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.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbWBm7l-3eCnoac.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb

boring

I was already rolling my eyes at this pearl clutching take on modernism. Then you go and mention Bougerou 😂

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”

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!

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.

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.)

Not any more🤷‍♀️

@@dpelpal that's true. She will be missed. She led an incredible life

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!

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

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

@@Kapojos Blame Critical Theory and talentless Marxists with tenure in MFA programs.

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 .

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.

his drawings were trash. marxist filth

What a cute thing to say. Foolish, but cute.

​@@michaeljohnangel6359 Once a salesman, always a salesman

Bullsh!t!!!!!

P R E T E N S I O N

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.

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.

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.

I would say "fiction," rather than myth.

The video is still quite good.

A real ass

no he wasnt

A real colonizer

A real colonizer

ok.

100% absolutely right

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.

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,

killing picasso would have done way more good than the attempted murder of andy warhol

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.

He also took from Gauguin, who took from Polynesia.

🙄🙄🙄

Grotesque features are not exclusive to African art.

@@Pantano63 ok.

@@Makonen442 Yea.

me To!

Yep

Partially i don't agree. Sometimes, arts qualities comes from the context surrounding it. But you are right art is about what a person feels from the piece

If they didn't inform you a painting was a Rembrandt's you'd probably wouldn't even look at it. Idk why people like being ignorant on purpose

Artists resent the idea that the unschooled hoi polloi should have an opinion. At least some artists do. These artists, coincidentally, don't usually have much of an audience

Depends. Some people are just too uncultured that they can't understand even the most basic art.

Yeah because it didn’t mention Picasso was a communist. His art was as distorted as his philosophical worldview.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

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.

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!

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.

How is Picasso art children’s art

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)..

Andre Derain developed Fauvism along with Henri Matisse. George Braque came in as it was fading out.

He was painstaking eg 'Avignon' had countless preparatory drawings.

You might enjoy this hilarious takedown of Picasso kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbWBm7l-3eCnoac.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb

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. KZfaq 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

Hah. Thanks for posting.

subjective opinion - maybe make a video essay about it or something

@@modestrocker1 : Opinions ARE subjective. No need to make a video. My comment feels good enough for me.

@@modestrocker1 l

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.

Thanks :)

Juist, wij bekijken dit tenslotte niet voor Piet Snot!

Picasso actually spoke infrequently about his art but he loved the camera.

I don't think so, but there are plenty of contemporary artists that have become brands.

huh.. we'll act as we didn't read this

@@TheConspiracyofArt that's my point. His personality, more than anything, sold the art, especially in his latter years. Part of me is convinced he was just trolling everyone towards the end seeing how far he can get away with doodles that were seemingly made by a 5 y.o. kid, but since it's Picasso, they're "genius!" That's not to say there can't be some incredible hidden meaning behind abstract art, and it's not to say he actually wasn't talented (his earlier work shows he obviously was), but people apply way too much meaning simply because of the figure it came from. It reminds me of the times when they've trolled art snobs/critics at art galleries with art they were told was painted by a professional artist, after which they praise all the ways in which each blob of paint is God -like and praise the "masterful" color scheme, only to later be told it was actually made by a random ass 7 y.o. kid who just threw the paint at the canvas willy nilly. That for me represents 90%+ of the art world.

​@@OracolExactly. You might enjoy this hilarious take down of Picasso kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbWBm7l-3eCnoac.htmlsi=WH8M6G7Ir1uuR9zb

Exactly. Picasso knew he was a thief.

@@Makonen442if that's your interpretation of the quote cheers.

@@Eblis840 he did steal. That is a fact. I am sure you have some knowledge of it. ..provided, you did your research.

@@Makonen442 He also knew he was a great artist.

@@tthomas184 great is subjective - being a pedophile is not

That sounds better than what I made.