Picasso's character and talent

Home / Education / ARChives / Foundational Discussions

Picasso's character and talent

From Marie C. Riche

Published before 2005


Melville,

I agree with you that Picasso was personally an awful man, he was mean with his different wifes and also with his children. He had a overdimensioned ego and was also a monster of egoism and cupidity. This is not the point however. My belief is that, as many artists, he saw differently from us, the "non-artists". I was struck to see in a library a drawing manual "how to draw with the left side of the brain". Yes I strongly think that artists, and specially painters but also musicians, develop certain capacities which are not used by ordinary people. As a neurologist by formation, I know that we use only an infinitesimal part of our brain.

What painters do with their "gift" is something else ..... I read in different posts here that Picasso was very gifted but used it wrongly .. (or was not gifted at all) What I am trying to say is that I have an esteem for people who do not care for opinion of the others and go on trying to traduce their own creativity. Mockery, distortion, certainly, but that was a kind of research. He was absolutely lucid, did not try to please, and said "I chose the worst, even if I know they would prefer a flower bouquet" and went on working at every time of the day or night following his whim. Everything was good for him, his wives, other great painters, photos, post cards, totem, even a bicycle. As soon as he had finished with one period, he jumped to another and did not care whether his work was appreciated or not. I don't care personally for most of his work but I have a sort of clinical interest in people who are so "out of norm" both in their lives and their acts. We won't be there in one hundred years to see what is left of him. I don't remember who compared him to Beethoven who in his time was mocked and considered as a minus. They both had intense energy and creativity.

Creativity then .... is progressing even if the progression goes the wrong way for a while.

Since you asked me my opinion on the ARC display, I would say that I have seen a very high quality of talented painters. The technic is almost perfect and astounding, I agree on that with Fred Ross statement, and also on the fact that masterpieces are yet to come. At this stage, even if the subjects are very different according to the sensibility of the painters, there is a kind of uniformity in perfection that replace the emotion one can feel in the spontaneity and clumsiness of some paintings. ( with of course the fact that digital photos may be quite different from live since we cannot appreciate the touch). If I push this argument farther, supposing the ultimate quality would be reached, it would not mean necessarily a masterpiece, but the fact that this period of creation is at its peak and can only decline unless some sidetracks should be found to progress. Nothing is static in life. Please don't take this as a criticism, I really enjoyed looking at the pix.

Yes, I live in France.

Marie