>>952415

Non-existant. A combination of a high IQ and parents who raise their kids right, and who inspire them with a hobby which turns into an obsession.

Under the right instruction, anyone can become a very good painter in 1-2 years. No real knowledge required.

General population: forever impressed.

P.S. OP's painting is pretty mediocre. Weak read, poor values, colors are too saturated, derpy head structure, etc.

read malcom gladwell then get back to us.

>>952440
>Weak read
you mean the single light plane and single dark plane?

If he was 15 when he did that, that's not by any means of the prodigy quality work. Maybe if he did that when he was 5 it could be considered impressive, but even at that, in the long run it doesn't matter what you did when you were 5, because after a certain amount of time others will catch up, be it a year or two, or decades. you also have to take into consideration that oils were a convention for painting at the time, so while it might be impressive to people who don't paint in oils, it was much more commonplace in the late 19th century/ early 20th. you also have to take into consideration the environment he grew up in and the influences he had, and the desire to learn.

if you look, you can find people more talented than picasso at younger ages. his work really isn't that impressive. I never understood the hype.

>>952447

>also, inb4 "U JUST JELLY HURR DURR"

>>952447
> if you look, you can find people more talented than picasso at younger ages. his work really isn't that impressive. I never understood the hype.
Wait, really? Who are these people who are much more talented than Picasso? I mean artists who can paint in as many different styles as he did and do so as well as he did.

>>952447
You're not getting it. If ever a visual artist could be called a genius, Picasso is such an artist. I know that I didn't fully understand it when I was younger. I don't know what you could do to really break through your current perception about him. Spend as much time visiting museums with Picasso work, for one thing. Study the progress of art, graphic design, illustration, industrial design, and cartooning during Picasso's life and see the amazing power of his influence.

>>952458
>>952470

>implying picasso is the most talented artist

Why do I have a feeling you guys LEARNED that Picasso was a "genius"?

>>952482
...I really like that you used that picture.

>>952482
Most likely (a) you're trolling; but it's also possible that (b) you have a personality that's far enough from Picasso's that you're unable to understand his work, and you therefore pretend that, because you don't enjoy his art, no one can, and also pretend that his tremendous ability is nonexistent.

K, so now that i answered your question, can you please answer mine?
> Who are these people who are much more talented than Picasso? I mean artists who can paint in as many different styles as he did and do so as well as he did.

>>952482
I didn't imply that Picasso is "the most talented artist." There is no "most talented artist."

Further, I never "LEARNED" that Picasso was great. I was never able to understand any artist merely through being taught. Someone who isn't a visual artist may have "LEARNED" that Picasso is considered a great artist. I came to the realization on my own, when I was far away from childhood or adolescence.

Next time don't put words into our mouths or make assumptions that you cannot support.

>>952502
You think this is good?

Picasso is a troll, and you all got trolled. People who can't see who has true skill will forever be impressed due to their lack of understanding of drawing. They attribute all factors they're unable to account for as "talent."

If you can't see what he did there, you don't know shit about someone's skill level. You just don't have enough understanding to.

>mfw more juvenile trolling on /ic/

>mfw troll gave this thread cancer.

Let's just enjoy some Picasso.

>>952495
>oh god picasso oohhhh goddd im fucking cumming oh my god picassoo oh god oh god

Pretentious art history student detected.


>>952502

Oh, so because you're now an adult, you understand Picasso miraculously? Don't let your age make you feel entitled to unfounded claims of someone's greatness.

contribootin'

>>952502
>>952495


There are thousands of artists in history who could paint as well or better than Picasso. If the identity of the artist behind these paintings was unknown and they were presented in a collection of classical paintings, I doubt anyone here would find them to stand out among all of those, y'know, very good or better painters.

Talking about painting in "different styles" just makes you seem to me that you're one of those people who think that every person is born with artistic attributes that are branded by his hands into every drawing he ever makes and you're shocked that a person can make drawings that look different from each other.

>>952533

Also, just to clarify for the people in this thread with reading comprehension issues, I do understand that Picasso's ability to capture different "styles" in your artwork is significant, and I know why SOME of his paintings and styles are revered and considered "groundbreaking" and "innovative". What I DON'T like, is when people make claims of his greatness while clearly not knowing anything about artwork and just mindlessly accepting him as "the greatest artist". these kinds of people usually haven't seen much artwork, and if they have, don't understand the process of what goes into each piece of artwork.

too many times have I seen art history students at parties blabbering about how great all the "mainstream" popular artists are, and then when I ask them if they know who x, y, and z are, and if they even know how to make a painting like the ones that are apparently "amazing" they just go, "omg I would never be able to do thatlol"

typical mindless appreciation pisses me off. that's all.

pitchin' in

>>952538

>Talking about painting in "different styles" just makes you seem to me that you're one of those people who think that every person is born with artistic attributes that are branded by his hands into every drawing he ever makes and you're shocked that a person can make drawings that look different from each other.

WELL DUH. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR STYLE UR BORN WITH IT MAN MY ART TEACHER TOLD ME THAT.

I'm a lover Toulouse-Lautrec, and I also love to see Picasso and Matisse's work from visiting his environment. I saw this one last Spring at a Toulouse-Latrec show. It's very, very small.

>>952540
Another view of Olga...

I like the recurring bulky figures w/ he huge, sturdy feet, and the chiseled almond eyes.

I don't know the title of this pencil drawing, nor the date. Any help would be appreciated. Tineye is no use.

>>952538
The easiest way to spot a troll is they make no concrete claims and cite no specific examples. For instance:
> If you can't see what he did there, you don't know shit about someone's skill level. You just don't have enough understanding to.
> Pretentious art history student detected.

and, i'm sorry, but without a list of artists, this one applies, too:
> There are thousands of artists in history who could paint as well or better than Picasso.

I appreciate that you're taking the time to explain this. I never claimed that Picasso was "the greatest artist;" where did you get that phrase from? I based my argument on what i feel is one of Picasso's key strengths, and i had to repeat it because a troll was trying very hard to derail the discussion. There are far too many famous artists who are one- or maybe two-trick ponies, so, yes, i am shocked when an artist can make paintings that look decent and different from one another. Btw, i've never taken an art history class, i just think Picasso's paintings look cool.

Seems related to the Toulouse-Lautrec type of things. The date fits.

It's one of a number of portraits of the artist's sister.

From Paris, obviously.

Yeah, I love the Paris stuff...

>bulky figures w/ huge, sturdy feet, and the chiseled almond eyes.

First serious venture into printmaking.

>>952534
Revisiting this one.

>>952622
>>952534
Another variation...

>>952592
>>952558

Lithograph

>>952548
>>952540
Another portrait of Olga Picasso.

>>952502
Another done circa age fifteen.

Early practice

No Akiane, /ic/? What has become of this place? Have trolls forgotten her? Oh woe!

>>952655


>4-5 hours of practice a day, rising from 4.a.m.
>spends 100-200 hours per painting
>home schooled
>religious
>message of paintings lack any sort of actual depth, so the only thing that keeps them as being impressive is the technical ability the child is displaying

>mfw people think conditioning=prodigy

anyway, back to dumping Picasso. I'm enjoying this much more now in comparison to what I just witnessed from Akiane.

I like this. Sorry, no info on it.

Femme à la bougie, combat entre le taureau et le cheval

1934

Earlier one

There are claims that many of those paintings were actually done by picasso's father, and his signature "J. Ruiz" was altered to "P. Ruiz Picasso".
>>952651
In this painting: notice the difference between the "P"s and between "Ruiz" and "Picasso"

I could only find this link (the original source was taken offline)
http://designtaxi.com/news/1469/The-Fraudulent-Exhibit-Picasso-La-Passion-du-Dessin/

>>952754
Plausible. The 'Ruiz' is in cursive, but 'Picasso' is not. Also, the first 'P' does look like a J, while the second one seems less so. Picasso was so mythologized and marketable even in his prime I could see why they would do this.

>>952754
I've heard these fringe theories, but take for example the simple fact that the bearded man standing in this picture is Picasso's father, and he is painted in profile:
>>952502

Many works beyond that time period attest to Pablo Picasso's great skill. I find these fringe theories difficult to believe. In any case, Picasso's greatest achievements were yet to come. Nobody can claim that Picasso's father was around helping him with anything like these, which are far more remarkable than his adolescent works:

>>952649
>>952558
>>952548
>>952545
>>952540

Got to love his blue period.

>>952415
is that the new doctor?

Love this.

imagine if Picasso wasn't actually world famous and posted here on /ic/

>Picasso-kun!/IsMOEc4mo: "Hey guys just finished this. What do you think?"

>"your anatomy is totally fucked up, needs more LOOMIS. Also learn to render, your pictures are all flat as fuck and your colour palette is extremely bland and boring"

>"It's my style, guys"

>"get the fuck out of here. You post the same shit over and over again and never listen to our critique, tt's pretty clear you don't even want to improve"

>>952423

Why this wasn't /thread after this anon's post is beyond me.

>>954442

QFT

/ic/ in a nutshell

>>954442
>implying ive ever played the "its my style" card

>>954442

I fail to see why people consider his work to be so great? I find his abstraction of life to be neither inspiring and thought provoking nor beautiful. Anyone care to input their opinion on the matter?

>>954442
Doesn't that tell you something about his skills as an artist?

The fact that you're affected by some preaching "art critics" shows you how much of a sheep you are. Either that or you're blind and haven't seen more skilled artists do things better in every manner than he does.

KEEP BEING IMPRESSED. HE'S PERFECT.

>>954451

>Implying I wasn't defending Picasso or you.

>>954453

A better question would be: what abstractions DO you find thought provoking and what are they doing that Picasso isn't?

I find it interesting in how he plays with young and old bodies, creating people who defy age and sex. How he applies different palettes to different parts of their bodies and how they change between people. Ambiguous body language which makes you think about their motivations and relationships. The animals, how they accentuate the people next to them and why they are there. Technically they're interesting compositions with lovely brush work and refreshing and varied palettes.

>>954462
I think you misunderstood my post. I think Picasso is fucking terrible and the very core of the cancer that is modern art.

>>954468

>I think you misunderstood my post. I think Picasso is fucking terrible and the very core of the cancer that is modern art.

Thisiswhathipstersactuallybelieve.jpg

>>954469

>Calling him a hipster without making any counter arguments.

You sir are the definition of psuedo intellectual.

>>954469
uh what? That must have been one of the most stupid uses of the word "hipster" I have ever seen. The vast majority of people on this planet think Picasso's pictures look stupid and ugly. If anything it's the "toodeepforyou" art hipsters who like and defend his work and modern art in general.

That's why I said if he wasn't famous, he'd get ripped a new one on /ic/ or really any art board on the internet except for maybe Deviantart.

>>954481
>The vast majority of people on this planet think Picasso's pictures look stupid and ugly.
I think you'll find he's one of the most popular painters in the world. oops.

>>954464
i know but a line like "screw you guys, i do what i waunt!" would have been better suited.

>>954538

No, he's one of the most famous and most heralded as a genius painters in the world. Someone like Chuck Jones or Norman Rockwell is a much more popular artist.

Most of the work he's famous for is crude and primitive and has little appeal to most regular people.

>>952439
Please, can you post your paintings? Or of others that became "very good painters" in 2 years of instruction?
Or are just another 4chan underage expert?

Also,
Picasso is overestimated.

I know a guy who had his own fucking gallery when he was 7, and he still makes really impressive paintings now and then, although he loves architecture, so he stopped working on his gallery when he was like 15, although his portofolio earned him a scholarship.

Don't know how do I call that. Also, his paintings were pretty awesome portraits.

>>954607

and let me guess, your best friend is a nigger

>>954468
I didn't mean to link to you. I must have clicked your post on accident.

>>952482


why do i have feeling that you are one of jelly fags trolling in all /ic threads?

i feel bad for you. keep drawing cheap anime

I love the illusionistic games played by Picasso and Braque in this period.

Just sit and gaze and let it do its thing.

Much simpler illusions in this, but very bold. Another one that's fun to stare at until you feel seasick. Reminds me of later Abstract Illusionism like this:

http://www.tommoody.us/images/jan08/havard.flatheadriver_detail.JPG

>>954725
Not the guy you quoted, but I find it funny that cheap anime is still far superior (technically, anatomically and aestetically) to 99% of what Picasso churns out.

Now you can reply and tell me how Picasso makes all these errors on purpose, but everyone can claim that. Whether it's true or not doesn't make any difference whatsoever when looking at the actual pictures.

The truth is, if any non famous person drew something like >>954636 people would fucking laugh at him.

However, because it's Picasso, it's a masterwork worth millions of $. I swear if Picasso put his name under Maindude, he could sell this for millions as well and make people in galleries stop in awe and make them wonder about what he might have intended when he drew tits on a guy or how the tentacles entangling that women are symbolizing surpressed sexuality.

TLDR: Picasso is indeed a genius, however not at art but at promoting himself.

>>954745
>The truth is, if any non famous person drew something like >>954636 people would fucking laugh at him.

Not the guy that you're responding to, but to be really honest, what you've said there is really very far from the truth. I'd really hope that you'd get out there, see more (and different) art, spend some real time with it, and generally expand your horizons. I realize that you're giving your honest impression, but it doesn't square with reality. I think that not only are you missing some of the best qualities of a painting like that, but you're really misunderstanding not only the art world of that time and the current art world. Despite the art-as-investment horror that exploded in the 80s, and an over-zelous group lurch into conceptualism, there are still a great many people who care about art for arts sake, and craft in the service of art. A great many of them, both artists and art admirers, would find a whole lot to enjoy in a painting such as that. I find the stylizations quite pleasing, the design and play of textures harmonious and interesting, and classical treatment quite beautiful. Above all, the sense of volume is astounding.

So, I hope you get a chance to go deeper and deeper into all different eras of fine art, and I mean all the way to the Chauvet caves and back again. It's a short life, and I think that opening your mind and really checking out some other perspectives wouldn't be the worst use of your time. It's not a trap. Of course it is YOUR time, and I suggest these things not to cause offense, but in the hope that you'll live your life in a very wide world with a multi-facited outlook. I keep making an effort to expand how I see, and I always feel better when something clicks. Everything become richer.

>>954761
see, this is where I simply feel disconnected with modern art. In order to enjoy it you NEED to learn about it, read the essays of the artists about their work, what their intentions were, what the context of the time was etc. It is simply no longer a good work of art to me if it cannot stand on its own. Instead you need to consider all those previously mentioned things and interpret all kind of shit into it in order to enjoy it. Or better said, in order to convince yourself you enjoy it.

Show a little child a picture of Picasso and it will most likely say "This looks ugly and stupid".

That child is a true, honest art critic, not some pretentious art history student who got brainwashed into the whole too deep for you mindset.

>>952423
this

>>954791
I don't think you need to read a book about it, or put it in a whole lot of context. What you've said, however, could be said of classical art as well. Most people are not going to grasp the difference between a hackneyed attempt at a Vermeer and the real thing. The people that know the difference have simply spent time with art.

I'm visual. I don't think I should have to read a book about jack shit if I don't want to. Reading a book about this art or that may certainly enrich the experience, but I want something that I can really look at (for a long, long time, if need be) and get that moment of illumination, where the true beauty is revealed.

I mean, just by being around and making art for a long time, things happen on their own. Moments of insight just happen. Those moments are precious too. They're like a key to another realm of enjoyment. Also, it's not like you loose your own keys to what you already like. You're just gaining more.

If you go to some island where for some reason they've gone for decades with macaroni and cheese as their only food, and you try to give them a delicious steak or something, they're going to think it's gross, but if you're around them long enough, enjoying delicious steaks, sooner or later they'll get it. I hated mushrooms when I was a kid. To me it was as bad as eating earthworms. One day in my teens I had mushroom sauce or something, and a mushroom got by me, and that fucking thing was delicious. After that I loved mushrooms and cooked all sorts of shit with those delicious fuckers. Same thing happened with garlic.

Anyway, I'm with you. I believe in natural breakthroughs. I just believe in keeping an open mind, and I believe in serious, prolonged, heavy-duty immersion into art-making and viewing. I never throw away my critical instincts, but I do test them. That's it, really.

I gotta slit. Hope that made sense.

>>954791

A child will prefer twinkle twinkle little star over stravinsky, transformers over citizen kane, sickly sweet soda over coffee, playing in the sandbox over a game of chess and harry potter over crime and punishment. I'm not saying that the other stuff is inherently better or that you can't intellectually justify your liking of something "simple" but the child-argument isn't helping you.

>>954803
>I gotta slit.

lol, I am not going to slit my wrists, I meant to write "split" and now I really have to. See ya, fellas.