Picasso: Randie’s hero… de-heroed
I have been listening to the audio book of Arianna Huffington’s book, Picasso: Creator and Destroyer and it has blackened my mood considerably. I had accepted, long ago, that Picasso was not a very nice man. I even accepted the fact that he was a misogynist. What I did not realize was, that he was a demon.
The audio book is 19 hours of not-so easy listening. It is not in how the story of Picasso’s life has been told via Huffington’s writings and Wanda McCaddon’s narration, but it is the the sheer monstrosity of Picasso’s behavior that has put a black cloud over my cheery disposition. I have come to want to throw things when McCaddon falls into the Picasso voice she verbalizes the artist with. I have, over the course of the audiobook, come to hate that voice, deeply.
And so I have reached the last 10 years of Picasso’s life… and just barely has he landed on his final conquest and I am glad to be near the end. YET… there is something that still fascinates me about this monster. Yes, monster. It, whatever IT is… is probably why the women of his life stayed with him in the face of his brazen cruelty and manipulation… there was a fascination. And what perplexes ME is… there is this insanely brilliant quality of Picasso’s work that is undeniable… and it leads me to the conundrum I have been struggling with since I started this book… can one love the oeuvre of an artist and HATE the artist himself? Is it a package deal? (I thought so at first)… BUT then… can you abhor demonism and yet like the work the demon produces? … NOW knowing how the demon produced the work…? It is really harder than you might think. The struggle continues.
it’s an ugly dilemma. maybe it helps a bit that the demon is dead and no longer perpetrating evil. maybe not. it might be easier to dismiss his work if he were a monster and a mediocre artist. but is that hypocritical? i dunno. picasso is hardly alone in causing such a dilemma. consider henry ford. brought the automobile to everyman, invented many more useful and important things than are commonly known, revolutionized industry – but was a notorious antisemite, sent hitler a large financial birthday present every year, and disseminated the notorious malicious forgery ‘the protocols of the elders of zion’. should i be thankful or ashamed that my father’s ford wages put food on the family dinner table? heroes with feet of clay are depressingly common. prince charles? notable philanthropist – who pressured the british health service into wasting resources on blatant quackery. ariana huffington herself? the huffpo publishes some important stuff, but is a hotbed of antiscience credulity and is pure evil for ‘content providers’. there is no general way to react to the exaggerated mix of creativity/good and evil in some people. on a smaller scale, most of us deal with mostly nice people with ugly flaws every day. if you choose absolute purity you end up living in a cave unable to do any good yourself. if you choose amoral pragmatism you end up becoming a monster yourself. you just have to find a case by case balance you are comfortable with.
Just remember: man is mortal, but Art is eternal.
What we respond to in Art can be very separate from a man’s follies, or even evil.
Being a Canuck I can say I like some of Celine Dion’s songs but don’t respect her. Why I don’t respect one of the most beloved singers of my country? Simple she met her husband while she was 12 yrs old and he was in his Forthies. I have a hard time having respect for that choice in a husband.
Brig, while I can understand your “cognitive dissonance” on this, remember that Art is evaluated by (somewhat) clear criteria regarding it’s style, execution, theme, etc.
Evaluating a PERSON’s life and/or presonality is done according to VERY DIFFERENT set of standards/norms of behavior. That the two are occassionally at odds should be no surprise.
When I was in the Army we acknowledged this when we’d say about another fellow that “I’d trust Frank with my life; NOT my wallet, but my Life.” I’m sure you’ve had friendships/aquaintenances like that too, we’ve all had them. Someone charming and interesting that you knew to be less-than-reliable in other matters. And made allowances accordingly.
Think of any Ancient Greek or Roman Sculpture you’ve admired for it’s craftsmanship, style, and composition of form; do you condemn the Artist for having had slaves who did the “heavy lifting” for him? A Mistress whom he sold when she became pregnant, in order to buy another one who’d be more ‘receptive’?
We have NO idea of the personal traits of the people who produced the (few) surviving Great works of Antiquity. All we DO know is that their personal lives/habits would have probably revolted us (not to mention their smell – bathing is a luxury afforded by ‘Modern’ plumbing.) and that the culture they were part of does NOT conform to current-day “civilized” standards. Yet the work CAN still appeal to the Modern mind. It is by THIS
that we know them to be Human. All too Human, like ourselves.
Any biographical work presents a view through a clouded glass — how deeply clouded varies, but none the less clouded. Huffington has a right-wing bias; how objectively could she view an acknowledged leftist? Also with an audio-book, you (generically, not personally) are influenced not only by the author, but also by the reader. I tend to view Picasso as mean and flawed, rather than evil and a monster.
GAH!!!! FUH! and other bad words. I had a very long response typed out and the internet ate it! MORE FUH!
Sigh… everything happens for a reason. For now, I will only say thank you all for voicing your comments and opinions in this public forum. It is not always easy to do so. I am happy that we are all respectful of one another’s views here on Squid Row.
Hun, it is very easy to respect what one has created while hating the individual who created it. Let me tell you a little secret: a thing, of any type, has a specific quality you are drawn to. Just because someone put that thing together doesn’t mean the thing itself represents anything of the person. I know you artistic types like to imagine something has all sorts of little cues and hidden notes in it, but the odds are you liked the images before you had any idea what the artist was doing, thinking, or being at that time. The thing itself stands alone unless you force it to represent something in your head or the imagery is blatant to the point of a jackhammer through the skull. This is why we can like one painting of an artist’s and dislike another, or one song of a musician’s and not another. You can like a thing just fine and completely abhor the person who made it. The object doesn’t always carry their taint (unless it’s specifically meant to).
Here’s my problem.
Art, any work of art, has intention behind it… whether it is the beauty of something that the artist wants to capture or maybe it seething hate that he or she wishes to express. Whatever it is, the artist uses this emotion to create a piece. IF you find out the intention, can you ESCAPE it? Can you then separate the meaning?
Art isn’t just a product that is produced. Art is an ACTION which produces something, yes> AND it is also a way to process and make sense of the world. It can be used to speak…. look at “Guernica”. How powerful that image is… because it had great power behind it… it commented not only the innocent lives that were lost in the bombing of Guernica, but it is a representation of great sadness.
If it is revealed that Picasso used a painting to demean and lesson a person… to shrink them and belittle them… how can this painting still represent its prior associated meaning? I know the intention behind the painting. It now holds that meaning.
If I have found out that Ford was supporting Hitler, how can I buy a Ford knowing that by supporting Ford, I am supporting Hitler in some way? (Which I did look up… because I didn’t know this).
BUT… I am not free from the sentiments of the above statement. I wear Converse. I am aware of Nike’s low-paying overseas factories and the contrasting large CEO salaries. It irks me. And I have shoe guilt. Which is what happens when you buy a shoe that has a taint.
So what the shoe is now, is a representation of corporate greed. It has taken on NOT what the original intention of the shoe was… a high quality/made in the USA/cool tennis shoe… but this other thing.***
But I suppose EVEN that is in the eye of the beholder…it is in what we choose to overlook. What we feel comfortable in overlooking.
***I did buy a shoe called NO SWEAT for a time…whose shoes were close to Converse and paid decent wages… but they no longer exist.
Ungh….
Picasso… was a horrible, horrible person
By no means the worst – but that is only because the worst is so very bad.
Ford was much worse – and Edison was no angel… but then you look at the likes of Hitler and Franco – or the horror that was Idi Amin Dada, or the persistent rumors about Ilse Koch….
Picasso was a craftsman, doing his minor atrocities by hand, there were and are others that sell greater, institutional atrocity wholesale.
Picasso was more than a bit of an egomaniac – his cruelties to support his perception of himself.
There were things to admire – his view that art should be appreciated for itself, and outright embrace of forgeries.
Other quirks are amusing – His conviction, supported by reality, that his doodles were sufficient to pay his bar tab.
But he was also a petty tyrant, a monster in his own microcosm, made worse because he had so many seeds of greatness.
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days….
The Auld Grump – addicted to quotation….
Grump… YOU DO like to lay down the verse! I love the line “that dogs bark at me as I halt by them;”
To say that he was an egomaniac is understated. Is there a stronger word for egomaniacal? I should make one up. There needs to be one just for him…
One way I look at art, especially that of Picasso and those like him (and there are many) is that in art one can only express oneself. You can’t demean someone else without demeaning yourself as a creator. Or you can realize the person was a total @$$ and still chose to take away joy and interest from the image, mostly to leave the original creator and his or her intent in the dust. Just because something was meant to cause pain doesn’t mean you have to let it. I learned to box and do judo because they let me hurt people. I keep practicing both because they allow me to protect people. Like any art, the martial ones can be used to express weal and woe….. most started out to harm, and now are treated as meditations. Something the visual artists could learn from the violent ones, mmm?
@ Brig – perhaps Egoist (Practitioner of Egoism – ego·ism
noun \ˈē-gə-ˌwi-zəm, -gō-ˌi- also ˈe-\
1
a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action
b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions )
That viewpoint is why I can not stand the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Or simply a functional sociopath. (Not always a bad thing – I have heard Oskar Schindler described as a functional sociopath – and the man saved over a thousand people.)
Though Picasso veered closer to deSade than to Schindler. (The Marquis deSade was another reprehensible human being – scarily enough he was worse than his modern reputation… kidnapping and poisoning, among other foibles.)
The Auld Grump
At least DeSade realized at the end he was a monster…… he is noted to have said ‘The world would do well to forget me and burn all I have ever written’.