honestly , anime panels are much better with more details. why should we have method to analyze a painting it should already throw the information what it wants to convey right in our face. This is pure evil crap or an excellent buisness idea for those dumb useless painters who cant do the things japanese
it's interesting how there are painting out there being sold for $40 at a pawnshop, then years later someone finds out it's a Picasso, and suddenly it's worth millions. It is the same painting nobody cared about before, but now it is a masterpiece. It's all so subjective.
Perhaps we we like to know that the artist who painted the piece was original in their works, and so it adds a degree of authenticity. Its not the empirical answer I think you wanted, but your not going to get that with any art. We derive the meaning, and the value of art based on the art itself, (not a matter of rarity or supply/demand) and knowing that Picasso was the one who painted it adds something to it. We could make a parallel with literature if we think of works written by plato compared with a random blogger. Something about plato that is much more satisfying, even though they could touch on the same topics.
What Picasso meant in that quote "It takes me 4 years to paint like Rafael, but a lifetime to paint like a child" is something all artist of different genres and disciplines tried to achieve as their final ultimate goal. Let me elaborate on what that means : When you start in your art, whether it be creating and drawing, or making music, or dancing, we etc... You have no directions but then you learn skills in your craft. Then you get to be better and more complex. At this stage your music now have all these different sounds melodies chords Bass, etc.. so you reaching to be at the peak of your complexity. Culmination of everything you learn. This is my equivalent of realism art, highly detailed textures, shades, etc... But then you get beyond that, and what is beyond that? I want you to imagine Thelonius Monk at his peak playing jazz FREESTYLE and what you hear is perfect. Not in the sense of most complex melodies, but the other opposite! Now what you hear is really simple notes and melodies BUT it's played at the right time. Just enough for you to feel full emotions of the music without unnecessary complexity. Basically maximizing effectiveness doing the least. Like Jimi Hendrix just strike one chord strumming but let it reverberate perfectly and sonically before interweaving into the next note. All while freestyling. This peak level is what I also call IN THE ZONE. Or the x factor. When an artist at his mastery playing perfectly beautiful music by maximizing the complexity of emotions but using the simplest of technique (or so it seems) What I'm trying to say is a child is pure, it doesn't have biased, it's free, so the emotion is raw. Also because a child is still inexperience it will be simple. And that is the ultimate form of art, expression. Art like Life comes full circle, so the challenge of a Master is not complexity. Is to be able to show his skills and it's complexity but able to bring it back to that child like wonder. To capture the essence of a child pure emotion and simplicity but actually was a work of a Master. I still don't know if I make any sense haha, but that's my 2cents on it. Being an artist myself.
This makes sense for me as an admirer for Hans Zimmer , he said something similiar when he described the The Dark Knight's score composed with two notes a powerful composition i reckon so yeah i agree that simplicity is the purest form of expression and the apotheosis that an artist could ever reach.
as a musician I can see a great significance in this and it's the direction I'm going now as time goes by. art (music, painting or an other form) is an expression of what we understand but also of what we feel in our lives. hence the circular process of life has to influence the production of an artist (if he is true)
@@MrMonshez critique doesn't necessarily mean its bad, its breaking something down into parts to analyze it. There are traces of "good" and "bad" in every piece of art. :)
I would like say that all the people in the comments are right about what this piece means, both the one who says it's deep, intellectual and the one who says it's just two dudes fishing. A painting is a work of ones life and his experiences, it's representation. So what the artist truly wanted to say can never be on point without him actually saying it to the point. So what we "see" is what we want to see, the meaning, is a reflection of your own life. It can be profound or simple, disturbing or pleasant, it can be anything. It will not be same as someone else because everyone is unique with their experiences, so one doesn't need to argue with others perspective just because it doesn't match yours. In the end, what's the TRUE meaning behind this painting?..it's the one you give it. :)
+Kesh ART What makes this piece special, if you can find anything you want in it? I don't get it. If I was in a room with 10 paintings and only one was the work of a master artist, how can I tell which one it is? I have to be able to tell somehow, otherwise it's all just a pretend game covering up blind admiration for status. I would honestly like to know how you decide, who is prolific and amazing and who is not worth a second glance. Can you explain it to me please?
+hawk0485 I had that same question for a long time so i could relate to how you feel. To keep it really simple, it differs from person to person. I personally, choose the one where the artist had honestly expressed himself rather than trying to impress other. For me, it really shows joy. Most people judge art based on technicality and mastery, which is fine and is probably the reason the art argument exists. Let tell you a story, a couple of weeks back I saw a 3 year old kid scribbling its heart out on a piece of paper.It was just scribble but I found that drawing far more intriguing than the most "masterworks".
Thank you, I appreciate your time. I can relate to what you say, but I think it is not all relative. By using that story, you assume that I will be able to relate to it and I am able to relate to it. So there is some universal experience inherent in that story. Shouldn't then art be judged by how well it is able to communicate a very specific idea or emotion across a universal audience. I mean, what really makes Michelangelo great is the fact that his work can engage any audience from any time period and any culture without needing any context. Would you agree on such a standard? A standard of universal appeal?
+hawk0485 My pleasure, Im really enjoying this conversation. It is just me who judges art based on expression and I also favor technically sound art because of the fact that I respect the work ethic and the discipline that goes behind it, to achieve that level of mastery. Your question got me thinking and I have to say that a "Standard" is indeed necessary. It give a set of qualities for people to think upon. But should all art be judged based on just that standard? I would say no. I think Einsteins quote would give you a good reason for this answer "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” In that sense, If you judge Piccaso with the standards of Michelangelo or Davinci, then Picasso had it wrong on so many levels.But its just my perspective though :)
+hawk0485 I personally beleive that my life's worth depends on the impact that I leave behind. So my final statement would be that I completely agree with what you say, art should strive to be timeless to preserve what makes us. But I would also like to add that more the artist approaches his art with this goal in mind, the more he will miss it. Just my personal experience.
+Andre Pilli : Yup...it's a brilliant video (and painting. I'm living in south Vietnam right now and I can step outside my door at night and watch men doing just what the men in this picture are doing.....night fishing. They have funny little round blue coracles here, one of very few places outside the Celtic world that makes coracles....I'd never seen this painting before though I had been to a few picasso museums and exhibitions....so it kinda has a weird poignancy....I'm off to watch the fishermen.
In those 8 minutes and 10 seconds I learned more about Pablo Picasso than in months of art class. Excellent content, keep on with what you're doing! Thank you.
@@abdulazizmath9134 as we could debate about anyone's doodle, but we don't, it's all peer pressure, borne of out of others having decided for us long ago what had value and what didn't.
+Alexander Demkin That my be right, but there are so many reasons to believe art has a deeper meaning, that i just can't give any credit to these kind of statements.
Rarity Sparkle While im joking here, I saw this study where they showed painting made my apes to art experts while pretending it was from an unknown artist and they raved about its deep meanings and talent.
Picasso's instinct was to paint as a child for a child is innocent and unknowing of the world and its surroundings. To reach deep within to his child-like state was to express the innocence and purity of a child untouched by worry, grief, solitude, and hardship. The free flowing lines in a carefree motion was exemplary of his later works. His abstracts hold a special meaning delighting many a child and those with a child-like instinct, his paintings represent what is pure and simple in life yet gives the viewer a glimpse into his childhood.
I'm disappointed to see all of the dismissive comments, especially given that this channel is dedicated to the sort of intellectualizing being derided. Regardless of whether you agree or not with his conclusions, the way he thinks about art is interesting and worthy of consideration. The guide he sets out applies to any work of art, beautiful or ugly, pretentious or humble, ancient or modern. Having said that, I personally drew slightly different conclusions based on the work and I'd love to hear what the Nerdwriter himself has to say. Foremost for me is the tension between the intimate and mundane subject matter and the physical scale of the work. As you said, this work is huge, on the scale of history paintings like "Death of General Wolfe". But I saw the subject matter as intimate and pedestrian, thus setting up this tension between form and content. Combined with the anecdote about how Picasso himself witnessed such scenes while strolling along the river, and it appears to me like Picasso is trying to capture the mundane at the same level as prior artists (and himself cf. Guernica) tried to capture the epic. Perhaps it is a last gasp of normality and calm before all that is blown up by tanks and antiaircraft guns as WWII starts. Also, could you provide references to the research you used for the work? I'd love to read what scholars in the field have to say about the work as well.
This is so cool! I never take the time to usually dissect a Picaso painting because I'm usually put off by the weird, warped shapes, but this helps me appreciate him more
Absolutely BRILLIANT interpretation, I am a bit surprised you didn't even mention the 4 pronged fishing spear. In traditional art and mythology the spear is always represented by 3 prongs. Picasso must have known this. Fisherman also use 3 pronged spears, so why the 4 prongs? I have a theory. Maybe each prong represents a person in the painting.Or Maybe each prong represents: Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan, and the Fish they are 'about' to kill represents...
It's rude to write an artists work off as a lazy or whimsical accident. Don't you think the people that spend time making beautiful and meaningful art would want people to analysis their work and really try to appreciate and understand the messages, context and effort that went into conceiving and creating it? And if you don't and you're one of those people that thinks over analysis is a pretentious hipster past time (or whatever your aversion to this discussion was) then why were you even here on a video about analysing art to begin with?
my god, i just found this channel and it's everything i wanted. i am an art lover and student and i love not only the content but also the narrative of the videos, the storyline you create to make your point. this is just amazing. thanks!
To all the people who are saying nerdwriter1 is reading too much, and that Picasso perhaps meant nothing much in this painting-Picasso himself said to somebody who told him this exact thing , that just because she doesn't know Mandarin, doesn't mean the language is meaningless, but rather its because she is ignorant. Hope you guys remember that. Art is a language and it ALWAYS MEANS something ,whether consciously expressed as in Expressionism or unconsciously as in surrealism
"Art is a language and it ALWAYS MEANS something" Why do you think that? If someone who doesn't speak mandarin writes something in the language, then the only "meaning" for it will be that they thought it was pretty. Trying to draw such far-reaching conclusions from the painting of someone you think didn't even know what he was doing is just a waste of time.
If you write Mandarin .. you KNOW Mandarin. If not you are just copying what you see without context. Just like you copying a painting not knowing why it is the way it is not really an artistic expression. As an art student myself I can tell you.... The unconscious meanings in your art are always more powerful than the ones you tried to force on people. Drawing, painting impulsively .. its not like smashing your keyboard. You HAVE to think about what you draw and how you draw it even if you have no idea what it will be. It always comes from a place in your mind, a memory, your current feeling, your fears, your surroundings. Sometimes the things in my art I didn't see come out when I look at it a year later when my mind is clear. Because I thought the situation trough and got over it and only now I really see what was drawn and why.
"Picasso said...just because she doesn't know Mandarin, doesn't mean the language is meaningless." That could either be a brilliant insight, or a clever bit of marketing by Picasso to make people take more seriously the work of Picasso.
If you ridicule the analysis of art ant think this channel is pretentious I don't know what you are doing here. Amazing video and painting, definitely one of the most influential artist of the last century.
im here to listen to a perspective outside of my own. i do find this pretentious and i feel to call it beautiful is to insult good artists everywhere but at least i can see where the love of this piece comes from now. thank god he can tell what the mess of purple is and why one of the fisherman is completely mis-shapen because other wise if i saw this piece i would call it shit and move on with my life but thanks to his outside perspective i have a deeper appreciation for the art than i would otherwise have. that is why im here
+Moj0y That's great, the different perspectives are what make art great. I preach criticism an different interpretations. Who I'm directing my comment to is to people who say things like "oh yeah' my kid could paint that" "omg that's bullshit he's only famous because he did it first" without being able to see the depth this really has. The meaning is arguable and he might have gone a little too deep on it, that judgement is yours, but I think what I think there's no argument on is that this is no child painting, this is the work of an experienced professional. A lot of people think that what measures the quality of a painting is how loyal to reality it is and they are getting it completely wrong.
For some reason, I always feel as though all those hidden messages are actually just a coincidence, and the works people always describe are really something else... But I'm probably just crazy
+DeltaGamer I'm a writer and when people have interpreted my poems and short stories, they've often found meanings I never intended to convey, so I completely agree with you.
+DeltaGamer I would say that as an artist myself, I'd love for people to come up with their own interpretations of the art that I never intended... because I don't fully know myself anyway and maybe I was doing some things subconsciously. We all produce art under the influence of tons of things we don't even realize, experiences we've had throughout our lifetime. The best art reflects the vast experience we've had, and it sometimes does so even though we don't understand why.
Great take on Picasso’s painting ... but I’d like to argue that a masterpiece painting (like many of Picasso) is like a dream.. you can break it down as much as you want but they’ll never be a definitive conclusion as to what it is.. In my opinion.. it’s too difficult to criticize art... unless explicitly set out by the painter ... artwork like this is like a leakage of the collective consciousness... it speaks to us but not in ways we understand
Thank you very much. I'm going to use this next semester for my art history class. My students love art, but they need to learn how to think and talk about it in more depth. This will be a big help.
+EyeLean5280 Check out Amor Sciendi for an art historian's view on deciphering and understanding major works of art. He and Nerdwriter did amazing but different critiques on Las Meninas. He also has a good follow-up to this on Guernica. Spain's involvement with the Nazis and the weapons they tested on the town. Horrible waste of life.
I love art, but at the same time I'm not sure if I'll ever truly understand it in a lifetime. I find it difficult to analyze paintings in the ways that you do. But then, I don't look at art to understand it or find its one true "meaning." I look at art to enjoy it and marvel at this very unique human desire to create, decorate, and reproduce. I'm thinking about that last word just now, and maybe that's why we make art. Just like many of us are driven to reproduce ourselves, perhaps we have a drive to artificially reproduce. Pieces of art become our "children," sent out into the future ages.
afroceltduck hmmm I never thought about the arts that way,...perhaps they are way of achieving or attempting to achieve a certain kind of immortality. I think your point makes even more sense when you consider that humans are capable of very intentional abstract thought and create artworks yet the higher primates who share almost all of our DNA can do neither. here's my theory - the arts are important bc they bring beauty into an often brutal and ugly existence and bc they are a unique signpost of what is inherently human about us. God bless you for giving me a new perspective about something 😊
' Writing about art is like dancing about architecture '. Does it need to processed to a point where your appreciation can be articulated ? My opinion of art comes form a place that is produced spontaneously , after decades of consumption . My need for art is evident in the fact that I am constantly drawn back to it . I'm half drunk , and want to talk about art !!
Pablo Picasso also carried around a revolver loaded with blanks, which he used to shoot at people who asked about the meaning behind his paintings. "Meaning is meaningless to me. I do not care for symbolism and I paint what I paint without meditating on a story." "What matters Is what appears in your soul, not what your eyes see and what you can name." -Zdzislaw Beksinski "A film or a paining - each thing is its own sort of language and its not right to by to say the same thing in words." -David Lynch The "meaning" behind provocative Art is actually to be discovered in the architecture of the brain. All "meaningful" / provocative art zaps us powerfully but far out of the reaches of the centers of the brain associated with logical reasoning or linguistic articulation. The meaning is powerful, it happens just as powerfully as a very funny joke or drop-dead quote or an amazing song, but deep in the visual cortex. The "meaning" is there, it is strong and poignant but INACCESSIBLE to the "thinking" or cognitive apparatus of the brain which can decode it, break it down into components, rejoin it through discerned patterns and articulate what it actually *means*. (The reverse is also true in the brain - the parts of the brain exercised when you read silently is the part where the visual cortex and the auditory cortex overlap, so you can head the words being said without uttering anything aloud). Here is David Lynch talking about how he conceived Blue Velvet - he assembled a couple pieces of disjointed imagery that resonated with him in an intuitive way. Rather than starting with a plot and using symbolism to support a story, he built a story around ideas that felt intuitively significant. You start with something real, use that to launch into abstraction, then go back and remove all traces of reality, thereby removing the connection with any "reasoning", but not from the "meaning". That's the power of great art.
Loved it! In particular, the first 36 seconds are absolutely brilliant. They almost draw you into the video and make you want to stick around for more.
It really felt like you were over reaching on this one. How could anyone discern world war 2, death of picasso's mother, mistresses and wives, etc, from this painting? At best they are assumptions. What irks me most is that Picasso isn't some Renaissance painter. He lived in the 1930's. Did no one just simply ask the guy what the painting meant?
+Prince Blake That's how interpreting art works man, he backed up everything with a reason. You don't have to agree of course but he gave his view well.
+Prince Blake Even if Picasso had been asked, his explanation wouldn't be the be all and end all. The value of art is in the personal experience and reaction. It's what you get out of it. Doesn't matter what the original intention was.
I fucking hope one day people will stop being so SCARED of the word ART and the word MEANING. Because yeah, you can read into someone's work and not get it, but to say you're reading 'too much' into it - especially when it's a prolific and masterful artist- you deny the artist's whole internal monologue, thoughts, feelings. When you paint, when you dissect something, diagram it whatever, you don't just 'do it', you put some thought into it, or a lot. You make sketches after sketches, select the best elements, perfect your technique, spend countless nights thinking it's not good enough, it's shit, etc. And then you present it to people, you get feedback, you produce a reaction. Some will love it, will read into it, some will properly analyse it- if you're someone with a record of producing good work, for example- and the people not appreciative of art will look at it superficially and say "yeah it's cool" or "whatever I can draw that", completely forgetting that when someone painted that, they dedicated days or months to a single final piece of their work - it sounds stupid, and it is, but artists are too self-absorbed to not offer their inner world to people. I realise there are a shit ton of bad artists (whatever that means, I call them kitsch) out there and there are artists who do things like post-rationalising or reactionary art, but don't dismiss anyone for creating, looking at or into art. And I use art in the widest term possible- think your kids' fridge drawings to intricate crop circles. youtube rants wow
I can tell you that artists don't think the way you described. They think visually. Their mind is concerned with color combinations, shapes, silhouettes, profiles, texture, light, scale, etc. They don't think about a "message". Their only concern is what their image LOOKS like
I don't think they are scared, they are more like aggressive. And i kind of feel that, people are aggressive towards art because the art world (not the art itself) is usually aggressive towards people.
It depends on the artist and the moment, and many artists think both ways. I was reading a little about Michelangelo, and according to the writer he was concerned not only with the shapes and colors, but also with the message they could show. I see a lot of artists think this way.
This film makes the assumption that viewers require paintings to have a meaning that is expressed in language. When I go to a museum and look at paintings, I abandon my desire to make a rational explanation of the paintings. I allow the visual part of my brain to absorb the visual images to it's satisfaction. I think that explaining visual language is extremely difficult and based on guessing. When I view a painting I allow my visual preceptors take over and enjoy the show.
Well said Visual art is just that, visual. When someone tries to "explain" art I feel as if it's a non-visual person trying to understand the art in the only way they can
I like your approach to this one, the editing is a lot more striking compared to some of your other videos. It feels more like an advert than a documentary. That's neither good nor bad but I like it in contrast to your other videos. It has a sense of confidence, and I liked how you brought the stages of analysis itself to the foreground; it feels more involved with the audience. Keep up the good work, you're still my favourite RUclipsr.
+Andre CnB I second your recommendation for "Every Frame a Painting" wholeheartedly. CGP Grey I also recommend for no-nonsense break-downs of history, geopolitics, technology, and everything in between, all injected with perfect dead-pan humor while being highly educational.
Anyone ever think to bring up the appropriation side of picasso's work, he took inspiration from african art masks which at the time were considered to be not that great and primitive at best but when he took inspiration and added a little fractures and different perspectives to them the all of a sudden golly gee this is some of the greatest art of the century. Not to knock picasso his art is good but it's the fact that when he used a style that's been there for millenia it was suddenly a watershed moment in art. Ps to those in the comment section having a meltdown over how revered picassos art is, understand that realism and traditional european art was never the standard for the definition of art; art it's self can be anything from the complex woodblock prints of editing period Japanese artist to the modern day minimal paintings of a simple all white canvas. I advise you to not have such a sheltered perspective because you'll never truly appreciate the medium itself
Whenever people talk about art I just don't understand how they see so much in so little. I seems to me that most often what somebody says about a piece of art past the basics tells you a lot more about the person than the art.
+Derek N Yeah, its projection and pretentiousness - laying claim to inner workings of an artist as if they understand the art is childish and immature. I can respect peoples opinions, but when they are presented as fact, without any disclaimer, then nope - they are the problem.
The moment an art piece is displayed in front of public, it becomes of public - one will stare and feel, another will be inspired to think about it. They both enjoy it, and that is how it should be. Relax. Tell us what this painting mean to you.
I have a very valid question, aren't we just retrofitting what we know to the painting? Maybe Picasso just showed his view of the night fishing. I mean it does seem like we're trying to find meaning where there is none. Why can't it just be a prosaic expression of an old man's view on a night ambulation.
It certainly could be that, in Picasso's mind, but your question assumes the primacy of authorial intent. In art and literature, meaning can be given by the artist/author, created by the viewer/reader, or a combination of both. Even if one tries to do neither and just see "what's there" objectively, one's interpretation and sight is clouded by one's own knowledge and experiential background. If you look into academic criticism, there are many approaches or "lenses" of interpretation, some of which are contradictory, but all of which can be valid to some degree or another.
Shubham Bhushan you're right. I study art, and I can tell you, art has no meaning. No painting in this world has meaning. Can you understand art? Can you understand food? Can you understand music? Art is just an experience.
" I mean it does seem like we're trying to find meaning where there is none. " Just like in life, perhaps? I suppose it would depend on how we define "Meaning".
Excellent final point.... my folks went to wine fairs representing a friends winery and for tastings people were always asking what they should be looking for and their response was always, "Whether or not you like it." Taste isn't a matter of particular notes you can recognize it is a personal appreciation.
After watching this video I realized that all those drawings, sketches and paintings of mine, that I threw away, were so deep and meaningful after all! 😁
They are priceless interpretations and Journalings of yourself. Could you use the nerdwriter's way of interpretation to attempt to understand yourself more? Could you imagine yourself drawing with the same clarity of mind as Picasso himself? Is all that work, that toil, lost to the trash can?
@@aerialjordan2683 Dunno about "...the same clarity of mind as Picasso himself" but I do remember enjoying the process of creating art. Received helpful comments from friends and family along the lines of: "this doesn't make any sense"; "it's ugly"; "you are not normal"; "waste of paint"; "maybe find other ways to express yourself"; "read books instead". LOL... that was enough to make me stop. Note: I did receive positive feedback too but the negative devastated my confidence. Destroyed all my artwork. Only recently did I restart sketching. Now, years after those early days, I make sure I NEVER let anyone see my artwork. I can be as bad or talentless as I want to be.😁👍 Maybe someday, I should attempt a Nerdwriter-style interpretation of my work. 🤔
Your last line sums up art perfectly. The quirkiness of human nature means that one person will see treasure in what another dismisses, another who insists on literal interpretation and yet another depth of meaning in something not even the artist wished to express. That is, to me, the beauty of art, it reflects life and myriad human foibles perfectly.
Picasso's so weird to me. Like, by the time he was 12 he could draw a rendering of a person more realistic than most people will be able to do in a lifetime, and then he grows up and chooses to paint like a 6-year-old. It's bizarre, man.
I would guess that since it was no longer challenging to render realistic paintings, he found that exploring abstraction and other means of creating art beyond realism was more fulfilling, like many artists before and after him. Achieving realism is not the goal of all artists.
I think that being able to draw everything is where to start for at least trying to be a good artist. if there is something you can't draw, how can you express exactly what you mean? your limits will shape forever your art, instead of your will.
There is a quote of Picasso that says basically that, he said something to the effect that when he was a boy he could draw like Raphael, but it took him his whole life to learn to draw like a child.
He got bored of depicting reality as it was, and specially after the photography was invented, the Vanguard Art movements began... He invented an amazing movement as Cubism was, a true 4th dimension in painting, to paint time. In any case yes, obviously he was a master in realistic painting, he was a master in any discipline actually, many people decide to ignore that fact.
it doesn't matter what the author meant. art is about the experience, the understanding and the personal opinion. I've seen comments offering deep opinions and people saying it's just age and nonsense.
Not about experience all, Artist recognize other artist and the Sad thing is people create this weird illusion in society where everyone is an artist😂 like the teacher who tells every kid that they're special. The true reality is there are only a few true artist, and people who are replicators are definitely not artist. Copying a figure exactly from life, you are are a great painter or a great drawer, but an artist? Lol Artist is a title to be earned, a title which can take an entire lifetime to grasp, a title which I am aspiring to be even after 20 years of experience. If only the people knew what Picasso was trying to achieve😂 and all the damn critics with their high vocabulary create distorted description on his works is just amusing which in turn fools the general public because they wouldn't dare challenge the so called knowledge of critics.
GoldHamSam Trust me they do, when they have some negative things to say they don't say it, but if they find others similar to themselves they acknowledge each other and share a good conversation unlike you, everyone is different and when you say things like ALL artist are this and ALL artist are that, you look stupid. Giving others appreciation for going towards the path of Art is not wasting time.
GoldHamSam Trust me they do, when they have some negative things to say they don't say it, but if they find others similar to themselves they acknowledge each other and share a good conversation unlike you, everyone is different and when you say things like ALL artist are this and ALL artist are that, you look stupid. Giving others appreciation for going towards the path of Art is not wasting time.
This is honestly my new favorite channel. You don't get unparalleled editing with great narration as well as deep analyses all together in one video these days! Keep it up!
I said the same thing, the flow of images felt very free and unrestricted. I like an unconstrained presentation. That's why I wouldn't mind if he did 15 minute videos, so he could say more on the subject and be more transparent.
+Carlos Aguiar If that's you interpretation of the picture then sure, he was high and painted two random fishermen. Personally, I think nerdwrighter said some good things here.
Alper Yılmaz thank you for warning me! but now imagine that this painting was not made by picasso but was made by his retarted brother, does that change you perception of the painting or not? it's not that amazing and deep anymore is it?
The two fishermen and each of their distinctive styles of working evokes the Don Quixote/Sancho Panza model. Optimism/pessimism, action/inaction. Something perceived as characteristically "Spanish" but universal too! Verrryy Romantic! Love how this video makes me think things I haven't thought before!
*Fun fact* here is the entirety of his name: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
Kandinsky, comming back home one evening, saw a painting through a window. He was surprised by two things, the first one being that he did not recognise the work at all! but that despite this fact, he thought that the painting was very beautiful! Once inside the room, he rapidly realised that the maid had hung up the painting upside down. A few months later, he produced the first abstract painting (1910).
Interesting video. I would challenge these assertions, however, by pointing out that its deepest conclusions (that is, its conclusive conclusions) arise from the historical and personal context, at which point we have stopped looking at the painting. If the painting means what you say it does, it has failed as a work of art to convey that meaning. We are forced to rely on historical knowledge, which cannot be found in an art gallery. We no longer have Picasso. He left us a painting--not a letter, an anecdote, a family tree, or a confession--a painting. Why? That's the question I would like to see answered.
+Keku I think it's great that you have that much trust in the sturdiness of my head, but alas, I think if I were to actually headdesk, my desk would win that confrontation with considerable ease :)
+fraukamera Remember that most may not be as informed on such topics as the creator of the video or yourself. It's guaranteed that there are many a subject you know little if nothing about.
I've never been able to appreciate Picasso for the most part, except for Guernica, which is the only painting of his that I know the context to. Even with that, it took pop culture for me to fully appreciate it. I knew that it was large, larger than an inset in an art book, larger than a png on Google images. But it took Children of Men and Civ V: Brave New World to make me truly appreciate it.
I love that you made us look at this painting (mostly) throughout the 8:10 video. The average painting view is something like 20-30 seconds and I saw things several minutes in that I would not have noticed had I looked at this for 30 seconds or one minute. I agree with this being a co-piece to the tragic Guernica. Thank you for the time you spent analyzing and presenting this beautiful painting.
While this piece of art could be dissected all we want and there still would be something missing. I can't help but notice Picasso's choice of using the colour purple to highlight the limbs and outfit of the women on the banks, the tenuous link between Picasso's confident self and timid self and the city in the background.
You know what I love about art. It's all about how you look at it. You could look at this painting and see it as Picasso's struggles at this point in his life. But you could also see it as like Picasso as just being like "You know what, I'm just painting some guys fishing.''
unlike many other "modern art" artists, there is something very immediate, tactile and... comprehensible about Picasso's work, you get the mood of the art instantly. also his color palate and color composition is perfect.
You start with "what to do when standing in front of a Picasso", then proceed to tell me that I should get information on things that I could not possible find out standing in front of a painting.
+Thomas Jørgensen And taint your first impression? I think the ideal way would be to have a private guide. She would let you get a first impresion for a few minutes without saying anything, then tell you all these things. Of course that would be quite expensive :-)
I think the ideal way to enjoy art is look at it and if you decide it looks like shit to you move onto the next one. Knowing that Picasso was attacked by a Jello monster when he was a kid and that scarred him for life doesn't make the painting look any less like Jello diarrhea
People can explain certain paintings(like this one) to death, but that doesn't deal with the fact that overall I don't find it all that visually appealing. That's my fundamental problem... it doesn't look good to me.
I couldn't agree more with you. This typifies my response to this type of art. It's not art. It's just trying to be edgy. It's pretentious. It's the work of a five year old. Picasso didn't actually know art theory. It's just one big pretentious cop out for not understanding real composition, perspective, anatomy, form, colour etc. etc. Compare this crap to John Constable...
No this is basically the opposite of what I was saying, I don't disparage Picasso or the people who like it, or even people who only like it because of it's context. I wasn't saying its edgy or the work of a five year old and I don't know or care if it's a cop out. I'm just tired of people telling other people what to think and who to like(which you are doing) and even though the original video doesn't directly try to tell you how to feel about the painting, it implies how great the work is if you interpret it. And I'm just saying that symbolism isn't worth anything to me if I'm not captivated on an aesthetic level... In a weird way I can actually draw a similar parallel to 5 Nights At Freddie's. People say "you just don't understand the deep hidden story", but that doesn't matter because the experience is not enjoyable. It's not about understanding... And there we reach the fundamental point that even though I have no problem with intellectual interpretation, I think it shouldn't take precedent over aesthetic preferences. I wonder how many people were told how great Picasso is or know his influence and have left them confused as how to actually feel about his work, knowing that it should be great, but not sharing that in feeling.
Completely agree with OP. Same here, maybe because I can't go over step 1. It is simply not visually appealing to me. I can now appreciate all the backstory behind it, even though I think that steps 4 and 5 - the interpretation part are just a bit too out there. I don't think you can infer the psychology of the painter just from one part of his painting, that sound a bit too Rorschach 'woo' like. One way or another - I might simply not be the target audience for this. But I appreciate the video, I know at least understand what people find interesting and beautiful about it.
Have you ever thought of analyzing Cowboy Bebop in a video essay? There's a lot to talk about. As far as the theme of the video 'Accessibility in Art' might be good, since Bebop is famously down to earth in a genre and art form not know for being so.
+KaiGonGinn Oh that would be several videos. Fey's story of finding herself to mourn the innocence she doesn't remember, Ed's story of needing to find a family, Jet's seeming lack of caring, Spike and Vicious' war over love. Perhaps the most intriguing is actually Yoko Kanno's music and how it tells the story without needing the dialog. Watching with just the soundtrack brings out so much depth. The movie is a good example of that.
Whole my life I was searching for something like this, I want to learn about so many things but I don't know where to start, this is heaven to me because I want to gain knowledge about so many things, I know I want to do this, I know people do this but I didn't knew how, thank you so much for the video!!!
"Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers, everything around one, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting people have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only a trifling bit of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world, though we can't explain them. People who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree." Pablo Picasso
Literally highlighting parts of the painting was so helpful. I was blind, now I see.
+Mārtiņš Rozenbergs my exact thought
I am happy for your likes. Thank you
I'm still blind. Lol 😉
Miro. He sees.
honestly , anime panels are much better with more details.
why should we have method to analyze a painting it should already throw the information what it wants to convey right in our face.
This is pure evil crap or an excellent buisness idea for those dumb useless painters who cant do the things japanese
it's interesting how there are painting out there being sold for $40 at a pawnshop, then years later someone finds out it's a Picasso, and suddenly it's worth millions. It is the same painting nobody cared about before, but now it is a masterpiece. It's all so subjective.
JAFO-PTY who cares?
Alejandro Reguera Diaz what an insightful and though provoking argument, thanks for sharing.
it all comes down to what you like, pay no attention to the price tags.
JAFO-PTY Another fact good about Picasso is that he is from the best part of the world
Perhaps we we like to know that the artist who painted the piece was original in their works, and so it adds a degree of authenticity. Its not the empirical answer I think you wanted, but your not going to get that with any art. We derive the meaning, and the value of art based on the art itself, (not a matter of rarity or supply/demand) and knowing that Picasso was the one who painted it adds something to it. We could make a parallel with literature if we think of works written by plato compared with a random blogger. Something about plato that is much more satisfying, even though they could touch on the same topics.
What Picasso meant in that quote "It takes me 4 years to paint like Rafael, but a lifetime to paint like a child" is something all artist of different genres and disciplines tried to achieve as their final ultimate goal. Let me elaborate on what that means :
When you start in your art, whether it be creating and drawing, or making music, or dancing, we etc... You have no directions but then you learn skills in your craft. Then you get to be better and more complex.
At this stage your music now have all these different sounds melodies chords Bass, etc.. so you reaching to be at the peak of your complexity. Culmination of everything you learn. This is my equivalent of realism art, highly detailed textures, shades, etc...
But then you get beyond that, and what is beyond that? I want you to imagine Thelonius Monk at his peak playing jazz FREESTYLE and what you hear is perfect. Not in the sense of most complex melodies, but the other opposite! Now what you hear is really simple notes and melodies BUT it's played at the right time. Just enough for you to feel full emotions of the music without unnecessary complexity. Basically maximizing effectiveness doing the least. Like Jimi Hendrix just strike one chord strumming but let it reverberate perfectly and sonically before interweaving into the next note. All while freestyling. This peak level is what I also call IN THE ZONE. Or the x factor. When an artist at his mastery playing perfectly beautiful music by maximizing the complexity of emotions but using the simplest of technique (or so it seems)
What I'm trying to say is a child is pure, it doesn't have biased, it's free, so the emotion is raw. Also because a child is still inexperience it will be simple. And that is the ultimate form of art, expression.
Art like Life comes full circle, so the challenge of a Master is not complexity. Is to be able to show his skills and it's complexity but able to bring it back to that child like wonder. To capture the essence of a child pure emotion and simplicity but actually was a work of a Master.
I still don't know if I make any sense haha, but that's my 2cents on it. Being an artist myself.
This makes sense for me as an admirer for Hans Zimmer , he said something similiar when he described the The Dark Knight's score composed with two notes a powerful composition i reckon so yeah i agree that simplicity is the purest form of expression and the apotheosis that an artist could ever reach.
Its like john wick using a pencil to kill 3 men
@@michaelmeara6776 he is not the babayaga, he is the man you've sent to kill the fucking babayaga
god dam you wrote a whole ass essay
as a musician I can see a great significance in this and it's the direction I'm going now as time goes by.
art (music, painting or an other form) is an expression of what we understand but also of what we feel in our lives. hence the circular process of life has to influence the production of an artist (if he is true)
"Maybe this is why the boat floats in a weird no-man's-land..."
me frantically looking back up at the picture: "There's a boat in there?!"
fr i still dont see the boat
@@muscar1.a both the man are standing on it
Oh frick. I think maybe it’s that kinda light green thing they’re on.
Yeah that was me with the moths
Could you do van Gogh?
Only if he pronounces it right
He's done Van Gogh
Susannah Page how do u pronounce it
@@fabiomino3506 van Goff, or vhan cock, or something dutch
Only if he mentions his cutting of ears
There aren't that many youtubers that criticize paintings, you honestly stand out.
+SuperJelbo seems to me like he's depicting it not necessarily criticizing
+SuperJelbo what about the Red face/eye looking thing at the top middle part of the painting? Just to the left of the "moon-or-gas-lamp"?
Critique*
@@MrMonshez critique doesn't necessarily mean its bad, its breaking something down into parts to analyze it. There are traces of "good" and "bad" in every piece of art. :)
I would like say that all the people in the comments are right about what this piece means, both the one who says it's deep, intellectual and the one who says it's just two dudes fishing. A painting is a work of ones life and his experiences, it's representation. So what the artist truly wanted to say can never be on point without him actually saying it to the point. So what we "see" is what we want to see, the meaning, is a reflection of your own life. It can be profound or simple, disturbing or pleasant, it can be anything. It will not be same as someone else because everyone is unique with their experiences, so one doesn't need to argue with others perspective just because it doesn't match yours. In the end, what's the TRUE meaning behind this painting?..it's the one you give it. :)
+Kesh ART What makes this piece special, if you can find anything you want in it? I don't get it. If I was in a room with 10 paintings and only one was the work of a master artist, how can I tell which one it is? I have to be able to tell somehow, otherwise it's all just a pretend game covering up blind admiration for status. I would honestly like to know how you decide, who is prolific and amazing and who is not worth a second glance. Can you explain it to me please?
+hawk0485 I had that same question for a long time so i could relate to how you feel. To keep it really simple, it differs from person to person. I personally, choose the one where the artist had honestly expressed himself rather than trying to impress other. For me, it really shows joy. Most people judge art based on technicality and mastery, which is fine and is probably the reason the art argument exists. Let tell you a story, a couple of weeks back I saw a 3 year old kid scribbling its heart out on a piece of paper.It was just scribble but I found that drawing far more intriguing than the most "masterworks".
Thank you, I appreciate your time. I can relate to what you say, but I think it is not all relative. By using that story, you assume that I will be able to relate to it and I am able to relate to it. So there is some universal experience inherent in that story. Shouldn't then art be judged by how well it is able to communicate a very specific idea or emotion across a universal audience. I mean, what really makes Michelangelo great is the fact that his work can engage any audience from any time period and any culture without needing any context. Would you agree on such a standard? A standard of universal appeal?
+hawk0485 My pleasure, Im really enjoying this conversation. It is just me who judges art based on expression and I also favor technically sound art because of the fact that I respect the work ethic and the discipline that goes behind it, to achieve that level of mastery. Your question got me thinking and I have to say that a "Standard" is indeed necessary. It give a set of qualities for people to think upon. But should all art be judged based on just that standard? I would say no. I think Einsteins quote would give you a good reason for this answer "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” In that sense, If you judge Piccaso with the standards of Michelangelo or Davinci, then Picasso had it wrong on so many levels.But its just my perspective though :)
+hawk0485 I personally beleive that my life's worth depends on the impact that I leave behind. So my final statement would be that I completely agree with what you say, art should strive to be timeless to preserve what makes us. But I would also like to add that more the artist approaches his art with this goal in mind, the more he will miss it. Just my personal experience.
This video is unreal. Extremely good.
+Andre Pilli Opa, André. Você por aqui. Haha.
E sim, o vídeo é bem legal.
É um dos melhores canais!
+Andre Pilli : Yup...it's a brilliant video (and painting.
I'm living in south Vietnam right now and I can step outside my door at night and watch men doing just what the men in this picture are doing.....night fishing. They have funny little round blue coracles here, one of very few places outside the Celtic world that makes coracles....I'd never seen this painting before though I had been to a few picasso museums and exhibitions....so it kinda has a weird poignancy....I'm off to watch the fishermen.
thanks a lot for recommend this channel!
amo seus vídeos :D
jimmy that comment was wonderful. fun and humorous while also pretty heartfelt. nice
In those 8 minutes and 10 seconds I learned more about Pablo Picasso than in months of art class. Excellent content, keep on with what you're doing! Thank you.
I'm sure even Picasso would be surprised that his painting became so meaningful 😂
Picasso : wtf is this guy talking about ,i'm just tryna doodle leave me alone
@@Beraksekebon21 lmfao, basically everyone is "this is deep" kind of people. Its just a doodle guys, nothing is deep about this.
@@p3el_ debatable
@@abdulazizmath9134 as we could debate about anyone's doodle, but we don't, it's all peer pressure, borne of out of others having decided for us long ago what had value and what didn't.
@@nononono3421
Not necessarily, you can find meaning in anything in your sense.
'Hey look at this funny painting I drew of fishermen!-Picasso probably.
+Joffrey Lannister *Joffrey Baratheon
Or Joffrey Waters technically.
+Alexander Demkin I doubt it
+Alexander Demkin That my be right, but there are so many reasons to believe art has a deeper meaning, that i just can't give any credit to these kind of statements.
Rarity Sparkle While im joking here, I saw this study where they showed painting made my apes to art experts while pretending it was from an unknown artist and they raved about its deep meanings and talent.
Alexander Demkin Yeah, I saw something similar and I get your point now.
Please do more videos about poetry. There are very few videos about that subject, and I really liked those that you made about it.
+Vincent Pihlblad He has a good video on the poet EE Cummings
harry lindsey I know, and one about Yeats. I really liked those videos and would personally like to see more.
+Vincent Pihlblad I second this request!
+Vincent Pihlblad What would you suggest? I think My Last Duchess would be right up Nerdwriter1's alley.
+Matthew James I'd like to see him tackle TS Elliot's the waste land
your appreciation for art is infectious
woah hi, i like your videos
I like your comment.
I really love Picasso's blue period. It's so emotional and raw, the paintings can be overwhelming. It's depression painted beautifully...
Picasso's instinct was to paint as a child for a child is innocent and unknowing of the world and its surroundings. To reach deep within to his child-like state was to express the innocence and purity of a child untouched by worry, grief, solitude, and hardship. The free flowing lines in a carefree motion was exemplary of his later works. His abstracts hold a special meaning delighting many a child and those with a child-like instinct, his paintings represent what is pure and simple in life yet gives the viewer a glimpse into his childhood.
It does look like a child’s scribbling. Why you would want to look at it is mind boggling to me.
If Picasso was alive, he would probably say , "what is this guy rambling on about? I was drunk at the time." Still great video though.
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
True
yes hhhh
Exactly.
I'm disappointed to see all of the dismissive comments, especially given that this channel is dedicated to the sort of intellectualizing being derided. Regardless of whether you agree or not with his conclusions, the way he thinks about art is interesting and worthy of consideration. The guide he sets out applies to any work of art, beautiful or ugly, pretentious or humble, ancient or modern.
Having said that, I personally drew slightly different conclusions based on the work and I'd love to hear what the Nerdwriter himself has to say. Foremost for me is the tension between the intimate and mundane subject matter and the physical scale of the work. As you said, this work is huge, on the scale of history paintings like "Death of General Wolfe". But I saw the subject matter as intimate and pedestrian, thus setting up this tension between form and content. Combined with the anecdote about how Picasso himself witnessed such scenes while strolling along the river, and it appears to me like Picasso is trying to capture the mundane at the same level as prior artists (and himself cf. Guernica) tried to capture the epic. Perhaps it is a last gasp of normality and calm before all that is blown up by tanks and antiaircraft guns as WWII starts.
Also, could you provide references to the research you used for the work? I'd love to read what scholars in the field have to say about the work as well.
This is so cool! I never take the time to usually dissect a Picaso painting because I'm usually put off by the weird, warped shapes, but this helps me appreciate him more
These 5 steps for Image Analysis is the same process I am taught in art academy on how to read an image. Quality content on this channel
0:37
" bonjour, i'm pablo picasso, and welcome to disney channel. "
On the other hand, showing a painting to some people is like throwing perls at swines.
Hehe😅😂
It's hola.......
Absolutely BRILLIANT interpretation, I am a bit surprised you didn't even mention the 4 pronged fishing spear. In traditional art and mythology the spear is always represented by 3 prongs. Picasso must have known this. Fisherman also use 3 pronged spears, so why the 4 prongs? I have a theory. Maybe each prong represents a person in the painting.Or Maybe each prong represents: Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan, and the Fish they are 'about' to kill represents...
Nice , but I wonder how he would have known about the axis countries when Japan and Italy joined the war and the axis only later
It's rude to write an artists work off as a lazy or whimsical accident. Don't you think the people that spend time making beautiful and meaningful art would want people to analysis their work and really try to appreciate and understand the messages, context and effort that went into conceiving and creating it? And if you don't and you're one of those people that thinks over analysis is a pretentious hipster past time (or whatever your aversion to this discussion was) then why were you even here on a video about analysing art to begin with?
***** He did, just not to this level. Why paint them otherwise? Do you really think great art sells just so rich people can feel clever?
He'd have seen the fishermen.
tforeignguy, Every piece of art has meaning. That's what makes it art. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Okay this was an amazing video. I know nothing about art and paintings and you made me want to learn more.More people need to see this
+Aaru C feel the exact same way!
Art history is such a sham, but so much engima tho.
Aarya G Art is art, either you like what you see or you don't. Don't let pretentious people tell you what is art, or how to understand art.
You are on the right track .
I know one thing. You fine as hell!
my god, i just found this channel and it's everything i wanted. i am an art lover and student and i love not only the content but also the narrative of the videos, the storyline you create to make your point. this is just amazing. thanks!
To all the people who are saying nerdwriter1 is reading too much, and that Picasso perhaps meant nothing much in this painting-Picasso himself said to somebody who told him this exact thing , that just because she doesn't know Mandarin, doesn't mean the language is meaningless, but rather its because she is ignorant. Hope you guys remember that. Art is a language and it ALWAYS MEANS something ,whether consciously expressed as in Expressionism or unconsciously as in surrealism
"Art is a language and it ALWAYS MEANS something"
Why do you think that? If someone who doesn't speak mandarin writes something in the language, then the only "meaning" for it will be that they thought it was pretty. Trying to draw such far-reaching conclusions from the painting of someone you think didn't even know what he was doing is just a waste of time.
If you write Mandarin .. you KNOW Mandarin. If not you are just copying what you see without context. Just like you copying a painting not knowing why it is the way it is not really an artistic expression. As an art student myself I can tell you.... The unconscious meanings in your art are always more powerful than the ones you tried to force on people. Drawing, painting impulsively .. its not like smashing your keyboard. You HAVE to think about what you draw and how you draw it even if you have no idea what it will be. It always comes from a place in your mind, a memory, your current feeling, your fears, your surroundings. Sometimes the things in my art I didn't see come out when I look at it a year later when my mind is clear. Because I thought the situation trough and got over it and only now I really see what was drawn and why.
"Picasso said...just because she doesn't know Mandarin, doesn't mean the language is meaningless." That could either be a brilliant insight, or a clever bit of marketing by Picasso to make people take more seriously the work of Picasso.
Agreed, but I can teach myself mandarin quite effectively. How does one learn the language of Picasso or even some unknown artist?
The same way. Learn the language of visual art.
I didn't even see fishermen catching fish. I was like, "what are these weird shapes?|
This is what RUclips should be about! Amazing, smart, well made content. Keep it up, Nerdwriter. You rock.
If you ridicule the analysis of art ant think this channel is pretentious I don't know what you are doing here. Amazing video and painting, definitely one of the most influential artist of the last century.
im here to listen to a perspective outside of my own. i do find this pretentious and i feel to call it beautiful is to insult good artists everywhere but at least i can see where the love of this piece comes from now. thank god he can tell what the mess of purple is and why one of the fisherman is completely mis-shapen because other wise if i saw this piece i would call it shit and move on with my life but thanks to his outside perspective i have a deeper appreciation for the art than i would otherwise have. that is why im here
+Moj0y That's great, the different perspectives are what make art great. I preach criticism an different interpretations. Who I'm directing my comment to is to people who say things like "oh yeah' my kid could paint that" "omg that's bullshit he's only famous because he did it first" without being able to see the depth this really has. The meaning is arguable and he might have gone a little too deep on it, that judgement is yours, but I think what I think there's no argument on is that this is no child painting, this is the work of an experienced professional. A lot of people think that what measures the quality of a painting is how loyal to reality it is and they are getting it completely wrong.
The artists are the geniuses, the critics are the roaches of society as they produce nothing except feed off the talents of others.
For some reason, I always feel as though all those hidden messages are actually just a coincidence, and the works people always describe are really something else... But I'm probably just crazy
+DeltaGamer I'm a writer and when people have interpreted my poems and short stories, they've often found meanings I never intended to convey, so I completely agree with you.
MSK SKM XD
+DeltaGamer I would say that as an artist myself, I'd love for people to come up with their own interpretations of the art that I never intended... because I don't fully know myself anyway and maybe I was doing some things subconsciously. We all produce art under the influence of tons of things we don't even realize, experiences we've had throughout our lifetime. The best art reflects the vast experience we've had, and it sometimes does so even though we don't understand why.
I get bored easily, but as soon as I start one of your videos, I have to watch it through. I've learned so much. Thanks for that.
Great take on Picasso’s painting ... but I’d like to argue that a masterpiece painting (like many of Picasso) is like a dream.. you can break it down as much as you want but they’ll never be a definitive conclusion as to what it is..
In my opinion.. it’s too difficult to criticize art... unless explicitly set out by the painter ... artwork like this is like a leakage of the collective consciousness... it speaks to us but not in ways we understand
Tee garallia.clever Johannes thru aneup
Thank you very much. I'm going to use this next semester for my art history class. My students love art, but they need to learn how to think and talk about it in more depth. This will be a big help.
+EyeLean5280 Check out Amor Sciendi for an art historian's view on deciphering and understanding major works of art. He and Nerdwriter did amazing but different critiques on Las Meninas. He also has a good follow-up to this on Guernica. Spain's involvement with the Nazis and the weapons they tested on the town. Horrible waste of life.
BariumCobaltNitrog3n Wow! Thanks! I will definitely check him out.
I'd love if you did a video on dadaism.
+Erin McNeill Here here!
Yes indeed!!!
+Erin McNeill Dada isn't an -ism. It's fundamentally anti "-ism".
Ryan Stoll I'm aware but some people would get confused if I just said dada
+Ryan Stoll All good 👍🏻
I love art, but at the same time I'm not sure if I'll ever truly understand it in a lifetime. I find it difficult to analyze paintings in the ways that you do. But then, I don't look at art to understand it or find its one true "meaning." I look at art to enjoy it and marvel at this very unique human desire to create, decorate, and reproduce.
I'm thinking about that last word just now, and maybe that's why we make art. Just like many of us are driven to reproduce ourselves, perhaps we have a drive to artificially reproduce. Pieces of art become our "children," sent out into the future ages.
I think Plato had the same idea
+afroceltduck everyone really just wants to be known in some way or another
afroceltduck hmmm I never thought about the arts that way,...perhaps they are way of achieving or attempting to achieve a certain kind of immortality. I think your point makes even more sense when you consider that humans are capable of very intentional abstract thought and create artworks yet the higher primates who share almost all of our DNA can do neither. here's my theory - the arts are important bc they bring beauty into an often brutal and ugly existence and bc they are a unique signpost of what is inherently human about us.
God bless you for giving me a new perspective about something 😊
' Writing about art is like dancing about architecture '. Does it need to processed to a point where your appreciation can be articulated ? My opinion of art comes form a place that is produced spontaneously , after decades of consumption . My need for art is evident in the fact that I am constantly drawn back to it . I'm half drunk , and want to talk about art !!
Pablo Picasso also carried around a revolver loaded with blanks, which he used to shoot at people who asked about the meaning behind his paintings.
"Meaning is meaningless to me. I do not care for symbolism and I paint what I paint without meditating on a story."
"What matters Is what appears in your soul, not what your eyes see and what you can name."
-Zdzislaw Beksinski
"A film or a paining - each thing is its own sort of language and its not right to by to say the same thing in words."
-David Lynch
The "meaning" behind provocative Art is actually to be discovered in the architecture of the brain.
All "meaningful" / provocative art zaps us powerfully but far out of the reaches of the centers of the brain associated with logical reasoning or linguistic articulation.
The meaning is powerful, it happens just as powerfully as a very funny joke or drop-dead quote or an amazing song, but deep in the visual cortex. The "meaning" is there, it is strong and poignant but INACCESSIBLE to the "thinking" or cognitive apparatus of the brain which can decode it, break it down into components, rejoin it through discerned patterns and articulate what it actually *means*.
(The reverse is also true in the brain - the parts of the brain exercised when you read silently is the part where the visual cortex and the auditory cortex overlap, so you can head the words being said without uttering anything aloud).
Here is David Lynch talking about how he conceived Blue Velvet - he assembled a couple pieces of disjointed imagery that resonated with him in an intuitive way. Rather than starting with a plot and using symbolism to support a story, he built a story around ideas that felt intuitively significant. You start with something real, use that to launch into abstraction, then go back and remove all traces of reality, thereby removing the connection with any "reasoning", but not from the "meaning".
That's the power of great art.
Loved it! In particular, the first 36 seconds are absolutely brilliant. They almost draw you into the video and make you want to stick around for more.
It really felt like you were over reaching on this one. How could anyone discern world war 2, death of picasso's mother, mistresses and wives, etc, from this painting? At best they are assumptions. What irks me most is that Picasso isn't some Renaissance painter. He lived in the 1930's. Did no one just simply ask the guy what the painting meant?
look at Google
+Prince Blake You can tell he started making up shit from minute 1:00 with the "hesitating to spear the fish" line.
+Prince Blake That's how interpreting art works man, he backed up everything with a reason. You don't have to agree of course but he gave his view well.
+Prince Blake Even if Picasso had been asked, his explanation wouldn't be the be all and end all. The value of art is in the personal experience and reaction. It's what you get out of it. Doesn't matter what the original intention was.
When you define the meaning of your art you reduce it also.
I fucking hope one day people will stop being so SCARED of the word ART and the word MEANING. Because yeah, you can read into someone's work and not get it, but to say you're reading 'too much' into it - especially when it's a prolific and masterful artist- you deny the artist's whole internal monologue, thoughts, feelings.
When you paint, when you dissect something, diagram it whatever, you don't just 'do it', you put some thought into it, or a lot. You make sketches after sketches, select the best elements, perfect your technique, spend countless nights thinking it's not good enough, it's shit, etc.
And then you present it to people, you get feedback, you produce a reaction. Some will love it, will read into it, some will properly analyse it- if you're someone with a record of producing good work, for example- and the people not appreciative of art will look at it superficially and say "yeah it's cool" or "whatever I can draw that", completely forgetting that when someone painted that, they dedicated days or months to a single final piece of their work - it sounds stupid, and it is, but artists are too self-absorbed to not offer their inner world to people.
I realise there are a shit ton of bad artists (whatever that means, I call them kitsch) out there and there are artists who do things like post-rationalising or reactionary art, but don't dismiss anyone for creating, looking at or into art. And I use art in the widest term possible- think your kids' fridge drawings to intricate crop circles.
youtube rants wow
What do 3 blank white boards mean ? What does it all mean? The numbers mason !
I can tell you that artists don't think the way you described. They think visually. Their mind is concerned with color combinations, shapes, silhouettes, profiles, texture, light, scale, etc. They don't think about a "message". Their only concern is what their image LOOKS like
leftyfourguns
I was talking about all mediums and artistic means
I don't think they are scared, they are more like aggressive.
And i kind of feel that, people are aggressive towards art because the art world (not the art itself) is usually aggressive towards people.
It depends on the artist and the moment, and many artists think both ways. I was reading a little about Michelangelo, and according to the writer he was concerned not only with the shapes and colors, but also with the message they could show. I see a lot of artists think this way.
This film makes the assumption that viewers require paintings to have a meaning that is expressed in language.
When I go to a museum and look at paintings, I abandon my desire to make a rational explanation of the paintings. I allow the visual part of my brain to absorb the visual images to it's satisfaction. I think that explaining visual language is extremely difficult and based on guessing.
When I view a painting I allow my visual preceptors take over and enjoy the show.
Well said
Visual art is just that, visual. When someone tries to "explain" art I feel as if it's a non-visual person trying to understand the art in the only way they can
right! art is about emotions !
I recently discovered this channel and it instantly flew up in my top 10 best youtube channel. Great content.
Dear Nerdwriter, the choice of music in all your videos complements just beaitifully the images and narration. Thanks.
I like your approach to this one, the editing is a lot more striking compared to some of your other videos. It feels more like an advert than a documentary. That's neither good nor bad but I like it in contrast to your other videos. It has a sense of confidence, and I liked how you brought the stages of analysis itself to the foreground; it feels more involved with the audience. Keep up the good work, you're still my favourite RUclipsr.
Yeah, a little bit ;)
This is the BEST chanel on RUclips these days!
+Rafael Divoz
check channel criswell and every frame a painting. they review movies and they are awesome
+Rafael Divoz Have a look at "The school of life". I would say they are even better (:
+Andre CnB I second your recommendation for "Every Frame a Painting" wholeheartedly. CGP Grey I also recommend for no-nonsense break-downs of history, geopolitics, technology, and everything in between, all injected with perfect dead-pan humor while being highly educational.
+Rafael Divoz Happened upon it through the "work" video. Haven't left since!
+Rafael Divoz School of Life
i should be studying for my finals, but im here binge watching all those videos. great content dude
I'm an art historian and I absolutely love you. Keep up the great work. We need more voices for our tribe.
You just blew my mind. Thank you for giving me the tools for properly analysing art, man!
I guess those steps work for every piece of art, not only Picasso
uh yeah dude lol
Great video 👍
Even Picasso didn't knew about his painting that much.
Can we just have more Picasso analysis videos?
No.
Be nice... It's really interesting...
I thought he doesnt like people asking the meaning of his stuff
No
Helpful video and good ways to look at a Picasso. The symbolism and meaning behind his work can be powerful with a full understanding
Anyone ever think to bring up the appropriation side of picasso's work, he took inspiration from african art masks which at the time were considered to be not that great and primitive at best but when he took inspiration and added a little fractures and different perspectives to them the all of a sudden golly gee this is some of the greatest art of the century. Not to knock picasso his art is good but it's the fact that when he used a style that's been there for millenia it was suddenly a watershed moment in art. Ps to those in the comment section having a meltdown over how revered picassos art is, understand that realism and traditional european art was never the standard for the definition of art; art it's self can be anything from the complex woodblock prints of editing period Japanese artist to the modern day minimal paintings of a simple all white canvas. I advise you to not have such a sheltered perspective because you'll never truly appreciate the medium itself
Whenever people talk about art I just don't understand how they see so much in so little. I seems to me that most often what somebody says about a piece of art past the basics tells you a lot more about the person than the art.
+Derek N Good point!
+Derek N Yeah, its projection and pretentiousness - laying claim to inner workings of an artist as if they understand the art is childish and immature. I can respect peoples opinions, but when they are presented as fact, without any disclaimer, then nope - they are the problem.
The moment an art piece is displayed in front of public, it becomes of public - one will stare and feel, another will be inspired to think about it. They both enjoy it, and that is how it should be. Relax. Tell us what this painting mean to you.
I have a very valid question, aren't we just retrofitting what we know to the painting? Maybe Picasso just showed his view of the night fishing. I mean it does seem like we're trying to find meaning where there is none. Why can't it just be a prosaic expression of an old man's view on a night ambulation.
It certainly could be that, in Picasso's mind, but your question assumes the primacy of authorial intent.
In art and literature, meaning can be given by the artist/author, created by the viewer/reader, or a combination of both. Even if one tries to do neither and just see "what's there" objectively, one's interpretation and sight is clouded by one's own knowledge and experiential background.
If you look into academic criticism, there are many approaches or "lenses" of interpretation, some of which are contradictory, but all of which can be valid to some degree or another.
Shubham Bhushan you're right. I study art, and I can tell you, art has no meaning. No painting in this world has meaning. Can you understand art? Can you understand food? Can you understand music? Art is just an experience.
Because Picasso chose his painting to look like that. He decided every aspect of it. You have to wonder why.
" I mean it does seem like we're trying to find meaning where there is none. "
Just like in life, perhaps? I suppose it would depend on how we define "Meaning".
Exactly, better to just never talk about anything.
"that obviously....VERY obviously phallic head (...)"
Dude, I have totally seen a donkey head here x'D
Excellent final point.... my folks went to wine fairs representing a friends winery and for tastings people were always asking what they should be looking for and their response was always, "Whether or not you like it." Taste isn't a matter of particular notes you can recognize it is a personal appreciation.
Great rapid intro on Picasso's life and work -and the detailed analysis of the work offers a useful template for considering the work of all artists.
another brilliant video!
I don't see how.🤷
It’s amazing that he is the first painter to paint a masterpiece whilst riding a bicycle.
After watching this video I realized that all those drawings, sketches and paintings of mine, that I threw away, were so deep and meaningful after all! 😁
They are priceless interpretations and Journalings of yourself. Could you use the nerdwriter's way of interpretation to attempt to understand yourself more? Could you imagine yourself drawing with the same clarity of mind as Picasso himself? Is all that work, that toil, lost to the trash can?
@@aerialjordan2683 Dunno about "...the same clarity of mind as Picasso himself" but I do remember enjoying the process of creating art. Received helpful comments from friends and family along the lines of: "this doesn't make any sense"; "it's ugly"; "you are not normal"; "waste of paint"; "maybe find other ways to express yourself"; "read books instead". LOL... that was enough to make me stop. Note: I did receive positive feedback too but the negative devastated my confidence.
Destroyed all my artwork. Only recently did I restart sketching. Now, years after those early days, I make sure I NEVER let anyone see my artwork. I can be as bad or talentless as I want to be.😁👍
Maybe someday, I should attempt a Nerdwriter-style interpretation of my work. 🤔
@@sketchilicious you do it for yourself, no one else.
It's not the painting it's the signature silly.😂 Your signature isn't worth much right now.🤷
@@benji961 Absolutely.
Your last line sums up art perfectly. The quirkiness of human nature means that one person will see treasure in what another dismisses, another who insists on literal interpretation and yet another depth of meaning in something not even the artist wished to express. That is, to me, the beauty of art, it reflects life and myriad human foibles perfectly.
It’s reassuring to see 1 million + views on a video about understanding Picasso’s work. Brilliant stuff.
I could listen to you explain any panting anytime until the end of time. that was fascinating. I did not want it to end.
Picasso's so weird to me. Like, by the time he was 12 he could draw a rendering of a person more realistic than most people will be able to do in a lifetime, and then he grows up and chooses to paint like a 6-year-old. It's bizarre, man.
I would guess that since it was no longer challenging to render realistic paintings, he found that exploring abstraction and other means of creating art beyond realism was more fulfilling, like many artists before and after him. Achieving realism is not the goal of all artists.
I think that being able to draw everything is where to start for at least trying to be a good artist. if there is something you can't draw, how can you express exactly what you mean? your limits will shape forever your art, instead of your will.
PennyNickel McGee Are you ok? stupid ignorant
There is a quote of Picasso that says basically that, he said something to the effect that when he was a boy he could draw like Raphael, but it took him his whole life to learn to draw like a child.
He got bored of depicting reality as it was, and specially after the photography was invented, the Vanguard Art movements began... He invented an amazing movement as Cubism was, a true 4th dimension in painting, to paint time. In any case yes, obviously he was a master in realistic painting, he was a master in any discipline actually, many people decide to ignore that fact.
it doesn't matter what the author meant. art is about the experience, the understanding and the personal opinion. I've seen comments offering deep opinions and people saying it's just age and nonsense.
Not about experience all, Artist recognize other artist and the Sad thing is people create this weird illusion in society where everyone is an artist😂 like the teacher who tells every kid that they're special. The true reality is there are only a few true artist, and people who are replicators are definitely not artist.
Copying a figure exactly from life, you are are a great painter or a great drawer, but an artist? Lol Artist is a title to be earned, a title which can take an entire lifetime to grasp, a title which I am aspiring to be even after 20 years of experience.
If only the people knew what Picasso was trying to achieve😂 and all the damn critics with their high vocabulary create distorted description on his works is just amusing which in turn fools the general public because they wouldn't dare challenge the so called knowledge of critics.
The few true artists don't waste their time analyzing others work either. They just make their own and move on.
GoldHamSam Trust me they do, when they have some negative things to say they don't say it, but if they find others similar to themselves they acknowledge each other and share a good conversation unlike you, everyone is different and when you say things like ALL artist are this and ALL artist are that, you look stupid.
Giving others appreciation for going towards the path of Art is not wasting time.
GoldHamSam Trust me they do, when they have some negative things to say they don't say it, but if they find others similar to themselves they acknowledge each other and share a good conversation unlike you, everyone is different and when you say things like ALL artist are this and ALL artist are that, you look stupid.
Giving others appreciation for going towards the path of Art is not wasting time.
***** Alright pal. You clearly aren't an artist.
wow.... i.... just... wow.... I've never seen a piece of artwork broken down and explained in such an in-depth way like this before... amazing
This is honestly my new favorite channel. You don't get unparalleled editing with great narration as well as deep analyses all together in one video these days! Keep it up!
this was amazing. I wish I could analyze art even half as well!
Follow the 5 steps and have a go.
+Frank Botos all you have to do is look at anything from both your own and the artists shoes.
I think we can all agree that the first 36 seconds of that video were some of the coolest stuff the @nerdwriter has done so far
I said the same thing, the flow of images felt very free and unrestricted. I like an unconstrained presentation. That's why I wouldn't mind if he did 15 minute videos, so he could say more on the subject and be more transparent.
what if he was just high and tried to paint 2 random fishermen?...
+Carlos Aguiar If that's you interpretation of the picture then sure, he was high and painted two random fishermen. Personally, I think nerdwrighter said some good things here.
+Carlos Aguiar what if your parents never loved you?
+Carlos Aguiar lol well said. I hate overanalysing of art... just accept that most artists are druggos and move the fk on.
+Denmardiu It's as clear as day that you've never taken part in any artistic endeavour.
Alper Yılmaz
thank you for warning me! but now imagine that this painting was not made by picasso but was made by his retarted brother, does that change you perception of the painting or not? it's not that amazing and deep anymore is it?
The two fishermen and each of their distinctive styles of working evokes the Don Quixote/Sancho Panza model. Optimism/pessimism, action/inaction. Something perceived as characteristically "Spanish" but universal too! Verrryy Romantic! Love how this video makes me think things I haven't thought before!
This has one of the best introductions of any of Evan's videos. phenomenal pacing
*Fun fact*
here is the entirety of his name:
Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
Blasco was his real name. Picasso was his mother's.
*fun fact*
You took it from wikipedia
@@stijnkulche5932 no. I know this since i was 15... way before wikipedia, when people read books.
@@francoisdesnoyers3042 I wasn't talking to you dipshit
@@francoisdesnoyers3042 He literally copy pasted that full name from wikipedia lmao
I'm utterly obsessed with your channel !
I really like the rithm of the start of this video
Kandinsky, comming back home one evening, saw a painting through a window. He was surprised by two things, the first one being that he did not recognise the work at all! but that despite this fact, he thought that the painting was very beautiful! Once inside the room, he rapidly realised that the maid had hung up the painting upside down. A few months later, he produced the first abstract painting (1910).
I keep returning to your video because the way you open it is great.
Interesting video. I would challenge these assertions, however, by pointing out that its deepest conclusions (that is, its conclusive conclusions) arise from the historical and personal context, at which point we have stopped looking at the painting. If the painting means what you say it does, it has failed as a work of art to convey that meaning. We are forced to rely on historical knowledge, which cannot be found in an art gallery. We no longer have Picasso. He left us a painting--not a letter, an anecdote, a family tree, or a confession--a painting. Why? That's the question I would like to see answered.
I hope my future husband talks to me this way. Your delivery is mesmerizing
Me at museum: Still wondering how this painting that looks like from 5 years old kids work so popular.
Also me: wow.
Right or wrong you have a beautiful way of breaking down the paintings and draw attention to details. Thanks
I will never look at a Picaso the same. You have such an amazing talent.
headdesking a little at all the people in the comments saying the painting doesn't mean anything..
+fraukamera You ruined your desk just because some people couldnt find meaing in this painting? Jeeez.
+Keku I think it's great that you have that much trust in the sturdiness of my head, but alas, I think if I were to actually headdesk, my desk would win that confrontation with considerable ease :)
+fraukamera shut up dude
+fraukamera Remember that most may not be as informed on such topics as the creator of the video or yourself. It's guaranteed that there are many a subject you know little if nothing about.
+Ron maest True. But if one knows little or nothing about a subject, one should not publicly assert one's own ill-informed opinions about it.
I've never been able to appreciate Picasso for the most part, except for Guernica, which is the only painting of his that I know the context to. Even with that, it took pop culture for me to fully appreciate it. I knew that it was large, larger than an inset in an art book, larger than a png on Google images. But it took Children of Men and Civ V: Brave New World to make me truly appreciate it.
Treat a work of art like a prince. Let it speak to you first. -Schopenhauer
This channel will be on my playlist for the next months for sure. Thank you.
I love that you made us look at this painting (mostly) throughout the 8:10 video. The average painting view is something like 20-30 seconds and I saw things several minutes in that I would not have noticed had I looked at this for 30 seconds or one minute. I agree with this being a co-piece to the tragic Guernica. Thank you for the time you spent analyzing and presenting this beautiful painting.
Yet again another amazing video!
You're my favorite youtuber, nerwriter1!
yet another stellar video of yours that teaches me more in 8 minutes than most education i take part in does
And maybe the picture is just a representation of what he saw while watching two guys spear fishing.
Maybe on lsd
While this piece of art could be dissected all we want and there still would be something missing. I can't help but notice Picasso's choice of using the colour purple to highlight the limbs and outfit of the women on the banks, the tenuous link between Picasso's confident self and timid self and the city in the background.
You know what I love about art. It's all about how you look at it. You could look at this painting and see it as Picasso's struggles at this point in his life. But you could also see it as like Picasso as just being like "You know what, I'm just painting some guys fishing.''
unlike many other "modern art" artists, there is something very immediate, tactile and... comprehensible about Picasso's work, you get the mood of the art instantly. also his color palate and color composition is perfect.
You start with "what to do when standing in front of a Picasso", then proceed to tell me that I should get information on things that I could not possible find out standing in front of a painting.
+Craparella Smørrebrød Do you have a phone - if not, then get one. The Nerdwriter probably assumed his audience did.
+Thomas Jørgensen I find that hard to believe that the precious time standing in front of a famous painting is best spent staring down into my phone.
+Craparella Smørrebrød If you value the time spent with the artworks, you could spend some time at home reading up beforehand.
+Thomas Jørgensen And taint your first impression? I think the ideal way would be to have a private guide. She would let you get a first impresion for a few minutes without saying anything, then tell you all these things. Of course that would be quite expensive :-)
I think the ideal way to enjoy art is look at it and if you decide it looks like shit to you move onto the next one. Knowing that Picasso was attacked by a Jello monster when he was a kid and that scarred him for life doesn't make the painting look any less like Jello diarrhea
I would love to see a "How to Understand William S. Burroughs".
Great video! Love that you used "All of Me" for part of the music!
A friend of mine said he just saw a Picasso painting up close. I gave him your video as reference.
Narrator- That's why the boat floats in no man's land
Me-hah.... Where the hell is the boat
I- 💀
People can explain certain paintings(like this one) to death, but that doesn't deal with the fact that overall I don't find it all that visually appealing. That's my fundamental problem... it doesn't look good to me.
I couldn't agree more with you. This typifies my response to this type of art. It's not art. It's just trying to be edgy. It's pretentious. It's the work of a five year old. Picasso didn't actually know art theory. It's just one big pretentious cop out for not understanding real composition, perspective, anatomy, form, colour etc. etc. Compare this crap to John Constable...
"It's pretentious. It's the work of a five year old." Nice contradiction, dude.
No this is basically the opposite of what I was saying, I don't disparage Picasso or the people who like it, or even people who only like it because of it's context. I wasn't saying its edgy or the work of a five year old and I don't know or care if it's a cop out.
I'm just tired of people telling other people what to think and who to like(which you are doing) and even though the original video doesn't directly try to tell you how to feel about the painting, it implies how great the work is if you interpret it. And I'm just saying that symbolism isn't worth anything to me if I'm not captivated on an aesthetic level...
In a weird way I can actually draw a similar parallel to 5 Nights At Freddie's. People say "you just don't understand the deep hidden story", but that doesn't matter because the experience is not enjoyable. It's not about understanding... And there we reach the fundamental point that even though I have no problem with intellectual interpretation, I think it shouldn't take precedent over aesthetic preferences. I wonder how many people were told how great Picasso is or know his influence and have left them confused as how to actually feel about his work, knowing that it should be great, but not sharing that in feeling.
**Taylor Hood doesn't actually know art theory.
Completely agree with OP. Same here, maybe because I can't go over step 1. It is simply not visually appealing to me. I can now appreciate all the backstory behind it, even though I think that steps 4 and 5 - the interpretation part are just a bit too out there. I don't think you can infer the psychology of the painter just from one part of his painting, that sound a bit too Rorschach 'woo' like. One way or another - I might simply not be the target audience for this. But I appreciate the video, I know at least understand what people find interesting and beautiful about it.
Have you ever thought of analyzing Cowboy Bebop in a video essay? There's a lot to talk about. As far as the theme of the video 'Accessibility in Art' might be good, since Bebop is famously down to earth in a genre and art form not know for being so.
+KaiGonGinn Oh that would be several videos. Fey's story of finding herself to mourn the innocence she doesn't remember, Ed's story of needing to find a family, Jet's seeming lack of caring, Spike and Vicious' war over love.
Perhaps the most intriguing is actually Yoko Kanno's music and how it tells the story without needing the dialog. Watching with just the soundtrack brings out so much depth. The movie is a good example of that.
+KaiGonGinn That soundtrack is what got me into jazz.
Whole my life I was searching for something like this, I want to learn about so many things but I don't know where to start, this is heaven to me because I want to gain knowledge about so many things, I know I want to do this, I know people do this but I didn't knew how, thank you so much for the video!!!
"Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers, everything around one, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting people have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only a trifling bit of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world, though we can't explain them. People who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree."
Pablo Picasso