Pablo Picasso, Gertrude Stein, 1905-6, oil on canvas, 100 x 81.3 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York). Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris.
As an art enthusiast, a writer and as a literature teacher, I must tell you that this video helps me to appreciate both Picasso and Stein a great deal more. Thank you.
There's all this fuss about the portrait not resembling her, but I think it does! And what a response from Picasso. I'm always amazed at how bold and self-assured these artists are... The question about the function of portraits was interesting. I tend to think of them as being a true-to-life reproduction of someone's likeness, but this piece challenges that thought for me. I'd say this is a portrait and a very good one - she looks solid and a bit formidable. That gaze is intense and I get a sense of someone purposeful. I'm glad she appreciated that as well.
Thank you for the insight! I am fascinated by Picasso's ability to reduce the body to simple masses - or as you rightfully said - creating the mask. Eerie and wonderful!
In my courses, I always ask my students to compare this painting to Renoir's Woman in a Straw Hat (1880,) to contrast the "prettiness" and light-heartedness of the Impressionist image with the darker, brooding quality that the Primitivism brings to the Stein portrait. I have to disagree that he doesn't capture a likeness though--I think he manages an interesting balance between a portrait that is still recognizably Stein, but ALSO a mask-like abstraction.
So what is the purpose to make the mask-like abstraction? Why does a portrait need any abstraction? Why a portrait failed the simple goal of likeness be considered most well represented by the model herself. I just can't get it. Clearly it's a new style . But what's the point of a new style which goes far away from tradition and can't be understood by most people of the world? I think they were a group of people trying to make something which is just different for different sake and make money of it.
Sounds much to me he was not invested in the portrait. To me it feels like he wanted to continue studying the sculptures and just gave some excuses to finish de portrait.
This is painting is not realistic painting it is OK but you will never compare as master painting. His style is OK but the colour is not the best is so basic like new painter
As an art enthusiast, a writer and as a literature teacher, I must tell you that this video helps me to appreciate both Picasso and Stein a great deal more. Thank you.
You are the greatest
There's all this fuss about the portrait not resembling her, but I think it does! And what a response from Picasso. I'm always amazed at how bold and self-assured these artists are...
The question about the function of portraits was interesting. I tend to think of them as being a true-to-life reproduction of someone's likeness, but this piece challenges that thought for me. I'd say this is a portrait and a very good one - she looks solid and a bit formidable. That gaze is intense and I get a sense of someone purposeful. I'm glad she appreciated that as well.
Thank you for the insight! I am fascinated by Picasso's ability to reduce the body to simple masses - or as you rightfully said - creating the mask. Eerie and wonderful!
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Sense of gravity. nails it!
Muito interessante, obrigada 😍🥰
amazing
In my courses, I always ask my students to compare this painting to Renoir's Woman in a Straw Hat (1880,) to contrast the "prettiness" and light-heartedness of the Impressionist image with the darker, brooding quality that the Primitivism brings to the Stein portrait. I have to disagree that he doesn't capture a likeness though--I think he manages an interesting balance between a portrait that is still recognizably Stein, but ALSO a mask-like abstraction.
So what is the purpose to make the mask-like abstraction? Why does a portrait need any abstraction? Why a portrait failed the simple goal of likeness be considered most well represented by the model herself. I just can't get it. Clearly it's a new style . But what's the point of a new style which goes far away from tradition and can't be understood by most people of the world? I think they were a group of people trying to make something which is just different for different sake and make money of it.
@@piaoingrou // Maybe it was done to be different, but this painting still looks dope. I think the 90 sittings to make it happen reflect that
I don’t see Matisse in any of this.
Anyone here after getting obliterated by the Picasso passage in the AAMC QPack 1 ? (MCAT CARS practise passage for those who don't know)
Doctors who study art history are better doctors. :)
Stein's exaggerating. Picasso was a fast painter. He could have re-started the portrait many times and it still would not have taken 90 sittings.
Sounds much to me he was not invested in the portrait. To me it feels like he wanted to continue studying the sculptures and just gave some excuses to finish de portrait.
Iberian + african art
This is painting is not realistic painting it is OK but you will never compare as master painting. His style is OK but the colour is not the best is so basic like new painter
stop embarrassing yourself