The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Dubious wrote:Time wasted! Conversation over.

Finally!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've always thought how ugly was Picasso's work. Not all of it, and not even all the late stuff, of which the second pic below is an example. But this example epitomises what I can only think of as taking the piss: pushing the boundaries of taste in deformation to see just what he could get away with. Some works of this period are beautifully balanced and have a rare aesthetic. But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity.

Wow, we actually have something else in common.
I hate Picasso, I see that in cubism he returned to his childhood.

I prefer realism and idealism.

But then in truth, art is subjective, one persons poison, is another's cure.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How do we all rate this one?

First impression is it's a fake. The way it's been done is weak.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Or this one that sold for $2million

This work is after or before cubism. We see elements of cubism in breaking up the picture plane, attempting to multiply the viewers viewpoint. Disfiguration of war, the damaged bodies and particularly faces of soldiers returning home, to rearrange that which nature has laid down in such a way that it remains within the possibilities of nature and its harmony. A twisted Picasso face can be as harmonious as a face as nature intended it.

Money for these works are astronomical because of who Picasso is within art, production has stopped, what's left is it, and so the painting is now traded as a commodity like gold. You transfer 2 million into a painting and then lock it up in your vault, later down the line you sell it for 3 times what you paid.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've always thought how ugly was Picasso's work. Not all of it, and not even all the late stuff, of which the second pic below is an example. But this example epitomises what I can only think of as taking the piss: pushing the boundaries of taste in deformation to see just what he could get away with. Some works of this period are beautifully balanced and have a rare aesthetic. But this example - is it anything more than a result of his prodigious drug taking? Does it have any merit beyond is obscene price?
By contrast the first picture has delicacy, and sensitivity.

Wow, we actually have something else in common.
I hate Picasso, I see that in cubism he returned to his childhood.

I prefer realism and idealism.

But then in truth, art is subjective, one persons poison, is another's cure.

Pluto wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Or this one that sold for $2million

This work is after or before cubism. We see elements of cubism in breaking up the picture plane, attempting to multiply the viewers viewpoint. Disfiguration of war, the damaged bodies and particularly faces of soldiers returning home, to rearrange that which nature has laid down in such a way that it remains within the possibilities of nature and its harmony. A twisted Picasso face can be as harmonious as a face as nature intended it.

Money for these works are astronomical because of who Picasso is within art, production has stopped, what's left is it, and so the painting is now traded as a commodity like gold. You transfer 2 million into a painting and then lock it up in your vault, later down the line you sell it for 3 times what you paid.

I think your reference to the war is over interpretation. ~If this image is designed to represent war the face would be that of a soldiers, or at least a man. Why a woman?

It's true what you say about the market. But it is also true that in his own lifetime PP exploited the shock of the new and seemed to exploit the passion of the money makers.

Yes, to paint a soldier with disfigurement would not have been Picasso. It is too provincial in that it would have been tied to politics. His work has a timeless character to it which gives his work a lot of power. Even Guernica transcends itself. Time renders an advert powerless in the present. So too for most art, but Picasso could paint pictures which transcended the grip and power of time. In that they still hold true in the present. I saw work from Frank Stella recently, it struck me as been made powerless through time. Picasso can surpass time. Yes of course he new that his work was wanted by many and this gave him the confidence to play up to and further encourage this behaviour. An artist wants to sell their work.

Pluto wrote:Yes, to paint a soldier with disfigurement would not have been Picasso. It is too provincial in that it would have been tied to politics. His work has a timeless character to it which gives his work a lot of power. Even Guernica transcends itself. Time renders an advert powerless in the present. So too for most art, but Picasso could paint pictures which transcended the grip and power of time. In that they still hold true in the present. I saw work from Frank Stella recently, it struck me as been made powerless through time. Picasso can surpass time. Yes of course he new that his work was wanted by many and this gave him the confidence to play up to and further encourage this behaviour. An artist wants to sell their work.

You are just squirming to avoid my question.
THis painting has nothing to do with war of any kind.

Don't think there is much that is remarkable about Frank Stella. ~Most of it is simple geometrics. Not original or special.

Some artists want to sell their work, but there is a bigger price to pay for pursuing that as a main objective.

Squirming? What are you talking about. 'Avoiding the question'?

Picasso painted through the second world war, he stayed in occupied Paris. The war is part of his work. Spheres and bubbles, Peter Sloterdijk?

A bigger price than being flat broke and destitute?

Pluto wrote:Squirming? What are you talking about. 'Avoiding the question'?

Picasso painted through the second world war, he stayed in occupied Paris. The war is part of his work. Spheres and bubbles, Peter Sloterdijk?

A bigger price than being flat broke and destitute?

PP was never short of money.

THe Woman with Hat, that you claimed reflected soldiers returning from WW1 was painted in 1938. SO why bring up WW2?

In any event the image and others of the same style is pretty well known to be about the process of perception, nothing at all to do with disfigurement. It was PP's stated claim that such images sought to bring all aspects of the perceptive process within one image.
If you don't like that, then take it up with Art History and the stated aims of PP himself.

You might like to see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg

by Robert Hughes
http://www.theguardian.com/books/robert-hughes

Some artists want to sell their work, but there is a bigger price to pay for pursuing that as a main objective.

Again, what is the bigger price to pay, than being flat broke and destitute?

Pluto wrote:

Some artists want to sell their work, but there is a bigger price to pay for pursuing that as a main objective.

Again, what is the bigger price to pay, than being flat broke and destitute?

A middle ground: making enough, obviously.

Interesting that you chose to address this and not my last post.

The Woman with Hat, that you claimed reflected soldiers returning from WW1 was painted in 1938. SO why bring up WW2?

I did not mention WW1

I don't spout art history or the words of others, I am trying to think INDEPENDENTLY about the image or work. Otherwise it comes down to who is better read up on the so-called official! The stenographers of art and its history. Art history is told and logged by the ruling class, that's a problem, no?

Pluto wrote:

The Woman with Hat, that you claimed reflected soldiers returning from WW1 was painted in 1938. SO why bring up WW2?

I did not mention WW1
?

Yes you did. You mentioned "cubism" and the disfigurement of war. Since Cubism was contemporary with the period following WW1 then you DID mention WW1.

Your spending too much time online and on here.