Trying to understand Picasso
and inevitably failing
Recently I finished watching this year’s Nat Geo’s documentary ‘Genius’ season. Last year, the show was about Albert Einstein. This year, it featured Pablo Picasso.
I know you think that I probably consider myself a Picasso fanatic now, maybe I might venture to call myself a connoisseur. However, let me put your musings to rest by saying that I definitely don’t understand much about Picasso’s paintings at least. In this post, I’ll be trying to review them. God knows, what a blasphemy I’ve committed by merely wanting to review them.
Before I go ahead, there’s one vital fact that you need to know. Picasso had a lot of women in his life. And I think the way we’ve been brought up, we think that most of the artists of 20th century did get a lot of women. I dont know the facts, but most movies, documentaries or books I’ve read, also cement this idea. Anyway, Picasso’s pick up line was
I want to paint you
OR
I want to paint your portrait
Interestingly, a couple of weeks back, I had an interview, and naturally we started talking about women in work. The interviewer asked me what were the common problems working women were facing generally. I told him that perhaps the main problem was the fact that we like to think that there is a problem, even when there isnt and that means we’re fundamentally creating issues out of non-issues. Perhaps, the main problem, however is that we objectify them. The interviewer immediately asked how we can remove this from people. I answered naively that it is something that is developed in the people en masse with the progress of civilization, open-mindedness and culture. Now I take those words back. You can’t have more culture, finesse and advancement then Picasso. This was a man, defying all social norms, yet he too objectified women. Frequently replacing them as they got older. Was he a bad man for that? Definitely.
Now, about his paintings. Well firstly, Picasso was famous for the way he drew the lines. Not his colours, that was Matisse, who started drawing pink horses and green-haired, blue-bodied women. Today Picasso’s art is considered very valuable. I am sure most of it belongs to multi-millionaires or is loaned out to exhibitions and museums by private collectors. What I am about to say next is false. Its a lie. But its a lie that I have to say. The worth of Picasso’s drawings today is due to their antiqueness, originality and the mere fact that they were made by Picasso. Rarely would you be able to find a person who would tell you why a certain painting was so beautiful. This aesthetic sense and criticism for art, found so profusely in the previous centuries, we lack today. We’ve decided to dabble in the technologies and the wonders of zeros and ones over the analogous strokes of the brush. We just do not possess the eye to appreciate good art. Of course, my claim is easily contestable. I, being an introvert, have a very small social bubble. I dont think a lot of people I know would be able to justify why some painting is a masterpiece and why another isnt.
That being said, I am an avid reader, and having read quite a few books in my lifetime, I find it easy to discern between a good book and a bad book. Not only that, I do not think it hard to dissect a book and talk about the various elements at play in it. Or the various faults in it. Similarly, I can for some reason distinguish between a good and a bad photograph. It is probably due to the fact that we persist in seeing the world around us through lenses of one sort or another.
Anyway, lets try to review his painting, because thats what we do around here. We review things.
The Guvernica/ The Guernica
My thoughts: When I first saw this I thought about humanity in general and out many sins. Not just the classic sins of greed, lie, lust, usury etc. I just thought about the devil within us and it’s impact on other humans. How we harm each other by our evil deeds.
History: Turns out I was pretty close. This piece of art is supposed to show the fascist bombing of a small town called Guernica. The people of that town were totally innocent and were killed ruthlessly merely to spread terror and stroke the ancient innate ego within man. Picasso made this painting when he was told about it. It was his will that this be displayed openly in Spain once the fascist regime was over.
My rating: 8/10
Price: Not for sale but valued around $200m
Self portrait from the blue period
My thoughts: This looks like a portrait of someone. And it clearly is (duh). The blue background and the similar hue on the face gives it the effect as if it were a filtered picture from the modern age. The face as I get it shows a man who has seen a lot of world but acts very innocently and deliberately feigns innocuousness. However he actually withholds great malice within.
History: This is nothing but actually just a portrait of Picasso’s good friend Carlos Casagemas who killed himself and attempted to kill the lady he loved but who wouldn’t love her back. Picasso was extremely grieved over the matter and deemed it his fault. A lot of his paintings show Casagemas in one way or another. Most have a bluish tinge to them. Hence this period is called the ‘Blue Period’. In one picture he even paints him with his beloved, saying that he has united them finally.
My rating: 7/10
Price: Couldn’t find it online
Family of Saltimbanques
My thoughts: I don’t find this image to be very high in quality. The faces are non descriptive the background is weird and perhaps even vague. The color scheme is fascinating but that’s about it. There’s no deep meaning that I’m getting here. This is just it. A bunch of nobody’s; clowns and whatnot.
History: If I recall correctly this painting was one of the most expensive painting in the world once upon a time (or maybe it was the other one, depicting harley quinns too). When Max Jacob introduced Picasso to Guillaume Apollinaire, together the trio went to see Harley Quinn’s perform on Apollinaire insistence. I have reason to believe they were under the influence of opium. This image is influenced from that night.
My rating: 5/10
Price: The documentary showed it to be expensive, no evidence was found online corroborating it.
Dora Maar
My thoughts: Well these are two pictures. Now here’s the thing. I find even the first one disturbing and the second one plain hideous. The first one is disconcerting plainly because of the oddities in it. The weird eye, the jaundice stricken face, where does her body end and where is the hand coming from. Is that an arm? I’m sure the answer to these questions are in the painting but my meek mind can’t grab them. That being said, this person looks beautiful to the artist, he tried showing that. Now the second picture clearly shows a witch. Or a virago. This is an old woman in a hat. She doesn’t look pleased or amused like the woman in the previous picture did. She looks like the land lady who’d come asking for her rent as a notorious thug but could be subdued by mere words.
History: These are two pictures of the same person. And they’re not from two very different time spans. The first one is when Picasso started seeing Dora Maar as his mistress and the second one is when he wanted someone fresh and new. On hindsight you’ll see the hatred of the artist concealed in the second picture. However the first picture still remains and looks like a flirty, maybe smiling woman.
My rating: 8/10 and 7/10
Price: About a $100m for the latter
Cubism
My thoughts: A naked woman playing the mandolin. The art in this picture is appreciated. I can’t explain it in words really. It really is beautiful and tantalising. Heck I might put this as my phones lock screen wallpaper. I like the fact that the cubes disappear as we move away from the Center of the image. It’s like moving out of the focus.
History: This is one of the cubist painting. A design that Picasso pioneered with Georges Braque. I couldn’t find many historical facts about this painting in particular except that it was painted in a summer retreat while Picasso was with his ‘first’ mistress Fernande. I’m guessing it’s something he saw somewhere that he painted. Picasso would just see things once and commit to memory and then he would paint them later. That’s why he was able to paint so many paintings of Carlos.
My rating: 10/10
Price: Couldnt find it
Self-portrait, facing death
My thoughts: Obviously an old man. Looks grumpy. Maybe even sad and surprised. I don’t understand the purpose of the red. It makes the picture look disconcerting. Like the red are the long hair of the old man, in which case he’s the monstrosity that is Blanka. The frail physique is illustrated too. I’m guessing those curves are the shoulders. He probably hasn’t shaved in a while and he usually does. It’s a goodish picture.
History: This is Picasso in his old age. His womanising days were over as he had had a prostate operation. He was alone at home. His young mistress of then (or wife? I forget) wouldn’t allow him to go outside. Even if he could, he would’ve found it hard to find a young woman to paint. His mistress bored him now. He looked in the mirror and saw himself and I guess that astonished him so he painted himself.
My Rating: 9/10
Price: No idea
Well this was my view of Picasso’s paintings, but I am no art expert. I rarely if ever paint, so clearly my points are very perfunctory. That is why I went ahead and asked the opinion of my sestra who has amazing art skills and has been dabbling in various forms of art and craft since a very small age. This is what she said.
I like the cubist painting and the yellow faced woman’s portrait. They are my favorites. The cubist painting depicts what looks like a sad man but it appears as if he is gaining pleasure through learning to play the mandolin. It is as if the mandolin gives him hope that all is not lost. About the second portrait. The yellowish portion shows her looking at herself, and the white half shows her looking at the world. Separately the two halves present a miserable being but if seen together the whole face appears satisfied and pleased.
I dont know how I feel about anything now. I have just blasphemed. I hope they dont remove me from my small position in the ‘creative-people-guild’ after this. I have only tried to understand the works of a legend.
Dont forget to give your views in the responses.
