Pablo Picasso

Approval Rate: 61%

61%Approval ratio

Reviews 31

Sort by:
  • by

    markowiczfinea_rt

    Thu Oct 14 2010

    Lithographic posters of Pablo Picasso from the Mourlot Estate at Markowicz Fine Art

  • by

    gris2575

    Sat Nov 21 2009

    I once saw a T-shirt that said "Great art isn't supposed to match your sofa." To many, perhaps the majority (?) art is about looking good, and if that is what it means to you, than great, go out and purchase that Bob Ross. But truly good Art is supposed to touch people on a higher plane. It is supposed to reach them on a personal, emotional level and really move them. It is subjective, relying on ones personal moods and Attitudes. It is philosophical, relating to the Nature of art, rather than on what is known in the mind, but distinct from itself. It is the substance that is essential, which can go far beyond what you see. With the invention of the camera, many felt that paintings would become obsolete. The art world reacted to that by making paintings go beyond the mere Subject matter. Movements like Surrealism, Impressionism and Abstract came into popularity because camera's couldn't do what the artist could. (With the help of computers they now can, but that is entirely beside th... Read more

  • by

    colleen_249

    Tue Mar 24 2009

    love it!! the color the pattern the space

  • by

    taffygirl

    Sun Mar 08 2009

    not real crazy about this one..

  • by

    twansalem

    Thu Jan 15 2009

    After reading a couple of reviews below, I feel like offering my admittedly very simplistic view on art (and music, since for me it follows the same guidelines). Art and music should be appealing. No matter how technically challenging it may be, how talented the artist may have to be to have created the work, if the work isn't appealing, I don't see much worth in it. Picasso was extremely talented, but the finished products usually look ridiculous. People who study art will ridicule a painter like Bob Ross, but if you give me the choice between a Picasso and a Bob Ross painting to hang on my wall (let's assume I'm not allowed to sell it, because then of course I'd go with the Picasso $$$), I'd take the Bob Ross painting in a second, because it just looks good. And since previous reviewers have already compared art to music, I am (or maybe more like was) a fairly decent amateur concert and jazz trombonist, having played first chair second trombone in my college concert band, and lead... Read more

  • by

    victor83

    Thu Jan 15 2009

    Have to agree with twan here. I never cared for this stuff, no matter how "cultured" it is supposed to be. Tastes vary.

  • by

    cyclee

    Thu Jan 15 2009

    I'm not very artistic when it comes to painting but here is just my 2 cents on how I evaluate arts. When you talk about arts with someone who doesn't have the knowledge, they can judge it best by how appealing it looks (sounds, tastes). The most suitable opinions they can possibly give is either I like it, or I don't. They shouldn't be saying whether it's a good piece or art or it isn't. While I have never studied the subject of painting in my whole life, I can now say that his arts don't appeal to me, unless they're on my wall. Yes that modernist, edgy look is awesome on a wall for some reason, but by itself it looks senseless to me. Now, as sort of an artist in music myself, I take the same approach to examine a painting like how I would with a piece of music. There are many modern music composers who, if you listen to them, are the musical versions of Picasso. Yes, Picaso is a leader. His place in art is equivalent to those of Schoenberg (inventor of 12-tone) and various minimalis... Read more

  • by

    fitman

    Thu Jan 15 2009

    "The 'refined', the 'rich', the 'professional do nothing', the 'distiller of quintessence' desire only the peculiar, and sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. And I myself, since the advent of cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my head. The less they understood, the more they have admired me! ...Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand meaning of the word. ...I am only a public clown, a mountebank. I have understood my time and exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But, at least, and at last, it does have the merit of being honest." - Pablo Picasso

  • by

    irishgit

    Wed Jan 14 2009

    Brilliant, no matter which period of his art is looked at. Challenging, intelligent always interesting. I have to love the comment I read somewhere below that he represents anti-art, and "cannot be understood by the average person." That kind of ignorance typifies the worst of American culture, the element that says that unless something appeals to the lowest common denominator it is not good, the kind that pushes John Grisham over James Ellroy because he's easier to read, or INXS over Los Lonely Boys because they're cuter and simpler. You may want to live in a world of bland aspiring to be mediocre, in a culture that fears to challenge, that does not ask you to think, but I sure as hell do not.

  • by

    starktruth

    Wed Jan 14 2009

    Pablo, Pablo, Pablo... you are so misunderstood... A Master at your classical craft, and then you go and jump into the deep end of the pool to create ART! Ah... that we should all have imagination such as this! To understand the why... is to understand the how. Brilliant!

  • by

    molfan

    Mon Jan 12 2009

    i know he is very famous for this type of painting. not a fan of it. never really liked that jigsaw painting. I feel like I want to correct it.

  • by

    trebon1038

    Sat Nov 15 2008

    have yet to figure this guy out

  • by

    jimiparkes

    Fri Nov 14 2008

    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/

  • by

    sandybaby123

    Mon Nov 03 2008

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

  • by

    fb1473765476

    Fri Sep 26 2008

    DEpèn. Té obres mestres i vertaderes bírries

  • by

    victor571

    Thu Apr 24 2008

    YEYE

  • by

    genghisthehun

    Sat Mar 22 2008

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

  • by

    sissyb

    Wed Jan 18 2006

    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!!!

  • by

    capanson

    Sun Jul 25 2004

    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.

  • by

    kolby1973

    Mon Feb 16 2004

    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...

  • by

    ladyshark4534

    Sat Dec 13 2003

    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.

  • by

    underspin

    Fri Aug 15 2003

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

  • by

    president_x_d

    Fri Aug 08 2003

    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.

  • by

    moosekarloff

    Thu Aug 07 2003

    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... Read more

  • by

    brokenwing

    Tue Jul 15 2003

    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.

  • by

    sarahj

    Tue Apr 01 2003

    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.

  • by

    trishbn5

    Sun Feb 23 2003

    Ugly art from a Communist.

  • by

    worthog

    Wed Jan 22 2003

    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.

  • by

    bb3fan

    Mon Jul 29 2002

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

  • by

    castlebee

    Fri May 04 2001

    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. ... Read more

  • by

    wiggum

    Wed May 02 2001

    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/move... Read more

This topic is on the following list(s)

Add to new list