/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

There’s heavy intellectual work behind it, mind you i favour his early analytical period. You probably don’t know what a book is so it’s understandable you are puzzled by something with any degree of complexity.

>>4901264
False. The people who stand there admiring his work because there's "sophistication" imbedded in it are the same people who stand there analyzing splatter paintings for hours.

>>4901258
the stuff he was doing with gesture and colour and form weren't anything new, he just exaggerated a lot of the techniques master realist and even pre-realist painters had been using forever. you complain about lack of substance, but your close-mindedness and shallow dismissal of picasso's work just reveals your own superficial understanding of art.

>>4901264
shows us some of the intellect fellow intellectual

>>4901291
i'd also add that his heavy exaggeration of gesture allows him to layer a lot more turns in and image and really aids the storytelling and overall sense of personality you get in his portraits.

>>4901301
all i read is gibberish

>>4901301
lmao his paintings look like needlepoint that my grandmother with Alzheimers did. Fuckin ass ugly

>>4901304
okay, so take the op image for example. the eye on the left is facing forward, the eye on the right is painted as if it is being viewed from the side and is facing the left. as you look across the image from one eye to the other you get the illusion of movement: in the case of the eyes, you get the illusion of the facing turning to the left, towards the viewer. there are many cases of this in this image that give the subject of the portrait a lot of energy and personality.

>>4901321
still seems like autistic over-examination of a bad painting

>>4901326
>it’s not animu it sucks

>>4901321
i too can look at clouds and write my interpretations

>>4901326
it's not that much of a leap to think picasso was doing this intentionally, plenty of other artists have done it, from peter paul rubens, to raphael, to whoever designed the hieroglyphs.
i don't think it's that much of an autistic over-examination, because the base concept of breaking anatomy for the sake of gesture is just a fundamental principle of gesture - it's just i think he uses it successfully enough that i would say, contrarily to the op, that picasso's art had some substance whatsoever.

>>4901347
it's not a cloud, it was a very deliberately made painting, built atop the shoulders of years of experimentaion and study.

>>4901321
>as you look across the image from one eye to the other you get the illusion of movement
Holy shit, it's true

Picasso used to draw like that.
It's not really comparable to your modern artist who compensate his lack of skill and talent with "abstraction"
He knew what he was doing.

>>4901353
yeah, that's your eyes moving

>>4901355
imagine a cook stopping giving a shit and making shitty ass food, only in visual art that's seen as a ground breaking

>>4901348
>it's not that much of a leap to think picasso was doing this intentionally,
He is objectively doing this intentionally. Are people stupid enough to think this is the only way he can draw?

>>4901366
how could you get satisfaction from going from painting actual good art to literal dog shit?

Don't argue with plebs. It's not big anime titties or BASED european classicism so it's trash.

bla bla /ic/ again tearing down without ever having built anything up of their own. mindless negativity that forgets the core of what its like to create.

>>4901424
you seem very offended

>>4901258
crazy concept he made art that he liked regardless of what people thought of it.

Death of the Matador is pretty fucking awesome. I was always a fan of Picasso's use of big broad areas of value mixed with little tiny brushstrokes

>>4901432
I didn't know that one. It's pretty rad

>>4901444
not a single tangent in that incredibly complicated composition. Guernica has the same amazing quality. All beautifully composed.

call me a pleb but I prefer anime to Picasso any day
Though he is pretty based for making people assblasted for centuries

>>4901448
>Though he is pretty based for making Hitler assblasted until he blew his brains out
ftfy. Based Spanish Communism wins again.

>>4901378
>>4901448
These are the people criticizing art here

>>4901258
A portrait and a profile in one face. Pretty interesting image desu.

>>4901258
I just think it looks neat.

>>4901353
you get the same effect by looking from the wolf's eyes to the nose in this classic piece.

>>4901448

dumbass without picasso there would be no anime

he broke down EVERYTHING that realism painters built up for centuries to show you just need good aesthetics and taste for a good artwork, not skill.

the skill ironically is in the choice of what to put what where, not how many hours you can render a tree landscape like those assblasted renaissance artists were doing.

Picasso liberated us from being just rendering machines of the day. now we have literal machines that can render 3d things better than you'll ever be able to.

so what's the value in art then ? well until artificial intelligence paints something actually beautiful and not "wew das kewl" we can rely on the tastemaker and cultured aesthete to guide said machines and his laborers on creating an aesthetic vision, like a good conductor.

pizza pizza sex pizza

>>4901258
Picasso stopped painting realistically after the camera came around. Well gee, I wonder why.

>>4902419
>implying any great renaissance artists were just rendering for the sake of rendering
rendering in many paintings is about strengthening patterns and motifs in a painting by repeating them on a smaller level, or adding more necessary detail. no artist worth anything ever rendered 'just cos its wot u do :)', every aspect of creating a work of art - including rendering, gesture, composition, colour, et cetera - relies on a level of thoughtfullness and intention that no machine will be able to achieve until the singularity, and even at that point the a.i will probably be much more concerned with killing us all.

>>4902434
he wasn't a bad painter either, but after the camera became a thing, artists suddenly needed to prove that they could do more than be a worse version of a camera.

>>4902434
>>4902436
just because a painter was a realist does not mean their paintings were 'realistic' in the way a camera is; even before photography was a thing, art had always been abstract compared to reality. every great painter understood this, and pretty much everyone who could afford to buy art from great painters understood this as well: there was no 'need' to distinguish themselves from a shit camera, they already were distinguished..