Andrew Francis on fri 15 sep 00
I am newish to the Picasso thread, but .12 cents anyway -
I believe that, no matter how one feels about certain artists, one
should be able to put aside likes and dislikes and have a disconnected,
objective viewpoint (The "Whether you like it or not" phenomenon). I
for one might not like certain artists (The Beatles for a popular
example), but I certainly respect their historical importance.
Now, if "painting" or "artist" means one thing to all the Picasso
dissenters out there, it means another to the Picasso fans. My own
opinion on Picasso (does anyone really want to hear this?) is that he
was universally driven, expressive and brilliant. He knew how to paint,
he knew what to paint, and he knew how to make paint leave it's mark.
As for his ceramics - typically I was reticent about going to see his
show at the Met. - was told that it was not impressive by a teacher that
I respect greatly. I thank that teacher for lowering my expectations
with his own opinion, so that the impact and importance of the show came
thru with greater intensity. I said typically because I have often
heard this dissent based on the fact that Picasso did not make the pots
that he painted on. The plates made as propaganda during the Russian
revolution were made by a Russian state china manufacturer, but that did
not diminish the importance of the artwork or the messages painted on
them. I agree with the post comparing the stretching of a canvas to the
making of the pot - in Picasso's case only! (Well, there are a few
others I would apply this exception to). Picasso was known to apply his
hand recreationally to anything that sat still and had a welcoming
surface. We haven't seen much of this because it might've been a sketch
in the sand, but why not take that frame of the platter or that curved
face of the vase and place ones work there? Why not? I love to do
that! And, was it necessary that Michelangelo build the cathedral in
which his (I think Larry would even agree) extraordinary paintings were
done? These paintings were not hung on the walls, but painted into them
in all shapes and sizes.
If Picasso's work sucks according to Larry, then we must all give Larry
his opinion and in my opinion, it is not worth arguing. I think we who
"appreciate" and "see" (whatever that means) the importance (ditto) of
Picasso tend to jump to attention like teeny-boppers (no offense to any
out there) at a Beatles concert trying to convince a Montovani fan of
the Beatles importance. Why bother? Well, we bother because we, the
ego driven creature that we are want others to know what we know so that
others will see what/that we see. What do we know? Do we then know
that we are better than those that don't? Is the world suffering if
everyone does not adore or merely understand (is that mere?) Picasso's
work? Is it important that everyone admit to the genius of the likes of
Picasso, Ohr, Voulkos (I'm not sure I wanted to do bring him up now...)
(see "A CLAYART JOKE", from Forte, Aug 28, 2000 archives), Bell,
Franklin (a reprehensible role model BTW), Jefferson, Kerouac, Van Gogh,
Hendrix, Dylan, Chihuly, DiFranco, and Disney and you get the picture I
hope.
Why is it important that Larry "understand" the importance of Picasso.
Why do we think Larry is ignorant when he simply does not like Picasso.
Well, to some extent it is to justify the expense of our education! To
some extent it is to exercise our sophistication (again, whatever that
means), and to some extent we are trying to show someone who we
assume/consider to be ignorant, the light. I am not a religious
person, but I don't see the same light that others see in Picasso's
work. I do hope that everyone sees their own light in everything that
they see. It's been tried many times, but I do not and will not (as
far forward as I can see) ever believe in God despite the attempts by
those righteous many to convince me otherwise. I do however believe in
Genius!
Perhaps that was .22 cents worth.
Andrew Francis
Judith S. Labovitz on fri 15 sep 00
and another 2 cents worth.....I too saw the exhibit at the Met a year or so
ago.....and thought it was awesome!! I liked the way he distorted the
thrown forms, used them as a "canvas" (front and back) and the
playfulness of the vases/women...etc The fact that he did not actually
throw the pots did not bother me at all.....
oh well....maybe I'm a just a tad jealous I can't do it?????
At 02:38 PM 9/15/00 -0400, Andrew Francis wrote:
>I am newish to the Picasso thread, but .12 cents anyway -
>
>I believe that, no matter how one feels about certain artists, one
>should be able to put aside likes and dislikes and have a disconnected,
>objective viewpoint (The "Whether you like it or not" phenomenon). I
>for one might not like certain artists (The Beatles for a popular
>example), but I certainly respect their historical importance.
>
>Now, if "painting" or "artist" means one thing to all the Picasso
>dissenters out there, it means another to the Picasso fans. My own
>opinion on Picasso (does anyone really want to hear this?) is that he
>was universally driven, expressive and brilliant. He knew how to paint,
>he knew what to paint, and he knew how to make paint leave it's mark.
>
>As for his ceramics - typically I was reticent about going to see his
>show at the Met. - was told that it was not impressive by a teacher that
>I respect greatly. I thank that teacher for lowering my expectations
>with his own opinion, so that the impact and importance of the show came
>thru with greater intensity. I said typically because I have often
>heard this dissent based on the fact that Picasso did not make the pots
>that he painted on. The plates made as propaganda during the Russian
>revolution were made by a Russian state china manufacturer, but that did
>not diminish the importance of the artwork or the messages painted on
>them. I agree with the post comparing the stretching of a canvas to the
>making of the pot - in Picasso's case only! (Well, there are a few
>others I would apply this exception to). Picasso was known to apply his
>hand recreationally to anything that sat still and had a welcoming
>surface. We haven't seen much of this because it might've been a sketch
>in the sand, but why not take that frame of the platter or that curved
>face of the vase and place ones work there? Why not? I love to do
>that! And, was it necessary that Michelangelo build the cathedral in
>which his (I think Larry would even agree) extraordinary paintings were
>done? These paintings were not hung on the walls, but painted into them
>in all shapes and sizes.
>
>If Picasso's work sucks according to Larry, then we must all give Larry
>his opinion and in my opinion, it is not worth arguing. I think we who
>"appreciate" and "see" (whatever that means) the importance (ditto) of
>Picasso tend to jump to attention like teeny-boppers (no offense to any
>out there) at a Beatles concert trying to convince a Montovani fan of
>the Beatles importance. Why bother? Well, we bother because we, the
>ego driven creature that we are want others to know what we know so that
>others will see what/that we see. What do we know? Do we then know
>that we are better than those that don't? Is the world suffering if
>everyone does not adore or merely understand (is that mere?) Picasso's
>work? Is it important that everyone admit to the genius of the likes of
>Picasso, Ohr, Voulkos (I'm not sure I wanted to do bring him up now...)
>(see "A CLAYART JOKE", from Forte, Aug 28, 2000 archives), Bell,
>Franklin (a reprehensible role model BTW), Jefferson, Kerouac, Van Gogh,
>Hendrix, Dylan, Chihuly, DiFranco, and Disney and you get the picture I
>hope.
>
>Why is it important that Larry "understand" the importance of Picasso.
>Why do we think Larry is ignorant when he simply does not like Picasso.
>Well, to some extent it is to justify the expense of our education! To
>some extent it is to exercise our sophistication (again, whatever that
>means), and to some extent we are trying to show someone who we
>assume/consider to be ignorant, the light. I am not a religious
>person, but I don't see the same light that others see in Picasso's
>work. I do hope that everyone sees their own light in everything that
>they see. It's been tried many times, but I do not and will not (as
>far forward as I can see) ever believe in God despite the attempts by
>those righteous many to convince me otherwise. I do however believe in
>Genius!
>
>Perhaps that was .22 cents worth.
>Andrew Francis
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
