Creative Theory: Guernica

[ApeTheDog]

http://www.metasurface.net/uploaded_images/guernica-784569.jpg

I don't get this painting. It's a bunch of children's drawings of horses, asses and malformed people. Why is this a masterpiece - because Picasso did it first? Because he had the balls to make something that was different from what his peers did?

In the end, it doesn't stand for much of anything, for me. It doesn't even look like he had much of a composition in mind when he started drawing, and some of the things he does - like write those little "i" dots all over the central part seem like simple time-wasting to me.

Who gets this painting better than I do?

Discuss... Guernica!

[Anonymous]

I remember learning in a lecture that this kind of art was supposed to be a western imitation of the African art, and thus, it represented a way of breaking out of the usual western confines placed on artists, such as realistic sculptures and paintings.

I personally believe that we should have left this kind of stuff to the Africans, as I find most of Picasso's work to be unappealing. But I suppose it started the path to new art such as surrealism.

[LowEnd]

Gee, thanks for bringing up the pains of secondary school art class.
This picture had pride of place in the art studio and I had all the same issues you're outlining.
I think its rubbish.
Made significant only by pretentious arty people.

[ApeTheDog]

But that is the thing. I find it very, very fishy to consider Picasso one day going: "I think I'm going to imitate African Art and/or make an enormously often overlooked statement concerning the inclusion of child-like elements in art" - then proceeded to think for a few days on how he could accomplish that.

It's more likely that he just went: "I'm gonna draw a horse", and all the pretentious people went: "A horse! But... this is Picasso. It can't just be a horse. What could this possibly mean??"

Meanwhile, the guy kept silent because he was making loads of money drawing whatever crap he could delve up, and having everybody else think it's made of gold.

[Erratic]

But that is the thing. I find it very, very fishy to consider Picasso one day going: "I think I'm going to imitate African Art and/or make an enormously often overlooked statement concerning the inclusion of child-like elements in art" - then proceeded to think for a few days on how he could accomplish that.

The story I was told was that he went "I'm going to try to paint something from several points of view at once", and it's I guess that the simple way of drawing makes sense, because I don't think you could do cubism and paint the way Dali did.

I'm not a fan of Picasso either. I was pretty sad that I couldn't see the Guernica when I went to the Reina Sofia Museum a couple of weeks ago, but my interest was mainly based on the historical importance of the painting. It's not an appealing painting, but I think that its "ugliness" fits the theme. Oh well, maybe next time I'm in Madrid I'll get to see it...

[Thevenin]

It's a great painting. It clearly shows suffering and agony of people in
Guernica who were killed and injured by bombing on April 26, 1937 by the Nazis during the Spanish Civil War. The distortion inherent in the abstract representation only serves to enhance the expression of pain and violence. I saw this painting many times at the MOMA in NYC before it was returned to Spain in 1981. This masterpiece is important, both artistically and historically.

[Rhu]

I don't know about the painting, symbolism and hidden meanings here are truly beautiful:


A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room. It was placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. Commissioned and donated by Nelson Rockefeller, it is not quite as monochromatic as the original, using several shades of brown. On February 5, 2003 a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Diplomats, however, told journalists that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq.

[rhinosaur]

It's a great painting. It clearly shows suffering and agony of people in
Guernica who were killed and injured by bombing on April 26, 1937 by the Nazis during the Spanish Civil War. The distortion inherent in the abstract representation only serves to enhance the expression of pain and violence. I saw this painting many times at the MOMA in NYC before it was returned to Spain in 1981. This masterpiece is important, both artistically and historically.

I like this one too. The simple lines and colors mask the many layers of meaning -- contrast in both the real and abstract layers.

The little lines around the horse are said to resemble newsprint, the primary media of the day.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I don't know enough about Guernica to say one way or the other. I am studying Goya in one of my classes and a lot of his "war paintings" look like they must have influenced Picasso a lot, at least to my untrained mind:

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/537/Francisco-de-Goya-Desastre-de-la-Guerra-39-Grande-Bazana-Con-Muertos.jpg

http://www.lashorasperdidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/goya_shootingmay3.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/goya/images/tambien.jpg

http://www.asociacionlossitios.com/grabad1.gif

http://wahooart.com/A55A04/w.nsf/OPRA/BRUE-6E3T62/$File/G.jpg

http://www.sabuco.com/historia/images/Carga_de_los_mamelucos.jpg

cool paintings

[rhinosaur]

I don't know enough about Guernica to say one way or the other. I am studying Goya in one of my classes and a lot of his "war paintings" look like they must have influenced Picasso a lot, at least to my untrained mind:


Straight from wikipedia (it's amazing what you can learn on the internet):

Goya was a court painter to the Spanish Crown and a chronicler of history. He has been regarded both as the last of the Old Masters and as the first of the moderns. The subversive and subjective element in his art, as well as his bold handling of paint, provided a model for the work of later generations of artists, notably Manet and Picasso.

Awesome. :)

[demagogic_schizoid]

damn I feel smart now :p

[Scribbling Man]

Dear ApeTheDog, if you don't "get" the meaning and power of Guernica then perhaps you're not really an INTP, but more likely an ISTP. You see the images, but you're a literalist and so don't feel the power. The viewer "completes" Guernica. You need to put the painting in the context of what happened during the Spanish Civil War. It's possible that you might have problems understanding metaphor when you're reading fiction. Hard to say.

Imagine for a moment an artist attempting to express the disgust and rage that many of us feel at President Codpiece and the Bushies and Evangelical Christians who have embarrassed and humiliated our country and driven it into the ditch. No literal painting could express our emotion. It would necessarily have to be surreal and abstract.

[MacGuffin]

Dear ApeTheDog, if you don't "get" the meaning and power of Guernica then perhaps you're not really an INTP, but more likely an ISTP. You see the images, but you're a literalist and so don't feel the power. The viewer "completes" Guernica. You need to put the painting in the context of what happened during the Spanish Civil War. It's possible that you might have problems understanding metaphor when you're reading fiction. Hard to say.

I don't think I'd draw conclusions about ApeTheDog from a discussion of one painting.

I have a question for you, and the others: if you had never seen this painting before, had no idea Picasso painted it, and no one told you the name or subject matter - what would you think about it?

[rhinosaur]

I don't think I'd draw conclusions about ApeTheDog from a discussion of one painting.

I have a question for you, and the others: if you had never seen this painting before, had no idea Picasso painted it, and no one told you the name or subject matter - what would you think about it?

I would think it was violent, about as close to an expression of emotion as a painting can get.

(On a tangent, I think that abstract expressionism sucks. I dig surrealism, if you haven't already guessed.)

[outmywindow]

I'm so sorry, but since someone else posted it, I'll admit that every time I see the painting, this is what I think:

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/goya_shootingmay3.jpg

[MacGuffin]

I would think it was violent, about as close to an expression of emotion as a painting can get.

I'd agree.


(On a tangent, I think that abstract expressionism sucks. I dig surrealism, if you haven't already guessed.)

You made my list now.

[rhinosaur]

You made my list now.

:ph34r:

[cripple]

I have a question for you, and the others: if you had never seen this painting before, had no idea Picasso painted it, and no one told you the name or subject matter - what would you think about it?
I am in this category. But I know it is Picasso now.
I didnt look to much on it. I could see it was somewhat technical, didnt quite agree it was a children painting.. It is chaotic, I can not make any meaning of it- or connect it to anything-except suffering, negativ feelings. It's a ugly picture, not something I would have put on my wall.

[ApeTheDog]

Dear ApeTheDog, if you don't "get" the meaning and power of Guernica then perhaps you're not really an INTP, but more likely an ISTP. You see the images, but you're a literalist and so don't feel the power. The viewer "completes" Guernica. You need to put the painting in the context of what happened during the Spanish Civil War. It's possible that you might have problems understanding metaphor when you're reading fiction. Hard to say.

Imagine for a moment an artist attempting to express the disgust and rage that many of us feel at President Codpiece and the Bushies and Evangelical Christians who have embarrassed and humiliated our country and driven it into the ditch. No literal painting could express our emotion. It would necessarily have to be surreal and abstract.

I don't believe paintings have to be this surreal and abstract to convey an emotion properly. One of the most emotive portraits I know of is "The Scream" and I would consider that one almost universally understood and felt.

If the stripes in the horses's legs stand for newspaper and media influence during this way - where is the emotion in that? How is that anything other than a riddle, a playful reference. A clever crossword puzzle whose answer ends up being: "media".

The chaos shows, sure, that this was a particularily chaotic war. So fucking what? I feel nothing from this, and when I look into what Picasso was doing, I see no particular genius in his work either.

It's layered, sure - but none of the layers seem particularily brilliant to me. I am not upset for not "getting it". To tell you the truth, I can make myself get it - I can look at it, look for hidden meaning and could probably end up writing 3 or 4 pages full of interpretation, gushing out over how enormously clever all of this is. It's not difficult. An empty piece of paper can be anything. This strange painting can be interpreted as anything.

But - in the end... why should I have to do that? Because it's famous? Because it's Picasso's Guernica? This painting just does nothing for me. I don't have to get it - I can do without.

What do you see in it? How do you interpret it? How does it hit you? Did it do those things immediately when you saw it, or had you set your mind to getting it and to liking it because it was the Guernica?

[rhinosaur]

Ape: So what kind of art do you like?

[ApeTheDog]

Ape: So what kind of art do you like?

Van Gogh, Munch ... Basically artists who went insane or whose insanity fueled their paintings. I don't like cerebral art like that of Dali or Magritte. Artists cannot be detached from their subject - they must suffer it and paint it out of their system for me to be able to admire their work.

[s0978]

I know nothing about the Spanish Civil War and it's a stretch to say any single image can elicit a strong emotional response from me, but I appreciate how the piece bridges representational and abstract art in a historical context.

It's the first time someone thought to portray what is seen in more than one split-second in time, which is not in fact how we see, we see things through time and in motion, and we move as we see, and then there are views of others. So here there is a collapse of perspectives and lines and angles of sight, a compression of time and space. That's pretty cool, no?

[Thevenin]

So here there is a collapse of perspectives and lines and angles of sight, a compression of time and space. That's pretty cool, no?

Very good point, I think. It's interesting to hear what others have to say about this painting, which I've liked for many years, but never discussed with anyone before.

[ApeTheDog]

I know nothing about the Spanish Civil War and it's a stretch to say any single image can elicit a strong emotional response from me, but I appreciate how the piece bridges representational and abstract art in a historical context.

It's the first time someone thought to portray what is seen in more than one split-second in time, which is not in fact how we see, we see things through time and in motion, and we move as we see, and then there are views of others. So here there is a collapse of perspectives and lines and angles of sight, a compression of time and space. That's pretty cool, no?

That is very cool. It doesn't seem enough to make this a masterpiece though. (Not that Picasso had any saying it it becoming such - as in... he would have just set out to make this work, not set out to make it seminal.)

What makes this such an important painting?

[s0978]

Very good point, I think. It's interesting to hear what others have to say about this painting, which I've liked for many years, but never discussed with anyone before.Well, it's probably not my original interpretation, more likely something I found interesting enough to stick with me back from Art History 101.


That is very cool. It doesn't seem enough to make this a masterpiece though. (Not that Picasso had any saying it it becoming such - as in... he would have just set out to make this work, not set out to make it seminal.)

What makes this such an important painting?I guess the critics and academicians would say that the art that followed, particularly abstract expressionism, would not have been possible without it, or at least that later work by others was heavily influenced by Picasso's work. And that this particular piece embodies the innovative aspects of Picasso's work in some consummate way.


I don't like cerebral art like that of Dali or Magritte. Artists cannot be detached from their subject - they must suffer it and paint it out of their system for me to be able to admire their work.
I'm surprised by this. I would have thought it an NT thing to gravitate more toward the high concept stuff, not so much the expressionistic. Or maybe you're just fucking around.

[ApeTheDog]

It all sounds a little bit incestuous to me. We like this because it is one of Picasso's greatest works (because it is Picasso, not because of the work), and we like Picasso because the other artists liked his work and were influenced by it (but not because it's actually brilliant and good and does a whole lot for us).

I don't think you can approach art from an NT perspective. It just doesn't seem right to me. A painting should evoke something in me, and should come from having evoked something in the artist. There's no passion in Dali - he just discovered a unique way to come up with ideas and then skilled himself in doing the same thing over and over again. It's about as moving as a person who teaches himself to know every useless fact about ants, then, keeps doing it because he's so good at it.

He's good at reciting ant-trivia, but I don't look up to him for it. Dali is good at being Dali, but the guy was not an artist. He does not inspire (emotion) in me. Only the insane do.

[s0978]

It all sounds a little bit incestuous to me. We like this because it is one of Picasso's greatest works (because it is Picasso, not because of the work), and we like Picasso because the other artists liked his work and were influenced by it (but not because it's actually brilliant and good and does a whole lot for us).

I don't think you can approach art from an NT perspective. It just doesn't seem right to me. A painting should evoke something in me, and should come from having evoked something in the artist. There's no passion in Dali - he just discovered a unique way to come up with ideas and then skilled himself in doing the same thing over and over again. It's about as moving as a person who teaches himself to know every useless fact about ants, then, keeps doing it because he's so good at it.

He's good at reciting ant-trivia, but I don't look up to him for it. Dali is good at being Dali, but the guy was not an artist. He does not inspire (emotion) in me. Only the insane do.
Well, now you're just being cantankerous. Any work of art is or isn't brilliant, is or isn't seminal, dependent on how it is received by critics and scholars and peers. It's not like the merit of an artifact resides in the thing itself, there are always evaluators.

But fwiw, I think Dali is meh too.

[ApeTheDog]

No. A work of art is brilliant when I consider it such - art is the one field in the world where what I like is good, and what I do not like is not such. There *is* no other creterium. There are no other voices of importance in this. That is all there is to art for me.

There are many art-wankers who will teach themselves to like something, and in many ways, I can understand this. You won't be able understand how beautiful something can be unless you know it inside and out... but, taste is not something that should ever be influenced by what another says is good and what is not.

But if you hear some of these people read the most inane stuff into things...

What do you like, s0953?

[s0978]

No. A work of art is brilliant when I consider it such - art is the one field in the world where what I like is good, and what I do not like is not such. There *is* no other creterium. There are no other voices of importance in this. That is all there is to art for me.

There are many art-wankers who will teach themselves to like something, and in many ways, I can understand this. You won't be able understand how beautiful something can be unless you know it inside and out... but, taste is not something that should ever be influenced by what another says is good and what is not.

But if you hear some of these people read the most inane stuff into things...
What a philistine. I actually think skillful and informed criticism is just as ingenious, oftentimes more, than the works of art in question. I like being taught to see things in a different light and researched context.

What do you like, s0953?I gravitate toward the stuff that challenges its own medium in a meta sort of way. Usually the more abstract, the more I likey. This means I tend to prefer sculpture. Serra and Noguchi are a couple of faves.

[ApeTheDog]

What a philistine. I actually think skillful and informed criticism is just as ingenious, oftentimes more, than the works of art in question. I like being taught to see things in a different light and researched context.

Criticism is always appreciated. Stating facts, giving a background, pointing out things you might not have noticed yourself - those are great, as long as no conclusions are drawn and they do not act dogmatic. People with the definitive interpretation are not my friends, however.


I gravitate toward the stuff that challenges its own medium in a meta sort of way. Usually the more abstract, the more I likey. This means I tend to prefer sculpture. Serra and Noguchi are a couple of faves.

And now I must stop talking to you about this, for some reason.

(Yes, yes...)

[bluebell]

I have a question for you, and the others: if you had never seen this painting before, had no idea Picasso painted it, and no one told you the name or subject matter - what would you think about it?

First impression - it's aesthetically unpleasing to me.

But, the more I look at it, the more interesting it is. There's a lot of anguish in the painting and deeper layers. Movement and chaos.


It's the first time someone thought to portray what is seen in more than one split-second in time, which is not in fact how we see, we see things through time and in motion, and we move as we see, and then there are views of others. So here there is a collapse of perspectives and lines and angles of sight, a compression of time and space. That's pretty cool, no?

Very. It captures more of the chaos/fear than a snapshot of a war scene would.


Van Gogh, Munch ... Basically artists who went insane or whose insanity fueled their paintings. I don't like cerebral art like that of Dali or Magritte. Artists cannot be detached from their subject - they must suffer it and paint it out of their system for me to be able to admire their work.

If you didn't know about Van Gogh's insanity, would you still like his paintings? I actually find a lot of his paintings quite bland emotionally (and they don't make me think).

Magritte's paintings have always appealed to me, to the point of total obsession as a teenager. Part of it was the aesthetics and style, part of it was possibly the NT thing.

He has a number of paintings where faces are covered by cloth. Two examples:

http://www.cenacolotheastrum.it/Magritte%20-%20Amanti%201.jpg

http://www.demandmore.org/images/lovers%20-%20magritte.jpg

His mother committed suicide by drowning when he was a child. She was found with her nightgown covering her face in a river. Knowing that, does that change these pictures for you?

And, a more general question - should a painting/artwork be able to stand on its own, or do you need to know a bit about the artist, the era that they were from, the context etc? I've thought about this sporadically, but never really came to a conclusion.

[stewie3128]

The question in the OP reminds me of a BBC discussion of the Turner prize in late 2005: The winning artist just framed his underpants and submitted it.

The BBC commentator was up in arms about this, while discussing it with a modern/avant garde expert.

Commentator: Anyone can frame their underpants.
Expert: No, they can't.
Commentator: Sure they can. Next year, I'm going to frame my underpants and send it in.
Expert: No, you're not.
Commentator: Why not?
Expert: Because you're not an artist.

Brilliant!

[airjaw]

I don't really "get" visual art. What can i say, I just don't appreciate it. I thought this was an INTP thing but maybe I am wrong? Can INTP's appreciate paintings? What aspect of the paintings do we appreciate? The abstract parts?

I'm just not a very visually inclined person. Do you appreciate visual art more if you are S? all the people I know who are into fashion can see things in the designs and colors that I can't.

I've never been able to draw well. I am bad at graphic design. I am bad at making anything visually appealing, including my wardrobe.

Just like a complex, beautiful, elegant programming solution would be lost on someone who doesn't possess the intellectual ability to understand it
I think the beauty / meaning of most paintings is lost on me