As an art lover, I always feel paradoxical when I say that I
am not a fan of Picasso’s work. It is not because I think
he is a poor artist that his work doesn’t appeal to me, but it is because after
viewing several of his paintings, especially from his more famous cubism
pieces, they all begin to look alike.
Picasso was a light artist. He was as prolific with his
paintings as Tomas is with his sexual affairs. And just as the majority of
Tomas’s affairs go without consequence, for me, Picasso’s paintings go without
impact. Looking at a Picasso painting, there is a moment of appreciation, and
then it falters into the reality that much of Picasso’s work is the work of
merely a few hours, or perhaps minutes.
It is estimated that Picasso created around 50,000 works of
art, including 1,885 paintings. Ultimately, this averages down to Picasso
creating about 2 pieces a day, for everyday of his life as an artist. He is
thought to have created even more than 2 pieces each day when painting. He was
an art factory, a fine art factory, granted, but still incredibly prolific
nonetheless.
Picasso is also perhaps the most well known artist today.
This is no coincidence, as his prolificacy enables his work to be widely
circulated and held by galleries and museums worldwide. So, that poses the
question: is a prolific artist such as Picasso, whose works are known worldwide
and widely known for their excellence, an artist of kitsch?
2 comments:
While I understand and think there is some merit to the point you're making and find some of these facts very fascinating, I don't think it's a fair conclusion to say that Picasso's art is kitsch. I don't think Picasso's great number of works necessarily demands that they fall under Kundera's definition of kitsch, which would mean they deny the unacceptable parts of the human condition in order to inspire empty, collectively felt emotions. I personally feel that some of Picasso's most famous works tackle unacceptable parts of humanity. For example, works like Guernica and Massacre in Korea strongly condemn the horrors of war; I think one can argue that they even attack the kitsch based narrative of the glory of war by presenting its true awfulness.
Considering a broader definition of kitsch, perhaps vaguely defined as overly sentimental or stylized, garish, or trite art, I don't necessarily agree that Picasso's production of thousands of paintings necessarily devalues any one of them. To appreciate a Picasso painting, I feel one should judge the work both on its own artistic merits, as well as through the lens of its historical context or artistic influence. Using the first metric, I think many people would regard some of his works as powerful and impressive on their own. Of course this is impossible on some level, as anyone who knows about Guernica will have its fame in mind while viewing it. Looking at a Cubist painting by Picasso, though, a lot of the appreciation might stem from its artistic context as being a work by one of the masters of one of the most influential styles of the 20th century. But viewing any Picasso painting and being wowed solely by the fact that it's a Picasso and that's how we should feel definitely has a kitschy feeling.
I still don't feel like its fair to characterize Picasso works as kitsch just based on their abundance and the short time that went into them, but there is a kitschy element to the experience of everyone looking at and admiring any Picasso work. Doing so denies individuality and forming one's own opinions on a work of art. So maybe one can more accurately say that the experience of looking at a Picasso work is kitsch, rather than the art itself. This is where the quote about kitsch being the basis of the brotherhood of humanity comes in though, as we can never really separate ourselves from our cultural context and collective feelings on art. Even if we could do so, I think there is some value to appreciating art in the context of its influence in the development of art, and don't feel it is entirely fair to characterize this as kitsch. The feeling of collectively being impressed by an influential work seems kitschy, but it is more of a recognition of its historical influence, an objective quality that can be appreciated meaningfully. To sum up this confused post, I think looking at a Picasso work objectively and on its own is borderline impossible to do, but in doing so one can find genuine artistic value in many works. Appreciating a work due to its artistic and historical influence, such as a Cubist Picasso work that represents an important piece of this important movement, can also add meaningful artistic, or maybe more historical, value to a work. Looking at a work that one has no strong feelings towards until one realizes it's a Picasso then praising its genius, however, definitely seems like a form of kitsch to me. One could argue that Picasso has reached a level of cultural prominence that all of his works fit into the previous category of influence, but I think this idea feeds into the kitsch. Returning to the original thesis, however, I am not sure the abundance of Picasso's works makes him a unique example of this sort of kitsch as an artist, rather than his popularity and fame, which are probably helped by his large number of works, make him one of the most prominent examples.
I agree that the way many people interpret Picasso is the kitschiest aspect of his work. I think that many people fail to see deeper into a Picasso painting than the fact that it was created by an artistic genius, and therefore immediately conclude that the piece must be genius in and of itself.
In my previous post I did not mean to insinuate that Picasso is not an incredible artist whose popularity came about solely from his prominence. Perhaps I am too harsh on Picasso, and by that I mean the Picasso as an artist of numerous styles and mediums, as my more negative feelings of Picasso are generally dedicated to his cubist pieces. I do truly believe that Picasso’s more expressionistic works are incredible in and of themselves. The Massacre in Korea is in fact a great example of the excellence of Picasso’s versatility. It is clear, gruesome, and immediately impactful. The nakedness of the women and the rather pathetic mechanical looking soldiers are certainly a display of unbridled truth, and as such is the antithesis of kitsch.
Guernica is also a violent depiction of war and is stylistically spectacular. Its violence, however, only reveals itself to an untrained eye on perhaps the second or maybe third glance. This depth, for many, is what makes it interesting. Although, in those cases, I feel that it may not be the scene itself that draws in fascination, but rather the comparatively convoluted nature in which it comes about. In Kundera’s definition of kitsch, the perplexing nature of Cubism may serve as a veil across the realities in which we live. Your point of how people view kitsch is definitely applicable here, though, and therefore the bulk of kitsch like this is at the fault of the spectators.
Cubism remains, however, one of if not the most important art movements of the 20th century. However, when one brings up cubism, the name that rings to many people’s mind is Picasso, leaving talent in the likes of Paul Klee, André Lhote, Albert Gleizes, or even Georges Braque in his wake. You are right in saying that Picasso’s prolificacy is not what makes some Picasso pieces seem kitschy to me, but I think there is a kitsch in the fact that the collective understanding of cubism comes from Picasso, which implies some ignorance or denial of the talents of other artists. This is not to say that Picasso’s attention is not deserved, but rather that other, less prolific artists deserve similar praise.
Post a Comment