Picasso was a talentless hack - and you can be too!

Hello. I ran across this article and thought it would go with the general theme of the destruction of art, that's come up in Pierre's articles.

http://www.creativindie.com/picasso-was-a-talentless-hack-and-you-can-be-too-absinth-art-and-creative-genius/

Thanks for sharing, monotonic! It is a good psychological piece. And are required more profound studies on the psychology of recognized artists and the pathology of each case or group of cases. And not just in the art! Well, Pierre is doing something about it.

Great read!

It's refreshing to see such rebellious opinions voiced by informed people.

Especially being a student of an art college which can credit it's teaching style to the absynthe epoch in terms of devolution of skill, aesthetic and passion. Two bricks laying on top of each other on the floor often meet the most affirmation in the academic environment I'm familiar with. "Art for Art's Sake!" isn't the fad any more, now everything is ephemeral & conceptual..

It's interesting to see this whole process in art in the broader scheme of things: The Great War came right after.

There is a french cultural writer and theorist, Paul Virilio, who wrote a short (50 page) book of essays, entitled "Art and Fear" in which he dissects this exact process of degrading culture in the 20th and 21st century; the rise of modern, mad and disfigured art.

Although I haven't yet finished "Political Ponerology", I think Virilio's "Art and Fear" is another, quite similar take on the process ponerization of society, just from a different angle: focusing on art, cultural aesthetics, their form and content, though in a much broader context. His writing style is quite dense also, and he brings up so many different names of other theorists and philosophers that either access to the web, or above-average knowledge in art theory and beyond might be sometimes necessary to fully understand his critiques.

Here's a good nutshell description from Amazon:
(bold mine)

Paul Virilio is one of contemporary Continental thought's most original and provocative critical voices. His vision of the impact of modern technology on the contemporary global condition is powerful and disturbing, ranging over art, science, politics and warfare.

In Art and Fear, Paul Virilio traces the twin development of art and science over the twentieth century. In his provocative and challenging vision, art and science vie with each other for the destruction of the human form as we know it. He traces the connections between the way early twentieth century avant-garde artists twisted and tortured the human form before making it vanish in abstraction, and the blasting to bits of men who were no more than cannon fodder in the trenches of the Great War; and between the German Expressionists' hate-filled portraits of the damned, and the 'medical' experiments of the Nazi eugenicists; and between the mangled messages of global advertising, and the organisation of global terrorism.

Now, at the start of the twenty-first century, science has finally left art behind, as genetic engineers prepare to turn themselves into the worst of expressionists, with the human being the raw material for new and monstrous forms of life.

Art and Fear is essential reading for anyone wondering where art has gone and where science is taking us.

Click to expand...

Paul Virilio on wiki:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Virilio

Independent review of "Art and Fear":
_http://reconstruction.eserver.org/breviews/revartfear.htm

There's a pdf format of the book available too.

I'd say Pierre should check it out if he isn't yet familiar with P.V. :)

I'd say it's quite simple: art reflects society. If you have a sick society spiraling downward into ponerization, you get people who produce disgusting "art". I think it reveals things about the person, in the way that handwriting does.

Thanks for the link. I had not known that the decline of art started earlier with absinthe drinking. I thought it was more recently, in say, the 1960's with Warhol et. al.

3D Student said:

I'd say it's quite simple: art reflects society. If you have a sick society spiraling downward into ponerization, you get people who produce disgusting "art". I think it reveals things about the person, in the way that handwriting does.

Click to expand...

Bingo. And again, I say Bingo. With my liberal arts background, I have always struggled with being told to appreciate something because "it's a Picasso" or "it's a Klimt"...but what if I just don't connect with it? "Then you are not a good student."

On a societal level, I've also observed this with how the Disney channel "for kids" is visually formatted to equal the formatting of MTV and more "adult" TV making the transition very smooth. A base example, I know, but when the media/entertainment/art reflect that depressing spiral, it simply continues the soul destroying cycle. Picasso's paintings glorified a depraved society, reliant on absinthe, sex, and violence to fill the void in their minds and relationships.

Interesting read monotonic!

I know nothing about art per se, but i always thought any art that requires an explanation or blurb to go beside, isn't really what art is.

Hence most of the modern art - and it's blind supporters, unable to answer my questions - i encountered in London were of little interest. And there's a real devoted following to that kind of tat there. The national gallery on the other hand i really did like, Van Eyck in particular.

The article and the imagery really do help to drive the authors point home, but i might even say he likes some which aren't to dissimilar to what he's criticizing, which may be his programming unable to dismiss all of it.

itellsya said:

The article and the imagery really do help to drive the authors point home, but i might even say he likes some which aren't to dissimilar to what he's criticizing, which may be his programming unable to dismiss all of it.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with liking something even if you don't consider it "art". I think you are a bit black-and-white here. Something can be bad art, but still art, and still worth seeing. I had the same reaction as you did, initially.

It must hurt to think that way, when you find something you like but don't allow yourself to enjoy it because you don't consider it art.

There's nothing wrong with liking something even if you don't consider it "art". I think you are a bit black-and-white here. Something can be bad art, but still art, and still worth seeing. I had the same reaction as you did, initially.

Click to expand...

Nearer to the end he loses some of his conviction as to how he decides what 'is art'. He initially criticizes imitation and the degradation due to absinthe, but then says he actually likes some of them. Perhaps because of his own involvement and investment in the industry itself.

from the article:

Was he inspired by divine genius, lis­ten­ing to inspi­ra­tion, and doing what he was really pas­sion­ate about?

No. Look, more clowns and poor peo­ple and iso­lated, emo­tion­less figures.
[...]
When you find some­thing peo­ple seem to like and respond to, keep doing it.

Click to expand...

This is probably cognitive dissonance on behalf of the author and therefore of note. Whether people are free to stare at 'unmade beds' or nazi pigs (modern art) wasn't related to my comment.

When i think of art, i tend to think of it along the lines of what Gurdijeff said in ISOTM

" In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The great Sphinx in Egypt is such a work of art."

Click to expand...

He also mentions most art today is nothing of the sort, and therefore isn't art. If i remember correctly.

IMO, the modern term "art" represents a portrayal of our subjective views of the reality we live in. The most fascinating part about this is how we all view it differently. What upsets me is that art is supposed to be about finding that creativity inside of ourselves and not stealing it from others. I don't know that Picasso's intention was to downright steal ideas because most artists learn through imitation. Perhaps Picasso was just using the other artists of his day to find his own inspiration. Now, you can search the web and find just about any type and style of artwork. It only takes a quit browse through some of the art community websites to realize just how many artists have taken similar, if not nearly identical styles. If we consider art reflects society, than I'd have to say the bulk of the population would much prefer to live in some fantasy world than look at our depressing reality. I'm not even going to comment on Picasso's talent, but I will say I'd not compare him with Da Vinci or even Monet. He did however manage to come up with something that was particularly his own which is creativity in itself.

Gurdjieff does talk about a term he called Legominism which itellsya mentioned. He seems to be referring to the expression of absolute truths through different mediums.

The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and another impression on another, presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression."
"At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real, objective art. Imagine some scientific work - a book on astronomy or chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man." (ISOTM33)

I will cite you one example only—music. Objective music is all based on 'inner octaves.' And it can obtain not only definite psychological results but definite physical results. There can be such music as would freeze water. There can be such music as would kill a man instantaneously. (ISOTM304)

Click to expand...

It may be possible to reach different levels of objectivity with artwork I.E. political cartoons, though I can't imagine that there is much of this true artwork out there. We are in a subjective 3D reality and everything we create is going to have to come from within the boundaries where we are confined.

Drea said:

It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man." (ISOTM33)

I will cite you one example only—music. Objective music is all based on 'inner octaves.' And it can obtain not only definite psychological results but definite physical results. There can be such music as would freeze water. There can be such music as would kill a man instantaneously. (ISOTM304)

Click to expand...

Thank you Drea. The quote you provided was what i had in mind and your comment helps clarify the confusion that comes with the different uses of the word. I see the definitions - absolute truth, subjective expression - and that is why initially if we wish to speak about art, especially art, one needs to agree on the term itself. And anyway, for me it was just interesting to read the author of the article having difficulty with this very clash, osit.

I was not attempting to judge what can be considered art, but i did volunteer how i have been looking at it.

itellsya said:

I see the definitions - absolute truth, subjective expression - and that is why initially if we wish to speak about art, especially art, one needs to agree on the term itself.

Click to expand...

I think that's part of the problem. Art as a term tends to have some kind of lofty prestige to it, and then we're supposed to think these vulgar works are just that. And sometimes you can find something "random" beautiful, like an arrangement of items or something in nature.

But I think art is just any other craft or skill. Like I said, you may find something beautiful in a bunch of paint randomly slapped on a canvas. But when the artist knows their trade and takes the time to put effort into it, there is something different about it. The extra time and care represents more information. I think that's how the mathematics part comes in. This is of course based on knowledge and practice, and if the artist wishes not to use his knowledge, what good is it?

monotonic said:

There's nothing wrong with liking something even if you don't consider it "art".

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I'm getting at. There are many beautiful things simply out there in nature. In the case of the "poorest" human works, it's at least a good psychological study. ;)