|
Juan
Your recent post on Picasso has left me wondering just who it is that "wants it both ways". You admit to "downplaying" Picasso's drawing abilities, have recently seen evidence of his early skill, have disputed the authenticity of same, and finally imply that those who appreciate modern art are the ones who insist on citing early drawing skills to justify the value of their "mature work". Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post when I tried to point out that defending modern art by noting evidence of drawing skills of artist such as Picasso is usually PROVOKED and I used the example of Tom Wolfe (again) who has said "Picasso could not draw". Why would that be neccessary if we measure the artist by their work which, in my mind, has enlarged the range of things to be made, created, and expressed and should not, does not, need to be exclusive or threatening to classic/realistic painters.
It seems that the only thing worse then believing that modern artist cannot draw is learning that they could/can.
The examples that I posted are dated in the 1920's and therefore long after Pablo was a teeny bopper and less likey to be bogus. Given that fact that his mode of expression departed from the illustrative/narrative purvasive mostly associated with classic realism and would not have given him much incentive to develope conventional drawing skills, they ain't too shabby.
I don't think those who practice or enjoy "modern" art find much reason to dwell on this question nor be as inclined (or bother) to diss our art form. It would seem that a lot more might be accomplished by focusing on those things that can make us better painters rather than beating up Freud, Picasso et al.
|