Guernica II
 

If you happened to be watching any of yesterday's coverage of the U.N. Security Council as they dealt with N. Korea's alleged nuke test, you may have noticed a large tapestry reproduction of Piccaso's famous Guernica painting as the various talking heads marched to their designated talking head spot. It was really surreal to see these U.N. officials walk in front of perhaps the most visceral artistic expression of war ever produced in the 20th century.

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/a...s/guernica.jpg

You may recall that when Colin Powell made his case for Iraq II at the U.N., they covered Guernica up. Both the left and right still argue about the motivations for doing so then, but you could see it yesterday, and "ironic" is too weak a word to describe the effect. Maybe John Bolton will choose to speak in front of a Thomas Kinkade painting.:neutral:

I read John Bolton as more of a Mondrian man, myself. All straight lines, only a couple of differnt colors, no curves, no greys, everything literally colored inside the lines.

Thanks for explaining what that hideous piece of crap is suppose to represent. :vomitblu:

You're welcome.

I like it.

It's the ONLY Picasso of that phase of his which I like.

You really have to see the original, Bruce. It is more than life size. Do you know what happened at Guernica? On April 27, 1937, Adolf Hilter’s air force bombed the Basque village of Guernica for target practice. It was a market day. Approximately 1,654 people were murdered and 889 injured. (Statistics from an article about the painting.) Maybe this painting makes more sense to a resident of Bagdad. I wonder how many of them think we are less barbaric than the Germans.

I don't like Picasso's work. As a matter of fact I dislike it so much, I won't even say anything nice about it to get laid.

I've been told by art "experts", I would like it if I understood it, but I contend if it doesn't explain itself, it, and the artist, are not doing their job.

I also feel the art "experts" would sell you their kids drawings off the refrigerator, for a whole lot of money and with a straight face, if they could.

The bottom line is what Kirk said, "Art is what you can get away with". :cool:

Yeah, and in the end, "value" is what you can get some schmuck to pay for something. I do not like "modern art" and I agree that much of it (especially the so-called performance art) is a scam. But THIS particular painting has always had an impact on me. Compared to the "classical" painters and their posed battlefields, this work is wrenching, tragic. It is agony and horror, it is not supposed to be pretty.

Art
 

"I don't like Picasso's work. As a matter of fact I dislike it so much, I won't even say anything nice about it to get laid."

Well, Bruce, I suppose you don't like Art Blakey, Jimmy Smith, or any other Jazz artists either. Maybe you like Kenny G., however. It takes IMAGINATION to appreciate the abstract, in all areas of art. Abstract Expressionism is just one genre of many, but don't throw the baby out with what you think is all bathwater.

"I contend if it doesn't explain itself, it, and the artist, are not doing their job."

That statement certainly indicates your "understanding" of art. Are you saying you ONLY like representational art? If so, that's kind of sad, because that's the only kind of art that "explains" itself.

That said, I still think my statement about Guernica is valid.

One of my favorite paintings of his, was not until I saw it in person.

We have become so used to death & destruction rained upon us from afar, we have perhaps forgotten the impact that Guernica made.

This was the *first* time ( ie it had *never* happenned before) that a town, rather than a military target, had been comprehesively and deliberately attacked from the air. Think of it as the 9\11 of the time, and you might begin to appreciate the impact, and how the concept of aerial bombardment of civiian population centres changed the world

... and to my mind, Picasso captured that pain, horror and sheer frustration to perfection.

True
 

Indeed.

Analogy
 

Hey Big V.

Your Mondrian analogy is great. Really. You get an A. And I LOVE that painting. However, it's hard to say those Bolton attributes are good or bad; probably both.

A friend of mine noted Bolton's terse style...it annoyed him. For me, the jury is still in deliberation.

The educated international community understands the power of Picasso's 'Guernica' . Or should . I am afraid that you sound trite , JayMcGee .

I have been to Guernica . Guernica is a town in Spain , a town in Euskadi too . Depends on which side you are on .

For the people of Guernica who have been advertised around the world by that great artist and ....money-mongering advertiser Picasso , the true symbolic sadness is the death of a particular ancient tree which represented the Basque identity . That tree died about twenty years ago from a tree sickness .

And do not forget that Basque identity means rivers of blood . It is nonsense to weep over Picasso's 'Guernica' . And it is really crap anyway . Who understands Picasso ? Yanks seeking culture have to say they understand . What , a load of upside-down faces in some sort of weird loooooooong dr

...awing ?

Most real art critics (which is what we all are believe it or not) will tell you that it doesn't matter what the painting meant to the artist, it only matters what it means to you.

If it means something, then appreciate it for that. If it means nothing, then move on to the next one.

And yeah, some galleries would sell a childs painting for a million bucks if they thought they could get away with it, but if someone's silly enough to pay money for something because someone else tells them they should then more fool them in my opinion.

That's just so the artist can't embarrass them by telling them they're wrong. ;)

lol...perhaps. But again, who cares? The viewer can't be expected to 'feel' the same way as the painter can they? Even if they know what the artist meant, they still might 'feel' differently about it.

Ya got me, I didn't know Picasso played jazz. I IMAGINE a pompous asshole, dictating what art (and music) everyone should like and if they don't agree, they're ignorant, uncouth, uneducated, unappreciative, street rabble. It indicates I understand enough to not be duped into extolling the virtues of crap, to try and convince the other pompous assholes, I'm cultured enough to be worthy of their acceptance. I think your statement is valid, too.
You see those of us that are not pompous assholes, understand that art is personal and accept that other people will have their own view, without accusing them of not understanding, not having imagination and having an opinion unworthy of consideration.
I don't care if you like it, whereas you've shown you care that I don't. :eyebrow:

Pompous Asshole Responds
 

What I care about is responding to a rather simplistic, defiinitive declaration that a particular work of art is a "piece of crap." That's not expressing an opinion, and it certainly is not even an attempt to say WHY you think it is a "piece of crap." I would much rather be a pompous asshole than a person who just delcares things "crap" (or a piece thereof) without saying why. And you obviously must have cared to some extent that I elevated the painting to such historical importance (curiously, I never really declared that it was "good" or that I even I liked it) or you wouldn't have reacted so...well, succinctly. :rolleyes:

Besides, I'm actually not that pompous. I'm a high school dropout who worked 10 years of shite jobs before I decided to go to college. I didn't live under a bridge, but I did live in a boarding house and ate hot dogs out of an electric teapot. While in college, I happened to get interested in art and spent a lot of time studying it. I like art and I like discussing it.

Peace :sniff:

Yes it is.

no, it's a cop-out, HappyMoney.

And indicative not only of a lack of analytical skills, but also of the lack of language skills

Sorry. I was aware that I was posting on a predominately American board. I may well have over-compensated...

My apologies.

.... oh, and thanks for the Geography lesson..... without that, I would never have put 2 and 2 together and realised that Geurnica, bombed during the Spanish Civil war, was in Spain.

I agree, most of the stuff in the Guggenheim is shit to me...don't know why, I really like a lot of modern art. Their collection just leaves me cold.

But it is an opinion.

The brush-work on that painting is so exciting... it is amazing.

A pompous attitude does not require money or storied background.

Back in post seven I said; That condescending attitude, that my opinion is of no value because I have not been properly educated, which is self evidenced by the fact I don't like the painting, sets me off, unless I happen to be in a verrrry good mood.

When you followed the same vein, I was not in a good mood.

Why is it crap? Because it's ugly, hideous even. When I hear people extol Picasso's virtues, well, that of his work, I'm reminded of snake oil salesmen.

That said, I admit I over reacted and apologize for that. :comfort:

Subjectivity
 

All you have to do is use "I think" before "it's ugly," and then you not only have an opinion, you acknowlege the intrinsic subjectivity of both the reception and criticism of art. Nonetheless, I appreciate your apology and hope you don't always mistake my own opinions as pomposity.:neutral:

OK. Now I WILL be pompous. Mondrian extensively used gray, especially in his rectilinear color studies. But the Bolton analogy still holds. I would still, however, rather look at ANY Mondrian painting than look at Bolton. He strikes me as a real dickwad.

It's unfortunate that I have never seen the actual painting, only reproductions in books and on posters. Brushwork, as you note, is a key aspect of so many paintings; if you get up really close to, say, a Van Gogh, or even a Rothko, you realize that it's actually a three-dimentional expression.

Art is intended to evoke a reaction. Dislike is a reaction.

Although, it must be said, dislike is the easiest reaction to evoke.

Also the hardest, which confuses everything.

indeed, it is so, Grasshopper.....

Any statement on art (by anyone) the preceding "I think" is understood, unless you're quoting someone.
If you find 10 people who like a painting, all you've got is 10 opinions. That doesn't make it a good painting, only a more salable one.

I'll go so far as to include art "critics" and "experts" in having only opinions, too. They may be able to give you 49 reasons why they have that opinion, but those reasons are opinions too.

Pompous doesn't come from having an opinion, or even disagreeing with someone else's. Pompous is discrediting someones education, mental ability/IQ, background, social status, imagination, etc, if their opinion doesn't agree with yours. ;)

Kincaid(sp?) sure as hell does that with me.

Thank you for the compliment, Pangloss62.

Today is Picasso's birthday! He'd be 125 if he weren't dead.

The whole point about brushwork is that it is designed to be seen from afar , Pangloss . You miss the point if you look at the brushwork .