I think it's easier now to not get Cubism because we live in a machine/electronic age where it's common for everything to be broken down into discrete bits and rendered as series of chunks or bits. But when Cubism was around, it was still unnerving and intriguing to think that life might be able to be disassociated into parts that way.
Just my "before coffee and the baby kept me up all night so I'm tired" seat of the pants conjecture.
No, that's good. I think you're onto something there.
I do hope that Aliz will educate you about Cubism, which is not about cubes. And your Cezanne was actually a huge inspiration in the first part of the period. (There are several types of Cubism)
It's funny that some of my former students, who as members of my Artistically-Talented classes, sometimes had a difficult time with Cubism. Most of them ended up with it as one of their favorite art periods. It certainly had a HUGE role in turning art from the realistic and tightly controlled classicism to something that became more truly ART. (Come on Aliz... YOU CAN DO IT!)
I hope she does too. I'd like to see the point of Cubism, I really would, because I love Picasso- only not, particularly, his Cubist period.
That's interesting because his Cubist period strongly influenced all of his later art.
Picasso is okay. He did a lot of "stealing" from other artists and sometimes his work was very mediocre. He certainly traded on his fame. I do like many of his pieces, including the monumental sculpture that is in Chicago, but I prefer the work of many other artists.
As an example, the Demoiselle's painting(s) was created after he attended a display of African Art. (African being one of my favorite kinds of art.)
Put into a nutshell...
Cubism was meant to show many viewpoints combined into one piece. It was often quite ugly looking. That did not matter because true art does not need to be "beautiful". Early Cubism involved rejecting color, using only neutrals. It showed the most of Cezanne's influence. Later Cubism involved using color again, but was very limited. Braque (who really was more of the originator) and Picasso rejected classic perspective, working with very flat plains. It rejected realism. It even rejected individuality. If you see a lot of the Cubist works and don't know which artist painted which painting you won't be able to tell which belongs to Picasso, and which belongs to Braque. They also "invented" collage during that period by using "artificial texture" - meaning they added "fake" parts made from various materials, such as wallpaper, to the artworks.
That period was SO influential to modern art! I don't particularly love the works, but I do really appreciate them. It was one of the periods in art that marked a huge turning point in art history.
The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. (Paul Cezanne)
Yes, It's a bit screwy to adore Picasso and not like his cubist work. That's why I'm hoping to change. Mind you, I don't like the blue period either.
My take on Picasso is that he kept on getting better and better. I know that's an eccentric view. It comes out of stumbling across an exhibition of his late work in Avignon in 1970 and being knocked sideways by it.
You know I appreciate anyone who appreciates art... any of it! :^)))
(My icon is a Picasso)
I don't get why exactly it should be considered such a good idea to chop things into little cubes or shards or whatever those things are.
Because if you're used to analog, digital is strange and fascinating as hell?
So it wasn't Al Gore who invented the Internet- it was Picasso!
it was Picasso!
Dude. Picasso would have loved the internet.
Too true. He'd have thought of all sorts of nifty, new ways to use it for art.
I tend to think of cubism as being part of many things that were happening around the same time - relativity and existentialism in particular. They shared the same idea that there wasn't one fixed viewpoint, or any one particular morality, and cubism can be seen as an artistic extension of that.
Picasso did indeed get bored with it very quickly, but he was one of those artists that picked and discarded at a huge number of different styles throughout his career. It's not an invalidation of it as a movement though, and it's been hugely influential, and not just in the field of painting and sculpture.
I agree about Renoir though. Fluffy and twee are two words that come to mind, though I know that I'm being unfair to the more innovative aspects of his work there.
I think of cubism as a springboard.
Renoir can be shockingly bad. Tasteless, kitsch, sentimental. His son- the film maker- was a much greater artist.