have yet to figure this guy out

Pablo Picasso was a fascinating character. Like his art he was complex and full of contradictions. Pablo Picasso was a self avowed communist. However, Picasso was also one of the world's wealthiest artists, leaving his heirs an estate valued at $260 million ($1.5 billion in 2008 dollars) when he died in 1973. Pablo Picasso once remarked, 'I like to live like a poor man, except with lots of money' Lol! Cheers, Jimi

http://www.free-art-images.com/

i think he is a very good artist and very creative so talented

DEpèn. Té obres mestres i vertaderes bírries

He was a great painter but not all of his stuff is first rate. He produced many stinkers but the suckers buy them anyhow.

Pablo Picasso was an amazingly talented artist who painted with his mind. He was a leader not a follower! He did what he wanted, not caring if anyone liked it or not. Many people don't like his art but that is because they don't understand it! He was a very complex and talented artist! He is an inspiration to me. He has taught me to reach out and try different styles of art. Everyone has their own opinion on Pablo Picasso,positive or negative, but an opinion nonetheless. I think he an amazingly talented artist no matter what anyone says!!!

Invented a whole new genre of painting.. because he didn;t have any talent.. Look at his early stuff.. I looks like something an art major at any college would do.. so he made this abstract intellectually elite crap and called it new. blech.

A very good painter, but pretty much worthless as a person...he was totally disgusting to women and that alone makes me lose any respect for him and his work. I wouldn't even hang a Picasso in my house if it was given to me free...as I could never afford one of his overrated pieces of work...no thanks...

I don't really care for him as an artist. I only liked two of his paintings. However, He used a very creative method. Cubism is very original and new. But it's too easy and non-challenging to me as a fellow artist. I want to look at something that takes work.

These five stars are for Guernica alone; my personal all-time favorite piece of art. Simply too many masterpieces for one person's lifetime!

Destructive non-art. This person proved that any fool can scribble on canvas and call it "painting" or erect a blob and call it "sculpture". Picasso is only appreciated by self-styled "intellectuals"; the reason averge folk don't understand it is because there is NOTHING to understand! Thanks to Picasso, non-art is the norm within museums and beautiful, life-embracing images are almost non-existant. Modern art is anti-art.

When the final definitive history of 20th century art is written, this guy will be crowned as the greatest artist of his epoch, whether he deserves it or not. The sheer volume of his work, the enduring length of his career, the tremendous influence he exerted on the art of his time puts him in a class by himself. By taking the breakthrough concepts developed by Cezanne just 20 years earlier (i.e., the rediscovery of geometrical valence in visual reality, seeing the world in terms of the circle, square, etc.) and intensifying those rediscovered forms by placing multiple images of the same simultaneously in one visual field in an attempt to define how objects rest in space, Picasso established his famous cubist grid, and modern art followed his lead for the next 35+ years until Pollock came along and topped the Master. Picasso's furthering of Cezanne's approach was the first truly dramatic advance in the definition of pictorial space since the Renaissance, and this discovery would set the tone before Pollock showed how the visual ambiguities of abstract pictorial space didn't need a cubist grid at all. Picasso continues a tradition of earlier modernism in that his work isn't really about the suggestion of the concrete world, rather, his work is about the technical aspects of art, the material, conceptual and mechanical problems of painting: this concern becomes the central theme of visual art in the later 20th century, and Picasso is a seminal turningpoint figure in this ethos. Even if one were to ignore Picasso's contribution to the abstract medium (though I can't see how one could do this), the draftsmanship, control of palette and application, the evocative setting of mood and tone displayed in his early Blue and Rose periods indicate an artist of first order. Honestly, this guy should be ranked much higher on this list, as he is a far superior artist than essentially all of his contemporaries rated above him.

Picasso was great at what he did! He evoked lots of emotion, both positive and negative, with his art. "The Rape Of The Sabine Woman" is one of the most saddest paintings I have ever seen. "Guernica" is even more depressing.

Picasso was the gateway to true modern art. His painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is considered the birth of modern art, which influenced many of the other great modern painters. Art doesn't need to be perfectly and accurately represented images to be beautiful; art is intended to invoke a mood to the viewer. The comment by President X-D makes it painfully obvious that he is one of those people that thinks art only exists in pretty little pictures that can be easily conceptualized. And this coming from a guy who thinks Jennifer Love Hewitt is so wonderfully talented. That's funny.

Ugly art from a Communist.

What Picasso did was very inventive. I don't believe he tried to create beauty. While the impressionests changed color and texture, Picasso changed line and composition. In a way, he is the father of modern cartooning. Homer Simpson's grandfather. But, from what I've read, Picasso was a major jerk and probably deserves all the criticism.

No one ever knew what his purpous of drawing monster look-a-like paintings was!

Picasso's long life gave him the opportunity to be involved with, influence, inspire or help create nearly every artistic movement in the 20th century. While I can appreciate his importance and understand certain aspects of his great influence, on a purely personal level, I don't really care much for his work. I even find much of it to be kind of disturbing and strangely irritating. I think there are reasons for the way I feel that go beyond my perception as a lack of visual appeal. The way I see it, no matter what the artist intends his or her work to be or whatever they believe is happening when they create it - be it a revelation of their soul, the telling of a story or the fulfillment of some kind of grand historical mission, whatever - the fact remains that art always serves as some kind of reflection of the time in which it was created. It can't help doing this any more than the fashions of the time can help eventually becoming icons of the era in which they first existed. Oh, sure styles may be imitated and reworked, but you can always see a difference when you compare it to the original. All that to say, that I really feel my lack of attraction to Picasso's work - and twentieth century art as a whole - has more to do with the changing climate in the world during the time in which he painted. The 20th century saw such rapid changes and a combination of industry, two world wars, and the changing ideals that followed them took a big toll on how humans perceive the world. Suddenly it seemed to have a much harder, self-involved and impersonal, even somewhat clinical edge. Along with many other artists, Picasso's paintings reflect much of this kind of feeling for me. I see the inevitability of change and of what came to pass and would not have wanted to remain in the 19th century if that were even possible. Even so, and it may be caused by a sense of denial or fear, on some level I find much of the changes in the modern world very unattractive and even repelling. So, while I can appreciate most art to a point and easily recognize the many trails Picasso blazed - I'm just not interested in traveling very far down those particular paths.

I was in Barcelona a few years ago, and I stopped by the Picasso Museum. Up until then I wasn't a big Picasso fan, but it was absolutely amazing to discover how talented this guy was, even as a teenager. The paintings he did in his mid-teens were so life-like and detailed they were almost like photographs. Then, as you walked through the Museum and traced the evolution of his work over time, you could see him becoming more and more experimental and ground-breaking. Sometimes I look at modern art and wonder if it really takes much talent to create it. Walking through the Picasso Museum, I realized that Picasso's growth into more modern art (from the blue period to cubism and onward) truly came from a desire to push boundaries and represent new ideas visually, not from an inability to paint in a different way. Believe me, check out Picasso’s early work and you'll agree that this guy could have painted any way he wanted. The fact that he was able to create his own unique style/movement is amazing. I also got a kick out of the raunchy pen-and-ink drawings he did as an old man. The guy was certainly eccentric, but his genius is difficult to deny.