3 ms·
There are no transitional fossils, so to speak. That is, there are no examples where he got the perspective right but the lighting was a bit rough, or the gener
by stan_rogers 12y ago
There are no transitional fossils, so to speak. That is, there are no examples where he got the perspective right but the lighting was a bit rough, or the general proportions correct with foreshortening a bit off. As a man who needed to earn a living, he couldn't afford to take a couple-three years off to learn how to draw. Picasso (who was never much of a draughtsman, even in his youth) was working in an era where photography had largely supplanted painterly realism; his concern was not with middle-class portraiture or advertising his skills in creating it.
- kirsebaer 12y agoPicasso was skilled at drawing as a child, and he started formal art education at age 10. But maybe you mean he wasn't that impressive at drawing perspective and architecture? Childhood drawings by Picasso: http://drawingatduke.blogspot.no/2012/02/drawings-of-pablo-picasso.html http://drawingatduke.blogspot.no/2012/02/drawings-of-pablo-p...
- stan_rogers 12y agoNo, I don't think it's particularly remarkable, even for a ten-year-old. (At that age, I had been attending an atelier myself for three years, fancying myself a draughtsman and painter, and being told repeatedly that I had some skill. There were kids there who were immensely better than I was, and the differences in direct comparison were extremely subtle -- fractions of millimetres here and there -- but made all kinds of difference.) Nor was there anything convincing or compelling about his blue period paintings. Hell, even his cubism was inferior to Braque. Picasso was merely successfully audacious.