Woman as Art, Whore, and Madonna

     Call me a philistine, or a commoner, or bourgeoisie, but I don’t like the work of Pablo Picasso.
     I appreciate his stretching the envelope, painting outside of the lines, and breaking the rules of the Salon de Paris, but WTF about his view of women? (Both literally, and figuratively. Who wants to be painted like a broken box with three eyes?)
     I have never been drawn to the cubists (or abstract art in general), but I am acutely aware of the influence women have had on the artists that paint and sculpt them- after all, we’re gorgeous aren’t we.
     But Pablo…. I don’t know- misogynistic with anarchist tendencies, wrapped in a emotional riddle, hidden inside a man/boy that to his dying day loved the ladies.
     Loved to leave them- is more like it.
     Consider this: he had AT LEAST eight mistresses that he cavorted with while he was involved with them- as mistresses, two wives that put up with his shit, four children between one wife and two lovers, two of his ladies were 40+ years younger then he, two of the eight committed suicide, and his son ended up being his chauffeur.  
     And, have I mentioned that he represented these women on canvas looking like cut-up cyclops with their lady parts often times being invaded by unknown objects. 
     Art critics, often times refer to him as “a lover of women”and “exploring the complex nature of the female.”
     Ah ha. I’ll give you complex, you !#**# and explore your crotch if you just come a bit closer.
     But, I digress.
     On a recent visit to the Art Institute of Chicago (where Pablo was having an exhibition, and I was visiting with the daughter) I found many other artists with a slightly more palatable, though no less insightful, representation of our loveliness.
     Because, after all, we are lovely,and complex, and can charm you into doing our bidding. 
     Just don’t put us in a box.
     We don’t like them, unless they’re blue…

and have something sparkly inside.

PINIMAGE
A Sunday on La Grande Jatte
c. 1884
Georges Seurat

PINIMAGE
Madame Valloton and Her Niece
c. 1899
Felix-Edouard Vallotton

PINIMAGE
Acrobats at the Cirque Fernando
c. 1879
Pierre- Auguste Renoir

PINIMAGE
Resting
c. 1887
Antonio Mancini

PINIMAGE
Slender Woman with Vase
c. 1894
Jozsef Rippl-Ronai

PINIMAGE
The Bath
c. 1893
Mary Cassatt

PINIMAGE
At Mouquin’s
c. 1905
William Glackens

PINIMAGE
Two Sisters
c. 1909
Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida

PINIMAGE

And this is how Pablo saw his women.

Head of a Woman with Straw Hat
on a Pink Background
c. 1938
Pablo Picasso


   

Top Mommy Blogs - Mom Blog Directory




    • Cheryl Nicholl - Thank you. Bashing Pablo can be tricky business. I’m waiting for the art world cranks to rain on my parade.ReplyCancel

  • Ruchira Khanna - What a coincidence…today I discover that art is equivalent to meditation.

    This artist had a different way of meditating πŸ™‚

    TGIF πŸ˜‰ReplyCancel

  • Lynne Spreen - Fabulous! Thank you. I admit the same, and I enjoyed the dose of positivity you served up.ReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - Thank you Lynne. Messing with the ‘Master’ can be dangerous to one’s public image (like I have one). But I’ve just gotta say- I CAN’T STAND HIM or HIS WORK!!!!!ReplyCancel

  • Sue - I have never liked Picasso either so it is so cool that you did this post. Plus, now that I know more about his sick perversions and arrogant attitudes towards women, I now dislike him personally. Thank you for showing the other (real) art. My favorites are Two Sisters, Resting (love the frame too), and Acrobats.ReplyCancel

  • Cheryl Nicholl - Thanks Sue- Two Sisters really is charming. You should have seen it close-up. FABULOUS!!!!ReplyCancel

  • Jessica Veter - I’m disappointed. Your own description of women (luring people to do our bidding and easily bought by sparkly things) is just as offensive as Picasso’s, maybe even more so as it follow a tirade against misogyny in the art world.

    And you’re missing the big question. There are a number of extraordinary artists out there who have offensive attitudes towards all sorts of things. Does that make the art they create less important or beautiful? Or do we appreciate the art, and ignore the artist? It’s a tricky one.
    ReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - I knew this post would raise some hair and I appreciate your response. I celebrate womanhood in all of it’s forms- including the cunning ones. As, for the artists who create controversial art- I choose who I believe is important, and do not find, all and anything beautiful. That is, after all, the chance a person takes when he/she creates- just like this post. As for things that go sparkle in the night- I dare to pronounce I LOVE DIAMONDS!!!! I hope you still continue to check in and leave challenging comments.ReplyCancel

  • Paul Wiklund - Glad to find that someone else dislikes this “master” as much as I do. I really find his art sad, and a little repulsive. I do, however, see his view towards woman as a cultural thing rather than a personal one. Men of his time had mistresses because they viewed women as property. He was just a little more bold about it. I think it’s sad, but I’m not surprised.ReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - Funny thing about his work- it’s often filled with beautiful color, but his graphic strokes are almost violent. Thanks Paul, for stopping by and leaving a response worth thinking about.ReplyCancel

  • William Kendall - I always thought the man was off kilter nuts. I’ve never seen a Picasso I liked.ReplyCancel

  • afterthekidsleave.com - I can respect the groundbreaking stuff he did without actually enjoying his art–or his personal shenanigans. I have little patience with the “artistic temperament” when it’s an excuse for treating people shabbily.
    KarenReplyCancel

  • Julie DeNeen - Love how you stirred up discussion with this post! Honestly I never stopped long enough to think about it, so thank you!ReplyCancel

  • Laurie - I know art is seen differently and it is ways for people to express themselves- but he is one of the artists that I never understood or why he became famous. I never knew about his personal life, now I really don’t understand πŸ™‚

    I wanted to invite you to our weekly Meet & Greet Blog Hop! It runs from Friday nights till the end of Monday, come link up if you have some time πŸ™‚

    http://createdbylaurie.blogspot.com/2013/04/weekend-meet-greet-blog-hop-21.htmlReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - What a lovely invitation. I’ve never done a blog hop before. It’s Saturday morning so right after I make the bed, get a load of laundry in, thaw a roast, and weed the garden I’ll hop right in! And thanks for stopping by Laurie.ReplyCancel

  • meandmr.com - Newest follower here! I found you through the blog hop, you have a super cute blog, I can’t wait to read more. You can find me at meandmr.com

    -Melanie @meandmr.comReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - That’s GREAT! You made it worth my time (which is precise-no?) I’m on my way to your site. Let’s follow each other!ReplyCancel

  • MJ - Thanks for the Art Re-Education! Much different than I was taught in Art Class in the University!!! I agree, quite the misogynist pig!!! I was wondering how you got the pictures of the other artists at the art museum without being arrested…do tell…ReplyCancel

    • Cheryl Nicholl - Hi MJ! Believe it or not- they ALLOW photography (w/o flash)- I couldn’t believe it! So… I actually tool them. Thanks for stoping by and I hope to see you here again!!ReplyCancel

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

CommentLuv badge

B l o g s   I   L o v e