How much of art popularity is people wanting to feel in the know, and desperately trying to find reasons to enjoy it?
If you say Picasso was a genius, then you're automatically accepted into a "smart" or "high class" or whatever group of people. If you criticize, then you're ostracized.
It's exhausting to criticize, because the arguments for are so lacking in any substance. You get arguments like "art is about art", "its subjective", and "there are lots of people who paint pretty pictures, but only one Picasso". All actual arguments from this thread, all completely lacking in substance. Another good one: "if you're talking about it then it must be good". Barf.
I truly do not believe even 50% of people who claim to like Picasso actually like Picasso's paintings. I'm very confident the majority are people who say they do to fit into a group.
Why isn't enough to just say you don't like it? That's fine. You don't have to. What is tiring here, to me, is all of the completely idle and evidence-free speculation about why other people merely "say" that they like it. I promise you: I really do like it. And it's not just because I want to be part of a club. (And I assure you that there are plenty of popular/fashionable artists that I don't like.)
Maybe you could put forward some specific reasons that you don't like Picasso's work, instead of just accusing others of being sheeple for disagreeing with you?
To put my money where my mouth is, a bit, here are some things that I think make Picasso great, other than their relationship to other works and art history more broadly:
1. Picasso's best cubist portraits move away from representing people just as they look and make an attempt to communicate what it might feel like to be a person in all of its inner deformity and (for some) turmoil.
2. He synthesized traditional iconography (especially the Bull) onto modern art in a way that illustrates (and creates) the continuity between modern culture and more ancient ones.
3. Particularly in works like Guernica, Picasso's composition makes me feel--if only dimply--an appropriate sense of sense of (in the case of Guernica) chaos and terror.
Picasso's paintings are, to me, very emotionally expressive. That (again, to me) is more important than how "realistic" a painting is.
I've seen a bazillion highly realistic paintings that are so emotionally flat. The technique in them can be impressive, but otherwise they tend to be both unimaginative and emotionally hollow.
Even more extreme than Picasso in the "it takes no skill to make this" (apprently) but conveying real feeling is Jackson Pollock.
Lots of people will look at Picasso and Pollock and say "my 5 year old kid could do this" -- and there's something to that, as children's art tends to be more fresh and expressive than art made by trained adults -- but kids don't do either (unless they've seen and try to emulate Picasso or Pollock). Neither do adults.
It took Picasso and Pollock to come up with art like that. Same with Malevich's Black Square and Duchamp's Fountain, which are also about as simple as art gets, but things like that weren't considered art before, and it took these artists to make us look at the world in a different way and stretch the boundary of what art could be.
John Cage's work with randomness in music is yet another good example. His compositions could sound awful or boring, and I personally don't like them -- but why must music be something that we like? Can't we appreciate and value music that isn't pleasing?
The paintings of Francis Bacon and Goya are similar -- pretty "ugly" stuff.. but to me they speak the truth about the ugly/horrible side of life that is valuable to look at.
At their best, such artists open our eyes and ears to the world around us and let us see it in a fresh way that we might not have appreciated before.
Only if you think appreciation and value is synonymous with what is pleasant. I don't.
Malevich's Black Square is not pleasing to me, but I value and appreciate it for expanding the boundaries of art. Same with John Cage's music. What's so oxymoronic about that?
> Why isn't enough to just say you don't like it? That's fine. You don't have to. What is tiring here, to me, is all of the completely idle and evidence-free speculation about why other people merely "say" that they like it.
Imagine every once in a while there's the same man screaming on a busy street you frequent. Most people around you watch and comment on the beauty of the man and his actions.
After a while of ignoring it and moving on with your day, you eventually have to stop and say "what the fuck are you all talking about?"
Everyone looks at you like you're crazy.
"You know, that man was a child prodigy. He mastered classic singing styles and is now showing off his abstract work"
"You don't have to get it. I find it powerful."
"Art is art. It's playful. He's expressing his emotions. Not everything has to fit in the lines."
The man continues to scream. You comment, "My 5 year old does this every day. Why is this special?" You're desperately looking for answers. Maybe there's something you're missing.
"I doubt your 5 year old could scream like this."
"There are millions of 5 year olds. Only one of Him."
> The man continues to scream. You comment, "My 5 year old does this every day. Why is this special?" You're desperately looking for answers. Maybe there's something you're missing.
Okay — but outside your narrative, people can tell the difference. Even when the labels are reversed.
So, in your analogy, it’s because everyone but you is paying attention to the words and style of the man screaming — which is quite unlike your child’s tantrum. And you’re blinded to that by your own biases.
You've illustrated the point. If you say "I don't like it" and move on or "What do you like about it?" then we have a mature discussion and everyone is content.
If you get aggressive and say "what the fuck are you all talking about" and act like you're superior and noticing the emperor has no clothes, then you're being an asshole and no one will want to give you any respect.
> How much of art popularity is people wanting to feel in the know, and desperately trying to find reasons to enjoy it?
Some for sure.
> If you say Picasso was a genius, then you're automatically accepted into a "smart" or "high class" or whatever group of people. If you criticize, then you're ostracized.
By who? I have a ton of family and friends who think Picasso and "all those other guys" suck, none of them are "ostracized". You're more likely to be ostracized if you say "I love Picasso, he was a genius.", and your reply to "what is your favourite work" is "ummm, the melting clock thing?". Mostly because that was Dali.
> It's exhausting to criticize, because the arguments for are so lacking in any substance.
I'm not sure how to respond to "I can't criticize Picasso because your defence will lack substance."
Why, how, would I even "defend" Picasso?
> I truly do not believe even 50% of people who claim to like Picasso actually like Picasso's paintings. I'm very confident the majority are people who say they do to fit into a group.
A majority of people will say they don't like Picasso if they could even identify his work. I didn't really like Picasso until I started seeing his work in person. Even then, he's hit or miss for me.
I'll bet nobody jumps on this comment to ostracize me.
Since "art is about art" came from me: I see nothing unsubstantial in that very expression. Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. I don't see why anybody has to be ostracized for not finding access to it, but ironically you're making the case for the opposing claim: nobody here judged people for not "getting it", yet you're insinuating various things about the group that "claims to get it".
Why bother making it about identity and individual attributes? I find that exhausting. I'm blown away by Picassos work, because I find true beauty in his way of abstracting. He very clearly saw the world from a special point of view, which he translated in a way that language is not meant to convey. I can't claim to truly see what he saw just by looking at his work, but I'm seeing something, and I couldn't care less wether you find this to be an unsubstantial claim, because I don't have to make everything in life about groups and identity, peer confirmation, etc etc.
Some well meant food for thought: not all data has to fit your model of the world. Usually when this happens, it's not a data-problem. Now you can say "well people who claim they see value in abstract art are noise to me", and that's ok, it's your model - but I found it to be a far better strategy in life to keep my mind open instead of being reactionary when confronted with something that doesn't please me. Cheers!
> Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free.
Of course, and I'm not offended that Picasso decided to create his art the way he wanted to. What I'm talking about specifically is art popularity.
I'm also not say that there's no one that legitimately would be able to pick Picasso's work out of a lineup and genuinely find beauty in his work. You very well might be in that category.
My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent.
> My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent.
Rest assured: while such dynamics (artificial boosting of specific artists) do exist, they are a property of the art market, not of the artists or their audience. This isn’t to say that 100% of people who claim to find beauty in $artist actually do so, but there is a reason that an artist either shapes the culture and his peers - or he does not. Picasso and Rothko got big through organic content aggregation - they checked the boxes of their peers, you will have a hard time finding someone versed in the craft who doesn’t appreciate them.
Saying that some of the people who identify as fans of their work actually just look to belong is in no way directly related to the art, it’s an emergent dynamic in any group, so it’s pointless to bring up when the actual art is being discussed - it’s just dismissive of the work and the conversation ends with exhausting fingerpointing and games of groups and identity.
The various motivations behind art, specifically Picasso and Rothko, are free from this exact burden :-)
This makes me sad. This is not because you dislike Picasso. It is because you're making art an issue of classism.
If we just ignore the aesthetic of Picasso's art, you can categorize Picasso as a genius purely on his influence of other artists that follow him. It's possible to dismiss his influence by saying those other artists are fools or deranged. However, Picasso's influence is undisputed and absolute. Purely on that metric, he is classified as a genius. My hope is that anyone who is reading this will ask "Why is Picasso influential?" instead of "Why would anyone like this?"
It is possible to dislike Picasso and appreciate his influence on art.
I think GP is pointing out that the ability to command a following or convince people to follow in your footsteps does not a genius make.
Brenton Harrison Tarrant commands a following and influenced a lot of copycats (his most recent disciple being the perpetrator of a certain shooting in Buffalo). So... can we categorize Tarrant as a genius purely on his influence of [others] that follow him?
> I truly do not believe even 50% of people who claim to like Picasso actually like Picasso's paintings. I'm very confident the majority are people who say they do to fit into a group.
What happened to "assume good faith"? People assume everything others do now is for clout, or virtue signaling, or somehow disingenuous. It's fine not to like popular things without assuming everyone else is lying about liking it.
Exactly, truly appreciating art, or an artist requires coming across one or more pieces that really resonate with you (which is really a function of what's going on in your life, state of mind, mood, sensitivity, and general ability to engage with art, and in some cases understanding its historical context, within the art community and in the broader world).
Once that happens though it opens the door to appreciating other pieces.
I have experienced that same phenomenon with bands, where people say "X" is great and I hear a song and don't "get it" until I find some other song by them years later and it all sort of "clicks" in a way it originally didn't.
With that said, there are definitely people that try to say "I like X" to fit in. I just don't know about the 50% bit in the OP, but then again, 90% of statistics are made up.
BTW -- The Old Guitarist is on permanent display at the Art Institute of Chicago. It is wonderful in person if you haven't been yet.
A lot of any kind of popularity might work in this way, not just Art! Did people truly think that 70s hair looked incredible? You might enjoy the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who writes about these issues in depth. There is a reason mass media works.
On the other hand, there is a social context to style and taste - we grow up in a certain aesthetic environment, and may feel true attachment to that, although a large part of it because we grew up with it! So the two factors of authentic enjoyment and social influence don't necessarily need to be in conflict.
Finally, a lot of things are popular for the straightforward reason that large groups of people actually like them. It doesn't even mean they're good. I can't stand most of the best-seller novels personally, but enough people buy and read them. A "Live Laugh Love" piece is probably more popular household item than a given print from Picasso..
Edit: You might also be interested in checking out Rene Girard, with his theory of desire and mimicry. Why people might imitate high-brow tastes etc.
A huge part that is rarely discussed is the shift based on consumer demographics at the turn of the century. Academic/ salon paintings were extremely grand, time consuming and expensive, so they were out of reach for most people that weren't wealthy or royalty. The new growing middle class had an appetite for art but there was limited supply of things they could afford, also seen in the craft movement that was happening at the same time where consumers desired for something greater than soulless, mass produced factory goods. Art dealers filled the gap by adopting salon rejects which would in turn popularize the new impressionist styles that were counter to pieces you would see at salons. An academic painter like Bougereau would complete much fewer pieces over their career than someone like Picasso.
It’s not just what is on the canvas but what it entails in the midst of the world. One example is Massacre in Korea for instance [1]. Picasso was much more than a guy drawing on a canvas.
To expand on what a sibling comment suggested, the art world since the early 1900s has become defined by speculative trading, and some of those early artists were ultra-hyped, and their art has appreciated by millions-fold in the speculative art markets. Picasso is one of those ultra-hyped artists that was at the center of the initial FOMO fevers. Picasso is a good artist, but you have to wonder how, what, and whether Picasso would have painted if the art world didn't gain this feverish speculative dimension with Picasso at the center of it.
"the art world since the early 1900s has become defined by speculative trading, and some of those early artists were ultra-hyped, and their art has appreciated by millions-fold in the speculative art markets"
Not only that, but there's evidence[1][2] that the CIA secretly manipulated the public's perception of modern art in the cultural war against the Soviet Union.
Picasso was a pioneer, and this alone means he gets the kudos by default. Many pioneers didn't make the best content, but they were the first to introduce the world to that type of content, and just like Black Sabbath was no where near the best metal band, they will forever remain legends.
Exactly. I'm currently getting downvoted elsewhere for comparing crypto-bros to art enthusiasts.
Are some crypto technologies cool and useful? Sure.
Are some artworks nice to look at and/or thought provoking? Absolutely.
But some are just hyped by people who are all-in on it, without any actual merit. And convincing someone otherwise is like convincing a devout religious person that there's no god. No amount of convincing is going to change their mind because they're all-in.
If you say Picasso was a genius, then you're automatically accepted into a "smart" or "high class" or whatever group of people. If you criticize, then you're ostracized.
It's exhausting to criticize, because the arguments for are so lacking in any substance. You get arguments like "art is about art", "its subjective", and "there are lots of people who paint pretty pictures, but only one Picasso". All actual arguments from this thread, all completely lacking in substance. Another good one: "if you're talking about it then it must be good". Barf.
I truly do not believe even 50% of people who claim to like Picasso actually like Picasso's paintings. I'm very confident the majority are people who say they do to fit into a group.