Day 12 – Art or Laziness?

I woke up very excited today- my brother and his wife and toddler son are on their way to Chicago to visit us! I can’t wait for Baby Girl to meet her cousin! I was already bouncing around the house, but, I decided today would nevertheless be a good day to drink an entire pot of coffee. (But it’s only one of those little four cup pots. Don’t judge.)

I turned my jittery attention to Cubism. (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cube/hd_cube.htm) As I believe I mentioned in an earlier blog, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque are credited with creating Cubism between 1907 and 1914. (And, as I believe I’ve also mentioned, I’m not so much a fan of cubism or abstract painting styles). Basically, Cubism rejected the idea that art should imitate nature and instead focused on fractured geometric forms. At first, the subject of Cubist paintings was usually discernible, but between 1910 and 1912 “high” Analytic Cubism was popular and works were so abstracted that it was difficult to really see what they were- although popular themes were still lifes of musical instruments, glasses, and the human face and figure. Still Life with a Bottle of Rum, pictured below, is an example of one of Picasso’s Analytic Cubist works. Synthetic Cubism came between 1912-1913, and began with the technique of  papiers collés – placing large pieces of printed or colored paper into a composition to allude to a particular object. Man with a Hat and Violin, pictured below is an example of a work created using  papiers collés.

So, I think it’s important to say that, although I am not particularly moved by the Cubist works, I understand that it is art on purpose and there is some method to the madness. These artists were not just being lazy and “throwing paint on a canvass and calling it art,” which I feel is a popular thing to say when you don’t like this style. They were experimenting with a particular technique. That technique grew and evolved, and many of these works are considered serious works of art today and enjoyed by many people. So, even though this style is not exactly my cup of tea, I think it’s quite fair to say that their experimentation was not for nothing.

Do you enjoy Cubist works? If not, can you at least appreciate that there was an artistic effort being made, or do you think I’m crazy for thinking that such works are indeed masterpieces of art?

Picasso - Still Life with a Bottle of Rum

Picasso - Man with a Hat and Violin

Xoxo,

Diana

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