@Ozzrya91 Most art historians like most musicologists are people who really wanted to be artists but didn't have the talent/ courage. They spend their lives surrounded by art but are really outside of it. They see the works as documents or technical processes or as wealth/possessions. It really is a shame. Art has within itself many of the hidden and secret meanings of life and of ourselves (our minds). But really only artists can see this and they talk through art (another world completely).
@Garramedia Thank you. You are one of the few who seems to understand. We are living in a cultural wasteland and those who are the custodians of our heritage are as blind and unknowledeable as those they shoud be teaching. When and after the boom falls (WW3) there will be a great deal of teaching to do among other things (!).
bigbono12 'This show and the commentary of Gary Tinterow unfortunately tells us nothing important about these works of Picasso. 'Please tell us all about it.
I do find your comments particularly irresponsible: school children come to see the exhibition. Some have to write papers for school. Your comments are useless for them. Illuminate them and tell them about the 'important' elements
that the curators did not include. I dare you: it is your duty.
@bigbono12 You are the one who does not understand!
'nothing important'
'particularly superficial'
'particularly trivial'
'peripheral'
You did not contribute much to the discussion. I disagree with you: I was particularly moved by the two almost identical works, done probably the same day, one with the marks in pencil, pointing to the volumetric quality that Picasso wanted to achieve and does achieve, in the second. Whitout the comments of the curators, I would have missed this pleasure!
This show and the commentary of Gary Tinterow unfortunately tells us nothing important about these works of Picasso. The commentary of this video is particularly superficial and trival dealing as it does with information which is peripheral to the meaning of the works themselves. These art historians really don't understand painting at all. What a waste.
very well said,
lovelplants 3 weeks ago
great presentation.. congrats keep it up ..
michaelpousti 5 months ago
picasso
1123581321enter 9 months ago
Ugh, Picasso's cubist phase was his artistic nadir.
keepcalmycarryon 9 months ago
I WENT HERE TODAY
MusicRocksYou 10 months ago
His drawings are crap.
cosg9531 1 year ago
@cosg9531 how many have you seen?
1123581321enter 9 months ago
Thank you
What a pleasure to see and enjoy,
thank you for posting!
keatsgipsy 1 year ago
@Ozzrya91 Most art historians like most musicologists are people who really wanted to be artists but didn't have the talent/ courage. They spend their lives surrounded by art but are really outside of it. They see the works as documents or technical processes or as wealth/possessions. It really is a shame. Art has within itself many of the hidden and secret meanings of life and of ourselves (our minds). But really only artists can see this and they talk through art (another world completely).
bigbono12 1 year ago
@bigbono12
I completely agree, bigbono, try to see Francis Bacon or David Hockney talking about art an you'll see what difference!
Garramedia 1 year ago
@Garramedia Thank you. You are one of the few who seems to understand. We are living in a cultural wasteland and those who are the custodians of our heritage are as blind and unknowledeable as those they shoud be teaching. When and after the boom falls (WW3) there will be a great deal of teaching to do among other things (!).
bigbono12 1 year ago
amazing thing I ever seem all diferents culture toguether I so happy . I was there last week it just great !!!!!!!! thank you
artmilenio1 1 year ago
i went to see this this past weekend.. was prob the most interesting part of the whole museum..
yarktame 1 year ago
british <3
Danie450 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bigbono12 'This show and the commentary of Gary Tinterow unfortunately tells us nothing important about these works of Picasso. 'Please tell us all about it.
I do find your comments particularly irresponsible: school children come to see the exhibition. Some have to write papers for school. Your comments are useless for them. Illuminate them and tell them about the 'important' elements
that the curators did not include. I dare you: it is your duty.
projectsinexile 1 year ago
bigbono12:
I enjoyed finding the resonances within the collection of the Metropolitan Museum.
Also: I did not know about the 'reductive' technique Picasso 'invented' in order to serve his artistic needs!
projectsinexile 1 year ago
@bigbono12 You are the one who does not understand!
'nothing important'
'particularly superficial'
'particularly trivial'
'peripheral'
You did not contribute much to the discussion. I disagree with you: I was particularly moved by the two almost identical works, done probably the same day, one with the marks in pencil, pointing to the volumetric quality that Picasso wanted to achieve and does achieve, in the second. Whitout the comments of the curators, I would have missed this pleasure!
projectsinexile 1 year ago
This show and the commentary of Gary Tinterow unfortunately tells us nothing important about these works of Picasso. The commentary of this video is particularly superficial and trival dealing as it does with information which is peripheral to the meaning of the works themselves. These art historians really don't understand painting at all. What a waste.
bigbono12 1 year ago
Nice.
EGI313 1 year ago