Last fall, I took my first art history course. It was called "Masterpieces of Western Art" - or "Art Hum" for short, part of the Columbia Core. I truly, truly enjoyed it, and learned so much about the historical progression of Western art. We explored dozens of artists and scores of paintings and sculptures and architectural masterpieces (expected), which yielded so many insights into the mind of the human (unexpected!!!).
One discussion near the end of the semester struck me. We were talking about Picasso, who as you might know, is one of the BIG NAMES of art known for his distinctive style (see below).
Contrast that to a painting Picasso completed when he was just 15 years old.
Quite different right? And also, how can a 15 year old paint at this level?! And look at this one, from 1910, during Picasso's Cubist phase.
It was eye-opening to me how before the course, I only knew Picasso from his distinctive style (first image), but never thought to explore the entire journey leading up to it! It's almost like I assumed his whole life's work remained constant, which as you probably can tell, is not the case at all. Here's a great example, even from his own self-portraits:
Some might even say that the first one in 1896 is the "best" according to what we've kind of understood "good art" to be. The most realistic, you can say. And you can see how his self-portraits seem to morph into more imaginative shapes, possibly revealing more and more of how Picasso actually views himself. Perhaps the less realistic-looking portraits are actually more realistic in representation. (Peep the 1910 painting above - that's a portrait as well, can you tell? 🙃🙃) I personally like the 1938 one. It really makes you question the standards we use to judge artwork. Who is to say that realistic always means good?
A quote from Picasso that really stuck with me was: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." Quite a fitting description of how his artwork seems to fall more and more into the realm of what we may deem "childish" or "easy to do"... but how many of us actually harbor this originality, or even the bravery, to put forth something like the 1972 version? (Perhaps it's also the fact that Picasso had already built a name for himself that we take what he creates as great art... i.e. we already know what he's capable of, and we raise his new works up on a pedestal... another question of is it the art or the artist that we value?)
It's harder to draw like a child than to draw in the typical definition of well. Why? Well, because we've got all these preconceived notions of (1) what we think is good and more importantly (2) what we think others think is good. We want to stay with the familiar and not take any risks because we are afraid of rejection—of being wrong and of being viewed as "divergent." With children though, they have what's known as "beginner's mind" (if you go to Columbia, you've heard this many a time 😋). It's the idea that a beginner's mind is much less restricted and much more open to adopting new perspectives than an expert's. But, having experience is still important (Picasso's final art forms came from decades of experience). So, I guess what we should strive for is to be an expert with a beginner's mind... 😘
Comments