The influence of ancient literature on everything ahead

Pablo Picasso spent his entire life trying desperately to do something new, something unique. He moved from style to style, mastering and then abandoning both modern and classical methods, even trying to teach his trained artist's hand to paint like a child.

In 1940, four French teens and a dog stumbled upon a cave that had lain hidden for 16,000 years. Inside, they found the walls covered in beautiful drawings of men and animals. When the Lascaux caves were opened to the public, Pablo Picasso visited them, and as he stared at the prehistoric hunting scenes, was heard to remark in a despondent tone: "We have invented nothing".

>literally this

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=Lascaux caves
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goat_Amalthea_with_the_Infant_Jupiter_and_a_Faun
gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2012/04/chinese-russian-drawing.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Picasso sounds like a KEK

You don't know shit.

i know he made degenerate art in attempt to subvert western civilization and decency and morals.

And where did you come by this information?

an infographic on /pol/

Pretty sure you should go back.

You know where.

I struggle to see what the iliad has to do with this.

user is praising the greatness of Homer, the cave paintings as seen by Picasso are Homer's equivalent.

:^)

That we're still merely talking about man and animals.

Picasso sounds like a fkn try hard though

>it took me 3 years to paint like Michelangelo but a lifetime to paint like a child

I know this is supposed to be some >2 deep into ideologt for u. But Picasso seems like a total tryhard with no discernible talent

>>it took me 3 years to paint like Michelangelo

But it took humans thousands of years to bring forth a Michelangelo.

>There is nothing new under the sun
The Bible was inaccurate they said, it holds no relevance they said. They were fucking idiots who said.

>Went to the Picasso Museum in Barcelona
>His old-school stuff was infinitely better than the 'Emperor's New Clothes' bullshit he is known for

Art culture tricked me good.

>thinking the Bible is in any way original

wew lad you've got about 3 millennia of mythology to catch up on

>I appreciate modern literature but I think all modern art is a hack because I can't stare at a painting for 5 seconds and derive pleasure from it, like my favorite YA novel

Veeky Forums in a nutshell

>DUDE
>THE GODS DO IT
>LMAo
The book.

Michelangelo kinda sucked at painting though.
No not really, it was just a genuine attempt at moving forward, much like italian futurism and constructivism, though they were looking forward, they were really more or less reviving primitve art forms. Almost none of them realized this however, the sole exception that I know of being the American composer Harry Partch.

Actual "degenerate art" doesn't really happen until after WW2.

Picasso's older work is not that great, really.
It may look good at first glance but it does not really surpass book-illustration level. In fact, he was terrible at hands and limps in general. No worder he choose to 'renew' the art of painting human proportions.

I doubt many would agree 'we invented nothing' when it comes to things like aspirin or computers. However, the whole point of 'inventing' something is that someone reconnects the dots in a way that makes sense. Sometimes by accident.

>In 1940, four French teens and a dog stumbled upon a cave that had lain hidden for 16,000 years. Inside, they found the walls covered in beautiful drawings of men and animals.
source?

>does not post image of paintings
kek

I bet they look like shit and aren't "beautiful" at all
if they even exist

What is "actual degenerate art?"

I think "we invented nothing" refers to the arts, in this case

This is a known fact, m8

Gotta agree that his realistic art is usually boring. It's not just the technique, the themes and compositions are uninteresting.

>American education
lmgtfy.com/?q=Lascaux caves

>Gotta agree that his realistic art is usually boring. It's not just the technique, the themes and compositions are uninteresting.
pleb
double pleb
fucking retard
picasso was a philanderer
>Michelangelo kinda sucked at painting though.
you're a fucknut

good post
I blame summer

>pleb
Then post some good realistic Picasso art

no fuck you

...

You're pathetic

People who read difficult literature can't work out he's talking about the Iliad and not Picasso. Wow you're all phonies

Am American, was taught this in school

Looked at it for a couple seconds and will never feel inclined to give it that much attention ever again. What else you got?

...

This, I thought I was going to read some good discussion about Iliad in this thread, but nope, people focused on that Picasso analogy.

Some literary author could have also said "we have invented nothing" uppon reading that book that was written in 800 BC, just as Picasso did for those prehistoric paintings. That was the point and this board is Veeky Forums, not /art/.

I think he means that all aspects of the human condition were understood and interpreted by the ancients. On the other hand, i do not think humans are that simple. If he was write, the list of relevant and insightful thinkers would be far shorter than it is now.

Where are you from, sir?

He was write but I'm writer.

>all aspects of the human condition were understood and interpreted by the ancients

That doesn't mean we (or anybody else from the antiquity up to now) have run out of things to say or, even more so, ways to say them. Art is infinite even though its subject matter isn't.

Picasso is one of the most overrated "artist" ever.

It's like pic related didn't exist

The biggest problem with these two points of view is that they're both sheepish in nature. One mindlessly parrots /pol/ infographics, made by people hellbent on ridding the world of anything that is remotely different from themselves, the other mindlessly parrots what art historians and art critics from giant auction houses want you to think to make that fine cheddar.

Essentially, you're both morons. Picasso, from the viewpoint of someone who was trained in classical and technical drafting, was not a "great" draftsman. He was "okay" (relative to other drafting prodigies like bronzino, michaelangelo, rafael). There have been more gifted prodigies than Picasso. What made Picasso great, was a combination of the promotion done by the Stein family (to increase the value of the art they collected from him at dirt cheap prices), and because he was an exceptionally confident human being. He was less prodigious at drawing as he was at just being confident in his ability to draw. Again, I say this from a classical and technical standard- much of his earlier, classical work is sloppy (people who have never drawn classically before are unfortunately usually incapable of making this assessment, despite most classically trained artists I know agreeing with this), and while he was undoubtedly advanced for his age, he gave it up too quickly for us to ever know how far he could have gone.

I think he made some wonderful cartoons and illustrations, but he was not a great artist by my standards. I think it's also absurd that people are taught in school which artists are great and which are not. It's completely subjective, and should be judged according to a standard if judged.

> He was less prodigious at drawing

Picasso painted pic related at 16

All you people who think Picasso didn't have a lot of raw talent, who was just painting abstractly because he never learned the rules of realism and composition, etc. Here's a drawing that he did for his art university entrance exam when he was 13 years old.

It's sad that you couldn't infer that I had already seen that painting from my post. I'm fully aware of what he painted when he was 16. I am also aware and have seen the works he made when he was even *younger* than 16. You're not going to find the works that I've actually held in my hands on google images. Like I said, I have actually *studied* his works, up close, and with a trained, discerning eye. This is what I mean when I say people who are not trained classically can't see the errors in a painting like that (besides the fact that it's a TINY, pixelated reproduction that does not even come close to seeing the real thing). To you, as an untrained viewer, see a "realistic" picture, next to what you think is a young age, and immediately go, "Aha! prodigy!", whereas all I see are the technical flaws... Many many many things that you just cannot see unless you are trained to see them. These are the kind of flaws that are almost* absent in the works of young rafael, or bernini, who, for comparison, sculpted this (pic attached) at an even younger age. If you study the history of art, you will also realize that 16 is actually quite an "old" age for a prodigy to produce a mature work of art, assuming that you would call the image you posted a "mature" work to begin with (I wouldn't).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goat_Amalthea_with_the_Infant_Jupiter_and_a_Faun

There are far greater artists in the history of art than Picasso. You have to actually look for them, though. Do some reading and stop listening to the opinion of auction houses.

>Guy on a Cambodian image board talking shit about the inventor a major art movement
Let's see your doodles then. And as a presumably 25-30 year old are they better than preteen Picasso? If you can see all these supposed imperfections then that's the majority of what you need to draw and paint with realism anyway.

And why is realism that important to you anyway? You're venerating artists who were glorified cameras for patrons and Mecenas who are nowadays unimpressive and essentially obsolete to everyone else but you because you can't into modern art.

Again, this is not impressive in a classical rubric. You are assuming that because these images are not usually associated with picasso, that they are suddenly the paramount of classical drawing. This is false. The russians and chinese were cranking out children who could draw at that level at much younger ages during the past century, because their training was actually rigorous. No one is calling these anonymous draftsman prodigies. You also have to take into account the fact that his father taught* drawing at a university, and assisted him in much of his work. He wasn't as great as you think he was.

All of these matter when you're assessing whether someone is a prodigy or not. Don't be fooled by your naive impression of what is and isn't realistic. The standard for perfection in art is not simply "looks realistic"- it goes much, much more detailed than that. The flaws occur on sub-millimeter scales that the untrained eye WILL overlook, and that cannot be seen in reproductions.

gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2012/04/chinese-russian-drawing.html

link on chinese and russian drafting

rafael in picture attached.

>doodles

My bargue plates? My cast drawings? My microscopy studies? My plein air studies? My glass-plate grid tracings? My etchings? Whatever are you referring to?

>why is realism that important to you anyway

Of course. Realizes that he's wrong, so he pretends he never cared to begin with! Classic back-pedal!

>were glorified cameras for patrons and Mecenas who are nowadays unimpressive and essentially obsolete to everyone else but you because you can't into modern art.

And what, modern artists aren't glorified nihilists who are patronized by the banking class? Give me a fucking break. Nothing has changed except the standard that we hold the art up to, a standard that has unambiguously decreased with time. Don't retreat into the "glorified camera" position. That is probably the most cowardly and dishonest position you could possibly take. Just a minute ago you were singing Picasso volumes for realistic reproductions, and now that I say they aren't good enough, suddenly what is better is a "mere glorified camera"? Please, don't be a coward.

Also

>you can't into modern art

You would be surprised, as a fool usually is, but Modern Art was the *first* thing I studied at university, aside from being raised on it by my highly cultured parents. It was only later that I was trained classically. I worshiped artists like Klee, Klein, de Kooning, and later when I got into fluxus, and and more contemporary work I looked up to artists like Roth and Nauman (who I got to meet in person and have a wonderful conversation with).

So again, please don't try to paint me as some crusty, bitter classicist. Life just isn't that simple.

>He was "okay"
>(relative to other drafting prodigies like bronzino, michaelangelo, rafael).

the fact that you have to equivocate and scare quote your rating of picasso to such a degree goes to show how disingenuous you are.

Picasso was a great draftsman. Not top 10 all time, but still absolutely great.

you're just acting a cunt, m8. Put it down, it looks bad on you.

t. studied figure drawing 4 years in school, studied off original master drawings in the british museum

>Aspirin

Hope this is a subtle troll

You're responding to a different person. I made a similar post to the other guy. I don't think that realism is something that's worthless. It's important in that realism and the rules of composition and such should be learned before an artist attempts to break all these rules. But the way you're going on in this thread about the supposed minor imperfections of a teenage Picasso's work makes me think you don't give a shit about anything other than realism and don't respect modern or abstract art as a rule or even recognize it as a valid form of expression.

I don't really care to see your work. Maybe you're goddamn amazing, but you have the air of someone talking out of their ass about art as whole. One of those types who shit on modern art saying, "Oh, I could have easily done that." Well you didn't do it, and if you did maybe people would give a shit about you and your art. I have also had training in the fine arts in university and I'm fairly decent with realistic depictions and the necessary techniques and so forth, but I lack the sort of pure creativity and ideas of Picasso, but I willingly admit it. That's the thing about realism these days. No one gives a shit about it anymore and it impresses almost no one. It's been done much better before by those who have dead for hundreds and hundreds of years. Go wank to the Greek Ideal a little more and rant ineffectually on anonymous boards about how your raw skill impresses someone other than the less naturally adept pre-dropouts that were in your introductory life drawing classes.

you think Veeky Forums knows the history of aspirin and the fact that a lot of modern prescription medicines can be linked to shamanic knowledge of rainforest plants?

I actually do like the artists you've pointed out here. But you acknowledge Klee though not Picasso? Please tell me you're joking.

If you venerated Klee you probably like Kandinsky too, no? I mean such impressive use of colour there, straight out of the tube! Mixing is so pedestrian.

Nice trips.

>studied figure drawing 4 years
>studied original master drawings in british museum

You and everyone one else whose taken a figure drawing course? Am I supposed to be impressed by this? The bare minimum for any classical training is

1. observational drawing (from casts or nature, take your pick)
2. master copies

If you didn't do either of those, you were cheated.

>Picasso was a great draftsman
>not top 10 all time

See? This is what I mean by the dishonesty of this conversation. Even when you agree with me, you still call me a cunt.

>I don't think that realism is something that's worthless.

That's a good start. Because it's impossible to ever be truly realistic. Thus the pursuit of it to begin with, and thus the outcry of the absurdity when people abandon it. It's as if, "What? This isn't good enough for you?".

>. It's important in that realism and the rules of composition and such should be learned before an artist attempts to break all these rules

I don't know when this idea became popular in art, but it's absolutely terrible. there are no "rules" in art, or in life. There are repeated attempts at describing rules that you perceive, and with that, like I said above, from that comes the pursuit, the adventure of realism, but realism is not complete. when you dismiss it as "just following rules", you completely glaze over any of the nuance and detail and infinitesimal changes that only a realist will notice, ones that the glib modern artist takes for granted.

> minor imperfections

They're not minor. You NEED to see these paintings in person.

> One of those types who shit on modern art saying, "Oh, I could have easily done that." Well you didn't do it, and if you did maybe people would give a shit about you and your art

You didn't read my post above. I LITERALLY "DID DO THAT".

>That's the thing about realism these days. No one gives a shit about it anymore and it impresses almost no one.

You're not only wrong, but likely don't talk to or know actual working artists who practice realistically.

> Go wank to the Greek Ideal a little more and rant ineffectually on anonymous boards about how your raw skill impresses someone other than the less naturally adept pre-dropouts that were in your introductory life drawing classes.

Again, you're not actually reading my post. You're arguing with the quintessential, bitter, classicist boogeyman who doesn't know life outside of /ic/. I grew up around all types of artists, modern, contemporary, conceptual, rational, irrational, realistic, naive, you name it, I know someone, I'm friends with them, I've studied their work.

I'm not who you want me to be. Read the posts.

>kandinsky

Not even remotely. It's incredible how anyone likes him. Another unnecessary poster-child of art history. Everytime I hear someone bloviate about synesthesia I want to vomit.

>mixing is so pedestrian

Don't pretend you know what you're talking about- it's not becoming.

look just stop acting like a tryhard cunt, it's fucking ugly

>I LITERALLY "DID DO THAT".
You literally did do that 100 years after the fact? Wow. You deserve millions of dollars. You know, interesting, valid, groundbreaking art never gets rewarded in the free market by art admirers, it's all just a big fucking conspiracy and by rights you should be up there Picasso yourself because you tried hard and you see those "flaws" that everyone else misses.

That's not a bad parallel to that book.

Why are you so bitter? Does it hurt to feel so naive and gullible that you mistake PR for your own opinions? There's nothing *terribly* wrong with the mistakes you've made. What's more important is that you take the time to educate yourselves on the art of drawing classically. Go to a museum, reserve an appointment, actually look at the drawings with your naked eye. If you're savvy enough, you might get to look at it under a microscope, but, again, you have to know people who work in restoration- not something that your average museum goer has access to, unfortunately.

The world would benefit from proper drawing instruction. People don't know how to see anymore, and when this is pointed out, anger and bitterness is the only response.

I mean, really, what do you gain from calling me a "cunt" and "ugly", other than a brief cathartic release? The more important thing here is like I said above, that you educate yourself on that which you are ignorant on- classical drawing and the motivation behind contemporary art valuation and it's influence on art criticism in particular. It's not necessarily a conspiracy in the cliche understanding of the word, there isn't necessarily a secrete cabal of elites that get together on Wednesday at the vip room of the Four Seasons and discuss which market they're going to corner. Maybe only on Thursdays. The point is that while you shouldn't wear tinfoil (unless you're passing though Nebraska... careful), it's naive to assume there aren't wealthy, powerful people influencing your opinions. I say that in part because it's a practical position to take, without prior knowledge, and because I know some of them... ;^)

I don't want to step on any more toes. Really. I like you guys, despite that you called me a cunt. I know it hurts to be shown that your opinions are not actually your own. Sense of autonomy is important when building one's self esteem. I'll leave you to it for now.

Ta-ta...

Agreed. His poetry sucks too.

>Let's see your doodles then.
This is a horrible meme that needs to die.

audism

>anymore
Yeah everyone used to be super cultured.

ignatius?

The entirety of the modern art movement was to reinvent art so that it would stay prominent in the world culturally, especially after the invention of the camera. Many people started to disregard hyper-realism and realism simply because of the fact that they could better translate these things by way of photography. Art HAD to undergo a Picasso-like stylisation in order to become important again in a world where it was quickly fading in relevance.

ITT: uncultured plebs

If you want to bash art, bash the pop art movement. It's primarily responsible for every ~aesthetic~ tumblr in existence.

>pic related

>Many people started to disregard hyper-realism and realism simply because of the fact that they could better translate these things by way of photography. Art HAD to undergo a Picasso-like stylisation in order to become important again in a world where it was quickly fading in relevance.

meantime people invented photoshop artistic filters :3

shut the fuck up
speak only when spoken to when you're on Veeky Forums, this is an intellectual board

I've literally never gotten the point of painting; I can understand the prideful desire to have, say, a portrait of yourself for your descendants to see, to hang up in your room and feel good about yourself. But a painting has never (and I don't believe one will) had the same intellectual and emotional impact on me as any particularly good novel or poem, and I don't see how it could have. I appreciate that paintings can be aesthetically beautiful, but emotionally, they leave me dry.

Funniest post I've read all day, and I've read some very funny posts today.

>I've read some very funny posts today.
Such as?

I thought the same of dance, and then I went to see a ballet and also magic mike and now I like dance. It'll come one day or another and if it doesn't well too bad.

I like dance. I just can't understand painting.

Except for Monet's flowers, which always get me for some incomprehensible reason.