Picasso Speaks
Picasso by Karsh"I who have been involved with all styles of painting can assure you that the only things that fluctuate are the waves of fashion which carry the snobs and speculators; the number of true connoisseurs remains more or less the same. "
- Pablo Picasso
posted by Bill Pocock at 8:23:00 p.m.
12 Comments:
If the quote had more to do with being involved with reading all kinds of people or with reading people (physiognomy at the very least, despite its obvious flaws), rather than "being involved with all styles of painting", it might carry more weight.
For I, who have been involved with all styles of logic, can tell you Picasso's reasoning is flawed.
I wonder how many snobs he conversed with to verify the voracity of his conclusion. Or maybe he was like all the other self righteous asses in the world who draw conclusions based on prejudices about appearance.
But we quote him because he was a famous "artist".
Yeah.
anonymous,
Yeah, I don't quote Picasso baby on the basis of his ability craft logically consistent statements.
And perhaps I may be guilty of a logically improper 'appeal to authority' by citing an irrational artist. But I'm no so sure the denizens of the art world are subject to the authority of reason. Maybe that's one of it's charms.
Funny to think that the ancients made Apollo god of art and reason, among other things. Maybe there's sometimes a difference between logic and truth?
As you have sought in previous posts to reason whether or not a photograph can be art, you impose rationality on the art world.
If the denizens of the art world are not subject to the laws of reason, then they should be ignored, and thankfully they usually are.
See, if some folks question the dude and he doesn't have a rational explanation for what he spouted off about, then people will see him for a fraud and not pay attention. But if we accept things without questioning the logic and blindly follow, we get religion. Or worse, an army without any accountability.
Charming, yes sometimes, but enduring? Impossible. Logic is truth.
anonymous,
'True' is a welcome port to many meanings. I'm glad we can differ and still hold our truths.
I'd say that logic is consistent, but not necessarily wise.
I know you're a serious reader of Art Slob, anonymous, so I'll address your comments in a serious vein.
As I've told you before, I'm a collective; as are you, anonymous.
So, when I speak of the inherent illogic of the art world, I say that as an observer existing outside the art world domain.
My attempts to rationally define what is not art (such as in the case of eroticism) is done as an observer of phenomenon. These are also my own personal struggles to set first principles spurred by emotion, frankly. I hope you'll forgive my thoughts expressed in type as a work in progress with an unlikely conclusion.
In my view, the practice of logic, as a philosophical disciple, is a human construct imposed on humanity. Logic is not 'of life', as mankind is rarely consistent on my anecdotal observations. I don't believe logic is a part of human nature, but, rather, nurtured through rigorous study. (I'd love to see your refutation of Picasso's statement in symbolic logic).
Artistic pursuit, in my view, is the subjective expression of the human self to the world. By this definition of artistic expression, therefore, private thoughts cannot be deemed art. Just one example.
I imagine those who ignore the unreasonable attend to very little in this world.
We are unlikely to ever be in complete agreement, Slob, and I hope you don't take my comments as any kind of attempt to engage you in debate with a view to "winning", as it were. I am merely using your topic and blog as an opportunity to provide my thoughts on the subject. I honestly don't care whether or not you end up agreeing with me. I'd prefer it if you didn't, in fact, as that might prolong the dialogue and maybe some interesting things might be said.
So, yes, I forgive all of your thoughts expressed in type, as I hope you forgive mine, as I surely don't posess a PhD in the subject area. The dialogue is much more important anyway.
So, another thought:
If man were merely an animal (and maybe we are, but it has been so long since we lived purely as the apes or any other animals do, that I might suggest that for all intents and purposes, we are not animals), then perhaps I might agree that logic is a "human construct". But then so is art.
Logic is as much a part of human nature as anything else, unless you can point me to a time in history where it wasn't there and everything else that is commonly accepted as human nature was. Hell, even monkeys have been observed to eat red berries if they see another monkey eat them, logically concluding they must be safe. Flawed logic, to be sure, should the berries have a delayed effect on the monkey's system, but then that's why they're the monkeys.
Symbolic logic? Is it less valid because there is another way of writing it down? Is there less truth to art on a canvass using synthetic paints because they are better than dyes made from flowers? Should I be speaking to you rather than reducing the discussion to letters?
Finally, I never really wanted to discuss logic, simply wishing to point out that we listen to idiots too often because they have acheived some degree of fame.
Aw heck, maybe Picasso is right, but I bet he didn't refuse their money. Not a nickel.
Ha!
I couldn't agree more, anonymous!
Too many times I read blogs where comments consist of blissful agreement. Like a glee club. Believe me when I say I appreciate difference of opinion and challenges. I do make provocative, or often sloppy remarks in the hope of receiving comments such as your own.
I salute you from across the wasteland!
Finally, my life, as I see it, is the primitive desire to be both an animal and a god. Both free from civilized self-consciousness. My humanity seems to both aspire to such a goal and limit its possibility. May I also say that I value both logic and art as noble pursuits.
The last word?
Anonymous,
Do you really think it matters that you don't have a PhD in the subject area - would an academic degree be very different from the idiots who have achieved some degree of fame?
Just one more thought - can it be interestingly subversive that, despite Picasso received money from those fellows, he is able to go on criticizing them? Should Picasso (or anyone else) just shut up because they receive money from people with whom they disagree? Should we stop poiting them our finger because they pay us? Or should we just receive money from people we somewhat admire?
A little bit more wide - does is makes sense to apply the same logic of morals to every professional activity, including art? If Guernica had been commissioned by a company that produces bombs, would that make Picasso worse? Wouldn't it be positive that he remained critic, despite the money? Or is that selling is soul to the devil?
I know there must be a limit drawn somewhere - but I don't know exactly where. And I do think about this quite often.
WW,
I'll take up your interesting topics as anonymous may have left the building for now.
I think part of the ease of modern life is that we know little, if anything, about people with whom we transact business. In the absence of community with shared values, we'd likely disagree with some aspect of the other's belief system if we were aware of it. That's hoping people have belief systems they feel strongly about. That or an "I'm okay, you're okay" moral philosophy.
Knowingly taking money from parties who wee deem morally reprehensible? Isn't that every individual's call to make? A utilitarian might say if the outcome serves a greater good (preventing future atrocities as a result of moral instruction resulting from seeing an anti-war painting), then take the money and paint. A Kantian moral philosopher might say that the acceptance of fund from a source contrary to one's values can never be justified.
But do we really know our complete moral set of values? Do they become evident when faced with dilemma? Are they consistent, or variable?
I like the questions, WW. I deeply believe that we are what we do morally. Generally I find the people I meet are hedonists pressed to 'do good' only when knowingly observed and in fear of smearing their reputation.
WW & Slob,
I think you can take money from whomever you personally please and so can (or, rather, could) Picasso. But the simple fact of the matter is that his criticisms ring hollow when you look at his lust for fame and fortune during his own lifetime. He WAS one of the people he is so critical of, snubbing Matisse for virtually his whole life. Call it rivalry if you wish, snobbery may be closer to the mark.
Beyond that, there is also the issue of his unabashed adulation of Joseph Stalin, which renders any question of his own morality based on to whom he sold his paintings rather mute.
As icing on the cake he was about as mysoginistic as anyone before or since (well, he didn't behead any of his wives I suppose).
So now that I have spoken ill of the dead, I return to issues presing you, I and Slob today:
I agree that it is the individuals call to make, but if we believe that there is some merit to the idea that a healthy society is important, then I believe that we need to excommunicate people whose behaviour is anti-social. Peer pressure is a wonderful tool, if used for good. Maybe it only works in smaller communities or where the "average" level of morality in a society is high enough. But maybe every bit helps. Maybe every time some one says, "I am too good to be your whore" someone else tries to become a little better.
I dunno, but maybe it's worth a shot. Maybe I'm just unrealistic.
Hmmm.
I would say morals are, most of the times, variable. Only a few of them are consistent in a lifetime; the others are discovered, or mutate, or evolve, or are even transformed when facing a dilemma. And even when - if- that happens, maybe we don't even notice.
I do think it's important to lead by example - even if no one will ever notice. Because it feels good. And because someone may later find out.
Sometimes it's just hard to find the right example to be (or to give).
I can't remember anything else to add, for now. Thank you both. It was interesting.
I look through all these posts and all I can think is "What a bunch of snobs and speculators".
I think his point (for all you overly analytical nerds) is that good art will always be good art no matter what the "trend" is.
But then again, I'm using my right brain here.
For instance... look at what makes something popular in American culture... it's not about "what is good". Just look at our movies and music.
There are always going to be people who want to make good art no matter what society thinks about it. And there are always going to be opportunists taking advantage of "the latest fashion" or "the new look". The latter is always "fluctuating".
It's not that difficult to understand people.
zussal@yahoo.com
Post a Comment
<< Home