If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   $155M, highest price ever paid for an artwork by a U.S. collector paid for Picasso's "Fat Chick With a Penis Growing Out of Her Chin Playing With Herself"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 17
    More: Interesting, Picasso, U.S., SAC Capital Advisors, Francis Bacon, Damien Hirst, Bellagio, asking prices  
•       •       •

19646 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-27 01:38:24 PM
3 votes:

Publikwerks: "farkface"


considering she's masturbating? Quite fitting.

dragonchild: but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader'


www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net

Picasso painted that when he was 14 or 15. Not much more to do with traditional art when you can do that at 14 or 15. Sure Picasso could've kept doing it, but he wasn't the type to do that. To him that's not being an artist. And once he changed things a little, he then changed them more and more. Also he just kept on creating, one thing after another, he didn't worry about something being good or not, he just went and made it. And eventually he jump around between styles, because why not? There's the old story of the woman who saw one of his paintings and said "Since you can paint so beautifully why do you paint such queer things?" to which Picasso replied "That is why".
2013-03-27 12:03:13 PM
3 votes:

farkeruk: The stupidity of the art world. If Picasso had made a dirty protest on a canvas, it would be worth thousands.


IIRC he actually said something to that effect.  My sister seriously studied art for a while (she actually made some pretty good shiat that got offers n' stuff) and she assures me Picasso was damn good, but I have to be honest and admit I can't tell the difference between his work and a fourth-grader's.  The most I gathered from my sister's explanation of cubism is that it's not the aesthetics so much as deconstructing art itself.  Artists first learn how to paint or sculpt as realistically as possible and Picasso would make a mockery of it, but not by just smearing paint on a canvas.

The best analogy I can think of is challenging a mechanical engineer to design the worst possible car that was street-legal and actually functioned reliably enough to sell (a.k.a. the Homer).  You're working within strict constraints you've honed to optimize for all while making a mockery of them in every way your imagination can think of.  For example, you'd have to find the worst possible injection & ignition timing that didn't kill the engine at a certain rpm.  You'd have to find ghastly trim materials that aged rapidly but don't degrade structurally.  The seat would have to be as ugly and uncomfortable as possible without endangering the occupant in a crash.  At first it's difficult, but the variations are limitless.  It actually wouldn't be any easier than designing a good car but it would take another engineer to actually see what the point was, so it doesn't surprise me that it would take a serious artist to understand what Picasso was doing.  Thing is, most people who can afford to buy Picasso's works aren't artists.
2013-03-27 02:05:30 PM
2 votes:

Pixiest: Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.


 Picasso never stopped creating beauty, he just had his own ideas of it. Also art isn't about beauty, oh sure you can portray beauty with it, but you don't have to.

www.ibiblio.org

Goya's Third of May, 1808. Not much beauty there. Though if you look at the faces, well people don't actually look like that do they? Clothes don't have flat color tones like that either. And those buildings in the background, just shapes with some vague hint of detail. It's pretty much impressionism. And as for beauty? There is no beauty in a massacre.
2013-03-27 01:10:35 PM
2 votes:
Picasso is easy to make fun of, until you look at his realistic drawings and understand that he could draw as well as you can take a photograph. What you see in his wierd stuff is exactly what he wants you to see, and whether you choose to try to understand what he is showing you is up to you.
2013-03-27 11:20:18 AM
2 votes:
His "Choices in bar after 10 pm"

yareah.com
2013-03-27 05:35:20 PM
1 votes:

God-is-a-Taco: BKITU: ITT: Troglodytes living by the credo "I don't understand it, so that means it sucks."

Tell us the deep and spiritual meaning behind the painting in the link then.


No particularly deep and spiritual meaning behind it; it's a lady dreaming of diddling herself, perhaps falling asleep while in the act itself. It's how the act is conveyed that's extraordinary.

For example:
Block out the phallus from her face. You now have a lovely profile of a woman, head lolled back while asleep. Her lips aren't smiling. It's just the blank expression of sleep.

Add the phallus back in, and you now have a cubist-like full face, seeing multiple angles at once. The full face is definitely smiling during the dream.

Notice that halfway through the entire image is a faint wavy line, and that there are hints of that wavy line all they way down to her lap. Everything on the left side of that is the real world. What's on the right is the erotic dream. No smile vs. smile. Dull wood walls vs. beautiful wallpaper. Fully-clothed vs. blouse hanging down and skirt riding up. Red beaded necklace vs. what may be pearls. The phallus is part of the dream, but penetrating the real side. It must be quite real to her at the moment.

Also notice that part of the "real" hand is on the other side of the dream-line -- the thumb and first finger, in particular. This adds some subtle symmetry to the picture. The fully-dreamlike hand that's doing the diddling has six fingers. The real hand is starting to match it as the line between what is dream and what is real is blurred. It's perhaps meaningful that the two places where this blending between real and dream take place are exactly where there is explicit male genitalia and hidden female genitalia.

These are just a few things I picked out in just a few minutes of looking at it. Think of how much subtle information is conveyed with such simplicity of form. That's what's incredible about this piece, and that's what's incredible about Picasso's skill.

Try this: Look at an image of Picasso's "Guernica." See what you can find in it. On the surface, it's a black-and-white jumble of some strange, unsettling images. Then, look into the history of it and some analysis of it, and find additional things that will blow your mind, like the hidden images that are made by combining the plain images on the piece.

Basically, take the time to learn something rather than dismiss out-of-hand.
2013-03-27 03:08:10 PM
1 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: Picasso = talentless hack

That's why the "art world" prostrated themselves before him

/life lesson here, kids


What a talentless hack's work might look like:

talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com

talkandpolitics.files.wordpress.com

He was a teenager when he painted these. If you consider this hackery, please feel free to post your work for comparison's sake. You must be breathtakingly accomplished! The comparison works don't even have to be from your teenaged years. Something from whenever the height of your skills would have been will be quite sufficient.

It takes great skill to "break the rules" effectively. It's nice and comfortable, though, to be dismissive of art you don't understand, so a lot of people do that instead of investing a little time to learn about what they're looking at. As a nice bonus, it gives them a nice, albeit illusory, sense of superiority over the artist. It's the art equivalent of pretending you can nail a famous supermodel because you've jacked it to one of her pictures before.
2013-03-27 02:08:31 PM
1 votes:
"The world doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?"Pablo Picasso
2013-03-27 01:53:48 PM
1 votes:

Pixiest:
Doesn't matter if you're ABLE to create beauty if you don't.

Imagine if Freddy Mercury, instead of singing Bohemian Rhapsody had instead, screamed into the microphone which he thing placed in proximity to his buttocks for a profound bout of bean and cheese powered flatulence. That's what Picasso gave the art world.


not even f*cking close.

Isaac Asimov quote goes here.
2013-03-27 01:18:06 PM
1 votes:

rainbowbutter: shiat like this is why the rich hire the conservatives to perpetuate the notion of religious morals.  because people who love Jesus don't riot with torches and pitchforks.


You must not be very familiar with European history.
2013-03-27 12:30:57 PM
1 votes:
ITT: Troglodytes living by the credo "I don't understand it, so that means it sucks."
2013-03-27 12:02:04 PM
1 votes:
ts4.mm.bing.net
I love the classics myself.
2013-03-27 11:27:56 AM
1 votes:

Glancing Blow: His "Choices in bar after 10 pm"


yareah.com
I prefer "YMCA's women's locker room"
2013-03-27 11:20:24 AM
1 votes:
Not to be all Indiana Jones about this but it belongs in a museum.
2013-03-27 11:14:09 AM
1 votes:

snowybunting: The hotelier agreed at the time to release Cohen - who is worth around $9.3billion - from the sale and repair it. Now he has sold it to Cohen for $16 million more than the pre-damaged price.


Wynn must have repaired it with the really nice duct tape, the kind with the gold flecks in it.


I guess it adds value to have a Las Vegas hotel owner's elbow punch a hole through it
2013-03-27 10:58:10 AM
1 votes:
images4.static-bluray.com
2013-03-27 10:24:31 AM
1 votes:
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report