I always meant to paint, but life kept stepping in the way. Now, in retirement, I’m starting at last-not chasing praise or profit, but the pleasure of learning and simply enjoying the act. Vanity no longer interests me; peace and joy are enough.
I joined an oil painting class several years ago and had the pleasure of encountering a fellow student who'd spent her life working as a catering assistance - she had left school at 14. This 'mature' lady was just a natural, not only could she draw, she had a facility to mix colours to produce the sort of paintings one might expect an art college student to produce. It was wonderful to see her progress and grow in her realisation that she too might attend an art college. I suspect she may have gone into teaching because she had a way of explaining technique in a simple way; it was because of her that I managed to take home paintings that were not too shabby and could be given to family as gifts. There are people who have never had the opportunity to develop their artistic skills and share their work with others. I hope your art blossoms in a way that you find satisfying and can share with others. Best of luck!
If you ever need any help, please feel free to reach out to me. I used to teach art to mainly younger students but I have a soft spot for people who retired and want to take up art. I can help you with achieving your artistic goals faster.
I really enjoyed your presentation, I have to say I knew all about what you were talking about because I’ve been an artist since 1987 and I’ve been through every aspect that the experience offers and read very widely. But it’s good for people to hear this now. Modernists always pretended that people like Picasso just sprung into the world as geniuses full-fledged, but sadly this is BS. His father was a classical art teacher and taught him everything and I have seen plenty of young teenagers who could paint as well as him who had had classical educations (I spent three years full-time at a classical art school in Sydney Australia.) What art schools don’t prepare you for is the cruel reality of an art scene absolutely saturated with keen newly minted artists both amateur and with BA’s, and entering into the most convoluted intellectual world you could ever be expected to navigate. I was completely unaware of post-modernism until I did a masters degree and my god what a shock that was. I realised that I was already obsolete before I even started. (not to mention being classified as male pale and stale, sexism racism and ageism carefully mixed into a intellectual soup and fed to generations of high school students to prepare them for the brave new world ahead. Delightful people who come up with things like that, just human gems!) I was certainly offered a chance- I was clearly told that if I said yes to all the theories and stayed close to the university art school then I had a chance. We were all told in our theory classes that it wasn’t at all about geniuses struggling in garrets any more. It was about being connected to the institutions of power. And of course I, being a idealistic idiot, was too proud to do that. I had no money and no wealthy family to support me or good social connections. The art world is not dedicated to finding the best and most wonderful art to promote. My experience of it was that it was an incredibly nepotistic system, jobs for the boys and girls of the elite mostly, we had a cynical saying that the hand of God would come down on a particular artist and they would be raised up to wealth and some fame, at least for a season. For the rest of us, we were just down in the pit making paintings for nothing, hoping to please somebody with money or status. It’s an extremely depressing life. I walked away from it all years ago and I wish that I walked away from it as soon as I left Art School and became an engineer or something useful where I could make decent money regularly. Weirdly the emergence of AI and instant masterpieces is giving me some hope. I think that we real artists could have a chance of being finally recognised, as people are rapidly fatigued by the tricks of the machine. That’s my fond hope. It is probably as absurd as all my other Bohemian dreams but hey dreams are free aren’t they. I hope I cheered somebody up.😅 (well I better leave on a positive note - I don’t regret all the painting and drawing I did because it was all sincerely spiritual and psychological and represented years of deep thinking and study. The fact that nobody else really gave a toss means less now to me than it did. I’m starting to see the bigger picture as I’m getting old and I feel like I didn’t waste my life. I no longer have the anger that I used to about the art world and the great scam of it. It’s pretty much a criminal money laundering scam at the top so why bother about it, criminals will be criminals. Art is worth it. If you can afford the sacrifice, it leads you into some very surprising places as a person. Maybe an AI will become my patron someday soon?)
A very bitter truth ,but that’s reality,the zeitgeist of the day will determine your success, and as you said male,pale and stale is not it right now( I fall into the same category) so I paint what’s important to me ,wether that’s landscapes,seascapes or portraits,making art for others ,I feel ,is a fools errand,I do art for ME
2:53 Just because skill alone doesn’t make you famous doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it. Treating skill and creativity as opposites is a false dilemma skill should work together with creativity, and art is rooted in creativity
Good comment. Also, what is "skill"? To craft what has never in likeness been crafted before, but is not just random garbage - is this not the epitome of skill? Skill in reproduction is a lesser skill.
@Meph00sall art is abstract. If you copy a photo it isn’t abstract but as soon as it comes FROM the mind it’s abstracted. To copy a photo is skill but the skill of a person trying to be a machine.
@Two-fistedMysticArtbyHuman that's reaching and stretching a definition. The point of replication is accuracy, the point of abstraction is interpretation without accuracy as the main driver
This is an incredible simplification and partial misunderstanding, according to which realistic painting is better than anything else. I love Matisse and his colorful paintings and would not exchange them for "well-painted" realistic images. To say that he or some other artists did what they did only because of seeking fame and status is nonsense. On the other hand, I agree that there is a lot of nonsense in contemporary art.
I like that they stepped outside the box and painted from their imagination. I don't need pictures of trees in my home...I see them when I look out the window or go for a walk. After awhile you want to see something new. I painted my own abstract painting as a kid just because, I'm no artist but it made me realize art shouldn't be cookie cutter.
I am inclined to agree with you when she gets towards the end and conclusions or generalizations. I think the point is not so much about realism, but for the rest of us to understand that abstract art does not come out of an inability to observe, or lack of skill and technique. Also to look at successful artists, and then conclude the trajectory of their work is all about success is sort of false Darwinism applied to a complex issue.
I think it may be that people accept the art of the masters as 'good', even when one's reaction say something different. I really like Matisse and the fauvist school. It was original and interesting. With Picasso, I always found a disconnect between his later work and his early work. I didn't mind the later work, but much of it is ugly (subjective judgment of course). It was about Picasso's fame, not his art. Although cubism was original, it possibly was motivated by a commercial decision. Who knows? The point is, not to accept art just because it touted as 'fabulous' or original or by a master. Rather, go to your own interpretation . That is what art is supposed to be. Like cubism or loathe it, you have had a response - and art is meant to elicit that at the very least.
Picasso was an artist who literally painted 1000's of paintings and 10's of thousands of other works. There is no evidence that he laughed all the way to the bank. This is just some notion you have based on nothing tangible. It's a lazy excuse not to actually do the work of learning what Picasso did, but just try to diminish him. Doing so doesn't make you any higher. Picasso revolutionized the direction of art many times in his long life. He deserves better than cheap insults.
I read that there is an art school in England that has the motto, "Success means being middle aged and obscure." I think that's true. Duchamp said that in the future the artist will go underground. That makes another good motto. I make tons of art myself and have been doing so since the 70s. It all tends toward the abstract or surreal. I couldn't care less about making money from art. I've shown my work at small, noncommercial galleries in my area and published in poetry/art journals that don't pay anything because they don't make any money. It's about love, not money.
I totally respect that approach, and I don’t doubt your sincerity. Making art purely out of love is a valid choice (I do that myself). Where I slightly disagree is when that mindset gets used to explain how art functions as a whole. Being obscure doesn’t automatically make work more honest, just like being visible doesn’t automatically make it less sincere. Artists like Duchamp shifted into ideas, institutions, and theory, and ended up becoming hugely influential precisely because their work circulated and got taken seriously by the art world. I’m not saying art is only about money. It’s not, but artists had to deal with visibility once patronage ended. Some stayed underground, others engaged the system, and that choice determined what art we engage with today. Passion matters (especially in fields like art), but history is shaped by what gets shared and remembered.
@atria.artist I agree with that. I'm just speaking for myself, I don't think that there is anything wrong with engaging the system, in fact I quite admire Duchamp, Miro, Kandinsky, de Kooning, and quite a few other artists. But for myself, the art world is not something that I care to engage with in that way. But I'm not very competitive in any case. For me personally, art is just something I make because I can't help it. I like sharing it with others too but making a profession out of it is not something I care about. I don't mind if others do. I once did care about it a bit but not enough to really do much about it, I guess. As you know it is quite frustrating and for me it just isn't worth the frustration. And I agree that those that have engaged the system have shaped the current art world. Contemporary art is a very mixed bag; I've seen some things that I like and some that I don't but in general it seems to lack the sense of excitement that is present in art from the modernist period. My own work. a lot of which I think is pretty good and has been well received by editors and others (not that I've made more than $200 from it over my entire life), is, if I'm to be honest, derivative to some extent of the innovations which originated in the work of modern artists and poets. I try to put something original in it, but they were so ridiculously creative that it is a really hard act to follow. That probably explains the fact that postmodernism seems to be in the doldrums.
@atria.artist Picasso was academically skilled early on, but his teenage works were painfully mediocre despite exceptional technical mastery. His later work focused on exploration over realism as a way to move beyond mediocre excellence, and he succeeded. Throughout his career, Picasso actively produced multiples for the consumer market. He was a truly smart and ambitious entrepreneur.
Matisse and Kandinsky made beautiful paintings. I can look at their more abstract work and see that it is beautiful without needing theory to tell me so.
@RockerfellerRothchild1776Technology and patronage has always influenced art there is no argument about that, but summarizing all the innovation in the history of art from the time when artists (like the realists and impressionists) rebelled against the rigid academic standards of the salons right up to modernism as a cop-out for money/patronage brought on by the invention of photography is a simple and misinformed narrative.
And, possibly, pay his rent and food bills? Actually I expect he managed both, but I do wish the idealists who talk about painting for love would consider the realities. If you can do a day job and still have the energy to paint, that’s great. If you want to just paint, then probably you have to turn your hand to whatever puts a bit of money in your pocket, alongside the art you do just to please yourself, and for that you need technical skill as well as vision.
Picasso’s ability to transcend into different art movements is what I loved most about him. Most artists remain where they “sell”, which then limits who they are because they feel if they explore and venture way too outside, they lose their notoriety
Picasso was never content staying in one spot artistically. He was always trying to scratch an itch that could never be calmed. Look at the parallels between Picasso and Miles Davis. They never stayed put, always reaching beyond where they were.
@SM-ie8gn What is worse, emphasis of safety or one who is curious, engaging with ones own creativity and where it takes one? Many artistic movements reflect the history at the time. Dada was a reaction to the absurdity of War War 1. Artist felt betrayed by the death and destruction of war.
So what? Is it better if we get something new just for sake of getting something new? I don't think so. All the time things and concepts get reinvented and the result is often meh and worse than what we already had.
@Christopher_Giustolisi I bet if Picasso would be living today, and you showed him any of the works you quantified from your comment, he'll probably say the same thing over again, "it's not new." So what are the works you think makes it a "new work of art?" Or a "new technique?"
@steampunkster2023 Something that hasn't been done before counts as new. But my point is we don't need something new just so we have something new. There are plenty of new things artists did since the cave paintings. Maybe he just didn't know any better or he just said it to get attention, which was his primary goal anyway.
@Christopher_Giustolisi Quote: "Something that's hasn't done before counts as 'new'". You're transferring the burden of my question back to me. I understand the definition of 'new,' but I’m asking for your criteria. In a world where humans have been making art for 30,000 years, name one specific contemporary work that contains zero recycled concepts or techniques. What is your 'Gold Standard' for a new work?
@steampunkster2023 I gave you my criteria. Something that hasn't been done before. That could be anything. A new material or technique that hasn't been used for this purpose before or a modern application of old concepts. That means it's new but doesn't necessarly mean it's good or even worth doing. You just gave me your criteria. Contemporary work that contains zero recycled concepts or techniques. By that criteria the invention of the car wasn't anything new because wheels have been used for a long time and the computer wasn't new either because wires have been used for other applications before. Can you name one single thing that is new by your definition?
As an amateur artist who occasionally sells some work here and there, I am not a huge fan of purely abstract work. I do think that a good sense of design is necessary to produce abstract work which is pleasing to the eye, though, and that's not a talent I really have - I'm completely lost when trying to do something abstract because I simply don't know where to even start. I do very much admire the paintings Picasso produced throughout his various periods, though. It's very apparent, even in the cubist works, how refined his understanding of form was, and how he clearly had the perfect skill to capture that form, movement and emotion into realistic painting with a minimum of brushstrokes. I believe that anyone can learn to copy adequately, and can learn a certain amount of facility with practice, but the ability to truly capture something in just a few strokes does need a certain sort of genius. What Picasso did was build upon that in a way few other artists really did quite as well to my eye. He took those basics and sometimes simplified them to the point of minimalism, then recombined them in startling new ways. The understanding of those basics was always so apparent, though.
I am my own patron, working and painting 😊. Besides you have to put in the hard work, and find your style. Nowadays I think shocking yes , but "stealing" from others developing your style is the style. I love fauvism.
This is a sad reality in the art world; you have to paint what people would buy until recognition comes. And many times you get recognized for something you did not wanted to be related to.
The art world does it to themselves by continuing to play the game. It’s pathetic that to survive we have to toe the line of people who don’t create just because they run a front or distribute or curate etc…I refuse to play the game anymore.
Anna, I don't know if I can comment on the art itself but my comment on your video is that I enjoyed your analysis very much. I'm just a girl with a pencil, and I haven't done much with it for 68 years but listening to you and watching your expressive face, I had to take a few screenshots. Your life is well on its way to becoming wonderful. Oh, and please don't listen to any negative dribble about your opinions, your analysis. You are doing what you are meant to be doing and I give you a high five.
I disagree with 90% of what you say. The idea that the pioneering artists of the early 20th century were creating the type of art they did for the chance of fame and money is ridiculous. As most of them could have just fit in easily enough with the academy system instead of poverty, ridicule and being outcast. But they were driven uncinically to create art that seemed relevant for the time, a time when photography made realism seen redundant and industrialised war rendered obscene the idea of civilisation. The Dadaists particularly. Then there were the abstractionists who were often trying to show the invisible world, often embracing spirituality and theosophism. They weren't doing this for a career either. Of course there were also the Futurists who embraced the modern and the machine as a way to liberation. Some of them absolutely had an idea of their own fame and tried to make careers out of being mavericks, Picasso is one and Salvador Dali is another. I haven't read any for a long time but I'm pretty sure Baudrilliard wrote in the 1970s or 1980s by which time the idea of modernism and experimentation had become mainstream. The idea of just creating the most novel and the most shocking work was starting to get boring. So postmodernism was a reaction to the perceived failure of modernism at that time. But it's now 2026. Very few artists would make work just to be shocking. And total abstraction, realism & many varieties of art sit happily next to each other. Also, finally desperation and poverty do not lead to great art, not does pandering to the art Market.
Thank you for sharing these insights. My wife and I are both artists but we struggle with the same problem: recognition. It is especially difficult now with the market saturated with art on so many platforms. If an artist want to make it, they have to sell themselves as much as their art.
We are storytelling creatures. We connect with, and identify through, the 'universal' human story. One aspect of "compelling" is to invite your audience into your interesting perspective on life. What are the reasons you create; why did you make this piece; is there further/deeper context that they can tell their friends which is solely something only THEY might know (because YOU told them)? We all want to feel 'special' in some meaningful way. Let your art be a part of their unique life and they will cherish it.
Thanks for sharing. Totally, to be a great artist nowadays you need to be great at marketing 😅 most artists want to focus on creating art rather than self-promotion. It’s quite sad but that’s the reality. I do believe social media has created more opportunities for visibility, and the traditional path of connecting with local galleries still holds value. All the best to you and your wife on this journey!
This was a really, super-duper good video! I recently wrote about Picasso's Blue and Rose period - which have SO much work worth admiring - I wanted to continue with his Cubism period beginning with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon... but I found it frankly so boring, not even worth writing about (braque is at least better if one wishes to talk about Cubism) - from there it's like Picasso gets worse and worse. - I thought I was the only one who noticed!
P.P : "EVEN I WOULD DECLARE SPITTING OUT AS MY ART; PEOPLE WOULD BELIEVE IT. " PICASSO WAS VERY MUCH AWARE OF HOW HE FOOLED THE ART WORLD AND ESPECIALLY HIS COLLECTORS!
Thank you Anna! True art speaks for itself; a good image doesn't need much explanation, and any art lover has had this experience through contact with the art of great artists. Congratulations on the channel. Greetings from Portugal 🇵🇹
Lumping all contemporary art as "gimmicks" shows a bias that makes me wonder how often you go out and look at art in person. The world of contemporary art is vast. Just like there are skilled and unskilled classical/representational artists, the same is true of contemporary artist...many of which incorporate representational or figurative subjects into their works. The modern art movement ended quite some time ago. Contemporary art encompasses a wide range of styles and voices.
I had just sent an email to my art teacher saying that I wish I could sit down for a cup of tea with some of these artists and ask them why they moved from realistic to abstract styles when this video popped up in my feed. I guess utube reads my mail. Nice to find your channel. Self expression is a powerful motivator in humans.
Picasso era un genio. De muy joven siendo niño dominaba el estilo realista con escenas tradicionales y retratos, después pasa por diferentes estilos y diferentes etapas que le hacen innovar y salirse de lo convencional, cambiando drásticamente a un estilo abstracto y cubista del cuál es iniciador junto a G. Braque y le cambia la visión a los nuevos pintores, para terminar con un estilo único y desfigurado que no se había visto antes. Cuando ves obras de Picasso parece que se han hecho en la actualidad, no pasan nunca de moda y lo más llamativo es que sabes que son suyas porque no hay otro igual.
Such a Shallow description! Photorealism is not the only goal. Pablo learned to paint a different style of "well", one which ended up creating much more of an impact, much more interesting discussion🎨
The art world is pretty insane nowadays ,as being different is seen as a virtue in itself ,and skil and craft ,ignored . Most of the exhibitions in my city's main art gallery have left me cold and uninspired .
This was such a well done presentation that I had to subscribe. Just discovered you today. You came across my feed randomly, and I am glad you did. Thumbs up too.
I'm an artist myself, I know about all struggles and hardships since my studies/education 1980 - 1984. My "problem": I'm m not able to let craft alone and paint like an idiot. Enjoyed your excellent and true video.
I like your essay. Thank you for showing me this perspective of why artists who have impeccable skills of traditional paintings turn to another side of abstract paintings after many years later. I sat on my table and thought hard for such a discussion for a long period of time-- I came up with another conclusion: what if it's not about fame or money (though money is necessary if they wanted to live as an artist)-- what if it started with the idea that people who they have surrounded with for a long period of time have been cynically judging their art and skills and even with a slightest honest of remark that may praise their intelligence or their brilliancy have irked them that , if the masters themselves decided not to teach them further or they do not know where to study to perfect their arts any further, the only way to continue their passion and still work on their way is to discover something new, or create something new so that they could learn to break the norm. I mean the first thing that made them an excellent artist is because of their masters, or teachers who mold them to become of. But to become an excellency of their own, they had to break that cycle and become their own master/teacher and student themselves. That's probably why their arts stop at idealism but more into something abstract or avant garde, or experimental to discover a new art form of their own . Food for thought: when they come up with their own art form, do they intent people to copy or imitate them, or do they wish that it is something that couldn't be imitated of? .. is what I have on mind.
I have just discovered you. Your arguments are very well presented in an intelligent, articulate and thoughtful manner - based on common-sense. Your other videos are equally of good value - especially the video title: "not anything is art". I took up art in 2015 because I felt the need to express myself. I now see how difficult it is to be a "successful" artist. I strongly believe a "good" artist has to learn the basic skills of value, colour, edge and drawing. Just like a rock star playing an electrice guitar or jazz musician playing the saxophone or a figure skater dancing, they all have to have worked hard at basic skills. Once you have mastered basic skills, you then use those skills to "express" yourself creatively. In art there are two things: technical ability and artistic ability. Just as in figure skating there is Technical Score and Artistic Score. In painting you can have an artist who has great technical skill but the painting may appear flat and boring because he is merely rendering in detail and it lacks the creative, artistic flair and use of imagination etc. Then you have the artist who has great artistic skill in imagination, expression and poetry but he lacks on the technical aspect. Without learning the skills you cannot express yourself freely to paint whatever you want. If all you do is paint squares and shapes and spash in vulgar colours because that is all you can do, you are limiting yourself because you know you cannot do a figure or porttait. I hate all those who say you don't need basic skills - just expressing yourself is "good" art. I strongly disagree. How many who believe in this will buy music from musicians who did not put in the work to master playing the guitar, saxophone or piano will buy any of their music? A rock musician who cannot play the guitar because he was too lazy to study and master it, will not be able to produce top quality music. And yet, why is it when it comes to oil painting in art, we do not expect the same quality of hard work to master that trade? In the world of art, beauty is being murdered by modern artists who consider themselves to be artists by dumping faeces or garbage on the floor and calling it art. Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth. Both truth and beauty are inherent qualities of Divine Consciousness. Divine Consciousness can only be felt and perceived when our thoughts are still. Art is not merely a superficial and decorative addendum to Life but has an actual role and responsibility to play in society. It is important that as artists we do not hurt the spirit and mind with negative messages or discord but create art that inspires and elevates us to a higher level of consciousness. Artists who do not create beauty but create works that lower our vibrations to thoughts of ugliness, materialism, negativity, despair and hopelessness - is art that is going in the opposite direction to the higher state of majestic joy, beauty, peace and love of our true, Higher Spiritual Nature. Great music or great art is one that inspires and elevates our soul to feelings of joy, peace and beauty. The allusions is to those flashes of ecstatic illumination, of contact with a beautiful roseate reality which enfolds the material universe, that descend unexpectedly and leave a joyous or peaceful exaltation in their train. It lifts us above the mundane and the material and for that brief glimpse reminds us of our true spiritual home and nature. That is the true role of art. I have subscribed to your channel becuase you speak so intelligently. Thanks.
Thanks for subscribing and for such a thoughtful, detailed comment. It's clear we share similar views on the importance of skill and beauty in art. Art is a union of discipline and spirit. Learning the fundamentals of the craft is what actually gives you freedom to express yourself properly... looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts :)
@atria.artist I'm surprised you would look forward to hearing more of my thoughts after my embarrassingly, far-too long comment! :) I was hesitant in posting considering it was such a long post. I'm quite passionate in my personal views on art. If I do make another post, I will make it short! I was glad to find out you are half Russian. I consider the average Russian to be very educated and intelligent. Thank you for your comment.
Wow. I’m def into some abstract stuff but it’s a feeling thing. You’ve nailed it, it’s not even really what’s on the canvas anymore but what’s said about the work and more precisely, WHO says it, and of even more import, who BUYS it. That said it’s not a blanket statement, as there’s been a bit of a return to sanity, in that I’m seeing much more abstract works that are emotionally powerful, and also return however obliquely to form. You’ve really clarifies things for me, much thanks and great work
Maybe this is why Jacob Gløersen has become popular again, after he was almost completely forgotten, as he kept to his naturalistic style painting the mundane landscapes of Eastern Norway. Now this stubbornness during a time of change, might be seen as a rebellion?
Those artists were going for authentic exploration and discovery. They wanted the public to enter into new Worlds with them, not just do what everyone else was doing.😢
As an artist who still cares about aesthetic, and never cared much for Contemporary Art, I like the perspective you put on it. All you ever hear is "Realism, Impressionism, etc. is 'out of style'. Therefore that is why we need something new and different." That being said, I wish there was more care for keeping the old styles alive. Sure, plenty of people still use them, but I believe certain ones can still be praised, instead of just seen as old news, and not worth making.
It really is a dilemma. Luckily I am retired so I don't need to make money from Art. So I am free to do exactly what I want without any ulterior reason.
Thanks for this video. it addresses the most major and resounding question i have about art history. That is, "Why are people famous when they paint like a 5 yr-old with a box of crayons?" I really don't have any respect for the paintings that people know as Picasso's work. It's good to know that he had some skill despite all that. In case you intended to ask, the art that impresses me is the art from the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and the Impressionists, and few Post Impressionists (I like Whislter). I also am impressed by Frazetta and those who would emulate him, particularly Dungeons & Dragons painters - which brings us back to PRB-esque painting!
Thankyou for this it was very well presented and explained. lm not so sure about picasso motives for changing so radically in his work were entirely down to him looking for a style of his own, but what he did certainly got him attention and his work recognised . Theres a fine line between being true to yourself as an artist and the temptation to compromise to sell art and be recognised. I do admire the artists that had a consistent style throughout there lives and seemed to paint as if it was for there own pleasure only and to interpret the beauty thats in the world .
Kandinsky didn't start making abstracts to get more money, if fact opposite. His paintings were condemned and some burned by nazis. He wasn't rich, in fact he was barely making it. And try to make something like his later art... And whole concept of "painting well" or "painting bad" - this is not first year art school, but first grade of public school. :(
I visited the Picasso Theatre Exhibition at the Tate Modern with a friend a couple of weeks ago and I also concluded that Picasso had ditched his real art for notoriety - and it worked!
Wow.. Amazing succinct exposition and clear understanding of the great masters, their period, compulsions, fame and foibles... this is a neat summary of the modern, pre-post modern painters ..in a nutshell. Kudos Anna.. Why is Picasso famous and not Jose Ruiz Blasco...
Thanks, Anna. That was very informative... Now that I mentioned it in your poll post I'd better tell this brief story... even though it's quite a tangent... In a documentary series on photographers I saw Bill Brandt telling the story of how he took the most famous and reproduced photo of Picasso. Picasso had donated an iron lung to the local hospital and the doctors were going to his house to thank him. They invited Brandt to come with them. At first he was very shy in the presence of Picasso and so only took photos of the doctors. Picasso noticed this and said, "Why aren't you taking photos of me?" Brandt framed up a shot and said, "I want you to look as serious as possible", then took the shot. Picasso's immediate response was that he couldn't possibly look so stern and every shot after that was full of smiles and laughter. Brandt's idea was that a smiling shots don't last long in the world of art or historical records. You've probably seen the photo of Picasso looking very seriously directly at the camera. I guess this was one of Brandt's portraits that didn't capture the mood of the moment or even Picasso's more happy and generous demeanor. Perhaps he captured the history of Picasso in that look?
@stuartwray6175. Of couse the Stone Age cave art had some ceromonial and ritualstic purpose. But ultimately it is decoration just like the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel with spiritual holy reference . And today we see graphiti , street art and Banksy with socio political references but it still ultimately serves as artistic decoration.
WOW!!! & look at how many comments you inspired! Brilliantly done. I think I knew a lot of what you explained. I knew Picasso was a brilliant & talented realist at first. Most people have No Idea. & I knew photography had a big impact on art & artists. But I didn’t connect the 2 in contributing to Picasso’s & the art world’s evolution. Years ago I tried to find Picasso’s realism works on Google Images, & there were only a few, & Not good examples. You explained everything so extremely well. THANK YOU!
Also, most great artists were geniuses as well. At their trade, with their ideas, but also being intelligent & interesting enough to attract patrons, & support.
Excellent discourse on the very topic I have been bothered about. As an artist myself with skill, I feel disappointed that my work seems to be bypassed for work I feel is without talent. I can get into exhibitions but get no recognition. Feeling I must to old fashioned or just not skillful enough, I was about to stop painting and look for other ways to express myself. But your comments have given me new hope. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing! I’m in the same boat as you. I’m sure many people feel this way, but they don’t voice it because it’s not “mainstream”. Would be happy to see your work! There are still galleries that value traditional work nowadays… I was able to find one in London called “mall galleries” and was fortunate enough to have my work exhibited in an open exhibition. They’re not easy to find - but have very loyal audience and collectors, so there is hope!
The chase to find the "new" amongst art market dealers has been going since the invention of the camera and revolt by the Impressionists against the Paris Salon. Every art movement and market swing since then has been driven by this chase. What I find interesting now is how many different markets there are today, the crumbling of gallery control due to on-line markets, and, because next to everything has been done, taste-makers and gate-keepers are scrambling, running around like chickens with their heads cut off chasing ghosts. This chase has driven them down some pretty lame rabbit holes. I mean, what ever happened to NFTs? Are those even a thing anymore after being hot for like what...a month? LOL. IDK, man. Make your art, show it where you can, and do your best.
This is a fantastic presentation. I particularly liked your succinct analysis of a very big subject..... 'Theory' became a Market Strategy.' My poor old brain can't retain all the information, but that phrase will stick with me. As well as ' Art today is sustained by theorectical apparatus that justifies it's emptiness ' Thankyou
I have a Great-Aunt (? my grandmothers sister) Audrey that studied under Picasso. I don’t think I ever met her and heard that she passed away a few years ago. Some of her work is in my mother’s home. She too could paint life like portraits as well as more impressionistic styles. It’s probably normal to learn realism first. I’ve dabbled in still-lifes myself but haven’t really graduated into forming a distinct style.
You take the simple and reactionary view that ‘realism’ is the height of skill development. It’s not, it’s the entry, the baseline for exploration. Andrew Wyeth uses realism on a framework of strong abstract design and is what makes it compelling, but the abstract framework is a fecund area of study in itself. Your premise is flawed.
Very interesting. Started watching this with the idea too disagree with everything you were going to say having been an artist for the last 60 years but I found it interesting and right on point 3 well done very intelligent very well put together I'm impressed I'll send this off to my other friends good job
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it :) I honestly don’t expect people to agree with everything, but I do want to bring in a perspective that’s not mainstream by shedding light on areas that are not so well-known.
I always meant to paint, but life kept stepping in the way. Now, in retirement, I’m starting at last-not chasing praise or profit, but the pleasure of learning and simply enjoying the act. Vanity no longer interests me; peace and joy are enough.
God Bless!
I joined an oil painting class several years ago and had the pleasure of encountering a fellow student who'd spent her life working as a catering assistance - she had left school at 14. This 'mature' lady was just a natural, not only could she draw, she had a facility to mix colours to produce the sort of paintings one might expect an art college student to produce. It was wonderful to see her progress and grow in her realisation that she too might attend an art college. I suspect she may have gone into teaching because she had a way of explaining technique in a simple way; it was because of her that I managed to take home paintings that were not too shabby and could be given to family as gifts. There are people who have never had the opportunity to develop their artistic skills and share their work with others. I hope your art blossoms in a way that you find satisfying and can share with others. Best of luck!
@edelgyn2699 Thank you.
If you ever need any help, please feel free to reach out to me. I used to teach art to mainly younger students but I have a soft spot for people who retired and want to take up art. I can help you with achieving your artistic goals faster.
I really enjoyed your presentation, I have to say I knew all about what you were talking about because I’ve been an artist since 1987 and I’ve been through every aspect that the experience offers and read very widely. But it’s good for people to hear this now. Modernists always pretended that people like Picasso just sprung into the world as geniuses full-fledged, but sadly this is BS. His father was a classical art teacher and taught him everything and I have seen plenty of young teenagers who could paint as well as him who had had classical educations (I spent three years full-time at a classical art school in Sydney Australia.) What art schools don’t prepare you for is the cruel reality of an art scene absolutely saturated with keen newly minted artists both amateur and with BA’s, and entering into the most convoluted intellectual world you could ever be expected to navigate. I was completely unaware of post-modernism until I did a masters degree and my god what a shock that was. I realised that I was already obsolete before I even started.
(not to mention being classified as male pale and stale, sexism racism and ageism carefully mixed into a intellectual soup and fed to generations of high school students to prepare them for the brave new world ahead. Delightful people who come up with things like that, just human gems!)
I was certainly offered a chance- I was clearly told that if I said yes to all the theories and stayed close to the university art school then I had a chance.
We were all told in our theory classes that it wasn’t at all about geniuses struggling in garrets any more. It was about being connected to the institutions of power.
And of course I, being a idealistic idiot, was too proud to do that. I had no money and no wealthy family to support me or good social connections.
The art world is not dedicated to finding the best and most wonderful art to promote. My experience of it was that it was an incredibly nepotistic system, jobs for the boys and girls of the elite mostly, we had a cynical saying that the hand of God would come down on a particular artist and they would be raised up to wealth and some fame, at least for a season. For the rest of us, we were just down in the pit making paintings for nothing, hoping to please somebody with money or status. It’s an extremely depressing life. I walked away from it all years ago and I wish that I walked away from it as soon as I left Art School and became an engineer or something useful where I could make decent money regularly. Weirdly the emergence of AI and instant masterpieces is giving me some hope. I think that we real artists could have a chance of being finally recognised, as people are rapidly fatigued by the tricks of the machine. That’s my fond hope. It is probably as absurd as all my other Bohemian dreams but hey dreams are free aren’t they. I hope I cheered somebody up.😅
(well I better leave on a positive note - I don’t regret all the painting and drawing I did because it was all sincerely spiritual and psychological and represented years of deep thinking and study. The fact that nobody else really gave a toss means less now to me than it did. I’m starting to see the bigger picture as I’m getting old and I feel like I didn’t waste my life. I no longer have the anger that I used to about the art world and the great scam of it. It’s pretty much a criminal money laundering scam at the top so why bother about it, criminals will be criminals. Art is worth it. If you can afford the sacrifice, it leads you into some very surprising places as a person. Maybe an AI will become my patron someday soon?)
No matter what you do, you get to your old age and realise the only thing that matters is the connection with yourself is your salvation.
Love your thoughts!
if you want to make art for the elites this is definitely true. if you make art for the people you'll never be rich, but the people will remember.
A very bitter truth ,but that’s reality,the zeitgeist of the day will determine your success, and as you said male,pale and stale is not it right now( I fall into the same category) so I paint what’s important to me ,wether that’s landscapes,seascapes or portraits,making art for others ,I feel ,is a fools errand,I do art for ME
Anyone caring for the beauty on what you creating ? Or just fame and money
2:53 Just because skill alone doesn’t make you famous doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it. Treating skill and creativity as opposites is a false dilemma skill should work together with creativity, and art is rooted in creativity
Good comment. Also, what is "skill"? To craft what has never in likeness been crafted before, but is not just random garbage - is this not the epitome of skill? Skill in reproduction is a lesser skill.
@Achrononmaster you don't need skill to make abstract art
@M@Meph00sa good abstract artist shows their skill in using the elements of art.
@Meph00sall art is abstract. If you copy a photo it isn’t abstract but as soon as it comes FROM the mind it’s abstracted.
To copy a photo is skill but the skill of a person trying to be a machine.
@Two-fistedMysticArtbyHuman that's reaching and stretching a definition. The point of replication is accuracy, the point of abstraction is interpretation without accuracy as the main driver
This is an incredible simplification and partial misunderstanding, according to which realistic painting is better than anything else. I love Matisse and his colorful paintings and would not exchange them for "well-painted" realistic images. To say that he or some other artists did what they did only because of seeking fame and status is nonsense. On the other hand, I agree that there is a lot of nonsense in contemporary art.
Yes, I totally agree with you (speaking as a realistic painter myself).
I like that they stepped outside the box and painted from their imagination. I don't need pictures of trees in my home...I see them when I look out the window or go for a walk. After awhile you want to see something new. I painted my own abstract painting as a kid just because, I'm no artist but it made me realize art shouldn't be cookie cutter.
AMEN
I am inclined to agree with you when she gets towards the end and conclusions or generalizations. I think the point is not so much about realism, but for the rest of us to understand that abstract art does not come out of an inability to observe, or lack of skill and technique. Also to look at successful artists, and then conclude the trajectory of their work is all about success is sort of false Darwinism applied to a complex issue.
?? @8:25 not "loss of skill," but loss of interest in overt demonstration of traditional skill.
A brilliantly articulate explanation of why painting followed the course it did. Great for a puzzled scientist like myself.
Hence, the need to shock and challenge viewers was stressed often when I was in art school. Skill alone, was looked down upon.
This terribly misguided nonsense, don't be swayed by it.
Picasso laughed all the way to the bank. He laughed at the fools who purchased his art.
I think it may be that people accept the art of the masters as 'good', even when one's reaction say something different.
I really like Matisse and the fauvist school. It was original and interesting. With Picasso, I always found a disconnect between his later work and his early work. I didn't mind the later work, but much of it is ugly (subjective judgment of course). It was about Picasso's fame, not his art.
Although cubism was original, it possibly was motivated by a commercial decision.
Who knows? The point is, not to accept art just because it touted as 'fabulous' or original or by a master. Rather, go to your own interpretation . That is what art is supposed to be.
Like cubism or loathe it, you have had a response - and art is meant to elicit that at the very least.
Picasso was an artist who literally painted 1000's of paintings and 10's of thousands of other works. There is no evidence that he laughed all the way to the bank. This is just some notion you have based on nothing tangible. It's a lazy excuse not to actually do the work of learning what Picasso did, but just try to diminish him. Doing so doesn't make you any higher. Picasso revolutionized the direction of art many times in his long life. He deserves better than cheap insults.
I read that there is an art school in England that has the motto, "Success means being middle aged and obscure." I think that's true. Duchamp said that in the future the artist will go underground. That makes another good motto. I make tons of art myself and have been doing so since the 70s. It all tends toward the abstract or surreal. I couldn't care less about making money from art. I've shown my work at small, noncommercial galleries in my area and published in poetry/art journals that don't pay anything because they don't make any money. It's about love, not money.
I totally respect that approach, and I don’t doubt your sincerity. Making art purely out of love is a valid choice (I do that myself). Where I slightly disagree is when that mindset gets used to explain how art functions as a whole.
Being obscure doesn’t automatically make work more honest, just like being visible doesn’t automatically make it less sincere. Artists like Duchamp shifted into ideas, institutions, and theory, and ended up becoming hugely influential precisely because their work circulated and got taken seriously by the art world. I’m not saying art is only about money. It’s not, but artists had to deal with visibility once patronage ended. Some stayed underground, others engaged the system, and that choice determined what art we engage with today. Passion matters (especially in fields like art), but history is shaped by what gets shared and remembered.
@atria.artist I agree with that. I'm just speaking for myself, I don't think that there is anything wrong with engaging the system, in fact I quite admire Duchamp, Miro, Kandinsky, de Kooning, and quite a few other artists. But for myself, the art world is not something that I care to engage with in that way. But I'm not very competitive in any case. For me personally, art is just something I make because I can't help it. I like sharing it with others too but making a profession out of it is not something I care about. I don't mind if others do. I once did care about it a bit but not enough to really do much about it, I guess. As you know it is quite frustrating and for me it just isn't worth the frustration. And I agree that those that have engaged the system have shaped the current art world. Contemporary art is a very mixed bag; I've seen some things that I like and some that I don't but in general it seems to lack the sense of excitement that is present in art from the modernist period. My own work. a lot of which I think is pretty good and has been well received by editors and others (not that I've made more than $200 from it over my entire life), is, if I'm to be honest, derivative to some extent of the innovations which originated in the work of modern artists and poets. I try to put something original in it, but they were so ridiculously creative that it is a really hard act to follow. That probably explains the fact that postmodernism seems to be in the doldrums.
@atria.artist Picasso was academically skilled early on, but his teenage works were painfully mediocre despite exceptional technical mastery. His later work focused on exploration over realism as a way to move beyond mediocre excellence, and he succeeded. Throughout his career, Picasso actively produced multiples for the consumer market. He was a truly smart and ambitious entrepreneur.
Abstract is not art
You also have a RUclips channel...🤔
Matisse and Kandinsky made beautiful paintings. I can look at their more abstract work and see that it is beautiful without needing theory to tell me so.
This is a first year art student's understanding of art history.
Really ...so the camera didn't change art?
Having Patron didn't dictate art's direction? Really?
The presentation is very clear and interesting
And it's very astute!
@RockerfellerRothchild1776Technology and patronage has always influenced art there is no argument about that, but summarizing all the innovation in the history of art from the time when artists (like the realists and impressionists) rebelled against the rigid academic standards of the salons right up to modernism as a cop-out for money/patronage brought on by the invention of photography is a simple and misinformed narrative.
We look forward to your videos on the subject.
Picasso had SOMEONE ELSE to do his house work
And, possibly, pay his rent and food bills? Actually I expect he managed both, but I do wish the idealists who talk about painting for love would consider the realities. If you can do a day job and still have the energy to paint, that’s great. If you want to just paint, then probably you have to turn your hand to whatever puts a bit of money in your pocket, alongside the art you do just to please yourself, and for that you need technical skill as well as vision.
So did every middle class and rich woman of the time. You can't divorce patriarchy from capitalism.
@janepage3608 reminds me of john blanche paying rent with his paintings
I think he just left flats and studios and moved when they got too untidy
Picasso’s ability to transcend into different art movements is what I loved most about him. Most artists remain where they “sell”, which then limits who they are because they feel if they explore and venture way too outside, they lose their notoriety
Beautifully organized presentation
Picasso was never content staying in one spot artistically. He was always trying to scratch an itch that could never be calmed. Look at the parallels between Picasso and Miles Davis. They never stayed put, always reaching beyond where they were.
And at times, both sux.
@SM-ie8gn Also true.
@SM-ie8gn What is worse, emphasis of safety or one who is curious, engaging with ones own creativity and where it takes one? Many artistic movements reflect the history at the time. Dada was a reaction to the absurdity of War War 1. Artist felt betrayed by the death and destruction of war.
Picasso saw a cave painting.
"We did not invent anything new".
So what? Is it better if we get something new just for sake of getting something new? I don't think so. All the time things and concepts get reinvented and the result is often meh and worse than what we already had.
@Christopher_Giustolisi I bet if Picasso would be living today, and you showed him any of the works you quantified from your comment, he'll probably say the same thing over again, "it's not new."
So what are the works you think makes it a "new work of art?" Or a "new technique?"
@steampunkster2023 Something that hasn't been done before counts as new. But my point is we don't need something new just so we have something new.
There are plenty of new things artists did since the cave paintings. Maybe he just didn't know any better or he just said it to get attention, which was his primary goal anyway.
@Christopher_Giustolisi
Quote: "Something that's hasn't done before counts as 'new'".
You're transferring the burden of my question back to me.
I understand the definition of 'new,' but I’m asking for your criteria. In a world where humans have been making art for 30,000 years, name one specific contemporary work that contains zero recycled concepts or techniques. What is your 'Gold Standard' for a new work?
@steampunkster2023 I gave you my criteria. Something that hasn't been done before. That could be anything. A new material or technique that hasn't been used for this purpose before or a modern application of old concepts. That means it's new but doesn't necessarly mean it's good or even worth doing.
You just gave me your criteria. Contemporary work that contains zero recycled concepts or techniques.
By that criteria the invention of the car wasn't anything new because wheels have been used for a long time and the computer wasn't new either because wires have been used for other applications before.
Can you name one single thing that is new by your definition?
She doesn't get it.
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻✊🏻
As an amateur artist who occasionally sells some work here and there, I am not a huge fan of purely abstract work. I do think that a good sense of design is necessary to produce abstract work which is pleasing to the eye, though, and that's not a talent I really have - I'm completely lost when trying to do something abstract because I simply don't know where to even start. I do very much admire the paintings Picasso produced throughout his various periods, though. It's very apparent, even in the cubist works, how refined his understanding of form was, and how he clearly had the perfect skill to capture that form, movement and emotion into realistic painting with a minimum of brushstrokes. I believe that anyone can learn to copy adequately, and can learn a certain amount of facility with practice, but the ability to truly capture something in just a few strokes does need a certain sort of genius. What Picasso did was build upon that in a way few other artists really did quite as well to my eye. He took those basics and sometimes simplified them to the point of minimalism, then recombined them in startling new ways. The understanding of those basics was always so apparent, though.
Great video. Thanks.
I am my own patron, working and painting 😊. Besides you have to put in the hard work, and find your style. Nowadays I think shocking yes , but "stealing" from others developing your style is the style. I love fauvism.
I love fauvism, too.
This is a sad reality in the art world; you have to paint what people would buy until recognition comes. And many times you get recognized for something you did not wanted to be related to.
Hope that won’t happen to me! 😅
The art world does it to themselves by continuing to play the game. It’s pathetic that to survive we have to toe the line of people who don’t create just because they run a front or distribute or curate etc…I refuse to play the game anymore.
@iMagiNate2000 I believe this will change. Anna is building a strong community.
Great presentation! Thank you!
Anna, I don't know if I can comment on the art itself but my comment on your video is that I enjoyed your analysis very much. I'm just a girl with a pencil, and I haven't done much with it for 68 years but listening to you and watching your expressive face, I had to take a few screenshots. Your life is well on its way to becoming wonderful. Oh, and please don't listen to any negative dribble about your opinions, your analysis. You are doing what you are meant to be doing and I give you a high five.
Thanks for the comment!! Appreciate the support :)
Awesome stuff. Clearly broken down and articulated. Subscribed! ❤
Thanks! Appreciate it :)
I've not heard this analysis before - this was very eye-opening. Thanks for creating this!
Picasso didn't change styles until one of them "stuck."
He changed styles continually until one of them stunk.
@StephenFlynn-xl2fwQuite a few stunk
Thoughtful narrative for many others. Thanks .
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it
I disagree with 90% of what you say. The idea that the pioneering artists of the early 20th century were creating the type of art they did for the chance of fame and money is ridiculous. As most of them could have just fit in easily enough with the academy system instead of poverty, ridicule and being outcast. But they were driven uncinically to create art that seemed relevant for the time, a time when photography made realism seen redundant and industrialised war rendered obscene the idea of civilisation. The Dadaists particularly. Then there were the abstractionists who were often trying to show the invisible world, often embracing spirituality and theosophism. They weren't doing this for a career either.
Of course there were also the Futurists who embraced the modern and the machine as a way to liberation.
Some of them absolutely had an idea of their own fame and tried to make careers out of being mavericks, Picasso is one and Salvador Dali is another.
I haven't read any for a long time but I'm pretty sure Baudrilliard wrote in the 1970s or 1980s by which time the idea of modernism and experimentation had become mainstream. The idea of just creating the most novel and the most shocking work was starting to get boring. So postmodernism was a reaction to the perceived failure of modernism at that time. But it's now 2026. Very few artists would make work just to be shocking. And total abstraction, realism & many varieties of art sit happily next to each other.
Also, finally desperation and poverty do not lead to great art, not does pandering to the art Market.
Thank you for sharing these insights. My wife and I are both artists but we struggle with the same problem: recognition. It is especially difficult now with the market saturated with art on so many platforms. If an artist want to make it, they have to sell themselves as much as their art.
We are storytelling creatures. We connect with, and identify through, the 'universal' human story. One aspect of "compelling" is to invite your audience into your interesting perspective on life. What are the reasons you create; why did you make this piece; is there further/deeper context that they can tell their friends which is solely something only THEY might know (because YOU told them)? We all want to feel 'special' in some meaningful way. Let your art be a part of their unique life and they will cherish it.
Thanks for sharing. Totally, to be a great artist nowadays you need to be great at marketing 😅 most artists want to focus on creating art rather than self-promotion. It’s quite sad but that’s the reality. I do believe social media has created more opportunities for visibility, and the traditional path of connecting with local galleries still holds value. All the best to you and your wife on this journey!
@atria.artist You too need charisma!
And you have a RUclips channel.... 🤔
This was a really, super-duper good video! I recently wrote about Picasso's Blue and Rose period - which have SO much work worth admiring - I wanted to continue with his Cubism period beginning with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon... but I found it frankly so boring, not even worth writing about (braque is at least better if one wishes to talk about Cubism) - from there it's like Picasso gets worse and worse. - I thought I was the only one who noticed!
Thanks! I would really love to read your writing. Please send it to me if you’d like!
Excellent video, thank you.
There’s something so sentimental about the fact that he burned drawings to stay warm .
😣😣
I'd guess this is entirely romanticized. How many SECONDS do you think burning even 500 drawings could keep you warm? Hint: barely minutes.
"...turning painting into theory and spectacle". I've been waiting 50 years for someone to explain it so clearly. Thank you.
More an effort to create over the constraints of copying what is like a draftsmen but connecting creativity with the process of painting.
Why not just read books on the history of the arts , Why can't you educate yourself.?????????
A simplistic set of assumptions eith a kernel of truth.
P.P : "EVEN I WOULD DECLARE SPITTING OUT AS MY ART; PEOPLE WOULD BELIEVE IT. " PICASSO WAS VERY MUCH AWARE OF HOW HE FOOLED THE ART WORLD AND ESPECIALLY HIS COLLECTORS!
Thank you Anna!
True art speaks for itself; a good image doesn't need much explanation, and any art lover has had this experience through contact with the art of great artists.
Congratulations on the channel.
Greetings from Portugal 🇵🇹
Thanks for the comment! Glad you enjoyed the video. Happy to connect with a fellow Portuguese artist :)
"coming up with something not boring" is not art, it's gimmicks & the masses love gimmicks
Like urinals hanging on a wall.
Lumping all contemporary art as "gimmicks" shows a bias that makes me wonder how often you go out and look at art in person. The world of contemporary art is vast. Just like there are skilled and unskilled classical/representational artists, the same is true of contemporary artist...many of which incorporate representational or figurative subjects into their works. The modern art movement ended quite some time ago. Contemporary art encompasses a wide range of styles and voices.
Very well researched and presented, good job!
Thanks! 😊
I had just sent an email to my art teacher saying that I wish I could sit down for a cup of tea with some of these artists and ask them why they moved from realistic to abstract styles when this video popped up in my feed. I guess utube reads my mail. Nice to find your channel. Self expression is a powerful motivator in humans.
Glad you found the channel (even in this mysterious way 😅). Honestly, I’d like to have the sat down one day as well. Otherwise, we’re left guessing 🙃
Picasso era un genio. De muy joven siendo niño dominaba el estilo realista con escenas tradicionales y retratos, después pasa por diferentes estilos y diferentes etapas que le hacen innovar y salirse de lo convencional, cambiando drásticamente a un estilo abstracto y cubista del cuál es iniciador junto a G. Braque y le cambia la visión a los nuevos pintores, para terminar con un estilo único y desfigurado que no se había visto antes. Cuando ves obras de Picasso parece que se han hecho en la actualidad, no pasan nunca de moda y lo más llamativo es que sabes que son suyas porque no hay otro igual.
I think he got better 😊
🇵🇹✊🏻
First time visitor - VERY IMPRESSED with your video. Fascinating topic, well presented. Loved it. Can’t wait to see more of your work. ❤
Thanks so much for this comment! Glad you enjoyed the video and really appreciate the support :)
Such a Shallow description! Photorealism is not the only goal. Pablo learned to paint a different style of "well", one which ended up creating much more of an impact, much more interesting discussion🎨
Love your presentation- art in itself
Great video. The most difficult thing for an artist is to develop style.
I think it's less 'style' and more 'ideal'.
Very interesting indeed.Thank you!
Really great essay.
The art world is pretty insane nowadays ,as being different is seen as a virtue in itself ,and skil and craft ,ignored .
Most of the exhibitions in my city's main art gallery have left me cold and uninspired .
This video was great - keep making these
Thanks!
This is an excellent analysis 👍👍👍
Best exposition of the subject I've heard
Well done you! 😊😊😊
This was such a well done presentation that I had to subscribe. Just discovered you today. You came across my feed randomly, and I am glad you did. Thumbs up too.
Thanks for this comment! Glad you enjoyed it :)
I'm an artist myself, I know about all struggles and hardships since my studies/education 1980 - 1984. My "problem": I'm m not able to let craft alone and paint like an idiot.
Enjoyed your excellent and true video.
That's the paradox. Great discussion. Thank-you.
Thank you!
It's a great video,so direct and honest and easy to relate too as well
You’re a smart cookie, did you write this dialogue?
I like your essay.
Thank you for showing me this perspective of why artists who have impeccable skills of traditional paintings turn to another side of abstract paintings after many years later.
I sat on my table and thought hard for such a discussion for a long period of time-- I came up with another conclusion: what if it's not about fame or money (though money is necessary if they wanted to live as an artist)-- what if it started with the idea that people who they have surrounded with for a long period of time have been cynically judging their art and skills and even with a slightest honest of remark that may praise their intelligence or their brilliancy have irked them that , if the masters themselves decided not to teach them further or they do not know where to study to perfect their arts any further, the only way to continue their passion and still work on their way is to discover something new, or create something new so that they could learn to break the norm.
I mean the first thing that made them an excellent artist is because of their masters, or teachers who mold them to become of. But to become an excellency of their own, they had to break that cycle and become their own master/teacher and student themselves.
That's probably why their arts stop at idealism but more into something abstract or avant garde, or experimental to discover a new art form of their own .
Food for thought: when they come up with their own art form, do they intent people to copy or imitate them, or do they wish that it is something that couldn't be imitated of?
.. is what I have on mind.
Why did you show pieces by Franz Marc when you were talking about Kandinsky?
Because I was speaking of who he was influenced by, not his works exclusively. Franz Marc & Kandinsky worked closely. Should’ve specified.
Very good!
Thanks :)
It's a reflection of the state of his soul and mind.
Maybe. But that can always turn out to be a fallable assumption.
I have just discovered you. Your arguments are very well presented in an intelligent, articulate and thoughtful manner - based on common-sense. Your other videos are equally of good value - especially the video title: "not anything is art".
I took up art in 2015 because I felt the need to express myself. I now see how difficult it is to be a "successful" artist.
I strongly believe a "good" artist has to learn the basic skills of value, colour, edge and drawing. Just like a rock star playing an electrice guitar or jazz musician playing the saxophone or a figure skater dancing, they all have to have worked hard at basic skills. Once you have mastered basic skills, you then use those skills to "express" yourself creatively. In art there are two things: technical ability and artistic ability. Just as in figure skating there is Technical Score and Artistic Score. In painting you can have an artist who has great technical skill but the painting may appear flat and boring because he is merely rendering in detail and it lacks the creative, artistic flair and use of imagination etc. Then you have the artist who has great artistic skill in imagination, expression and poetry but he lacks on the technical aspect.
Without learning the skills you cannot express yourself freely to paint whatever you want. If all you do is paint squares and shapes and spash in vulgar colours because that is all you can do, you are limiting yourself because you know you cannot do a figure or porttait.
I hate all those who say you don't need basic skills - just expressing yourself is "good" art. I strongly disagree.
How many who believe in this will buy music from musicians who did not put in the work to master playing the guitar, saxophone or piano will buy any of their music?
A rock musician who cannot play the guitar because he was too lazy to study and master it, will not be able to produce top quality music. And yet, why is it when it comes to oil painting in art, we do not expect the same quality of hard work to master that trade?
In the world of art, beauty is being murdered by modern artists who consider themselves to be artists by dumping faeces or garbage on the floor and calling it art. Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth. Both truth and beauty are inherent qualities of Divine Consciousness. Divine Consciousness can only be felt and perceived when our thoughts are still.
Art is not merely a superficial and decorative addendum to Life but has an actual role and responsibility to play in society. It is important that as artists we do not hurt the spirit and mind with negative messages or discord but create art that inspires and elevates us to a higher level of consciousness. Artists who do not create beauty but create works that lower our vibrations to thoughts of ugliness, materialism, negativity, despair and hopelessness - is art that is going in the opposite direction to the higher state of majestic joy, beauty, peace and love of our true, Higher Spiritual Nature.
Great music or great art is one that inspires and elevates our soul to feelings of joy, peace and beauty.
The allusions is to those flashes of ecstatic illumination, of contact with a beautiful roseate reality which enfolds the material universe, that descend unexpectedly and leave a joyous or peaceful exaltation in their train. It lifts us above the mundane and the material and for that brief glimpse reminds us of our true spiritual home and nature.
That is the true role of art.
I have subscribed to your channel becuase you speak so intelligently. Thanks.
Thanks for subscribing and for such a thoughtful, detailed comment. It's clear we share similar views on the importance of skill and beauty in art. Art is a union of discipline and spirit. Learning the fundamentals of the craft is what actually gives you freedom to express yourself properly... looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts :)
@atria.artist I'm surprised you would look forward to hearing more of my thoughts after my embarrassingly, far-too long comment! :) I was hesitant in posting considering it was such a long post. I'm quite passionate in my personal views on art. If I do make another post, I will make it short!
I was glad to find out you are half Russian. I consider the average Russian to be very educated and intelligent.
Thank you for your comment.
This was brilliant. First time I've heard anyone explain abstract art quite this way. Thank you.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed :)
Very good .. i did master in arts & aesthetics and phd in political art .. 🎉liked your lecture
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed
informative and clear. In art music, the situation is different; there is no market!
Thanks! That’s true… 😅
Painting always gets in the way of my making a life. Paint however you please. Just keep painting. That will be your body of work post mortem.
love the topic the way you presented. finally, hte puzel has been laid. need to process so much connections
Great video. Recently I saw some paintings of Picasso here in São Paulo, it’s amazing to know more about his life
Thanks! Thats great. The artist’s life usually has to do a lot with their art.
Wow. I’m def into some abstract stuff but it’s a feeling thing. You’ve nailed it, it’s not even really what’s on the canvas anymore but what’s said about the work and more precisely, WHO says it, and of even more import, who BUYS it. That said it’s not a blanket statement, as there’s been a bit of a return to sanity, in that I’m seeing much more abstract works that are emotionally powerful, and also return however obliquely to form. You’ve really clarifies things for me, much thanks and great work
Excellent report!
Maybe this is why Jacob Gløersen has become popular again, after he was almost completely forgotten, as he kept to his naturalistic style painting the mundane landscapes of Eastern Norway. Now this stubbornness during a time of change, might be seen as a rebellion?
Those artists were going for authentic exploration and discovery. They wanted the public to enter into new Worlds with them, not just do what everyone else was doing.😢
So much angst in the visual arts, but so little in music. Yet music is the most abstract of the arts!
What? There is plenty of angst in historic and contemporary music.
As an artist who still cares about aesthetic, and never cared much for Contemporary Art, I like the perspective you put on it.
All you ever hear is "Realism, Impressionism, etc. is 'out of style'. Therefore that is why we need something new and different."
That being said, I wish there was more care for keeping the old styles alive. Sure, plenty of people still use them, but I believe certain ones can still be praised, instead of just seen as old news, and not worth making.
Thank you so much for a very insightful video! I took art history but found your video summed up the work of these artists quite well.
It really is a dilemma. Luckily I am retired so I don't need to make money from Art. So I am free to do exactly what I want without any ulterior reason.
Good for you! You’re living the dream 😄
Good luck with your channel ^^
Thank you! 😄
Thanks for this video. it addresses the most major and resounding question i have about art history. That is, "Why are people famous when they paint like a 5 yr-old with a box of crayons?"
I really don't have any respect for the paintings that people know as Picasso's work. It's good to know that he had some skill despite all that.
In case you intended to ask, the art that impresses me is the art from the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and the Impressionists, and few Post Impressionists (I like Whislter). I also am impressed by Frazetta and those who would emulate him, particularly Dungeons & Dragons painters - which brings us back to PRB-esque painting!
You are uneducated.
Thankyou for this it was very well presented and explained.
lm not so sure about picasso motives for changing so radically in his work were entirely down to him looking for a style of his own, but what he did certainly got him attention and his work recognised .
Theres a fine line between being true to yourself as an artist and the temptation to compromise to sell art and be recognised.
I do admire the artists that had a consistent style throughout there lives and seemed to paint as if it was for there own pleasure only and to interpret the beauty thats in the world .
Kandinsky didn't start making abstracts to get more money, if fact opposite. His paintings were condemned and some burned by nazis. He wasn't rich, in fact he was barely making it. And try to make something like his later art... And whole concept of "painting well" or "painting bad" - this is not first year art school, but first grade of public school. :(
I visited the Picasso Theatre Exhibition at the Tate Modern with a friend a couple of weeks ago
and I also concluded that Picasso had ditched his real art for notoriety - and it worked!
Excellently explained.
Wow.. Amazing succinct exposition and clear understanding of the great masters, their period, compulsions, fame and foibles... this is a neat summary of the modern, pre-post modern painters ..in a nutshell. Kudos Anna.. Why is Picasso famous and not Jose Ruiz Blasco...
So much to love here.
Thanks, Anna. That was very informative...
Now that I mentioned it in your poll post I'd better tell this brief story... even though it's quite a tangent...
In a documentary series on photographers I saw Bill Brandt telling the story of how he took the most famous and reproduced photo of Picasso. Picasso had donated an iron lung to the local hospital and the doctors were going to his house to thank him. They invited Brandt to come with them. At first he was very shy in the presence of Picasso and so only took photos of the doctors. Picasso noticed this and said, "Why aren't you taking photos of me?"
Brandt framed up a shot and said, "I want you to look as serious as possible", then took the shot. Picasso's immediate response was that he couldn't possibly look so stern and every shot after that was full of smiles and laughter. Brandt's idea was that a smiling shots don't last long in the world of art or historical records. You've probably seen the photo of Picasso looking very seriously directly at the camera. I guess this was one of Brandt's portraits that didn't capture the mood of the moment or even Picasso's more happy and generous demeanor. Perhaps he captured the history of Picasso in that look?
Since the Paleolithic era & the Lascaux Caves, painting is purely a way to decorate the walls of your home or office.
Cave painting wasn't made for decorative purposes
@stuartwray6175. Of couse the Stone Age cave art had some ceromonial and ritualstic purpose. But ultimately it is decoration just like the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel with spiritual holy reference . And today we see graphiti , street art and Banksy with socio political references but it still ultimately serves as artistic decoration.
Great video, keep it up. You should do one about surrealism. Rabbit hole of art if there ever was one.
Great suggestion! Thanks.
WOW!!! & look at how many comments you inspired!
Brilliantly done. I think I knew a lot of what you explained. I knew Picasso was a brilliant & talented realist at first. Most people have No Idea. & I knew photography had a big impact on art & artists. But I didn’t connect the 2 in contributing to Picasso’s & the art world’s evolution.
Years ago I tried to find Picasso’s realism works on Google Images, & there were only a few, & Not good examples.
You explained everything so extremely well.
THANK YOU!
Also, most great artists were geniuses as well. At their trade, with their ideas, but also being intelligent & interesting enough to attract patrons, & support.
Excellent discourse on the very topic I have been bothered about. As an artist myself with skill, I feel disappointed that my work seems to be bypassed for work I feel is without talent. I can get into exhibitions but get no recognition. Feeling I must to old fashioned or just not skillful enough, I was about to stop painting and look for other ways to express myself. But your comments have given me new hope. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing! I’m in the same boat as you. I’m sure many people feel this way, but they don’t voice it because it’s not “mainstream”. Would be happy to see your work!
There are still galleries that value traditional work nowadays… I was able to find one in London called “mall galleries” and was fortunate enough to have my work exhibited in an open exhibition. They’re not easy to find - but have very loyal audience and collectors, so there is hope!
Very enlightening. 👏
The chase to find the "new" amongst art market dealers has been going since the invention of the camera and revolt by the Impressionists against the Paris Salon. Every art movement and market swing since then has been driven by this chase. What I find interesting now is how many different markets there are today, the crumbling of gallery control due to on-line markets, and, because next to everything has been done, taste-makers and gate-keepers are scrambling, running around like chickens with their heads cut off chasing ghosts. This chase has driven them down some pretty lame rabbit holes. I mean, what ever happened to NFTs? Are those even a thing anymore after being hot for like what...a month? LOL. IDK, man. Make your art, show it where you can, and do your best.
Very good video, thanks a lot.❤👏👏👏🙋♂️
This is all wrong
I think the desire for others to respect your work is the only pressure artists need.
I think respecting your own art is more pressure and should be your goal
I love Mattises later paper cutting, they were more color theory
I gave up on art because I didn't want to part with my work at any price.
How about a million? Damn, take the million and just make another version
HOW TO BE FAMOUS WHILE BEING IGNORED
HOW TO BE DRUNK AND REMAIN SOBER
HOW TO BE REAL WHILE BEING ABSTRACT
Hey, that’s almost pretty good ..😁 👍🏽
HOW TO BE IGNORANT IN THREE SENTENCES.😊
This is a fantastic presentation. I particularly liked your succinct analysis of a very big subject..... 'Theory' became a Market Strategy.' My poor old brain can't retain all the information, but that phrase will stick with me. As well as ' Art today is sustained by theorectical apparatus that justifies it's emptiness ' Thankyou
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have a Great-Aunt (? my grandmothers sister) Audrey that studied under Picasso. I don’t think I ever met her and heard that she passed away a few years ago. Some of her work is in my mother’s home. She too could paint life like portraits as well as more impressionistic styles. It’s probably normal to learn realism first. I’ve dabbled in still-lifes myself but haven’t really graduated into forming a distinct style.
You take the simple and reactionary view that ‘realism’ is the height of skill development. It’s not, it’s the entry, the baseline for exploration. Andrew Wyeth uses realism on a framework of strong abstract design and is what makes it compelling, but the abstract framework is a fecund area of study in itself. Your premise is flawed.
Very interesting. Started watching this with the idea too disagree with everything you were going to say having been an artist for the last 60 years but I found it interesting and right on point 3 well done very intelligent very well put together I'm impressed I'll send this off to my other friends good job
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it :)
I honestly don’t expect people to agree with everything, but I do want to bring in a perspective that’s not mainstream by shedding light on areas that are not so well-known.