wife and baby. In those days there were no Govt security pay checks and for a widowed woman with a child it was bloody hard going. And even so she dedicated her entire life to getting her brother-in-laws art known to the world. Of which, as we know, she achieved. Without Johanna Van Gogh doing what she did no one today would ever have heard of her. What she did was astounding in my book. And yet hardly anyone knew this until only the last few years. But again the world Van Gogh on the genius pedestal. For 25 years I worked tirelessly to get Johanna Van Gogh the recognition she deserved and finally they made a film about her life. It was long over due. My intention is not to criticise you, as I said, I think you work is excellent. My meaning is to merely try to spread the message that we need to start teaching history in a more truthful way, as in; nothing happens in isolation. For one person to shine on stage there needs to be many people working behind the stage and thus they to should be given credit. However, I know full well there is only so much you can pack into a video and you have to be aware of the viewer's attention span.
Anyways, keep up the good work - I subscribed btw
@@mesolithicman164 I think you actually only just proved my point. " The young Picasso explored the work of many older cutting edge painters. He went through a Lautrec phase, Gaugin, Cezanne, African art, Japanese woodcuts"
Like I said; nothing happens in isolation. If Picasso had lived in an isolated prison cell for his entire life; would he have become Picasso. I highly doubt it. And what about the fact that he survived WW1. As the late great art historian Robert Hughes said; "Art ideas were booming during the turn of the century with many exceptional artists ready to take apart artistic traditions. I often wonder how many Picasso's died on the battlefield who never got to live to become a Picasso?"
Nothing in art is ever entirely original. It is always based on the seeds planted by others before them.
informative thank you
a wonderful sketch
Stands testament of the greatness of his art that it continues to provoke controversy a century later. Count yourself lucky if it gets under the skin .