4 ms·

Here's a more accessible analogy: Here is Jacques Pepin making an omelet in 2 ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Here's a more accessible analogy: Here is Jacques Pepin making an omelet in 2 ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU You can see every motion, every measure, the size of the flame, there are no cuts. But if you actually go ahead and try to make this it turns out to be INCREDIBLY difficult to get it right. Not every random mish mash or scribble is as random as a layperson will at first think. The other analogy is look at the original post. Picasso COULD have painted like he did at 15 or 18 or 20 - which I assume you would agree you couldn't scribble yourself. But he CHOSE to paint in the style you are criticizing. You should default to assuming that there is more skill to it than you can see.

airforce1 4y ago
So are you arguing that it's impossible for skilled artists to make bad art? You're saying a master chef never makes meals that objectively taste bad, even if they are experimenting with completely new flavors and techniques? I think some people in this thread have raised Picasso to Godhood status. In my reckoning, Picasso was a skilled artist in an ocean of other skilled artists so he was desperate to do something different to try and stand out from the crowd. So he started experimenting with new "flavors and techniques". Assuming he is human, we can safely assume some of his experimental creations fell flat and objectively turned out bad. To deny this is to uphold Picasso as a God who is incapable of producing anything but perfection.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > So are you arguing that it's impossible for skilled artists to make bad art? not in the case of Picasso. > a master chef never makes meals that objectively taste bad, even if they are experimenting with completely new flavors and techniques? not when they are preparing it for clients. The point is that very skilled people are consistent Their output is always gonna be beyond average. > some of his experimental creations fell flat and objectively turned out bad perhaps. but there's no proof of it. in fact there's proof that he's always been at Picasso's level.

airforce1 4y ago

So are you arguing that it's impossible for skilled artists to make bad art? You're saying a master chef never makes meals that objectively taste bad, even if they are experimenting with completely new flavors and techniques? I think some people in this thread have raised Picasso to Godhood status. In my reckoning, Picasso was a skilled artist in an ocean of other skilled artists so he was desperate to do something different to try and stand out from the crowd. So he started experimenting with new "flavors and techniques". Assuming he is human, we can safely assume some of his experimental creations fell flat and objectively turned out bad. To deny this is to uphold Picasso as a God who is incapable of producing anything but perfection.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> So are you arguing that it's impossible for skilled artists to make bad art? not in the case of Picasso. > a master chef never makes meals that objectively taste bad, even if they are experimenting with completely new flavors and techniques? not when they are preparing it for clients. The point is that very skilled people are consistent Their output is always gonna be beyond average. > some of his experimental creations fell flat and objectively turned out bad perhaps. but there's no proof of it. in fact there's proof that he's always been at Picasso's level.