One of the many wonders of Picasso, to me, is his amazing breadth. His span as an artist was incredible. Unlike Manet or Monet or Van Gogh, he didn't find a niche and stick to it-- he wasn't simply an impressionist or a cubist or a fauvist or whatever. He was constantly evolving, his art was constantly shifting, and he was always doing new things-- and all of his new things were incredible. I love his paintings during the blue and rose period, I think they're sort of elegant in a very strange and stylized way, and I love his color. I love synthetic cubism-- so much of it seems so happy and fun! And I adore all those portraits he did of his younger blonde lover-- you know, like the one that Scandizzledazzle uses as her avatar. Those are so lovely, so serene, so peaceful, so, well, loving, really. And sexual-- let us not forget their sexual overtones.Picasso is amazing. Even if you don't love his art-- and I really do love most of it-- you have to admit that he was clearly a genius and a brilliant innovator of art. I would hazard to say that no one has impacted the modern art world so greatly or so broadly as Pablo Picasso.
I will say his paintings from the blue period fascinate me. There seems to be some moonish source of light that captures the emotions of the figures. It's almost as if I know how they feel through color and the expressions of the faces. I just want to know why they feel that way. What happened in the characters' lives to cause such...blue?
I really like this piece compared to his cubism pieces such as the Guitar and Portrait of Ambroise Vollard. For some reason, I just find the cubism paintings very unattractive. I really the majority of the paintings from the blue and rose periods, however, and I am especially interested by the fact that the blue period is "inspired" by the suicide of his friend. I think it is fascinating how he includes his friend and lover in one of the paintings, making me feel a deeper connection since I know the story behind it.
I have to agree with brandon the blue period's tint is great. It gives the paintings such emotion and setting compared to a background that is without tint.
Cubism annoys me, I understand the reasons behind it and how they deconstruct and put the image back together, but, as Taylor said, I just think those paintings are ugly. Picasso went through so many phases that it is difficult to pick out just one period or painting to be a favorite, but I really liked his work in the rose period. the paintings contained the ideal mix of happy and sad, and they actually looked like good paintings. It was before he began to completely distort his figures, and it proves that he had an immense level of talent.
I know I'm going to upset everyone here. This is what I think of cubism: interesting idea, but not that great. That's all I have to say. I'm not in a mood to back up my statements today. Maybe another day I'll tell you why
The blue in Picasso's Bathers With a Boat is very similar to that of his blue period. The bathers don't seem quite so depressed, however. They have nothing to hide with their little boat.
I like the one of the two lovers and the mom, the people look well drawn and the tint really makes it special.
Oh, I like the shapes in The Harlequin too. Everything has sharp edges. Then there's that hand-looking thing on the left side. Does that go with the white face-looking thing above the harlequin? The harlequin's smile is amazing.
I like Picasso's versatility. One hand he can paint pretty detailed paintings, while on the other hand he creates distorted abstract paintings.
My favorite Picasso pieces are the ones where he just goes crazy. Tons of colors, bizarre and distorted faces, "tribal" influences, shapes in places that make you think you almost see something but the again it looks a lot like something else... those rock. They're like an out-of-body experience, in a painting.His cubist paintings are for the most part too lacking in color to attract my interest. They gave us all boxes of crayons in kindergarten for a reason.
i really admire picasso's versatility. i think that people who are good at something in as many ways as possible, like candice parker who is an amazing basketball player as both a guard and a forward, are the best of their fields.
His analytical cubist pieces are a little to bland for me. The limited colors and straight lines make for a jejune painting. I like his synthetic cubist pieces more, especially of the Harlequins. It think it is interesting how in his blue period (i think) he makes the circus people look so sad because they are typically symbols of fun and lightheartedness.
I like picasso's artwork, especially his three musicians. I think him pioneering cubism took a lot of talent and foresight into where the art movement would go.
I prefer analytical cubism to synthetic, I feel the actual point of cubism makes more sense with analytical, where the image is shattered and put back together. Synthetic cubism is too abstract for me, i feel like it is no longer cubism but some other type of art with a focus on colors. The figures do not appear shattered just weird.
Post a Comment