The quotation below, at the close of my treatise, is one of Picasso's thoughtful self-examinations, where he apologetically questions his own motives throughout his career, especially from the Cubist Period and thereafter. It seems that he was astute at understanding the workings of society, and the role that the "refined, rich, unoccupied" collectors of art play in creating fame and acceptance of the new, odd, and strange genres in art. They, as well as the gallery promoters of the "newest" and the "latest", who sanction the approval , importance, and public acceptance of what they wish the public to latch onto and purchase as serious art. This propells certain artists to stardom. It's an economic game where the winners are those promoters. It's a hoax, perpretrated on the public for self gain.
This has led us, both artists and the establishment, to buy into the idea that the only good art is an art that has a new twist on it, a gimmick so to speak. Artists of earlier centuries became important because of their insightful expression of people and the universe, e.g. Michelangelo, Da Vinci . They toiled to perfect their vision, equipped with artistic , usually academically schooled, abilities, and ther vision, and their passion.
As an example, I've often told the story of how Christo's "great" work was received at the University of Michigan's Art Museum upon its arrival for an exhibition.. College students were working on staff when a chair was delivered. The chair was wrapped in paper secured with rope. The students proceded to unwrap the chair, thinking the wrapping was to protect the chair in transit. Cristo's art is actually that he wrapped the chair! Take a look at the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo_and_Jeanne-Claudeas an explanation of what these two artist were about:
"The artists create these imaginative and striking works for their beauty and magic and to make people see the artwork's environment in new ways. They work with city, state and federal officials for years to get permission to make their projects. And, they hire a team of permanent workers as well as hundreds of temporary workers to make their artistic visions a reality." (from a radio broadcast.) The couple has worked on many other projects that involve wrapping buildings or monuments. For example, in nineteen sixty-eight they covered the Kunsthalle in Bern, Switzerland with three thousand meters of rope and over two thousand square meters of plastic. The museum remained wrapped for one week. About a year later, they wrapped the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, Illinois in a brownish green plastic. The artists decided this color would look striking against the surrounding snow.
But my position is"who cares?.
You can read more about these two "artists??? and draw your own conclusions http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2008-10-28-voa1-83139372.html
Anyone who knows Pablo Picasso's early paintings knows of his profound talent in expressing a meaningful idea, a touching scenario, a depth of concept. Take a look at his Blue Period, and his Rose Period. Where did he then get derailed? Was it the deliberate plan of his in collaboration with the "salesmen " of the art world who chose to make a living off the work of this talented, gifted, artist? And how better to keep their attention and the attention of the public, than by Picasso's constant innovation, whether worthy or unworthy of their attention. I imagine things evolved slowly, to the point where this master showman, magical inventor of the "new", continued to use his skills as a producer of the absurd to achieve fame and fortune.
SEE HIS COMMENTS FOLLOWING MY OWN.
So now consider the fame of various "pop artists" who emerged in the 1950's, and how the "sales machine", as I call it, grabbed onto it and sold us all on its merit as"POP ART" in describing its own times. Think of Van Gogh who had little success with his artwork in his lifetime, but speaks volumes about man's existence and about nature in every piece of his work. Compare the merit of these 20th century artists to VINCENT VAN GOGH'S prowess as an important artist.
It has to leave us wondering whether novelty is indeed art. Must an artist paint something so new and bizarre to gain approval as a "wonder"? To be awarded financially in any competition because his work is different? Must he seek a kernel of "different"ness to become acclaimed in today's art circles, those lions who shape public opinion? Or can his mere power of expression preclude such silliness to shout his greatness, his vision, the power of his artistic insight?
NOW READ THIS BY PICASSO: CLICK ON IT TO ENLARGE IT FOR EASIER READING.