Is it normal to think pablo picasso's paintings are horrendous?

78% Normal
13 Comments

So every time I see someone fawn over a piece of "art" by Pablo Picasso, I can't help but wonder what stretch of logical imagination they must be using in order to see some form of art there. I turn my head, sit with my arms crossed staring blankly into a portrait's eyes.. only to continue pondering the obsession with it.

I think some, very few, of his pieces are "ok" but still nothing great, in fact, if my ten year old niece had drawn it I would say "that's awesome!" but still secretly think "if awesome was terrible."

What am I missing? I know it's all subjective, but for the love of god, am I the only one?

Voting Results
78% Normal
Based on 72 votes (56 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 13 )
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    I didn't think I liked his work until I made an attempt to understand cubism. If you're an art student luring me into a trap then you'll probably get me. My mother is an artist but my knowledge of art isn't much above average.

    However, when I realised that cubism allows the painter to represent more than one thing at the same time, I thought, "Oh. Okay." and the thought kind of germinated. It wouldn't leave me alone in terms of what it made possible. And I looked at Picasso's work again and began to appreciate it.

    As time went on, this grew. I'm now fascinated by him and his genius. There's an extra level of dimensionality about cubism. I find it utterly wonderful. It's like seeing a 3D film, except better, because what is extra is interpreted.

    Don't close your mind to it just yet. Also, don't strictly go off the way art looks (I know that sounds stupid. How else are you meant to judge it?) but go off what it says.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • Santa'sUlcer
      11 years ago

      Interesting, I'll consider what you said. Now here's one I really dont understand: Jackson Pollock. I suppose Picasso at least had his own form of what he considered art, and it at least resembled some kind of effort. Pollock, not so much. I may be missing something there also. Maybe my mind is lacking that creative part used to decipher the "emotion" or effort that others see.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • FocoUS
        11 years ago

        Part of the reason why Pollock is so famous was because he was the first great American artist. American artists were often ridiculed by the European "Art World" they just weren't good enough. Moran, Cassat, and Sargent were all great artists before Pollock but they just couldn't break the European elitism. And then an American is the pioneer on an art movement, a big art movement. Take that elitism.

        Pollock's appeal is that there is a system to his art. It looks out of control but there is a design and a plan to it. Order in chaos is a difficult. It's a technical thing not an emotional one. Pollock will probably be more known for breaking the elitist art world than abstract expressionism.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Lynxikat
          11 years ago

          Huh... that's interesting. Although I don't think I'll ever really like Pollock per se, just the concept of "order in chaos" makes me understand his stuff a bit better. I think you explained it well :)

          When you say that Pollock was the first "great American artist", do you mean that he was the first to be accepted by European society as a worthy artist?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • FocoUS
            11 years ago

            First great to be accepted by European Society. There were many great American artists before Pollock but unfortunately they weren't recognized in Europe.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
      • dappled
        11 years ago

        I'm not sure I understand Jackson Pollock yet, either. Not to say I never will, though. Same with Mondrian.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • myweirdself16
    11 years ago

    I personally don't like Tracy Enim's work, mainly due to the person I'm in love with going crazy for her work, but whatever.

    But seriously, most of her stuff has to do with her sex life, which is as interesting as it is disgusting.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • lollipop1896
      10 years ago

      I agree. Some people just take pictures of themselves naked doing weird things and call it art, even though it doesn't take much effort.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • FocoUS
    11 years ago

    It's normal to have separate taste. Ah but you asked what you were missing? Well I can give my opinion about Picasso if that helps.

    To understand what made Picasso paint the way he did you need to understand his time. Picasso could paint realistically but it wasn't good enough for him. He needed something completely new. Picasso often denied this (probably to feel special) but many historians have confirmed that Picasso was inspired by African masks. A popular exhibit of African art was touring Europe at his time. Look at African masks, the broad noses, the simple shapes, notice how Picasso does the same thing?

    Instead of focusing on accuracy and details Picasso broke forms into simple shapes. He broke perspective so things existed on different planes in his paintings he destroyed all of the subjects and built it up in his own way. He later began to arrange the subjects in an appealing composition and focused on color. Many other artists decided to break and simply their art and the cubism movement was born. Even though the cubism movement ended the idea of breaking and rebuilding subjects is used in art today it influenced other movements. And Picasso started all of that.

    A realistic Picasso Painting: <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XENPQVzgfFU/T-Vfwr7g2WI/AAAAAAAAEMU/esllFNFudsM/s1600/PIcassoOldFisherman.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XENPQVzgfFU/T-Vfwr7g2...</a>

    An African Mask Picasso probably saw: <a href="http://www.amaco.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/lp31_mask4finished.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.amaco.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/20...</a>

    Les Demoiselles <a href="http://www.cord.edu/faculty/andersod/picasso_demoiselles.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.cord.edu/faculty/andersod/picasso_de...</a>

    Don't ask me to explain Dadasim. I hate that movement

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • dirtybirdy
    11 years ago

    I'm with you. Some of them are alright but its not really my cup of tea

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • NotFloydzie
    11 years ago

    Thanks for sharing.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • JuneB
    11 years ago

    Art is subjective. Personally I think Jackson Pollock is way overrated, but there are plenty of people obviously disagree. I'd say it's normal.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • KeddersPrincess
    11 years ago

    Well, art is in the eye of the beholder.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0