Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Picasso's Genius Revealed: He Used Common House Paint
livescience ^ | 08 February 2013 Time: 10:43 AM ET | Clara Moskowitz

Posted on 02/09/2013 9:26:41 AM PST by BenLurkin

Art scholars had long suspected Picasso was one of the first master artists to employ house paint, rather than traditional artists' paint, to achieve a glossy style that hid brush marks. There was no absolute confirmation of this, however, until now.

Physicists at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Ill., trained their hard X-ray nanoprobe at Picasso's painting "The Red Armchair," completed in 1931, which they borrowed from the Art Institute of Chicago. The nanoprobe instrument can "see" details down to the level of individual pigment particles, revealing the arrangement of particular chemical elements

(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography
KEYWORDS: picasso
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 02/09/2013 9:26:48 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The question remais did he use it because that is what he had or for other reasons.


2 posted on 02/09/2013 9:30:52 AM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I don’t like his paintings!!!


3 posted on 02/09/2013 9:33:36 AM PST by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner
Necessity is the mother of invention!
4 posted on 02/09/2013 9:37:03 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I am not a Picasso fan.


5 posted on 02/09/2013 9:38:19 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

6 posted on 02/09/2013 9:38:19 AM PST by Past Your Eyes (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe

“I don’t like his paintings!!!

Me neither. When I was in Europe, I preferred Dali’s, especially up close.


7 posted on 02/09/2013 9:40:26 AM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

One of the 20th Century’s grand architects of moral anarchy.


8 posted on 02/09/2013 9:41:34 AM PST by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I do like cubism.


9 posted on 02/09/2013 9:59:29 AM PST by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

My nine year old granddaughter brings a lot of her art work home from school that look like Picasso ‘masterpieces’. I hope she outgrows it.


10 posted on 02/09/2013 10:00:00 AM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: max americana

I like his paintings I just can’t afford them. Sooooooo I just take out my house paint, canvas board and brush and copy the ones I like then frame them and hang them. I love it when people walk in and say “Is that a Picasso?” :-)


11 posted on 02/09/2013 10:01:14 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I think Picasso painted the porch of my first house. It was built about in the 1930s. In fact, I think he built the porch itself. It was sort of crooked in that style of his.


12 posted on 02/09/2013 10:04:10 AM PST by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Beginning in the 1930’s many artists began experimenting with synthetic paint, including household paint. When Jackson Pollock employed his “drip” technique in the 1950’s he used a mixed media of traditional oil paint, house paint and sometimes an acrylic. Since the 1970’s a number of his most valuable works have required extensive restoration because much of the paints he used deteriorate in a short time.
13 posted on 02/09/2013 10:34:47 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Freepers, your Contributions make every difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!

14 posted on 02/09/2013 10:38:19 AM PST by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

He was a true jeenyus.


15 posted on 02/09/2013 10:46:09 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Oddly enough, Leonardo had the same problems!


16 posted on 02/09/2013 11:11:54 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: max americana

I don’t mind Picasso, but I love Dali!


17 posted on 02/09/2013 11:12:48 AM PST by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FamiliarFace

We were on a Euro trip 4 years ago, when in Spain, we went to his home. It’s close to the beach and they served us wine, bread and cheese while everyone walked on the estate.


18 posted on 02/09/2013 11:26:20 AM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Picasso was a fraud, and he admitted it with great bitterness.


19 posted on 02/09/2013 11:38:17 AM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

Picasso’s work spans an incredible range of styles and complex construction. look up the images he produced as a teenager and in his twenties, start from there and watch a progression of unparalleled talent, most of us who are poor in aptitude wish we could possess a mere fraction of his vision, even though many of his works were uneven and even monstrous, some are incredible inventions of extraordinary insight and beauty.

I believe you will find more than a handful of examples you will enjoy.

Remember its only art.

“Art is long, life is short.”


20 posted on 02/09/2013 12:09:48 PM PST by notted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

if someone has to tell you its art, then its not art,


21 posted on 02/09/2013 12:39:29 PM PST by captmar-vell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
http://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp  photo guernica.jpg This was meant to represent the 1937 bombing, by the Germans, of the Basque "capitol" during the Spanish Civil War.
22 posted on 02/09/2013 12:46:29 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
The only bigger fraud was Jackson Pollock. Both are overrated beyond belief.

Give me a majestic Albert Bierstadt work for pure talent and beauty.

23 posted on 02/09/2013 12:59:42 PM PST by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957
The only bigger fraud was Jackson Pollock. Both are overrated beyond belief.

Thank you! The only thing that makes these paintings valuable is speculation. No one holding these paintings can afford to tell the truth.

But one day people will realize that the emperor has no clothes. When that day comes, you don't want to be the last one holding the bag.

I hope I live to see it.

24 posted on 02/09/2013 1:03:12 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
I don’t like his paintings!!!

Me either, except for this one:


25 posted on 02/09/2013 1:05:40 PM PST by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I prefer van Gogh. His work is gorgeous.


26 posted on 02/09/2013 1:06:57 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notted
I'm familiar with Picasso's very early work. There is no question that he had talent. Perhaps his abandonment of difficult representational styles of art in favor of fashion and money is what made him speak with such bitterness of his own work and of the vulgarians who feted him, worshipped him, and paid him.

The cult of Picasso, like most twentieth-century art, is a massive fraud. In my fairly well-informed opinion, Tom Wolfe was correct when he wrote in The Painted Word,

...a few fashionable people discovered their own uses of [Modern Art]. It was after the First World War the modern and modernistic came into the language as exciting adjectives...By 1920, in le monde*, to be fashionable was to be modern, and Modern Art the new spirit of the avant-garde were perfectly suited for that vogue.

Picasso was a case in point. Picasso did not begin to become Picasso, in the art world or in the press, until he was pushing forty and painted the scenery for Diaghilev's Russian ballet in London in 1918. Diaghilev & Co. were a tremendous succès de scandale in fashionable London. The wild dervishing of Nijinsky, the lurid costumes - it was all too deliciously modern for words. The Modernistic settings by Picasso, André Derain, and (later on) Matisse, were all part of the excitement, and le monde loved it. "Art," in Osbert Lancaster's phrase, "came once more to roost among the duchesses."

Picasso, who had once lived in the legendary unlit attic and painted at night with a brush in one hand and a candlestick in the other - Picasso now stayed at the Savoy, had lots of clothes made on Bond Street nearby, went to all the best parties (and parties were never better), was set up with highly publicized shows of his paintings, and became a social lion...

Picasso was a magnificent businessman and promoter. He was an actor. He led a gigantic farce. But the fundamental premise--the idea that what is original is good despite its evident ugliness--is a corrupting, decadent idea. There is a reason that the Left embraces such garbage and assails traditional concepts of beauty and goodness. Surely, as a conservative, you recognize how Orwellian and destructive to society it is to call this dung good, as the Left does.

27 posted on 02/09/2013 1:16:30 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

28 posted on 02/09/2013 1:17:40 PM PST by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
I don’t like his paintings!!!

Art died with Monet

29 posted on 02/09/2013 1:23:34 PM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

"Hitler - there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! Two coats!"

30 posted on 02/09/2013 1:26:46 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

The best version of “The Producers.”


31 posted on 02/09/2013 1:27:34 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
I do love the French impressionists and post-impressionists (Monet, Degas, Manet, Seurat, Renoir). But I also became a big fan of the American Realist school, including the work of Edward Hopper and Winslow Homer.

Abstract expressionism never did anything for me. Picasso's earlier work was informed by post-Impressionism and still bore some resemblance to life. He remained enormously creative and sensitive to life experience, even as his craft devolved into Cubist boxes and tortured human forms.

Jackson Pollack, on the other hand, always struck me as a gigantic fraud whose work was routinely equaled at any 1960s Boardwalk "spin-your-own-abstract-painting" booth for five bucks.

32 posted on 02/09/2013 1:39:59 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Think about the talent in that frame: Zero Mostel, Ken Mars and Gene Wilder. I would have loved to watch them improvise on the set, as they actually did for many takes.


33 posted on 02/09/2013 1:44:16 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy
Now this is a real artist!


34 posted on 02/09/2013 1:57:36 PM PST by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Art died after the Renaissance ...


35 posted on 02/09/2013 1:59:27 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows

36 posted on 02/09/2013 2:01:17 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; a fool in paradise

Oh, man what a couple o days. First, claims that some longhair named Eddie Van Hellem is the greatest guitarist of all time, then a list of 50 greatest jazz vocals filled with pop songs, now a “I don’t like Picasso” thread. We’ve been holding our collective bad breaths waiting for your opinion of Picasso.


37 posted on 02/09/2013 2:07:09 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Well some people try to pick up girls
And get called assholes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare and 
So Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole

(Jonathan Richman)


38 posted on 02/09/2013 2:13:17 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; Revolting cat!; a fool in paradise

Not bad, but he’s no Bob Ross.


39 posted on 02/09/2013 3:35:52 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
Abstract expressionism never did anything for me.

And the same thing for classical music. Nothing good has been written for at least 100 years. Everything is about pitch and tone. None of the brilliance of a Beetoven or Mozart, or Vivaldi.

40 posted on 02/09/2013 5:42:46 PM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Mr Richmans poetry has a lot in common with Picasso’s art.


41 posted on 02/09/2013 5:44:11 PM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner

He used house paint because it was cheaper. Only reason needed.


42 posted on 02/09/2013 5:48:55 PM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: layman
"My nine year old granddaughter brings a lot of her art work home from school that look like Picasso ‘masterpieces’. I hope she outgrows it."

When Picasso was five years older than your granddaughter, he painted this...

A year later he painted this...

Be sure to let us know when she outgrows him.

43 posted on 02/09/2013 5:57:03 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.


44 posted on 02/09/2013 6:26:14 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.


45 posted on 02/09/2013 6:26:39 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.


46 posted on 02/09/2013 6:26:51 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I never cared for him either. I think Braque was much better.


47 posted on 02/09/2013 6:26:54 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Yes, he did beautiful work when he was young. And then he cynically threw that all away because he realized he could get rich by appealing to the ignorant, the decadent, and the Left.

The Left has especially embraced the art of the twentieth century. They praise newer and ever-uglier forms of “art” and have shoved them down our collective throat telling us that ugly distortions and perversions are good and beauty is for fools and Christians. It’s political. It’s part of their general rejection of the true, the good, and the beautiful, the values that formed our nation. They try to tear down the West and all its glories, and when we protest and say, “This is ugly, this is vile, we want the chance to aspire to what is beautiful,” the Leftist media and academy sneer. This is not a movement in art that any conservative should support.


48 posted on 02/10/2013 5:10:09 AM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Bob Ross “Remixed”? You gotta watch this: http://youtu.be/YLO7tCdBVrA


49 posted on 02/10/2013 5:26:26 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
"Yes, he did beautiful work when he was young. And then he cynically threw that all away because he realized he could get rich by appealing to the ignorant, the decadent, and the Left....The Left has especially embraced the art of the twentieth century. They praise newer and ever-uglier forms of “art” and have shoved them down our collective throat telling us that ugly distortions and perversions are good and beauty is for fools and Christians. It’s political. It’s part of their general rejection of the true, the good, and the beautiful, the values that formed our nation. They try to tear down the West and all its glories, and when we protest and say, “This is ugly, this is vile, we want the chance to aspire to what is beautiful,” the Leftist media and academy sneer. This is not a movement in art that any conservative should support."

First, I agree wholeheartedly with you in regards to your remarks about much of 20th Century art. What we saw at the close of the last century was the culmination of about 100 years worth of struggle on the part of communists, anarchists, atheists and nihilists to position themselves as the arbiters of good taste. This has been documented in many places, both by the left who openly espouse it and by those who vigorously oppose them. In 1963, when the current communist goals were read into the Congressional record, there were a number of items on the list that spoke to the deliberate intent to degrade the culture as a whole by passing off meaningless, ugly artforms. It was an old, and well known tenet of the left even then.

Second, I wish to stipulate that I am not an apologist for Picasso the person - he was a misogynist of the worst order and more closely fit the grotesque stereotype of such that the left loves to foist upon conservative males. Furthermore, I would openly reject and refute his declared politics anywhere, any time and under any circumstances. I find many of his works unappealing (so did he), although in others I find true, inspired genius.

Having said all that, I do love the truth, and there are some facts that you conveniently skew or ignore altogether that are quite germane to the topic of Picasso and his art.

You state, "...he did beautiful work when he was young. And then he cynically threw that all away because he realized he could get rich by appealing to the ignorant, the decadent, and the Left."

First, I think it's intellectually dishonest to state that Picasso, "threw...away," his traditional, academic training and work; I believe (and his own words and those of his contemporaries strongly suggest) that having mastered traditional academic techniques so early in life, he simply became bored with them. His shifts in style, at least most certainly, early in his career, were the efforts to break new ground, do things in a manner that had not been done before, and by his own admission he saw some as failures and others as successes. When an entrepreneur does this in virtually any other field of endeavor, conservatives call it "innovation," and laud it as a good thing.

Let's also keep in mind that in the 20th Century, the art market has been driven by elitists and critics who embraced ugliness. Even if Picasso later engaged in the work he did for strictly mercenary reasons, it is you who cynically criticize him for having simply identified a new market and (quite successfully) servicing it. Again, this is something conservatives typically defend. If people demand SUVs, conservatives defend the rights of the auto industry to build and sell SUVs in spite of the objections of the environmentalist fringes of the left, the MSM and power hungry politicians. If people want ugly art, that desire will be serviced in a free economy. Now, we can debate the merits of that market as well as the cultural factors and the intellectual vacuity that allowed it to come into being, but I think it somewhat disingenuous for a conservative to begrudge an artist (or an automaker) for accomodating the demands of a market and refer to the profit motive as "cynical" simply because we may not like, understand or feel the same demand. I'm not a big fan of Apple products and I personally view their marketing and diehard adherents in nearly cultlike terms. I don't get all the buzz, but I don't begrudge Apple for selling the products they do. Conservatives are supposed to love rags-to-riches stories, and Picasso went through a period where he was burning his own canvasses and frames for heat. He later found a niche that made him quite wealthy, and I don't begrudge him that one bit, regardless of whether he did so with purely cynical or purely artistic motives. As per my earlier caveat, I would take issue with his communist ideals that if and where realized, would limit the ability of others to do the same, and in this regard he was certainly a hypocrite.

Humans will typically respond to any objet d'art on both an intellectual and emotional level. Different periods, styles and artists have tended to swing more in one direction or the other to varying degrees. The swindle of the 20th Century art market is that from say the Expressionist period forward, art in practice, has tended to be more on the emotional side of things (with some notable exceptions), but the critics and galleries have told (and sold) the masses that they are engaging acts of deep intellect. People feign appreciation for things they don't really appreciate, because failing to do so would (they think) be a display of ignorance or absence of sophistication. This has allowed truly inferior artists to rise to levels of influence and renown that should be unthinkable; however, this was not the case with Picasso, and in fact, I think it is in this very tension between intellect and emotion where Picasso truly displays his genius.

A good artist will paint with the intent of evoking primarily an emotional or intellectual response. A really good artist will successfully fulfill that intent with some regularity. A truly great artist will manage to pull off both in the same work. Picasso was not only capable of pulling this off, but doing so with great ease. Even in a preliminary sketch with a little pencil work he could capture a moment of intense intimacy, with tremendous technical, linear, cooly rational virtuousity...

However, this skill was not limited to his realist work, but was done with equal aptitude in his more abstract efforts. Many years ago when I was in elementary school, I remember one of our English textbooks had E.A. Poe's Eldorado juxtaposed with Picasso's Don Quixote. I was struck by the image's simplicity and power (indeed its power loomed largely in its simplicity). At the time, I had no idea that I was looking at, "a Picasso," and it was only years later after studying and doing art of my own, that I could articulate why it struck me so...

...it was the balance of emotional and rational appeal, the volume of data that was communicated in combination with the raw pathos of a sketch that looks like it was rendered in a matter of a few minutes with deceptive simplicity.

Only the most very ignorant would fail to immediately recognize the subject matter, and those only remotely familiar with Cervantes' work will immediately recognize the setting. The elegantly simple rendering immediately places one under a hot Spanish sun which virtually becomes a character in its own right, its harshness reinforced by the strong black and white contrast and absence of intermediate grays. The Hidalgo and Sancho Panza are at once pathetic, dignified, absurd and noble; their mounts echoing the character of their riders, as they prepare for battle with the windmills. Many will write it off saying, "it looks like something a child could draw," which I suppose is technically true, yet I've never seen a child, nor any other adult for that matter, pull off anything quite like it when all is said and done.

50 posted on 02/10/2013 8:55:26 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson