[livius]

Picasso was a child prodigy. Some of his earlier paintings, done when he was in 13-14 (and which, btw, are completely realistic) are wonderful. They are beautifully executed and are remarkably affecting. Of course, you never see these paintings, and in fact, all you ever see is Picasso after he became an industry.

Actually, he made himself an industry, and in many ways, you can't blame him. He took the gullible and celebrity-worshipping reviewers and turned their pockets inside out.

Picasso was, in many ways, the ultimate artist's revenge. Forget artistic integrity. He found a product that sold, kept on producing it, and lived very nicely off it, thank you. (I think he once boasted that he could even sell his sh*t, although I don't think he tried it.)

[shaggy eel]

Some of his earlier paintings, done when he was in 13-14 (and which, btw, are completely realistic) are wonderful. They are beautifully executed and are remarkably affecting.

,,, I'd agree with that. Usually there's a progression in style and capability. Picasso's regression was a paradox fuelled by the art mafia.

[IronJack]

I think he once boasted that he could even sell his sh*t, although I don't think he tried it.)

Andy Warhol was too busy making silkscreens of it.

[RightWhale]

Thanks for mentioning that Picasso was a skilled painter first who did the highly stylized works later. Dali another. Excellent draftsmen.