Well maybe the ability to draw doesn't justify Picasso's later success but draughtsman or not he and his work became icons of modern art. And though many seem to have a conspiracy theories regarding the popularity of modern art, the young middle class couples down the street from me enjoy these art forms free from the influence of anyone else's judgement or "overrating" by the Art community.

I have heard the comment many times that the artist had good drawing skills before his turn to "Modern Art" but would argue that this is done mostly in response to those that assume artists depart from classic realism because they have no skill, discipline, or ability. Usually followed with thoughtful, intelligent and insightful comments like "it's ugly", "it's not art", "I just don't like it", etc. I recently commented on my annoyance to hear Tom Wolfe say in front of the American Portrait Society that "Picasso could not draw". You can't have it both ways.

In the meantime I will watch the forum closely for the many drawings and paintings that exceed his run-of-the-mill 19th century academic training.

Peter Garrett found the following two early works by Picasso (below). I did not expect to be impressed, but frankly I am.

Picasso was around 15 or 16 at the time he did these?

:thumbsup: Thank you Peter.

"Portrait of the Artist's Mother," 1896.
Pastel on Paper

My feeling is that most classical modern painters (first half of the 20th century) were well trained and very skilled painters. And they would have been good or even great painters in others eras of painting.

The problem begins, in my view, when in the fifties and sixties under the influence of modern art, the academies start to get rid of a lot of the things that one needs to make a good painting. Anatomic drawing, the 'classical' approach to painting, modelling forms etcetera. After I finished my education in art I had the feeling I had to start all over again to learn the techniques the old masters used to make portraits. Making paintings like Mondriaan did (victory boogie woogie for example) requires an advanced insight in painting. Composition, use of colour etcetera. Making a cubist painting is actually a very difficult thing to do. That's why only very skilled painters succeed in making quality modernist paintings. And because much of the classical knowledge is lost, not only realist painting is technically at a low level at the moment, also paintings in a modernist style are technically far below the quality-level of what people like Braque and Mondriaan did.

I have seen technically very good realist paintings by Picasso, Ensor, Mondriaan. They reached a technical skill I don't see in the best realist paintings of today. One could say that they gave an energetic impulse to the art of painting of their time. The art of painting was becoming boring, although I like some of the 19th-century academic french salon-paintings (some of the paintings of Alma-Tadema, Bouguereau, Gerome are actually pleasant to watch).

The response to modern art on the academies was a disaster for the art of painting, is my feeling. One goes to school to be educated, but what does one learn at an academy. I liked my school, but I didn't learn there what I needed, to do what I wanted to do in painting. It took another 7 or 8 years to learn what I had to learn for that (and the learning-process will never be finished, but that's something which every artist will experience, I think).

Greetings,
Peter

Picasso painted this piece when he was fourteen years old... The Old Fisherman (Salmer

It appears, 69 sittings were for the crown...the last sitting was for the rest of the painting.

Queens come and Queens go, but crowns hang around for centuries. I am surprised at how important it must have been to Lucien to get a likeness of that darned crown! Wow.

After looking at some of Lucien Freud's previous works it's clear that he has become imprisioned by his own "style".

I was impressed with the strength of his heavy impastos, harsh colors and exaggerated edges in his earlier portraits of male subjects. These elements also had a place in linear compositional studies. But, the style has little flexibility. It seems to have become a formula that has entrapped him.

Maybe there's a lesson in this?

On Picasso
 

Well, I must admit that I am one of those who has always been quick to downplay Picasso's drawing abilities. I had never seen the images presented here, before. However, I'm still a little skeptical in some ways. First, regarding the portrait of a fisherman, I find it very hard to believe that it was done by the hand of a 14-year old. Yet, it is thus attributed, is it not? My guess is that it was not a portrait from life, but rather, a copy. In either case, it was surely done under the guidance of a competant teacher, such as Picasso's father was. Even so, that doesn't diminish its fine execution.

The reason I think it was a copy is three-fold. First, that was the normal method for training young people in those days. I cannot remember seeing a work from a youngster that was as good as that, except ones that were master copies. Even Millais--who was the youngest graduate of the Royal Academy at age 16--did not do better work than that at that age. Secondly, the title it is given is either a nickname for a very tall fellow (taken from the long beards found on some bearded wheat varieties) or it is a family name. If it were the latter, then I find it unusual that there is no honourific or first name along with it. Therefore, I think it is a nickname. That simply makes me think that no-one knew exactly who it was of, despite what the historians say. Third, many early works by artists, particularly modern ones, are incorrectly attributed as being something they are not. That is, master copies are taken to be originals (I've seen some of this with the early studies by deKooning). I don't think this is something that is done with a malicious purpose, however. It's just that the biographer/reviewer is simply ignorant of historical working practices or of history.

As an example, I am posting one of Picasso's earlier (age 12) studies. It is always wrongly attributed as a cast drawing. That is, it is said to be a drawing done from a cast of an antique statuary. Such was common practice at the time, yes. But, before doing cast work from the real thing, students normally executed a series of copies from two-dimensional drawing models which in turn were themselves often of antique statues. This one is such a case. It is a copy from Charles Bargue's fabulous "Cours de Dessin" pubished in the late 19th century by Goupil e Fils. I have also posted a photograph of the original Bargue lithograph for comparison in the following post.

Picasso's copy is mediocre at best. But, considering he was only 12 when he did it, it is excellent. Such things were done normally under supervision and were an everyday part of an academy's curriculum. So, I continue to find it hard to swallow that by the time he was 14, he could do the painting of the tall man, having only done Bargue copies two years earlier. That, coupled with the fact that his drawing of the matador--executed after the tall man--is a more immaturely wrought work than is the earlier painting, makes me think that these were all guided studies done by an admittedly precocious young fellow. Since he then quit studying when he was still in his teens, his somewhat later works reveal more accurately what his "true" drawing talents were when unguided. He seems to have had a solid foundation and good instruction as well as huge potential. But, that potential as a skilled representational artist went unrealised. The rest is history and I wouldn't change it for a minute.

Whether what I suggest here is accurate or not, one thing that does bother me a bit is that people are so quick to defend Picasso's later work on the basis of his apparent early skills. (Jim alluded to this phenomenon). The reason it bothers me is that we do not say such things about other artists. Do we say that in fact Velazquez or Leighton, for example, were not all that great because we point to their work as teenagers? No, we look at their mature work and judge it. With Picasso, Mondrian, etc., on the other hand, it seems okay to do the opposite I guess. I would say that that is having it both ways.

In the end, I could certainly be wrong about all of this and it might only be my envy speaking. However, considering also that by the time he was in his late teens/early twenties, Picasso's drawing was already weaker than it was in the "Salmeron" painting, yet still wholly representational, I'm going to stick to my theory that these very early works were tutored copies. Good ones, yes. But, not the independant hand that I believe most are inclined to suggest they were.

Anyway, food for thought.

All the best.

Juan

On Picasso, addendum
 

Here's the original Bargue lithograph of the antique torso.