I can't be the only person who feels this way can I?

[CL0V3R]

Who else honestly thinks Picasso is/was not as great as everyone makes him out to be?

When it came to anything realistic he was actually a very mediocre artist.
Take example one:

Now it looks alright but if we really look at it, we can tell that the character's left arm (our right) is highly out of proportion and too long. It also looks as if the subject's shoulder is broke because of how awkwardly positioned it is. Also if you look at the eyes one seems almost lower than the other because of the way he drew the eye sockets. Another thing is there isn't much detail on the clothes. Over all, however, this would be one of my favorites of Picasso's realism.

Next:

The eyes are completely out of proportion when compared to each other. While I understand he was trying to go for perspective it still didn't turn out very well. If you stare closely at the face there are a whole slew of things that could be critiqued. Such as the lips look too thin, and rather than be realistic the face looks like clay. Something else I notice is he seems to use two different styles, a very soft feel for the hands, and a very over all square feeling for the face.

Next:

Again we start off with the broken shoulders look, either he's slouching considerably or I have no idea. The faces are also very boring and have no emotion or expression to them. They seem, at least to me, very plain and lacking any sense of uniqueness. The tallest figure's right ankle (our left) seems awkwardly positioned in comparison to the knee. If we look at the second "younger" boy his hands are much to small for his body/head.

Finally:

Not much to say about this one, though I think it's one of his better works.
If we take a look at the head we'll notice that it seems to have an almost unnatural bump even if that's just the hair giving that illusion. I think he could have done a better job making it more obvious because it, at least to me, look proportionally awkward. For a female she looks overly manly, even for a portrait.


In any case I understand he was famous for his Cubism and "Modern art", but I feel it was sort of a cop out. Like the people who use the excuse "It's my style" for why their art is so piss poor. Not saying Picasso's was, but saying that how I personally see it. It very well could have just been something he enjoyed, many artist change their styles over time. Though again I can't see why he became the number one name in the art world to represent all art, including Fine Art which implies you have some sort of technical skill (and I suppose invoke some sort of feeling which I guess Picasso can skate by with.). Picasso is not something that'd I'd attribute as an artistic genius, he was only maybe a genius when it came to marketing himself and what his art is now identified/associated with. Personally I think Picasso had very little artistic merit other than his "artistic movement". Which is not to say it's a bad thing, but he was not a genius when it came to executing art, only when it came to the concept of how his art should be executed. Which in my opinion is completely debatable.

[Martin]

It's all in the people's minds.
Like for example, in my eyes, art is stupid as hell. When people find a "meaning" behind a collage of squares, triangles and circles, i see just stupid shapes on a canvas for no reason and making an impression on dumb asses.

There are people on this site whuld rape picasso in a contest.


I agree with you.

[gotxbrain]

Art is art. A lot of the time it's not about the way things look or end up, it's about the technique.

sure, the actual art was rather mediocre, but the way his strokes appear, the way he shades, is what we should be critiquing.

that being said, I think many of the old artists were all terrible. Painting a bunch of soup cans seems retarded, and the mona lisa always seemed boring and drab.

[Hater]

Art is an expression of the mind.

[Omlett]

I dislike his art.
looks like someone took a shit on a canvas and rubbed it around with his cock
imo

[CL0V3R]

Thank god I'm not the only person who thinks so.
Apparently reddit thinks I'm crazy and have no taste. Lulz

Edit:

Art is art. A lot of the time it's not about the way things look or end up, it's about the technique.

sure, the actual art was rather mediocre, but the way his strokes appear, the way he shades, is what we should be critiquing.

that being said, I think many of the old artists were all terrible. Painting a bunch of soup cans seems retarded, and the mona lisa always seemed boring and drab.

Anatomy is a technique whether you want to admit it or not, there isn't much to say considering art is something subjective because it's based on perception, how ever if we're going to critique his work we should start with anatomy and other wise. To be perfectly honest his shading and coloring leaves a lot to be desired. I feel nothing really thought provoking in most his works. Also art shouldn't be about just the technique, it should be about the finish product, it should convey emotion, and it should be thought provoking, or at least a combination of a few. The only thing picasso's art has is it makes you think, and that's only if you're one of those pseudo intellectuals that try and find a meaning in every piece.

[Ego]

Art has always been a big circlejerk of names. You've got to do something that people consider "groundbreaking" or so horribly stupid that people will either hail it a masterpiece out of irony or to appear more "in tune" with the "new direction" of art. Before the more modern stuff, folks like DaVinci earned their popularity by going to a prestigious art school and/or apprenticing under a famous artist (of course, DaVInci was also pretty smart, so his inventions kind of mattered, too).

I digress. Picasso's non-cubist works are indeed terrible, there's no denying that. What I want to know, though, is how people came to accept his cubist works, because despite my previous explanation, I don't see it sitting very well with people. I understand that art can (and, as I've been told, should) push the envelope, but god damn, people who liked his work then must been smoking something powerful. )

...on the other hand, the art community's always had the attitude we now associate with hipsters (if you've ever wondered where it came from, that's your answer): an obsession with older things (like art from dead artists, because god forbid we hail something as genius and let someone become a household name before they're dead) and a somewhat shallow attachment to the art they make and the art they idolize (in all honesty, I think the general public actually enjoys viewing artwork more).

[C0FFINCASE]

Picasso and his ilk are famous not for their realism. As a matter of fact the point of them is their response to realism, they exist in a world where photography was on the rise. Nothing Picasso does, save his early work is meant to be realism. Impressionism is a "If a camera can do what I do better I'll do something else."
Ultimately its Picasso and Matise that get us people like Salvador Dali. Picasso is more talented than you're giving him credit.
The realism you pulled are actually from the "rose period" and are abstract. Abstraction is expressionism and coveys meaning and is purposefully "wrong". You're looking at impressionism, modern, and abstract art as a "cop" out method and that is often how its used today, but at the time of Picasso you had to actually be really good to be allowed to be part of the impressionist movement.
These are Picasso realisms




He a very talented artist and could paint realism extremely well and had done so most of his life.

Also no one on this site would rape Picasso on canvas.

You say this isn't that "good" but if you see this or any of his paintings in real life they are a hundred times more amazing. You realize the whole thing it made of dots, that there are a hundred colors you could never see before, and that there are a few inches worth of paint sticking out on the canvas.

Prior to Picasso's time there is no reason to challenge realism because no one but an artist could create a picture of you, but with cameras what was the point of realism. Picasso and his kind start realizing the shapes within the human form and reduce them to their basic levels and his work in color theory is invaluable to the modern world. Picasso led the charge on challenging what forms expression could take, its thanks to Picasso you get something like this:

[Taz]

Well this was back in the day and i guess they didn't do better back then so he was the best at what he did.
And now they are worth alot because they are old paintings.