Can someone please explain to me why Picasso is so renowned? I'm genuinely wondering...

>Some Picasso paintings look like game boy screens.

Not him but that sounds neat. Which ones are those?

Picasso and Georges Braque had destroyed 500 years of artistic tradition with the cubist revolution.

In 1938 he entered his brown period, painting only with his daughters excrement

>Some Picasso paintings look like game boy screens
is this supposed to be an endorsement

Why would you do that? Go onto the internet and tell obvious lies?

What a kitschy painting

Also, a lot of modernists were actually fascists

Pic related: fascist propaganda picture.

This is Futurism. The movement that called for the destruction of museum and the creation of art more suitable to an industrialized and ever-changing society. Also the movement that called war "World's sole hygene," with many artists taking part in WWI in order to pove their point, then joining fascism later.

Does it sound/look anywhere close to "Marxist" to you?

A different version of his.
I went to Barcelona a year ago, took coke and speed and the next morning i went to the Picasso museum.
It was some of the best 10 eur i ever gave...

The motherfucker took 3D to 2D.
His brain was amazing!

You're a memester of you don't know that a lot of Picasso's contemporaries and peers were classical Italian Fascists
Actual fascism (not that German meme crap) is about bringing a people into the future while still maintaining a strong relationship with their past and their traditions. A lot of Italian futurists were fascists, some of the first Noise musicians were blackshirts
Basically as much as /pol/ is often right they're wrong about modernism

This.

Although I don't like Picasso and think he's hugely overrated, as is his cubism. El Greco anticipated abstract art movements by several centuries while managing to maintain technical brilliance, realism and passion.

Regarding modernism, modernist poetry (Eliot and Yeats stand out for me) is some of the best, most conservative stuff you'll ever read.

Postmodernism by contrast is where you start getting poetry about guys sniffing their own balls etc.

So much this. The (((condition))) formerly known as Asperger's and now further vilified by attachment to autism, a disease of retardation, is (((their))) way of demonising mainstream patterns of thought and shared values pre-cultural-marxist takeover.

>tinfoil hat meme

Eh that's bullshit desu
Pictorial representation and mimesis are not the only forms of artistic expression that lead to beauty and truth

JIDF numale cuck degenerate! Get away from me! Veeky Forums is my safe space!

What are you talking about?

It's not "cultural marxism". It's the fear of nouveau rich assholes in the industrial revolution who needed vehicles to secure wealth and money laundering.

Art is literally one of the biggest rackets in the world when your talking about auctions and patronage.

The amount of value you can stuff into a shitty painting exceeds most other things.

Even better, you can finance struggling artists and finance narratives in which a canvas and $10 of paint can lead to the creation of something that can hold $250,000 or $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 or ...

People who funded modern and contemporary art are NOT the nouveau riche. It is the aristocratic remnants who still have a deep appreciation for the arts and artistic movements. The old money of Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany and France are responsible for funding most of the new art across Europe. The nouveau riche have no idea about art, it's significance, it's worth. They'd much rather pay for gaudy furniture and kitschy romantic or renaissance paintings.

and this leads to the demise of the technically proficient copier of reality and to the rise of the art academicians and of critics using some form of ideological analysis to moralize and judge art.

Also, modern day artists with talent usually get channeled into either entertainment or advertising. Well they're kind of the same thing...

Usually people claim, without evidence, that modern art is particularly prone to being used to launder money; bit to claim academic art of the 19th century was driven by money laundering is some next level shit. I suppose it would be too much to ask you to substantiate this?

>bringing up modern art on Veeky Forums outside of Veeky Forums

boy you fucked up

Go back to your containment board you stupid /pol/tard

Pic related is an original Picasso

He went more abstract with art because realism had gotten really boring. Photographs were rendering artists obsolete and artists searched for a purpose outside of encapsulating reality. Picasso found the answer to this problem through highly thematic and visually intensivery art. It's not just art you see, it's art that enthalls and demands hours of consideration before you can determine the meaning. He reinvented the color wheel with his art (hehe).

Very good answer

hehe :)

>Autism and Asperger's are Jewish conspiracies.

And if my granma had wheels she'd been a wheelbarrow.

Goddamnit, is there something that is not results of conspiracies for you immense cretins?

>demands hours of consideration before you can determine the meaning.
>it's not a bug, it's a feature !

The reality is that it's intrinsically meaningless. With enough time, you could come up with a meaning for anything, even life. Or you could make yourself ejaculate to the sight of a chair.
But it's a pointless loss of time. Things that genuinely and directly arouse emotions and sensations are more valuable than things that don't.

Good haul of (You)s for this one.

The origins of his kind of modernism can be traced back to Cezanne, but he was an innovator (along with Matisse who built upon Cezanne also) especially in regards to his work in cubism. Both he and Braque, under the patronage of Kahnweiler, developed Cubism in isolation from the art market and formed what is often described as a 'break' with conventions of Renaissance representation, introducing non-Euclidean geometry, the fourth dimension, immediacy, and other additions to pictorial reality to Western art. He was a draftsman though, and his work isn't that far removed from the art of the Renaissance, so in this case he is reflexively modifying the tradition rather than 'destroying' it with 'ugliness'. His legacy is really only surpassed by Duchamp because Cubism was seen as a step towards increasing abstraction in Western art (geometrical and expressionist) which found relevance in the formulation of Clement Greenberg's ideas on formalism; something that isn't held in such high esteem now as it was from the 40s - 60s, and in fact kind of dominated art history and criticism to such a degree that people still have a hard time not equating artistic modernism with abstraction.

The technically proficient copier of reality occupied a lower tier of artist in the hierarchy of genres. The academies of the Baroque onwards prized history painting above all, followed by portraits. Below that was where the mechanistic copying of nature sat; still lives, for example. There is another 'higher' aspect to art than just realistic copying which I think comes from a 'true' understanding of nature and reality rather than representing sense-data.

Also illusionism isn't necessarily a good thing, other than to give brainlets something to measure skill against to judge aesthetics. Why should a painting reach beyond its own medium and pretend it is not a painting? Why not embrace its own material reality?

Realism got boring because it was trying to act like photography dressed in costume. The paintings (that occupied the place of history or grand genre) of the late 19th century had no real goal other than a kind of idealised historical anthropology. There was no real purpose to their existence other than to look pretty in some bourgeois home. I think this is what drove the avant-garde primarily, and I think photography brought an end to modern art in the 60s rather than beginning it in the late 19th century. Granted the relative low cost of photographs supplanted portrait paintings, but I don't think it really had a great effect on history painting since it was impossible to photograph what they generally depicted. Instead history painting became, as it really had been since the Renaissance, a vehicle for theory.

>The reality is that it's intrinsically meaningless.

Can you qualify that?

It is meaningless in the sense that it does not communicate any particular message, story, emotion, etc.
It is thus just as valuable as a blank canvas or a urinal.

Art isn't communication. But even by your standards of art it still evokes a certain emotional response, probably more so in the early 20th century than it does now as a compressed jpg. Why has the artist decided to paint in this way?

It's about time somebody actually grasped the wall that artists were running into in the late 19th and 20th century.
>"why don't you just take a picture, instead?"

It wasn't "degeneracy", it was professionals distinguishing themselves from a machine which did mindless repetition of visual media with vastly superior efficiency.

Abstract art breaks art down to its technical essentials and is devoid of content (the art itself is the content). It's art designed to appeal to people who are art fanatics, who will spend all day looking at art and commenting on it, the kind of people who buy and read art magazines, not "filthy casuals" who only care about art if it validates their preconceived notions about their non-art related interests and who already had art which caters to those interests anyway. But those are usually with illustration, not fine art, so society doesn't pay an especially large amount of attention to it anyway as it typically perceives illustration as "low" or "commercial" art.

>The reality is that it's intrinsically meaningless.
the reality is that all art is intrinsically meaningless and the Mona Lisa itself wouldn't help you if you were stranded on a desert island.
> Things that genuinely and directly arouse emotions and sensations are more valuable than things that don't.
But that's a purely subjective metric and largely a function of the society you live in.

Modern art is awesome but abstract art is fucking retarded.

The main advantage of painting is that paintings enhance our appreciation and understanding for something that is "natural" in some sense. Figures and settings give painting meaning and depth.

If you get rid of all this, the painter is short changing himself by trying to express something through painting that would be better expressed through music. He devalues himself to the level of website designers and rejects the nuances aspects of his media.

Would anyone say that photography made Michelangelo or El Greco or Van Gogh obsolete? Art isn't dead because of photography, it's dead because of the trendy stupidity of artists.
>le kitsch
This word means nothing now other than being a word used by pomos to slander all pre-Duchamp art

>This word means nothing now other than being a word used by pomos to slander all pre-Duchamp art

>Greenberg
>pomo

>art isn't communication
Yes it is. That's why it is exhibited.

I read that explanation often. But do we have actual proof that Picasso and others cared about photography ?
It seems to me that modern art just evolved out of impressionism and others 19th century styles that avoided exact realism before photography could even compete.

Besides, there's a quality to painted reproductions of reality that photography could not offer, nor could reality. Or still life would never have been so popular, when one could instead have a real basket of fruits for so much less money.

> the reality is that all art is intrinsically meaningless and the Mona Lisa itself wouldn't help you if you were stranded on a desert island.
Well that's wrong. It would help by offering me beauty and a good support to exercise my imagination on. I could imagine it to be an actual human and give her a personality and converse with it to pass the time. That would be much harder with OP's picture.
>But that's a purely subjective metric and largely a function of the society you live in.
Well I think you'll find that emotions and sensations are important to every being able to experience them.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with subjectivity. If some art has more emotional impact on the members of one society than on those of another that's just fine. The problem is when art is made that has little impact in any society, even that of the artist.

>Yes it is. That's why it is exhibited.

So Cubism isn't meaningless then if it communicates (it is exhibited).

Picasso had a weird fetish.

...

...

...

i think the deal with photography has to do with the market, not the artists. before photography, a common source of income for artists would be portraits that were commissioned. this market would have dwindled with photography

I was using an hyperbole.
But you're wrong. The fact that it is exhibited doesn't imply that it communicates anything, just that it is supposed to. I don't claim that it is not art, I claim that it is failing art.

Like a radio broadcast from which you can only make out a few words, it is supposed to communicate something and it fails. Except that in picasso's case it is not accidental.

Pseudo intellectuals are always on the lookout for the next thing to prove they are ahead of the intellectual curve, forcing yourself to like terrible art is a really great way to do it

Pic related is an original piccaso, you're right, just not an original pablo piccaso

I love his Minotaur period.
His prints in general are excellent, better than most of his paintings imo.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Charity

This helped me start to figure out what people see in his paintings (I stil don't think most of his paintings are great tbqh, but Guernica deserves its rep): youtube.com/watch?v=_HGW1DQO1xQ

You don't like to read books much do you?

Blue period is the best, but thats a very stylish painting

It could be instead that art isn't communication, since your model for art doesn't account for all art and is thus a failed model.

This is one of the worst videos on art I've seen.