Eating Art: Picasso's "Still Life with Blood Sausage"

Art films

I'm not sure if you receive the OVATION channel on TV... in case you're not familiar with it... it is the "art" network covering dance, music, architecture, art, etc. Every now-and-then they feature some compelling visual art programming... the usual bio-documentary of the usual blue chip artists from the pantheon of history. But all-things-being-equal, in order to up-the-ante info-wise... these documentaries delve deeper and deeper into more and more obscure aspects of a given artist's time period and/or life, etc.

The best of all of these documentaries are without exception all BBC productions. For example.. there is a series "The Art of Spain" which covers from the Arab/Moor occupation of Iberia through the present in three or four one-hour installations. These are mostly history studies and not necessarily art discussions.

There is a series called "Every Picture Tells a Story;" which covers obscure factoids and details on a given artist's life and work. Currently, there are only a few in circulation/released. Among them... the one covering Manet is very informative. To see this one... (if you don't receive Ovation) go to Manet 

BUT... something that might be more down-your-alley would be "THE MONA LISA CURSE." This is a documentary featuring Robert Hughes' survey of how the art world/market (particualrly in the U.S.) changed between 1960 and the present. It has plenty of vintage footage and is very entertaining... but more importantly... it is significant for orientation. For example... the "change" in the art world/market has changed so drastically over our lifetime (literally since the late 60s) that whether one aligns with or against Hughes' aesthetics... his take on the change from art-as-unique-cultural-expression/object to art-as-pure-investment-commodity is accurate.

This is a one-hour documentary worth viewing.... you can see it online below in 12 installments...

Mona Lisa Curse 

Cezzane, Picasso, Velazquez, El Greco, Pollock

Well... as time proceeds certain "rends" become commonplace. For example, Cezzanne was still foreign to many eyes in the 1950s... much less Picasso at his more "daring."

Education of the viewer is imperative in order to "read," "digest" and thus being to "value" the work justly. Education of the artist is imperative in order to avoid blindly repeating decades old homework. Sometimes neither are "educated."

Beginning with Velazquez and his contemporaries Rembrandt and Rubens... an optical shorthand was employed. A chunk of white read as a highlight at 12 paces.... loosely scumbled raw umber over a washy ochre read as shadow on skin at 10 paces... willy-nilly calligraphic yellow-white brushstrokes read as fine lace borders at 8 paces...etc., etc. I consider these to be purely "optical" gestures. Gestures (brushstrokes) exclusively at the service of illusion and psychological texture. Velazquez was arguably one of the first artists to feature amorphic non-space(s) atmospheres behind his portrait subjects.

Now of course, the then "eccentric" El Greco was 50 years ahead of Velazquez and arguably the precursor of "modern space/ambience" if only because of his influence on the lynchpins of modernity (primarily Picasso). See the attached JPEG and tell me if this isn't a great great grand parent of Demoseilles de Avignon's treatment of atmosphere, sky, fabric and presence. But alas, El Greco was not "seen" to be an appropriate "example" in Velzaquez's court environment.

So... from Delacroix onwards... gestures become more and more performance recordings... until the ultimate painting performance "record" in the form of drip paintings issue from The Springs, L.I., NY courtesy of Pollack. The point being that by the time we fast forward to Basquiat the gesture is to be read the way we read a dance performance or a rather and more accurately... the way we read a soccer match or basketball game. Action... stop... start... upset... time-out... action... stop... upset... action, etc., etc.

The brushstrokes are no longer servicing illusionism exclusively... now they serve as both sign system AND performance record. Basquiat in particular is closer to Dylan than to Chopin. Meaning... one can not "hear" Dylan by listening to him the way one would listen to Chopin. One can not read Basquiat the way one reads Da Vinci.

These seemingly minor "differences" are after all important because as artists... it is significant that we continually refine.... tweak... purify... muddy... clarify... retract... on and on. All at the service of refining our animate resonance... our core animate energy... soul... whatever. Art is the poetic... plastic... birth child of the homo sapien requiring challenging gestation and issues like a real pregnancy.

I think THAT is why it is difficult to self-promote and pursue group shows, etc. It is like those television newstories that cover the female child beauty pageants wherein children of 3 to 6 are tarted up and taught to "shake that booty" on a runway. Most group shows, galleries, etc. feel exactly like that to me. The other "kids" misbehave... have "richer parents" with connections... and ultimately the judges are susceptible to meaningless flash.

Well you get the picture...

As for the skill set... remember... "picture making" is "picture making" whether you are drawing, painting, making a still image or a moving image. The act requires manifold skills... creative direction for subject matter, impact treatment and quality control... art direction for composition and color scheme/lighting/pacing... production for hand rendering/camera handling and technique definition...

The thing to do is to be honest with one's self and determine which of these skills are one's strong suit... and then being one's own best friend... make work that highlights those skills and therefore benefits the strength of the result.

It is extremely rare to find a sensibility that can excell at one of those skills... much less all three at the same time. That is probably why you feel like you are only at a six grade level; you need to focus on the very attainable results you can achieve and make those a stand out.

More and more I see and comprehend why Picasso went from figure to still life to portrait to small group of figures to still life to portrait to figures to still life to.... by keeping the "subject parameters" simple and non-complex... he could use all of his concentration to focus on the real subject which was of course "best technique for the style... which was a style-not-yet-known-as-a-style." Picasso discovered early on that the oscillation between what is "said," "implied" or "shown" and the object reality of how he communicates this through paint is precisely where the "idea" resides. He forces it to "live" in the act of "reading" the paint by forcing the viewer (of that time) to read pro-actively.