very nice video! thank you!!!

He was a goof and absolutely talentless, unfortunately the kind of thing galleries like to support. He literally said he was mad but had no idea why. That's not a message of art that's a just a conceited person at best

Not much better example of the Emperor wears no cloths. Its a scam,if you dont like it or dont agree with the current politics,then you must not be educated lol. But no explanation at all when artists who are educated see this as the false work it is. He could not explain it because there is nothing there

He might have been a pedo but his art is extremely moving

I dont care for his art

The myth of Picasso is that his women were the most important influence on his paintings.

Bullshit

thank you.

The painting “Profit 1” is NOT made by Basquiat (ie bad forgery). Please see Basquiat Catalogue Raissoné

He was a monster that made a fool of the entire art market..

Hey Sparky, I know academia likes to tell people what to think but Art is like a joke - If you have to explain it, it didn't work

Just Be just Abide , no effort

Put a Matisse next to a Picasso and you will see what he is missing. Interesting is not as good as beautiful

Doodles by a cartoonist can't compare with real paintings. "delighted by his own brilliance"

I like your description - it focuses on observable behavior - Let's dive deeper - What is it about his art that touches so many people? The color? The chaos? How about archetypes that reside deep within each of us - Are these the primordial patterns carried by Paleolithic ancestors? What I like about his work is - if I can get out of the way and watch the image instead of focus aspects - there are underlying forms just beneath the surface - his paintings are iceburgs!!!

Picasso's work is primitive, underdeveloped, rude, barbaric. The fame of his works merely shows the level of civilisation in the last century. Realism is not the same as convention, and tradition does not mean a narrow cage, and naturalism and the 'classical' does not mean academic... the confusion of these concepts is staggering. All great painters of the past took components form reality to turn them into their own imaginary world, and that had nothing 'academic' about it.... The idea that naturalism is academic is a stupid, ignorant lie, an excuse for lacking talent. The modern art narrative of the 20th century is a fantasy, and Picasso was both one of its inventors and its victims - the value of his works is merely mythological, not real and definitely not artistic.

That was a work of art

I don't understand why people don't comprehend that Picasso's shadow is calling the shots with "painting". Maybe young Pablo Ruiz was guiding the charcoal against the sheet in his early days. But the "Picasso" we all know today is a walking incarnation of his id. That's why it painted all those self-portraits: of fauns, minoaturs, and the rest. When the Faun is looking back at you, it is The Faun, Picasso, looking back at you, the viewer. (And you, the viewer in this setup is the avatar for consciousness, the carrier of consciousness, ego and ego consciousness itself. So when you see that the Faun, The Minotaur, the Id of the Spanish Painter painted what he did, the world as cubes, let's say. Or in modern terms "min[e]dcraft blocks", then its saying that the Id, our animal nature -- and you know we all got it! -- encounters the ego (first of all), devours the ego (second of all), and then looks out through the eyes of the ego, he(in the case of Picasso)/it sees the world as though it is organized according to shapes, or blocks. Or, alternately, at other times, it sees everything as blue. (b/c again, the blocks are quadratic (squared-shaped), and blue is the function of consciousness/unconsciousness associated with orthogonality (i.e., right angles between two contrasting or at least intersecting ideas) -- which tells us that the Faun, the Minotaur, the id of Picasso sees the modern world as covered in "thought" when it looks at it through the (dead) eyes of the now dead (ego). [[We're describing the case where Theseus lost his battle with the Minotaur, not where he won it, as has been the case with our timeline for the past 2500+/- years. But thats all changing. ("Theseus" means "institution"). We are entering an era, an age, when institutions are failing, and I've just described why they are failing. The id has taken over. It spread via the internet (on the back of internet porn and the like), and now has swamped all of our conscious minds. Thus collectively we are in a world of hurt, and have no idea how to get out of it [Elon's unconscious fantasy is that he can build a rocket and escape the velocity of earth's gravitational pull. But he can't, because in real life he is as unconscious of the unconscious psyche as his nearest neighbor is. Say, his janitor. But he doesn't know that. And so he believes he can create rockets in the material world which will let him escape the earth (symbolizing the Mother Archetype, both personally as personified by May and collectively: "She Still Takes the Name of her Psychopathic Ex-Husband". How can little boy (inner child of) Musk defeat the mother. Escape! He says, escape!) So just like the id held Picasso's brush, Elon's anima holds his. ** if none of this makes sense to you, feed the text through ChatGPT and it will explain all better than I ever could **

Great vid

Enjoyable insight into Picasso and his creative deconstruction of female form.

the image of Demoiselles is flipped at 16:09. Otherwise, thank you for an enlightening video.

Just because I date suicidal women doesn't mean my ouvre demands human sacrifice :(

it works like this: a shitty childhood, as described with his father, creates an ongoing "high-alert" state, which later can be tamped down with drugs, alcohol or crime, AND/OR finding an occupation which keeps them "CONTINUOUSLY OCCUPIED", so that the wired-in fear state can be avoided. Add to that imitating the behaviors learned from the father in the Theta brain-wave mode of early childhood and this is what comes forth. We can focus on the "Art" and totally miss all this. Think of other non-stop producers in Art, Film or Music--like Prince: crappy childhood, then continuously occupied every waking moment, and though surrounded by people, NO RELATIONSHIPS. The list goes on forever...

Great opening statement

Picasso had that cult of personality thing down. Matisse made a point of avoiding that particular trap.

The significance of Picasso wasn't grounded in the paintings he made, he did in 3D and pottery.

Picasso is overrated 🗑️. Give me Bob Ross or any street artist any day. 💯

Why all the hatred? He was immensely talented. ❤

The sexual appetite of a jaded 50 year old Colonel.

Picasso was a scam

This is pathetic hit job on the most important artist of the 20th century, and people see through it. Picasso is Cancel Culture's most hated artist, and with such little justification, and despite your declaration in the assaultive introduction, his public "Persona" as malicious as you portray it, is indeed separate from his art.

The most awful paintings and collages ever made. Picasso's great talent was his ability to convince people that his garbage "art" are all masterpieces. A true con artist.

Mark Rothko really is sort of the peak of intellectual/cultural virtue signaling, even more so than Jackson Pollack. The paintings are fine, they are what they are. He's probably a perfectly good normal painter, who can actually render things, that look like actual things in the world, and it's not like the only thing he does is these shades of color. But it is sort of pushing it right up to the edge of the emperor's new clothes type modern art. Whenever you think of whatever the telltale signs of a decadent, collapsing society, drunk on its own soulless effete cultural posturing and socioeconomic maneuvering, this is it. This is about as bad as it gets. But I guess everybody wins, Rothko gets rich and famous, his patrons get to bask in his genius or whatever, and all the aspirational strivers get to be moved to tears when they stare and contemplate for hours on end at your local highbrow art museum. Or at least they say they do. I'm not sure what's worse. Crying over a Rothko painting, or saying you did when you really didn't. Probably actually crying is far worse. I can sympathize with name-dropping an emotional Rothko experience at a museum that never really took place. Everybody's got to stay hip. But if you really did cry over this wallpaper? Good god.... And he just pumps 'em out. Just part of the circus of modern society I suppose. It would be even better if he couldn't actually paint normal paintings, and this was it, and when modern art began to emerge as a viable, and lucrative career option where you didn't necessarily have to be some super skilled painter and renderer, he might have thought to himself, I can do this, this is a hustle I could pull off. I don't want no normal 9to5 job. And I have a good enough aesthetic sense, I'm gonna go for it. And he built his brand, and his signature style, and he made his fortune. You gotta admire that much. Anyway, he's an interesting cultural relic of soaring post-WW2 America. We wuz riding high!

YOU RIPPED OFF HENRI-GEORGE CLOUZOT'S MARVELOUS FILM THE MYSTERY OF PICASSO AND PUT YOUR BANAL VOICE-OVER ON IT. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS DOWN.

I prefer Francis bacon

Great painter Terrible person

Dali just exploited the image of Christ. His life was in direct opposition. ..while he counted his money made from the fools who bought his act.

I've got a book of his art, it is way over the top, full of phenominal colors, and his compositional skill in his use of chaos is unrivaled! A great man, and great artist as well

everything can be art

Pure dog shit linked to the pedo hollywood!...

Lame goat porn? Coool 😁

He was a narcissistic old man, who was lazy to draw detailed paintings.

Fr I bet they got their hands all over young people’s online algorithm - diabolical shit but this is how powerful forces in history remain on top

Modern art with splashes of paint is not art. It’s money laundering as society is stupidest levels.

HUGE fan of Jackson Pollock!!! Does anyone know the title of the red painting at 2:50? I think it's Israel Museum's collection...is it right?

When I created my first produced art ...I could explain to anyone: what it was about, my influences, even the trauma that the art is attempting to heal. 10 years later, I realized I was wrong and a deeper take on what my art was about and where it came from, then... 10 years after that I realized I was wrong again. Conclusion - the artist is the last person who could articulate what their art is about, the art critic is the second to last person who can explain to anyone what the art is about. All explanations are filtered through the lens of the artist or critic. We can learn about those lenses - which are tempered by the Zeitgeist, but the content of the art? No. My lens tells me that the art of the Abstract expressionists, all of whom are in their 40s or after when they create their most potent pieces - conveys archetypes - primordial patterns deep in our psychoid layer - far below our consciousness... In Gwuancho China - there is an old inscription on an even older stone outside the door of a pagoda, translated by my guide: "Artists initially develope by copying their masters, then proceed to add style which is an aspect of persona, then finally they realize their true identity is not persona and then their art conveys archetypes." Archtypes transcend our 3D linear time reality - maybe that is what critics are pointing to when they talk about Rothko. I'll try to go read his Autobiography ... In my wife's garden is huge pot for plants? It is way out of scale - 4 feet in diameter - 5 feet tall - it is painted by Thai artists who are masters a copying western art - this one loved Rothko. All the other plants in the her garden seem to be worshipping Rochko's magjnificent "container."

amazing

I think I might have a Jackson Pollock drip painting it has marijuana(weed) in the painting who can I get to authenticate it ?

The federal government was funding ny and northeastern artists throughout the 20s and 30s so nothing really changed

Thanks to (!) Congress for Cultural Freedom, the artist expressed their individuality and the state never intervened in the making of art and culture. 😅