Ahai
Lv 5

Do you like Picasso art?

I have always thought of his art being too surreal almost like being inside a dream as Rose from Titanic said. Not sure what to think of this art...

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 months ago

    Yes, I really like it

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Megumi
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    No, I do not! It is nauseating!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    I absolutely do. Too surreal is a totally ridiculous notion in my opinion.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Jack6 days agoReport

      If you claim that it's a good likeness, then apparently you've seen a photo(s) of her, so clearly you can get me to the point where I can make a judgement, as can she.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    No I do not like it. I like the fantasy world od Josephine Wall instead.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Funny. There are some pieces that I really like, and then some that I think are total crap.

    • Garrett
      Lv 5
      6 months agoReport

      They are all total crap!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    No, I do not like such rubbish that could have been painted by a monkey. According to Paul Harvey, Picasso admitted that he was just a charlatan selling trash to fools and at absurdly high prices. There have been high and low periods in all areas of civilization. Painting reached a zenith in Classic Greece. Sadly, Rome conquered Greece and tried to copy its art, but these copies are somewhat inferior to the originals. Then barbarians conquered Rome, and there was a Dark Ages for about 1,000 years. About 1400, some Italian painters strove to equal the Classic Greeks, e.g. Zeuxis and Apelles. Raphael Sanzio da Urbino, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni did actually equal Zeuxis, Apelles, etc. Then, they were exceeded by the Baroque masters, e.g. Johannes Vermeer van Delft! Sadly, in the Rococo Period following the Baroque Period there was deterioration. That accelerated later until Impressionism appeared. Spanish Surrealist Salvador Dali says Impressionism is a poor solution to a non-existent problem. Indeed, Dali and I refute it well. Pointillism is the logical conclusion of Impressionism. Post Impressionism was another Dark Ages. Artists have totally lost the skill of Classical Greece, the Italian Renaissance and the Baroque painters. Modern artists are con artists, as Picasso admitted. They just pretend to be skillful. Dali said Paul Cezanne could have painted as well with his feet as he did with his hands. Cubism is derived somewhat from Cezanne's crude daubings. Jackson Pollock makes me shudder with his flipping paint onto canvas. Such trash is worthless, but some fools buy it at high prices. The Classic Greeks developed physical strength as well as skilled paintings, statues and architecture. There was also a Dark Ages in that that lasted longer. In the late 19th Century, Eugen Sandow began a Renaissance of physical culture that continues now. I was a skinny child. When I began barbell training near my 15th birthday, I weighed 115 lbs. Lately, I have weighed 375-403 lbs. I read about painters in encyclopedias when I was in elementary school. At age 15, I bought a history of European painting. In college, I studied histories of European, American and Asian art. I have read much about painting most of my life. I could do as well as Picasso when I was a child.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Sky
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    No. I realize it's entirely subjective, but I think his art looks like total crap. His paintings look like they were done by a kindergartener on an acid trip. I don't understand how his artwork can sell for millions, while there are phenomenal artists who are barely known to the world whose amazing artwork gets almost no recognition. Compare these two pieces side by side and you try to tell me that Picasso's work doesn't look like sh!t.

    Attachment image
  • John
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Glad to see reasonable answers. There is a crowd of Picasso bashers on this topic, at times. Our museum here in San Francisco acquired a not-famous Picasso some years ago and it was touted as "Picasso the colorist". Among the other things people have mentioned, he was that, too. Just this amazing ability to use color for whatever purpose he desired.

  • 6 months ago

    Pablo Picasso is 20th century's main figure, concerning abstract art. Before age 50, the Spanish born artist'd been the very well-known name in advanced art, with all the many different style and attention for artistic invention. There'd been no additional artist, before to Picasso, that had this kind of affect on the art environment, or needed a mass following of critics and fans alike, since he did. Read more at https://www.virtosuart.com/artists/pablo-picasso

    • ...Show all comments
    • Megumi
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      It is sad if Pablo Picasso is the 20th Century's main figure of anything. Abstract Art is an oxymoron. His inventions are crude. Critics of all types are often dumb, and fans are mindless puppets.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Things are to be seen. Meaning is obscure.

    Unfortunately I did not find the author but the following quote has similar meaning.

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/59274-some-things...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.