Picasso is the icon of a successful artist. When a child draws a picture, or dedicates themselves to art others often say: “you could be the next Picasso!” (Although this may also be said out of irony on account of Picasso’s child-like style.)
As a kid, I remember being in awe of Picasso because of this. I thought: “If only I could be as good of an artist as Picasso -everyone knows him and it must be impossible to actually see his work in person.” Like many, when I eventually became acquainted with his work, I was perplex by a style that I could not understand. His paintings were child-like, he used colors that were off-putting to me, and I simply couldn’t make sense of what he’d created.
As I grew and got more involved in artistic study, I became repulsed by Picasso. First of all, I saw what the man actually looked like, and he frightened me. His eyes were those of a madman, and he had this general wildness about him that made me uneasy. I also discovered the incredibly awful things he said about women and the way he depicted them in his paintings and wanted no part in condoning that behavior. Finally, I (like many others I’d suspect,) really didn’t find his style that compelling and his pieces often left me wondering what the big fuss was about.
Then I travelled to Spain –Picasso’s homeland. While I was in Barcelona I found out that the “Museu Picasso” had free admission on Sundays. I went, perhaps compelled by that same child-like reverence I felt years earlier, and discovered the many sides of the legendary painter.
Viewing such an extensive collection of his work allowed me to see him as a man and not just a figure or legend. The museum was filled with not only some of his more famous stylized paintings, such as those from his blue period, his cubism, and african style, but also some of his earlier more realistic and far less distinguishably “Picasso” pieces like this one. This experience communicated to me that Picasso’s fame was not a fluke; he was highly trained.
Surprisingly, the next place where I found appreciation for Picasso’s work was in a documentary about 17th century Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (most famous for his work “Girl With the Pearl Earring.”) Vermeer and Picasso’s style couldn’t be more different. Vermeer’s paintings are extremely realistic, especially, as it is often noted, for a time that was long before the invention of the camera. The documentary I saw was about a man who had a profound fascination with the fact that Vermeer’s paintings were so realistic. After a large amount of studying Vermeer’s life and work, the star of the documentary, Tim Jenison, sought to replicate one of Vermeer’s paintings despite never picking up a paintbrush before. Tim came to the conclusion that Vermeer used a system of mirrors to create an almost paint-by-number style painting. By the end he did, indeed, replicate “The Music Lesson” by recreating the room in which Vermeer painted. What struck me in this film and gave me more of an appreciation for Picasso is how possible it was for Tim to achieve all this, and yet if someone used the same method to try to recreate a Picasso, it wouldn’t work. Anyone who looked at what Picasso looked at would not be able to depict that image the same way he did. This is what makes a genius.
In the end, what is truly astonishing about Picasso’s work is not that he painted like he did because he lacked the technical skills necessary to paint realistically, but that he could paint realistically but chose not to. Picasso’s genius lies in his ability to not care. He made whatever he wanted and if people like it, cool, if not, that’s still fine. His genius is in his ability to portray what only he sees, which is the epitome of creativity.
Picasso once said of his own style: “It took me 4 years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”
If that doesn’t sum up his style and brilliance, I don’t know what does.