4 ms·
This makes me sad. This is not because you dislike Picasso. It is because you're making art an issue of classism. If we just ignore the aesthetic of Picasso's
by nouveaux 4y ago
This makes me sad. This is not because you dislike Picasso. It is because you're making art an issue of classism.
If we just ignore the aesthetic of Picasso's art, you can categorize Picasso as a genius purely on his influence of other artists that follow him. It's possible to dismiss his influence by saying those other artists are fools or deranged. However, Picasso's influence is undisputed and absolute. Purely on that metric, he is classified as a genius. My hope is that anyone who is reading this will ask "Why is Picasso influential?" instead of "Why would anyone like this?"
It is possible to dislike Picasso and appreciate his influence on art.
- yupper32 4y ago> you can categorize Picasso as a genius purely on his influence of other artists that follow him. That's a dangerous game. You can surely think of plenty of counter examples here in history and modern times.
- Ensorceled 4y agoNo, I can't. Can you provide some "dangerous" counter examples of artists who influenced other artists?
- airforce1 4y agoI think GP is pointing out that the ability to command a following or convince people to follow in your footsteps does not a genius make. Brenton Harrison Tarrant commands a following and influenced a lot of copycats (his most recent disciple being the perpetrator of a certain shooting in Buffalo). So... can we categorize Tarrant as a genius purely on his influence of [others] that follow him?
- Ensorceled 4y agoAs much as I hate to trigger Godwin’s law here, but that is equivalent to saying Hitler was a problematic artist …