Day 9 – Comfortable, Familiar Picasso?

I already knew before I started research for today that I was not going to be a fan of Picasso or Cubism. Perhaps that’s not the best attitude to have considering that the point of this exercise is to learn, and having strong pre-conceived notions about something is not the best way to learn. It is what it is, however. I do feel that if I want to obtain a good overall knowledge of art, I can’t ignore Picasso. It’s definitely going to take more than one day to really delve into Picasso, but I feel as though if I’m going to not like a big name like Picasso, I should at least know why.

Picasso, along with Georges Braque, created Cubism, which aimed to emphasize the two-dimensionality of the canvas and fractured objects into geometric forms. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cube/hd_cube.htm). I’ll expand on Cubism and Braque another day, but I want to focus on a particular piece by Picasso today. When I think Picasso, I automatically think of disfigured, disjointed faces and strange indefinable shapes, and he certainly has quite a few paintings that fit this description. He did much more than just painting, though – I learned that he put out over 20,000 works of art which included “paintings, prints, drawings, sculptures, ceramics, theater sets and costumes that convey myriad intellectual, political, social, and amorous messages.” (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pica/hd_pica.htm).

There is one of Picasso’s sculptures that I have personally seen many, many times. It’s the Chicago Picasso (officially untitled, pictured below), and it’s located outdoors in the Daley Plaza in Chicago. Since I am a lawyer living in Chicago, I’m pretty familiar with Daley Plaza – it’s right outside the Daley Center which contains over a hundred state court courtrooms. Apparently this statue caused a lot of controversy, and was unpopular with a many people. Picasso never revealed what this strange statue was intended to represent, but a newspaper columnist said “it has a long stupid face and looks like some giant insect that is about to eat a smaller, weaker insect.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Picasso). I have to say I don’t necessarily disagree, although to me it also looks quite a bit like a strange dog figure.

I’m not necessarily a fan of the style, although to be honest strange shapes in sculptures bother me less than in paintings, for whatever reason. However, this statue is comforting to me in an odd way, simply because it is so familiar. I have seen it so many times, and it just feels like it belongs there and makes sense. This made me wonder… is the kind of art we like often a function of what we have seen over and over? Is “good art” really just “familiar art”? And although I’m generally not a fan of Picasso’s works, if I saw his paintings over and over, say, if I hung one up in my apartment, then would I eventually decide I like the style?

Xoxo,

Diana