What do you think of Pablo Picasso’s paintings?

Well, it is about 10 trillion times better than Pollock and Warhol.

@ragingloli Definitely agree with that.

I don’t like the distorted images he is most famous for I prefer his blue period pictures.

Picasso’s paintings are crap like those done by Andy Warhol.

I will take any good contemporary furry porn artist over those.

I love Picasso. Demoiselles d’Avignon is one of my favorite paintings. Picasso was very prolific, so a lot of his stuff isn’t particularly remarkable, but some of it, like Guernica and the Three Musicians is excellent.

As for Warhol, he was more interesting as a person than as an artist.

Overrated.
<——unlike this

I didn’t like his cubism much when I was younger, but now I have grown to like it much more. Learning more about him and his art I grew to appreciate it.

Majorly bizarre, man.

I too would prefer Wyeth to Picasso, but readily admit that I lack the ability to look at Picasso’s works and digest explanations of their categorization as masterpieces.

I like that he got bored with seeing things the way the human eye sees it and painted it differently. I think I saw an exhibition of his early paintings and one of them was a realistic portrait of a woman wearing an ultra-realistic painted gown. The fabric of the gown you could almost touch since it looked so real on that canvas.

I could see why an artist would get bored doing that. It’s easy for them. What is not easy is twisting and squeezing that image, dipping it in an all altogether different universe of perception and still achieving some sort of aesthetic balance.

@mazingerz88 Well said. Picasso was certainly capable of painting realistically. But realism began to die out with the rise of photography (one of the factors, at least) and Picasso was seminal in the move toward abstraction. Abstract/modern art can be difficult to appreciate it, but I think some of it is truly great.

@Demosthenes Always makes me chuckle when someone after looking at an abstract painting says a kid could do that.

Picasso is a talented genius which strikes me when I see his work, particularly in person.

I also have found several of his works quite amusing, entertaining, and/or funny.

One of the things that struck me when I first visited the Picasso museum in Paris was that he was also a very good realistic painter, and that he later clearly chose instead to work in his other styles, including pieces I very much relate to in comparison to doodles and patterns I did as a kid and still sometimes do, such as Picasso’s ’‘The Kitchen’’

I like many of his cubist paintings that look sort of surreally architectural to me.

I think it’s very interesting how he can evoke impressions about people or scenes from abstract / surreal / geometric images of them.

I think his work is interesting and that his work has influenced many artists.

I think that reactions along such lines as “I don’t find it beautiful” or “that doesn’t seem very hard to do” or “that’s not art to me” seems almost certainly to be coming from perspectives that don’t tune in to what is there, for whatever reason.

I am a huge Picasso fan. I have a lithograph of his (“Young Spanish Peasant”) in my living room.

Not all of his paintings were as strong as his best. But he was prolific and when he had an idea kept at it until he had achieved something remarkable. An exhibit of his pottery from the late sixties showed the progression of an idea for a platter until the last five in the series were almost overwhelming in their beauty.

Picasso had the rare talent of making something remarkable that at first glance looked simplistic and childlike, but when examined one realized that it was genius.

Hugely overrated & fantastically overpriced.

Picasso was genius.
I have a lithograph of The Dream on the wall above my bed.

I enjoy his earlier stuff more than the later more abstract.

The Blue Period was the best, in my opinion. The Tragedy, painted around 1903, is my favorite.

His stuff doesn’t really appeal to me, but I wouldn’t say that he sucks or he’s overrated or anything. (Though I do think his Chicago sculpture is fugly.)

Warhol, on the other hand (because he’s been mentioned in this thread) I love. More for what his art represents (or at least represents to me) than for any inherent quality of the work itself.

About a year ago I saw a TV mini series about Picasso. Antonio Banderas played Picasso. It tells how he was so against the war, and tells about his politics. He was a horrible husband and father. His art was a reflection of his life, his experiences, and if you watch just part of the show the cubism begins to look less distorted (in my opinion) you start to understand his point-of-view. It’s an easy way to learn more about him and his art.

I prefer his drawings.
A quote from a 7th grade art report I received:
When Picasso has his period, he was blue.