How Picasso Explained Modern Art in One Quote.
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 07. 2024
- Pablo Picasso has to be the most quoted artist and one his quotes best explains the appeal of modern art. This quote is: It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child. What did Picasso mean by that? How does it explain modern art?
0:00 Introduction
0:58 Picasso's quote
1:20 Pre-modern art VS modern art
3:25 What does it mean to paint like a child?
4:17 To paint in my style
7:12 Credits
Support us on Patreon: / thecanvas
This video makes me think of a quote from bassist Dave Holland at a jazz masterclass he did in Montreal a few years back. He said to us something along those lines: "I generally like to play a concert unprepared, to let the moment guide me. The thing is, it takes a lifetime of preparation to be able to do that."
I love this so much! It takes a lifetime of preparation to play a concert unprepared. Beautiful!
Thank you so much for your input. It's greatly appreciated.
Your quote reminded of me of Keith Jarrett and how frustrated he was at his performance at the Koln concert and yet it’s one of the most famous jazz concerts in history
This is the quote I had on my youthful sketchbook! Of course, I took it as validation that I was, in fact, a genius surpassing Picasso...
I love that!
It breaks my heart that the channel has only 7k subs. While so much low stuff out there get so much more attention. 😪
Thank you Lucas! With all this support, it will keep growing, I'm not worried!
Really enjoyed the video.
I agree it is often ignored that behind some seemingly simple works there are years of learning and experimenting by the artist.
Although this essay was focused on the individual artist, the same thinking could be applied to art in general. It is a cumulative affair through the ages. It took however many thousand years to paint like modern art.
Absolutely! I never thought about it that way, but you're right! This adds even more depth to this quote! Thank you so much!
This channel has turned out to be one of my favorites. I love your essays!
Aww thank you Angy! There's so much content out there, I'm honored this channel became one of your favorites. It means a lot. Thank you again! :)
i’m so grateful to have found this channel- i was looking for quality video essays on art history and i never quite found a channel that had the voice and vision that this one has. thank you for making these videos!
I’m sure this channel will grow substantially given the high quality of content it offers. Great work!
I’ve been binging your videos all day. You’re criminally underrated!!
Thank you so much Zayna!! It's super appreciated and encouraging! I saw your other comments and you're so supportive! It's really nice of you.
Thank you!
It's one of my favourte channels, it deserves way more than 7k subs
Aw thank you so much! It's super encouraging
Always so much for me to think about in your videos.
dude im in love with your channel, i hope you keep doing your thing
Wow! Thank you so much! I'm not planning on stopping any time soon :)
I love your videos! they're remarkably well-made. thank you!
Thank you so much for the encouraging words! :)
Amazing video with insightful interpretation, thank you!!
(And congratulations on reaching 7000! Well-done. :) I tell everyone I know that loves art as I do, to watch your channel.)
Aww thank you so much! That helps out so much! Thank you for helping the growth of this channel :)
@@TheCanvasArtHistory Believe me - it's my pleasure. :)
My favorite CZcams channel
Wow! Thank you so much AJ! It's an honour!
Wonderful, as always ☀
That was a great video! I have heard that quote many times, but never considered the angle you present here. Quite interesting. :)
I'm very happy you enjoyed it! Thank you for letting me know, it's super encouraging!
I really like your channel and the quality of your presentations. Even though we have radical differences in our view of art, especially in the context with what we call "modern art". Thanks for sharing.
Ngl, this is an underrated channel. This channel covers art, history, and even permeates on to philosophy. My fav channel rn! 👏
Wow! That's such an amazing, encouraging and sweet comment. I'm genuinely honored. Thank you so much!
The way I understand Raphael and the child in that quote is like this: Raphael stands for beauty and the child stands for originality. You can learn to make something beuatiful but it's hard to make something original seems to be the implication. But I don't think that's quite right, it's easy to make something original that's worthless. What's hard is to make something that's beautiful AND original. For Picasso, there's a definitely a case to be made. But in my mind, he's the exception rather than the rule. So many artists are under the illusion that originality is all you need and that beauty is no longer relevant. That's where I see the rot of modern art. I was in the US in LA once in an art museum and there was a giant boulder suspended over the entrance. That's original alright, to call that your art, but it has no artistic merit in my opinion. It's a rock that has been moved.
"...it's easy to make something original that's worthless." Agreed, but I think it's equally as easy to make something beautiful and worthless. I don't think it's possible to pin down a formula for making 'good art' but I'd argue that at times, beauty doesn't even make it into the equation. Our expectations of art are so wrapped up in the visual it's difficult to imagine how, for example, the visually impaired would define a great piece of art.
@@MDoodlee I don't think it's all that easy to make something beatiful, but it can be learned. But I don't really want to go into that.
Can you expand on your second point? I don't understand what you mean. In my language at least the equivalent of beauty is not tied to the visual.
Bravo ! "Don't let your time on earth,break your heart,pick up a brush & let your spirit create the original beauty in your Art"
I've wasted 59 years in a battle with apprehension and doubt, tonight and every day and night I spend hours enthralled with my whimsical heart in a"sustained dramatic passion" for escapism and creating another stroke towards becoming content, fulfilled and gratification..
Nothing on earth has brought me more harmony tranquility and eagerness to know more about everything so I can become the philanthropist I'm here to be,than my art and the "gazelle intensity" it offers naturally!
"What the eye can see; the hand can paint" ... Michelangelo.
By the way, I've got hundreds of some really cool modern , minimal, whimsical, original,one Of kind "werks"
Of my Art . If the world is ready for it 🙂🤏
what is 'beauty'? 'worthless' to whom? it will be very difficult to have any consensus about anything (if that's even a goal worth pursuing) if subjective, ever-changing and arbitrary ideas and concepts are somehow presented as postulates of a theory. money has no worth except in the minds of people. a diamond and a piece of glass look the same to all other animals (and even to most humans). our lives mean nothing out of context. humans create meaning through language, formation of communities, by contemplating and discussing ideas, by perpetuating beliefs and traditions. the same goes for art. context is key. these days, we've come to understand concepts such as artistic merit to require somewhat more stable postulates than beauty or aesthetics. originality, uniqueness of expression, political or social statement, emotional impact take precedence, and in the context of the art market - being recognized by people and institutions for ones originality, expression, political statement, etc. there's nothing unusual about this. so in your example of a rock, your interpretation is rendered meaningless, because you want to at the same time remove human interpretation from the equation aka. "a rock is just a rock" and yet - seek or, in fact, demand a deeper meaning. you can't have it both ways. paintings are also crushed pigment mixed with an oil applied to a piece of cloth.
@@NikolaTheodore ...so in your example of a rock, your interpretation is rendered meaningless, because you want to at the same time remove human interpretation from the equation...
This is a great argument, you've changed my mind on that point. However, the rock is still an abomination. :)
With regard to beauty, I believe that in this miasma of subjectivity, there are objective criteria of beauty which are recognized across cultures and across ages. And although it is difficult to pin them down exactly, they nevertheless exist. I think the perception of beauty has a genetic basis that is common to all human beings and maybe to a lesser extent to other intelligent species which show aesthetic preferences.
Beauty is what we regard as intrinsically valuable regardless of its utility. When we see a beautiful flower and somebody tramples it, we feel sad even though it was not ours and had no great use to anyone. We simply took pleasure in knowing it existed and being able to experience its existence. Something can be beautiful to a particular person or it can be beatiful in general, by which I mean that is is beautiful to all or nearly all people.
In this sense I believe Michelangelo's statues or Mozart's symphonies are objectively beatiful because for hundreds of years people from all around the world take pleasure in them.
This is the most underrated channel on youtube. Great video.
Wow! Thank you so much!!
Love this video 🥰
this is a really nice channel! :)
I was thinking of the Whistler quote when you used the example of Picasso drawing on a napkin. :) I was watching a documentary on Coptic art of the fist few centuries of Christian iconography, and I was surprised to see how much it reminded me of something Picasso might paint. Every 'age' has its means of expression in art, music, literature, poetry... It all grows and adapts. Painting, once freed from the rigors, exactitude, and value placed on the 'real' in representation, has come alive and personal. I think that's one reason Hitler so hated modern art - he, like all authoritarians seem to be - was a shallow thinker. If a painting was not aligned to some mythologized past, then it could be dangerous to their authority. Individualism and the freedom of expression are anathema to dictators.
Do you have the link to the documentary?
Once again a phenomenal video! I feel like many people (most of all those who pride themselves in extensive art history education-- subtle glance at several of my medievalist professors) need to hear and understand this quote in particular. Even though Picasso was far from ideal human with ideal personality, he was definitely an artist without whom art wouldn't be what it is today.
Picasso's influence is undeniable, but yes, you're right, he was far from the ideal human to say the least. Perhaps that could be the subject of an upcoming video! Thank you so much for your comment and, hopefully, this video will reach your medievalist professors! ;)
@@TheCanvasArtHistory I would love love love to see your take on Art vs Artist trope, or how to separate the art from the person that made it. It's a very layered topic that not many people think about, but it's very much an important one.
As for my professors, I might just bite the bullet and send them this (to more friendly ones, at least). I passed their classes last year, anyway. ;D
Stay safe!
That's my favourite quote when I teach Art at Middle school, assorted with the story of how Pablo Picasso's father gave up painting.
Oh and there's that other quote I like, about Picasso drawing on a napkin to pay his meal at a restaurant. The waiter remarks that he didn't sign, and Picasso is said to reply "I just want to pay for my meal, not to buy your restaurant".
I'd like so much this quote to be true! But you never know with those bragging Spaniards :D
That was a beautiful video
"How Picasso Explained Modern Art in One Quote" - proceeds to list half a dozen Picasso quotes. Seriously though, great video. Sometimes these quotes get thrown around because they sound cool and edgy without anyone thinking about what the thought behind them is and it's useful to examine exactly what he meant which I think you did well.
Hahah thank you Art Review! I saw one of your videos on Reddit a while ago! I love your use of humour to talk about art! Keep up the great work and thank you for the comment;
@@TheCanvasArtHistory Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for your video! Kind regards from Ásgeir in Iceland, who owns a few books about Picasso´s life.
I'm an abstract painter 🎨. I cross over to other styles, experiment in design texture colors etc. None of my work is finished, j just move in to another piece. Most of the time I'm disappointed in what I created but then I think ,wait a minute at least I did create something. I started painting at 24 I am now 62. The best I can say about my evolution is that the individual piece you look at was the best I could do at the moment of creation. If its bad or ugly, so be it, I was am true to creating something into our world...
I mostly take that quote as a symptom of Picasso’s outsized ego. No, he could not draw like Raphael. His traditional skills are always overblown because academic standards had already declined by the time his career unfolded. However he really, really good at being Picasso.
The humble version of this quote comes from Paul Klee: “people say that I draw like a child. I wish they were right”.
I'll be adding links to your channel in my AP Art History curriculum. Well done!
Wow! This means so much to me!
It's great to know that my short essays can be used in classes and I really hope they can inspire your students. It's super exciting!
Thank you so much!
@@TheCanvasArtHistory AP Art History has a curriculum of 250 art pieces. If you could do more lectures from that set list, you'll have every AP kid in the nation following your channel. We're hungry for contemporary resources. There are only a few sites in the Art History game right now. I look forward to your next story. :)
All I needed to know about the end of that era I learned from Edward Hopper. Anyway, genres are something critics invent after the fact. Back here on earth I feel like art and music should be a form of expression for everyone. Sad that it all became a spectator sport.
Hi just wondering what the value of time is as you mention it so often. Years doing something in itself isn’t worthwhile. But as you said, the journey is. Burning ambition or obsession, or singlemindedness in themselves aren’t worthwhile but are signifiers of something. It’s too complex. But you were right about that series of paintings you showed. Guess you have to know art and artists to appreciate them. See things thru glasses of knowledge.
I would argue most people, even artists and academics, in general, fundamentally misunderstand "art". And are misled by personal or subjective views. Further aggravated by the use of various terms, words and ideas thrown around without comprehension of how they actually apply to "art" or a creative process.
Woooowwww
The challenge is "How to paint like with the understanding of an adult.'
Dali also equated his signature with a work of art before charging for it. Never heard that story about Picasso though before now. Isn't virtuosity, knowing when to break the rules? It seems difficult to separate Picasso from the era he lived in. Before, painting like a child would never have been accepted. He came when the world was ready and expressed it's values.
1:53 - Funnily enough, I kinda like the aesthetic of the "bad" art on the right; it looks like the poster for some classic surreal horror movie, like something David Lynch would do. Whilst both artworks are good, I think I'd personally prefer to hang up the "bad" one (which I guess just proves the point of there being many ways to enjoy art).
hi, sorry to bother... i'd like to use this quote for a school project but i can't find the source... when did picasso say this, or where did he write it? could you help me?
Curious as to if you've watched Now You See Me on Netflix, especially where people (very wealthy and sophisticated) were having almost spiritual experiences and breaking into tears over what turned out to be fake Rothko's and Pollock's.
If a piece of art moves you, so be it but there sure seems to be a lot of pretension and for lack of a better term, bullshit, in the culture as far as to what's "good" or "great" or even "art"..
I really enjoyed your video. I also enjoyed watching many inther videos of you but I ask myself why you are often (not always!) doing a video about male artists. In fact many people think we have a great amount of male artists, but there are also so many good female artists. But they are not as popular like Picasso and Matisse.. I know it is not on you to show the world we also had and have female artists. But it would make me really happy seeing the next months maybe a video about a female artist :) I am really looking forward to your videos! You are doing a great job.
You are absolutely right!
This is not the first time I'm given this type of feedback and, I'll be completely honest, I fall in the trap of making a video on a female artist to feel like I'm doing my part, then go back to the (usually) more popular videos on better known (male) artists.
I have to constantly keep myself in check because it's so easy (especially as a male-passing creator) to forget to feature female artists.
I'll do better in the future! :)
What do you think about sketchbooks? As of December 2020 I've been using my sketchbooks constantly. I'm currently on my tenth and they've gotten me through a lot, though the worst year of my life and the uncertainty of healing after years of depression and worse. I consider them my best art. The "paint like a child" quote is possibly the only reason I have so many sketchbooks and definetly a reason I'm still around today. In my first sketchbook I did a detailed study of a statuette which my grandparents own, it was only a month later that I created page two. I had wanted to draw detailed careful studies on every page, but the moment I gave up on that and just drew whatever was on my mind, I actually improved faster and better. I think it could be interesting to see a video on sketchbooks and their importance to an artist and whether or not a scribble could be considered art when it was done to try to understand the world. I'm not great at expressing these thoughts, but it could make for an interesting video!
4 more years!!!
My wonder is Picasso paint like Raphael in the first place.
Great video, and in most of it I totally agree. But this whole narrative sounds like painting academic is something bad… When somebody without any form of art education draws whatever he wants is “pure art”, and when somebody try academic or classical art is “eehh, boring, everybody can do that in four years”. I like abstract art, simple art, pure art, but not the way of rejecting classical or academic art.
As I have not read all of the comments I may be repeating, but I hear Picasso saying one must find a child's mind, as in the Zen reference of "a beginners mind": Open, free, with no sense of convention, of rules, of expectations. A free flowing of expression from within because a blue horse with five legs just felt completely right in the moment. My goal in my art is to find Authenticity. But damned if all those years of rules and expectations are not always breathing down my neck.
There's another "napkin quote" of Picasso that makes me laugh... Picasso was eating in a restaurant... after he had finished to eat, he asked for the bill... and the owner of the restaurant told him : Mr Picasso, I offer you the meal if you accept to sign the drawing that you have made on the napkin"... Picasso looked at him and answered : "No, I let it unsigned, I'm paying for the meal, I'm not buying the restaurant !" 😀
To be blunt, I believe that Picasso lied, denigrating classical art because his attempts at it were sub-par. He knew that he would not gain world notoriety with his good, but not great raw skill, and could hide his flaws under the cloak of “Abstract” and “Modern”.
Classic case of “I can do that too, I just don’t want to right now.”
And “You just can’t see it, because YOU’RE not a artistically sophisticated as US.”
I'll explain modern art n two words.......MONEY LAUNDERING.
True
Can you give me a problem were their is no.solution as yet for modern art
it will take you some years to perfect the elements of real-world representation, but to find your own way, to have true ownership over your creation, now that's a journey that will take you a lifetime.
The the Renaissance were nothing but commissioned illustrators.
I can't paint but I think that the art of the past was done on order of a rich person and so they created something pleasing instantly but... because they were true artists, I bet inside each great work, a lot is hidden that can be deciphered by experts. Even the way they painted is a study on itself, take the expression in the eyes.. There is surely a lot to discover. So today modern music can sometimes only be judged by a colleague working with the same technique. But take a complex fugue. The layman will hear parts of a melody and that's it but the expert hears a lot more. So I think to be accepted more, the modern art creator must only add something which appeals immediately to non specialists. The good art must be layered, like before it always was and I don't see why that couldn't be done. So a totally chaotic musical work can never speak unless to experts but one could add a minimum of things to make it accessible. This is not "obligatory" but I guess we need to reach people or not??
The quote also is a play off of Van Gogh, I believe, who said, it took him a lifetime to be able to paint a masterpiece in a few hours.
its just my art style! this is the only time to use that exuse
This suggests that anyone who criticizes 'modern art' can be compared to the Nazis - that is appalling. The reason this type of art is criticized is because (like a cult) it puts itself above criticism. The fact that there is no level of technical merit by which to judge it by actually does make it a fact that 'anyone could do it' and call it a masterpiece, and there is no way to dispute that claim, there being no way to judge it. At no time in his life did Picasso reach the technical level of Raphael, though he did mostly representational art, much of it very creative - and because Picasso says something doesn't make it a fact. Also, to compare Cy Twombly's scribbles with the great works shows how much of this modern art cult's snake oil you have been spoonfed and consumed.
Bwahahaha 7k subscribers 2 years ago. :)
almost half a million nowdays
A child paints for pleasure.
algorithm engagement comment :-)
Thanks!!
kunst in estonia means art
I wouldn't recommend painting like a child. I would recommend striving to be unique, but creating art that holds no meaning, tells no story, or expresses no wisdom, plot, or meaningful message is a failed artwork. This is what separates the Jackson Pollocks from the Leonardo Da Vincis'. This is what is killing the art industry, and in my opinion, I prefer someone attempting renaissance over a nonobjective, this even coming from somebody who paints in an abstract cubist and expressionist style myself.
People put too much emphasis on style.
"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist" - Picasso
So, in other words, modern art is inherently selfish and it exists to please the artist himself as he goes about doing whatever he feels like doing, destroying any potential concept of true and universal art in the process.
Yah basically
Product is measured not by the effort put in it but by the value it provides. This is why modern art is inferior and Picasso is wrong with this quote, it doesn't matter how long it, what matters is that modern art does not inspire awe which is the ultimate function of art.
It's all about validation and classism.
Happened to fashion too, high class used to wear nice suit with tidy, neat clothes but when production became cheaper, avarage joe can have a nice suit for like 300$ so the rich had to change their game by killing animals to wear the shitty, dirty fur or go crazy with their uncomfortable dress make of light bulb or some shit, hate this so much
No one cd paint exactly like Raphael, but other great painters could paint with their own skills. Modern art is about the myth that skilllessness is somehow greater than skill- putting aside vision.
There's a reason why a third or more of Pollocks and Ab Ex paintings are thought to be fakes, because they are, and are much easier to pass off than, say a Vermeer or Wyeth. It's why every so often we see Pint Sized Picasso child painters, nut mever a Little Bierstadt nor Diminutive Dali. Why? Because repetition does not improve natal talent. Yes, I may be able to go from a terrible singer to a bad one, but I'll never be the tenor at the Met.
It is a fundamental lie to claim anyone could be a Raphael , and it is done to advance the notion that all people are similar in talents, which denigrates the great artists out there.Nobody would have ever written Moby-Dick w/o Melville.
And no one but Dali could be Dali, in life or art.
But we are flooded with Pollocks and that ilk precisely because it is easy to reproduce, and the Picasso quote is one of the reasons painting has been thru such a fallow period. Fortunately, as the Ab Exers die off, their time in the sun is being seen for what it was- a waste.
Yes that is amazing but i still like raphael
Some modern art is brilliant just like how some pre-modern art is. The opinion that modern art is superior to pre-modern art however, is very quickly becoming out of date. We live in 2024, capitalism and art unfortunately now go hand in hand quite often. It is much easier now to “paint like a child” more than ever, and it requires less skill and is also less time consuming if you want to make cash quickly. Like architecture, art has become less about its craft. We live in grey concrete jungles where time is not taken anymore to even check if the materials used are suitable for construction. Time and effort like those employed by artisans of the past when creating, buildings, pillars, even park benches, are similarly not implemented in the making of the art that sells in galleries these days. It’s now a joke made by many that these galleries are just ways to money launder now. Both modern and pre-modern art have their own benefits and drawbacks. If you go too far off in the direction of pre-modern sensibilities, you lose the essence of freedom, creativity and experimentation, if you go too far into the direction of modern art, you lose craftsmanship, skill, dedication. Especially in the age of AI where a robot can now generate an image of anything and is challenging the idea of “art”, now more than ever we need to value both sides of the coin instead of pitting one over the other. What is the difference now between an ai generated image that a person fed instructions to, and a person bringing in a blank canvas, a urinal or sticking a banana onto a wall? We need to stop acting like pictures of lines and squares in our current society isn’t pretentious. These pieces may have posed some questions which were necessary and needed pondering 50 - 100 years ago, (and for that we value them in terms of art history and so we must not forget) but we live in a very different world now. Todays paintings of arbitrary lines, the solitary stripe, the empty canvas, that are unfortunately being made and sold for thousands in opulent spaces to wealthy buyers are no longer revolutionary. The pendulum is always swinging, what is necessary in order to define, change, shift and revolutionise art is always moving.
13:43 I love that. Do you love me? 😍💋 💝💖❤️
Speed: 1.25. Much better
I don't agree, modern art is the personality of the artist, dosent take skill it need an idea, anybody can take a blue canvas scribble whit red trow some line whit some darker red whit the word purity or virginity and call it modern art. Academic art perosnaly think is the best era of art ,yea a little more creative liberty cold helpt but shows more raw emotions then fucking modern
What about impressionism?
@@Ziad3195 I like the works of claude monet and find édouard manet lazy ( to show my taste) but yea I'm fine whit it I'm talking about post ww2 era of modern art the art that try to ask the question of what's art and what's not like Clifford still, mark Rothko, and even pollock ...
@@namechanel8597 I see. Well, I think your opinions are valid. I feel like I can find a painting, a sculpre, a piece or whatever that speaks to me in whatever art style or movment.
lol. i love modern art, but picasso was bulshitting the lady. i hope it was intended as a joke, otherwise he was just pompous ass
yea cool, but still doesn't make sense
I'll explain it with one word: jews.
When you realise beauty motivates men to do great things, ugly modern art and architecture make a lot more sense
You Americans, you'd explain a simple joke and ruin it and the bored listener.
Picasso liked American money, not Americans.
bro you need to speak faster abit
No
Modern art sucks.
Alright, alright i get what abstract art is now. You can invent your own way of expressing yourself. I just think this sort of art is worthless. It is ugly, unappealing just very random. Broadway boogie woogie has to be on my top ten list of the most ugly painting i've ever seen. I'm honestly trying to convince myself even to see it in other ways than my own and i always come back to hating this stuff. I just think this stuff is created by lazy talentless painters who ran out of ideas. What is easy is to scribble random drug induced visions onto a canvas than to think long and hard with a sober mind about what you're gonna paint. I'm sorry, i think thats just it. Abstract painters are lazy drug addict's. picaso was a known heavy drug user, he had no time to even think about making real paintings. the guy probably didnt even wash himself.
I didn't really appreciate abstract art until I saw it in person. Seeing the rough brush strokes, the imperfect lines, the little bits and pieces really look quite a lot different. You can see the work and thought that goes into them.
Abstract art can be very personal, because the expression is so personal that only people who can connect with the artist or think like that artist can connect with. that's why it's not for everyone. There are abstract art I like and the ones I don't get, but that doesn't mean they are lazy people or drug addicts. It's easy to dismiss anything you don't 'get' to be 'trash' like what you're doing, but accepting that there are people who are not like you, who don't think or feel like you do or are at odds with the 'mainstream' of whatever given society and can make unique contribution to ther modern society as a whole is what modern art stand for me. If you think they didn't contribute, well, modern graphic design comes entirely from the development of modern art, Picasso inspired artists who inspired other artist who eventually become the foundation of modern design. Look around you, design is EVERYWHERE, and all the principles of modern design comes from abstract art. These guiding principles are also at the heart of the art that we see everyday: on screen, TV, film, illustrations, cartoons.
@@shanghaitatoo Modern graphic design, architecture and art in general is definitely not my favourite thing ever. I fo however love some paintings by Picasso like The Weeping Woman. I aslo absolutely adore impressionism, Claude Monet and some expressionism. Haven't delved much into the other movments.
I can explain it in one word...... Shit
"It took me four years to learn how to make somewhat competent paintings, a lifetime to learn how to make fully ugly paintings." Great accomplishment.
1:06 he was never close to the level of Raphael😅