This was my take on it, maybe he felt like his connection to Spain was dying or Spain itself was, though i'm not one who knows anything about these sorts of things.
Also a fun fact. During the liberation of Paris, the allies had no clue where Picasso lived in Paris, if he was still even in Paris, or if he was even still alive. The famous photojournalist Margaret Bourke-White (who deserves a video herself) happened to be with the US 4th Infantry Division and was one of Picasso's former muses and knew where he lived. He later commented how the first sight of liberation came in the form of being greeted by the gorgeous photographer knocking on the door of his residence accompanied by some US GIs.
My theory is that Picasso kinda burned out during this era. Back when the civil war in Spain was going on, the rise of facsism was still somewhat of a “new” threat, which enraged many, especially antifascists and artists like Picasso. It may have seemed like a threat that must be, and may still be squashed by resisting it, which may have inspired him to create provocative political art, denouncing war and fascism. But by the late 30’s and early 40’s, most of europe was took over by fascism, and more and more people seemed to accept, or even willingly support it. Sure, nazi Germany, fascist Italy fell in 1945, and so did Francos reign end in the 70’s, but back then, fascism had won in Europe. Sure, Picasso may have continued to create provocative art about it, but in general he probably just felt powerless. Him painting his anti war sentiment would have been the equivalent of nowadays sharing a post on social media like “here is what happens in *insert random present day authoritarian state*, and why its problematic”. Im not saying its no use to do so, but it wont cause real change. And as a political artist, feeling like your work wont create wonders and defeat the nazi occupation may have made him feel burned out. Fascism wasnt outrageous news anymore, it was just everyday, mundane life. That does not inspire art, or motivate resistance. Also, bear in mind, just because Picasso was somewhat tolerated by the nazis, doesnt mean he could do anything. He may have still feared for his life, and being imprisoned/killed for rebelling with his art may not only have been scary, but also make him feel like its not worth it, since as said, it wouldnt have really changed anything.
I think that Picasso being apolitical was a very smart move, as he was literally wedged in the middle of a global war. Side with the Allies, he gets killed by the Germans. Side with the Germans, he either gets killed or have his reputation permanently stained. In times like this, it is not cowardly to side with no one, and to save yourself.
I don’t know about “smart” move. It was a cowardly move, and cowards often live, which means if it could be called “smart,” it’s only selfishly smart. Fascism is a disease of banality. It is allowed through the complacency of every day people. If no one in the “dominant” group is willing to die to stop the fascists, then the fascists will kill whoever falls outside the “dominant” group.
and had he made political work, the Nazis would have confiscated it during one of their many visits to his home. Great topic though, please consider a follow-up of how his work might have changed after the war (considering the initial post-war economic difficulties).
It's not the most heroic and defiant choice, but perfectly understandable and valid imo. Also, He kept painting 'degenerate' art, that is already pretty brave and admirable
He WAS political, the Nazis knew he was left wing and he painted "Guernica"....what could be more political than that? Only that during the nazi occupation of France, he was cautious and decided to shut up. But there was some bravery on his part when he decided to stay in France, instead of fleeing away to New York or Switzerland, which many artists and writers did. It's obvious to me that he was in danger during this time as the Nazis considered him a "degenerate" artist.
The Weeping Frenchman was Jerome Barzotti, filmed in Marseilles months after Paris fell. Barzotti cried as 29 French regiments were disbanded in that southern city. That reel later appeared in Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series, from which the American public assumed that Barzotti had witnessed the Fall of Paris. A hearth-breaking reel every time I watch it. To know more, look for "A Weeping Frenchman" in UA-cam or "L'Homme qui pleure" in French Wikipedia. Thanks for the great video on Picasso, and great educational content as always @TheCanvasArtHistory !
there is an awesome book titled "Picasso and the War Years: 1937-1945" authored by Rosenblum that has an incredible amount of his work from this era, in case anyone is looking for a solid print resource.
I see "Head of a Bull" as the "death" of both Picasso's homelands: his native Spain and his adoptive France. The decaying bull's head symbolizes Spain. You can even see the colors of the Spanish flag in its rotting flesh. The window it's sitting in front of, the air outside looking hazy and yellowish as if colored by cannon or bomb smoke, represents Occupied France, a once free country now under the Nazi yoke. If it hadn't been for your fantastic video and analysis, I likely would have never even heard of this haunting painting. Thank you for making this. It's certaintly a thought-provoking work of art from a troubling period in both the artist's life as well as in French history.
But he did not 😀... I don't know if it was because he was too famous to be deported or killed or even mistreated... or if it was for diplomatic reasons because he was Spanish... or if it was because there was a German or a few Germans in the occupying German Wehrmacht who were protecting him from being harmed... but I guess Picasso did benefit from one of these possible "protections" or maybe another protection I haven't been mentioning... but everybody knew, including the nazis, that Picasso was left-wing. 😀
I believe I read somewhere (I would have to look it up) that the Nazis decided to leave Picasso alone because of his high profile. Had they arrested him etc. I think there would have been a backlash from that alone. Considering that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews and nothing was done about it, yet messing with Picasso might have says a lot (and not good) about who we are (and were).
Nothing was done about it? Are you even living in the 21st century? You even heard of Israel? Do you even know who’s ruling America now? Can you guess why America joined WW2 in the first place? Do you know that the war was won by the US?
They are saying, by virtue of being a famous legendary celebrity at the time, they didn't want the bad PR. They are saying noone cared about the fact the Nazis killed thousands of Jews and other minorities because there was already a spirit of dismissal and racism during them towards those groups that still pervades today. Yet one man who was just a bit famous, and was not a Jew, could be spared and cause a reaction if they killed him while still such a figure in the public mind. It's like when hundred of Mexican and and South American migrants continually drowned while seeking a better life. But Michael Jackson's death would get wildly more attention in the news. This isn't a denoucement of MJ or saying we cannot grieve great artists or famous people. It's just saying how the Western human condition tends to overshadow the masses by those with fame.
I feel that Goya centered his focus on denigrating and incriminating the oppressor, while Picasso aimed to draw sympathy from the viewer, highlighting the absurdity of the innocent civilians’ situation.
I think the true influence of the occupation on Picasso's work was that he was restricted in what he could paint. Sure, he was still painting "degenerate art", a thing the Nazis scorned, but if he dared to paint anything even hinting at being against fascism during that occupation, he would be considered an active threat and would have been killed. It's the brush strokes that Picasso never painted that sing louder than the ones he did. That a man so overtly antifascist very suddenly had to stop for the sake of his own life. He wanted to say it, desperately so, but he was not allowed. And after it was all over, the experiences of being artistically silenced like that sort of... broke him. To the point where he could never finish another antifascist piece.
If you look closely there's this subtle downward 90 degree angle in the window frame just to the left of the bull's head. Once I saw it, the window frame immediately read as a swastika.
watching this video, i realized the composition (including the deck of what looks like notes in the bulls hand), is heavily similar to The Death of Marat by david. and so could be depicting some sort of political statement. possibly hinting of a reigh of terror type of repression.
I'm sorry if I sound petty but Guernica is not "Güernica". The U is there to differenciate it from the sound "ge", like the H in italian "che/ce". I know its confusing, basically just pronounce it the same as until now but please drop the u, and to say it perfectly accentuate the i.
I guess the fact that there wasn't much occupation art in itself is a form of restraint from the artist. He was under stress and pressure to not be too visible. Also Picasso wasn't really a very consistent fellow, from what I can tell. Political ideals may fluctuate, at least externally. (The rafles in Paris were probably a strong influence on this)
Great video! But the clicking sound you have when you switch slides is really jarring - especially near the middle when there are a lot of clicks in quick succession. It's a trend these days among various UA-camrs, but it makes it difficult to listen to, especially for listeners with misophonia.
It’s an interesting one isn’t it. He was painting anti Franco art and was was still producing ‘degenerate art’ under occupation which is in of itself a form of protest, considering he easily could have reverted to his neoclassical style and been safe. Had he fled to the US I think harsher criticism could be levied at him for not being more critical.
Picasso penius among the geniuses of art painted in her giant in all terms masterpiece Guernica the unreason and the pain of the civil war in his country under the Nazi aviation that helped Franco and destroyed Guernica he was exhibited in the U.N becaused.it symbolized the universal pain of war until the end of the Spanish dictatorship ended at his express whish and he took Spain.
Picasso was a theorist of the meaning of painting. His work opened the door to abstraction. Realism during the war period was supposed to speak the truth of the war. One sort of truth is not just to shoot pictures on the front but movies. The word truth though is a form of comment on realism. The subject matter shows or doesn’t show consequences of fascism. This is a dilemma for a painter these days because a single image has difficulty expressing the meaning of what is around us in the ‘West’. During fascism their violence and racism made critiques of them seeable. But the premise of a painting that tests abstraction has to find some way to be real about war inside abstraction. This might be by including words in the image, but what is realism that is abstract? With Guernica, Picasso seems to say abstract and cartoony figures can show the outcome of war in an abstracted way. Were this a movie though then the questions Picasso asks of a painting seem harder to pardon a movie. An actor might be anti-fascist but unable to commercially find work. In our times of social media some influencers by their audience have an obligation to speak of U.S. militarism, but in a Picasso like stance how does a movie explore reality that asks of realism itself what’s not there in the convention? These days to me then with movements like; Black Lives Matter, it is how being ‘outside’ trying to be in is the left content. Both what does that mean is symbolized to the right by ‘woke’ and attempts to purge school curricula of material exposing white supremacy that are banned from schools in states ruled by Republicans.
Even if the subjects/themes of the paintings weren’t strictly political, making modern art which subverts the ideal of beauty, proportions and so on is still opposing to the demands of fascism who saw what Picasso and so many other artist painted as degenerated. Continuing to create art with his personal style was political. It didn’t denounce war or occupation in an obvious way, but it was provocative. Making art can never be “not political”.
Picasso could’ve done more. He could’ve painted an anti-fascist masterpiece and have died for his art. He could’ve done less. He could’ve reverted to the classical style which he was well versed on. But instead he stubbornly remained. He persisted. Like a wart. He might not have thrived but he survived. And sometimes, that is an act of revenge in itself. I’ve never cared for the man but i respect this much.
What is definitely sure and very obvious is that Picasso kept on making what nazis called "degenerate paintings" during the occupation 😀... he could have gone back to his neoclassical paintings of the 1920's... but he didn't 😀 and kept on making "degenerate art" 😀... only that, by itself, is already a political statement in the context of the nazi occupation of France. 😀
One would imagine that pure self preservation is reason enough to appear "apolitical" or to hide any messages or themes in his work during Nazi occupation. Only someone wholly removed from the actual events of the war would criticize someone for appearing so. Of course the occupation shows in his work of the time, whether it's detectable by viewers of it or not. Perhaps a giant canvas of thumbnails of all of his work over his career would make it plainer to see, but artists don't owe their viewers anything. JMO.
I find it a little presumptuous to say what Picasso "should" have been creating during the occupation. It's fair to say that his work wasn't political, to make that an observation of fact. But you're really editorializing when you imply that it was a mistake in judgement.
It’s so easy for those people who criticize Picasso for being so apolitical during the time of the occupation. For him it was literally life and death in those times
“He first r_ped the woman, then he worked,” -One of picasso's many mistresses and r_pe victims “I would rather see a woman die than see her happy with someone else,” -Picasso Picasso was also recorded to have beaten and r_ped one of his mistresses Dora Mar so bad that she was unconscious on the floor for several hours while he "worked." I see this is not a topic worth discussing when it comes to you and picasso.
He should have served or at least been done something relevant to the war effort. Being apolitical was a cop out as there were clear sides to take. He was a coward at best and extremely selfish at worst - I suggest the latter is more accurate
The name "National Socialist" is intentionally misleading. Nothing about Nazi policy is socialist at all. In fact, it's one of the most extreme examples of fascism ever. So yes, "National Socialism" and Fascism are the same.
the nazi party had many members with socialist leanings before Hitler due to how the party’s target demographic was the working class. “national socialism”, in Hitler’s domination of the party, was a misleading doctrine to dupe at least some of the socialists of Germany into supporting the Nazis and their plan to increase direct profit to German workers.
I'm late here, so I'm probably just shouting into the void, but whatever.... One of the things that made Picasso ahead of his time was that he was one of the early people to understand the nature and relationship between the individual and the whole. His use of the bull/minotaur has many interpretations and there is a lot of discussion of what that symbol means here or there. I would argue that all those interpretations are most true almost all of the time. Therefore, (and I'm skipping some steps in explaining how I got here, but I am trusting that any readers knows their art history) I think the bull skulls are both very, very personal in a way that acknowledges that the political has an impact on the personal. The rotting bull skull and the bare bones bull skull are both personal pieces of Picasso feeling he's been "cut off" from his body (Spain) and that in a time of Nazi occupation, his head (his artistic mind) is what's rotting or dead. It's him acknowledging that he hasn't done much since the Nazis came in and since Guernica. Just a theory of course, as all these things are, but that's how I see these works
Extremely important to mention: the bull is a symbol for Spain
Extremely important to remember the horrors of bull fighting.
This was my take on it, maybe he felt like his connection to Spain was dying or Spain itself was, though i'm not one who knows anything about these sorts of things.
@@jonnawyatt like fou u!
@@jonnawyatt Extremely important to remember - irrelevant to the discussion, stop trying to sidetrack onto your own narrative.
thank you! I was going to comment that. while it isn't always used that way, I believe it is in his political work - i.e. dream and lie of franco
Also a fun fact. During the liberation of Paris, the allies had no clue where Picasso lived in Paris, if he was still even in Paris, or if he was even still alive. The famous photojournalist Margaret Bourke-White (who deserves a video herself) happened to be with the US 4th Infantry Division and was one of Picasso's former muses and knew where he lived.
He later commented how the first sight of liberation came in the form of being greeted by the gorgeous photographer knocking on the door of his residence accompanied by some US GIs.
You can argue that the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibition is probably the greatest show ever assembled.
My theory is that Picasso kinda burned out during this era. Back when the civil war in Spain was going on, the rise of facsism was still somewhat of a “new” threat, which enraged many, especially antifascists and artists like Picasso. It may have seemed like a threat that must be, and may still be squashed by resisting it, which may have inspired him to create provocative political art, denouncing war and fascism.
But by the late 30’s and early 40’s, most of europe was took over by fascism, and more and more people seemed to accept, or even willingly support it. Sure, nazi Germany, fascist Italy fell in 1945, and so did Francos reign end in the 70’s, but back then, fascism had won in Europe. Sure, Picasso may have continued to create provocative art about it, but in general he probably just felt powerless. Him painting his anti war sentiment would have been the equivalent of nowadays sharing a post on social media like “here is what happens in *insert random present day authoritarian state*, and why its problematic”. Im not saying its no use to do so, but it wont cause real change. And as a political artist, feeling like your work wont create wonders and defeat the nazi occupation may have made him feel burned out. Fascism wasnt outrageous news anymore, it was just everyday, mundane life. That does not inspire art, or motivate resistance.
Also, bear in mind, just because Picasso was somewhat tolerated by the nazis, doesnt mean he could do anything. He may have still feared for his life, and being imprisoned/killed for rebelling with his art may not only have been scary, but also make him feel like its not worth it, since as said, it wouldnt have really changed anything.
I think that Picasso being apolitical was a very smart move, as he was literally wedged in the middle of a global war.
Side with the Allies, he gets killed by the Germans. Side with the Germans, he either gets killed or have his reputation permanently stained. In times like this, it is not cowardly to side with no one, and to save yourself.
I don’t know about “smart” move. It was a cowardly move, and cowards often live, which means if it could be called “smart,” it’s only selfishly smart.
Fascism is a disease of banality. It is allowed through the complacency of every day people.
If no one in the “dominant” group is willing to die to stop the fascists, then the fascists will kill whoever falls outside the “dominant” group.
and had he made political work, the Nazis would have confiscated it during one of their many visits to his home. Great topic though, please consider a follow-up of how his work might have changed after the war (considering the initial post-war economic difficulties).
It's not the most heroic and defiant choice, but perfectly understandable and valid imo. Also, He kept painting 'degenerate' art, that is already pretty brave and admirable
He WAS political, the Nazis knew he was left wing and he painted "Guernica"....what could be more political than that? Only that during the nazi occupation of France, he was cautious and decided to shut up. But there was some bravery on his part when he decided to stay in France, instead of fleeing away to New York or Switzerland, which many artists and writers did. It's obvious to me that he was in danger during this time as the Nazis considered him a "degenerate" artist.
Like us Swiss :D
Such an excellent documentary - really adds to the Picasso story.
I’d watch an infinite number of Picasso videos done by you
Your voice is mesmerizing.
The Weeping Frenchman was Jerome Barzotti, filmed in Marseilles months after Paris fell. Barzotti cried as 29 French regiments were disbanded in that southern city. That reel later appeared in Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series, from which the American public assumed that Barzotti had witnessed the Fall of Paris. A hearth-breaking reel every time I watch it.
To know more, look for "A Weeping Frenchman" in UA-cam or "L'Homme qui pleure" in French Wikipedia.
Thanks for the great video on Picasso, and great educational content as always @TheCanvasArtHistory !
there is an awesome book titled "Picasso and the War Years: 1937-1945" authored by Rosenblum that has an incredible amount of his work from this era, in case anyone is looking for a solid print resource.
I see "Head of a Bull" as the "death" of both Picasso's homelands: his native Spain and his adoptive France. The decaying bull's head symbolizes Spain. You can even see the colors of the Spanish flag in its rotting flesh. The window it's sitting in front of, the air outside looking hazy and yellowish as if colored by cannon or bomb smoke, represents Occupied France, a once free country now under the Nazi yoke. If it hadn't been for your fantastic video and analysis, I likely would have never even heard of this haunting painting. Thank you for making this. It's certaintly a thought-provoking work of art from a troubling period in both the artist's life as well as in French history.
3:11 this shot breaks my heart.
This is really interesting to see the ways he might have had to hide his political leanings for the ability of his life
But he did not 😀... I don't know if it was because he was too famous to be deported or killed or even mistreated... or if it was for diplomatic reasons because he was Spanish... or if it was because there was a German or a few Germans in the occupying German Wehrmacht who were protecting him from being harmed... but I guess Picasso did benefit from one of these possible "protections" or maybe another protection I haven't been mentioning... but everybody knew, including the nazis, that Picasso was left-wing. 😀
We need more people like you
I believe I read somewhere (I would have to look it up) that the Nazis decided to leave Picasso alone because of his high profile. Had they arrested him etc. I think there would have been a backlash from that alone. Considering that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews and nothing was done about it, yet messing with Picasso might have says a lot (and not good) about who we are (and were).
Nothing was done about it? Are you even living in the 21st century? You even heard of Israel? Do you even know who’s ruling America now? Can you guess why America joined WW2 in the first place? Do you know that the war was won by the US?
@@yaven8338what are you talking about
They are saying, by virtue of being a famous legendary celebrity at the time, they didn't want the bad PR. They are saying noone cared about the fact the Nazis killed thousands of Jews and other minorities because there was already a spirit of dismissal and racism during them towards those groups that still pervades today. Yet one man who was just a bit famous, and was not a Jew, could be spared and cause a reaction if they killed him while still such a figure in the public mind. It's like when hundred of Mexican and and South American migrants continually drowned while seeking a better life. But Michael Jackson's death would get wildly more attention in the news. This isn't a denoucement of MJ or saying we cannot grieve great artists or famous people. It's just saying how the Western human condition tends to overshadow the masses by those with fame.
love you're content, never stop, at least not anytime soon
I feel like i learn something every time
*your
The song in 2:45 is Franz Gordon - Foxear!
Don't you just love people who tell you what you should have done, under circumstances that they themselves never faced?
LITERALLY
Do you think it is valid to draw a comparison between Goya under Napoleon and Picasso under Franco?
I feel that Goya centered his focus on denigrating and incriminating the oppressor, while Picasso aimed to draw sympathy from the viewer, highlighting the absurdity of the innocent civilians’ situation.
I mean, you can draw a comparison between ANY artist living under ANY dictatorship simply because of those living conditions
it really depends of HOW you compare them i guess
Such a nice video. As othe people told you, the bull is the symbol of Spain, and also of himself.
I think the true influence of the occupation on Picasso's work was that he was restricted in what he could paint. Sure, he was still painting "degenerate art", a thing the Nazis scorned, but if he dared to paint anything even hinting at being against fascism during that occupation, he would be considered an active threat and would have been killed.
It's the brush strokes that Picasso never painted that sing louder than the ones he did. That a man so overtly antifascist very suddenly had to stop for the sake of his own life.
He wanted to say it, desperately so, but he was not allowed. And after it was all over, the experiences of being artistically silenced like that sort of... broke him. To the point where he could never finish another antifascist piece.
Great video. Thank you.
Would be cool if you made a video about Magdalena Abakanowicz
If you look closely there's this subtle downward 90 degree angle in the window frame just to the left of the bull's head. Once I saw it, the window frame immediately read as a swastika.
watching this video, i realized the composition (including the deck of what looks like notes in the bulls hand), is heavily similar to The Death of Marat by david. and so could be depicting some sort of political statement. possibly hinting of a reigh of terror type of repression.
Good video
In "Still Life With Steer's Skull" the bit missing from the window frame in the top right is a bit reminiscent of a swastika.
I think that the 'No, you did' quote is apocryphal.
There was a documentary recently on "apolitical" artists currently in Russia. IMO I didn't think any of the works showcased were apolitical.
Great video like your interpretation
Well, at least he didn't get disappeared like Lorca.
everything you make is a fuckinh banger
thank u for ur content
"Did you do that?"
"No you did it."
"Well then I'm taking my goddamn painting you fucking theif"
Sounds like my small Midwestern town
Picasso didn’t want or like warmongers . Today we are still dealing with warmongers.
I'm sorry if I sound petty but Guernica is not "Güernica". The U is there to differenciate it from the sound "ge", like the H in italian "che/ce". I know its confusing, basically just pronounce it the same as until now but please drop the u, and to say it perfectly accentuate the i.
It's good he survived, there were enough losses.
I guess the fact that there wasn't much occupation art in itself is a form of restraint from the artist. He was under stress and pressure to not be too visible. Also Picasso wasn't really a very consistent fellow, from what I can tell. Political ideals may fluctuate, at least externally.
(The rafles in Paris were probably a strong influence on this)
Great video! But the clicking sound you have when you switch slides is really jarring - especially near the middle when there are a lot of clicks in quick succession. It's a trend these days among various UA-camrs, but it makes it difficult to listen to, especially for listeners with misophonia.
It’s an interesting one isn’t it. He was painting anti Franco art and was was still producing ‘degenerate art’ under occupation which is in of itself a form of protest, considering he easily could have reverted to his neoclassical style and been safe. Had he fled to the US I think harsher criticism could be levied at him for not being more critical.
I can forgive, to some extent, the need to just keep ones head down when he already has a high profile target on one’s back.
Picasso penius among the geniuses of art painted in her giant in all terms masterpiece Guernica the unreason and the pain of the civil war in his country under the Nazi aviation that helped Franco and destroyed Guernica he was exhibited in the U.N becaused.it symbolized the universal pain of war until the end of the Spanish dictatorship ended at his express whish and he took Spain.
Picasso was a theorist of the meaning of painting. His work opened the door to abstraction. Realism during the war period was supposed to speak the truth of the war. One sort of truth is not just to shoot pictures on the front but movies. The word truth though is a form of comment on realism. The subject matter shows or doesn’t show consequences of fascism. This is a dilemma for a painter these days because a single image has difficulty expressing the meaning of what is around us in the ‘West’. During fascism their violence and racism made critiques of them seeable. But the premise of a painting that tests abstraction has to find some way to be real about war inside abstraction. This might be by including words in the image, but what is realism that is abstract? With Guernica, Picasso seems to say abstract and cartoony figures can show the outcome of war in an abstracted way. Were this a movie though then the questions Picasso asks of a painting seem harder to pardon a movie. An actor might be anti-fascist but unable to commercially find work. In our times of social media some influencers by their audience have an obligation to speak of U.S. militarism, but in a Picasso like stance how does a movie explore reality that asks of realism itself what’s not there in the convention? These days to me then with movements like; Black Lives Matter, it is how being ‘outside’ trying to be in is the left content. Both what does that mean is symbolized to the right by ‘woke’ and attempts to purge school curricula of material exposing white supremacy that are banned from schools in states ruled by Republicans.
Even if the subjects/themes of the paintings weren’t strictly political, making modern art which subverts the ideal of beauty, proportions and so on is still opposing to the demands of fascism who saw what Picasso and so many other artist painted as degenerated. Continuing to create art with his personal style was political. It didn’t denounce war or occupation in an obvious way, but it was provocative. Making art can never be “not political”.
clearly, artist who never opposed in any way to fascism were political
Picasso could’ve done more. He could’ve painted an anti-fascist masterpiece and have died for his art.
He could’ve done less. He could’ve reverted to the classical style which he was well versed on.
But instead he stubbornly remained. He persisted. Like a wart. He might not have thrived but he survived. And sometimes, that is an act of revenge in itself. I’ve never cared for the man but i respect this much.
Don't forget Hitler was a failed painter Hence the Nazi denunciation of Modern Art!
What is definitely sure and very obvious is that Picasso kept on making what nazis called "degenerate paintings" during the occupation 😀... he could have gone back to his neoclassical paintings of the 1920's... but he didn't 😀 and kept on making "degenerate art" 😀... only that, by itself, is already a political statement in the context of the nazi occupation of France. 😀
That’s just what I was thinking! His “degenerate” art was a statement in itself
@@SolElarien Picasso definitely had the skills to make academic art if he had wanted to... and he obviously did not.😀
Picasso was a Libra. Libras can navigate any social situations; with ease. Understand? Empathy.🧑🎨♾️🙏
PICASSO WAS 68 WHEN PARIS WAS OCCUPIED, WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU EXPECTING HE DO?
Is the bull's head in a crib?
One would imagine that pure self preservation is reason enough to appear "apolitical" or to hide any messages or themes in his work during Nazi occupation. Only someone wholly removed from the actual events of the war would criticize someone for appearing so. Of course the occupation shows in his work of the time, whether it's detectable by viewers of it or not. Perhaps a giant canvas of thumbnails of all of his work over his career would make it plainer to see, but artists don't owe their viewers anything. JMO.
3:35
And the window is a swastika
I find it a little presumptuous to say what Picasso "should" have been creating during the occupation. It's fair to say that his work wasn't political, to make that an observation of fact. But you're really editorializing when you imply that it was a mistake in judgement.
It’s so easy for those people who criticize Picasso for being so apolitical during the time of the occupation. For him it was literally life and death in those times
to call picasso an artist is like calling shit chocolate
The Nazi's never invaded France. They freely drove in because France (as pretentious as it is) surrendered without a fight😂
Oversimplified but sort of true. They fought just 1 month for traitors were in high structures of French govt
700.000 French troops died during Germany‘s invasion. That’s almost twice as much as the US lost during WW2 (400.000).
That anecdote with the soldiers is fake.
“He first r_ped the woman, then he worked,”
-One of picasso's many mistresses and r_pe victims
“I would rather see a woman die than see her happy with someone else,”
-Picasso
Picasso was also recorded to have beaten and r_ped one of his mistresses Dora Mar so bad that she was unconscious on the floor for several hours while he "worked." I see this is not a topic worth discussing when it comes to you and picasso.
He should have served or at least been done something relevant to the war effort. Being apolitical was a cop out as there were clear sides to take. He was a coward at best and extremely selfish at worst - I suggest the latter is more accurate
@TheCanvas Again, Fascism and National Socialism aren’t the same.
national socialism is a strain of fascism... like it is correct to call Nazis fascists
"the Communist Party of Germany isn't the same thing as Communism" like okay?
The name "National Socialist" is intentionally misleading. Nothing about Nazi policy is socialist at all. In fact, it's one of the most extreme examples of fascism ever. So yes, "National Socialism" and Fascism are the same.
@@omgkthxbi That has nothing to do with my point whatsoever. Fascism and NS are similar but not the same.
the nazi party had many members with socialist leanings before Hitler due to how the party’s target demographic was the working class. “national socialism”, in Hitler’s domination of the party, was a misleading doctrine to dupe at least some of the socialists of Germany into supporting the Nazis and their plan to increase direct profit to German workers.
I'm late here, so I'm probably just shouting into the void, but whatever....
One of the things that made Picasso ahead of his time was that he was one of the early people to understand the nature and relationship between the individual and the whole.
His use of the bull/minotaur has many interpretations and there is a lot of discussion of what that symbol means here or there.
I would argue that all those interpretations are most true almost all of the time.
Therefore, (and I'm skipping some steps in explaining how I got here, but I am trusting that any readers knows their art history) I think the bull skulls are both very, very personal in a way that acknowledges that the political has an impact on the personal.
The rotting bull skull and the bare bones bull skull are both personal pieces of Picasso feeling he's been "cut off" from his body (Spain) and that in a time of Nazi occupation, his head (his artistic mind) is what's rotting or dead.
It's him acknowledging that he hasn't done much since the Nazis came in and since Guernica.
Just a theory of course, as all these things are, but that's how I see these works