While visiting the Tate in Liverpool last week, I visited the Picasso: Peace and Freedom exhibition. The visit re-awakened the love/hate relationship I have with the artist (ironic, given the subject of the exhibition). The curation of the exhibit was fantastic and was exactly what you'd expect - a chronology of Picasso's own propoganda of peace during times of war and unrest set against the backdrop of his allegiance to the Commnist Party (irony again noted). Perhaps this is the root of my issue with Picasso; not that he was an avid communist - and afterall that was pretty much the stylish flavor of the day (and I don't mean that disparigingly, just observationally) for numerous artists, actors and authors - but because he is so dichotomous. Many of the works exhibited were those made famous in art history books for their misogynist theme; yet, the supporting text on the hanging gallery placards suggest that Picasso loved women (yes, he did!) and supported seveal women's causes, such as those against the abuse of women. Interesting.
As I'm typing this I'm still getting hung up on the communism thing. I can understand why so many people were sucked into embracing such a social structure given the context of the times and I think were I alive during that time, I would be very inclined to embrace it as they did. And there are times when I reflect upon its concept and I have a soft spot for it - in it's purest form. This is what I can't reconcile: Picasso enjoyed working with pottery because it made him feel like he was one of the "working men". Is it hypocrital if that position can be taken from his from his platform of fame and prosperity? What's the modern term for this? Suburban guilt or symdrome or something - middle class kids who wish they were poor, or mimic what they think it's like. Poser would be an easier thing to say about it I guess.
And here's another thing: how can a man - so incredibly talented and insightful - be so prolifically average? There's no doubt he's created a number of master works - but the man pumped out a lot of work that was, well, average. But I get it - not every piece an artist makes is meant to be a finished masterpiece and galleries and museums have, I'm sure, acted as opportunists happy to get the slightest crumb leftover from a feast. It just seems when you visit a museum, you tend to be overwhelmed with the average works instead of the master works. Which wouldn't bother me if they were exhibited in the context with which they were made; maybe I have beef with the museums to glorify his "scraps".
I'm not sure I have a conclusion to my thoughts. And I think that's good. And I'll keep studying and loving his work...no matter how irritated I get with it.
As I'm typing this I'm still getting hung up on the communism thing. I can understand why so many people were sucked into embracing such a social structure given the context of the times and I think were I alive during that time, I would be very inclined to embrace it as they did. And there are times when I reflect upon its concept and I have a soft spot for it - in it's purest form. This is what I can't reconcile: Picasso enjoyed working with pottery because it made him feel like he was one of the "working men". Is it hypocrital if that position can be taken from his from his platform of fame and prosperity? What's the modern term for this? Suburban guilt or symdrome or something - middle class kids who wish they were poor, or mimic what they think it's like. Poser would be an easier thing to say about it I guess.
And here's another thing: how can a man - so incredibly talented and insightful - be so prolifically average? There's no doubt he's created a number of master works - but the man pumped out a lot of work that was, well, average. But I get it - not every piece an artist makes is meant to be a finished masterpiece and galleries and museums have, I'm sure, acted as opportunists happy to get the slightest crumb leftover from a feast. It just seems when you visit a museum, you tend to be overwhelmed with the average works instead of the master works. Which wouldn't bother me if they were exhibited in the context with which they were made; maybe I have beef with the museums to glorify his "scraps".
I'm not sure I have a conclusion to my thoughts. And I think that's good. And I'll keep studying and loving his work...no matter how irritated I get with it.
RSS Feed
