Yes. But is it art?
It seems a little mean to have someone uncovering all the problems and mistakes you painted over and thought were hidden.
5
"In Picasso’s Blue Period, Scanners Find Secrets He Painted Over"—?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that those scanners found the "secrets" quite some time AFTER Picasso's blue period.
8
Yes but they are damaging these works greatly they don't have the technology that Mega Vision has to not do the damage.
I sure hope they find some UFO's in them as well.
6
Tough to figure what makes a work of art valuable. Nonetheless once that ineffable mark is placed on a work the sky is the limit. Like the paintings in caves these museum works will be judged in the future by values which may not consider money and some works, even Picasso's, are not universally enjoyed.
Art can be loosely defined as that which is made by the human hand and while this covers a lot more ground than canvas, the real value is in the communication between the artist and the audience. The Facists of Europe certainly destroyed many works of art as well as the artists who created them in their fruitless quest to redefine culture, but they could not eliminate this manner of communication.
Artists paint over their work quite often with no intent of having that abandoned idea ever exposed. There are plenty of things about ourselves most of us would rather not have seen and art in any form exposes a lot more than we may think.
Perhaps we should give their work and our curious sleuthing a rest.
4
Picasso lived in poverty during his Blue Period. He used cheap materials and had to paint over other paintings. Sometimes he was painting over the work of others -- once, needing canvas, he famously painted over a Modigliani work. Look closely at the most iconic painting from his Blue Period, "The Old Guitarist," and you'll see a partial portrait of a woman -- her face, neck, and shoulder -- peeking out from above the old guitarist's bent neck. Research at the Art Institute of Chicago (which owns the painting) -- and a 2001 exhibit at the Cleveland Art Museum -- sought to decipher the abandoned painting. Years ago, it was feared the under painting would become more prominent over time, and the two paintings would have to be separated.
8
I am an oil painter who paints many portraits. I find it very effective to develop body parts that will be later covered in fabric or clothes. So, I would hesitate to conclude that Picasso was "trying" to draw the arm. He might have simply changed his mind about the clothing and/or blanket. It is also possible he wanted to develop the arm underneath in order to get the beautiful shape of the blanket.
17
Art can affect science, and vice versa. Bette Nesmith Graham, the inventor of "White Out" and mother of "The Monkees" Michael Nesmith, was an artist and office worker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Nesmith_Graham
On her own, from her art experiences and with some *scientific experimentation*, she developed "White Out." Her estate was probated @ $50,000,000.
Dang, ol' Picasso should have spent some time in an office. It could have been him!! He was on the right track!!
(((mic drop)))
5
I’m reminded of a comment Picasso is alleged to have made...that he wished he could draw. Evidenced here with his struggles to render the woman’s hands and arms. Apparently frustrated, he covered them up instead.
When I was young, I saw an exhibit in Spain of Picasso's very early works. His draftsmanship, drawing, and other traditional skills and work were a surprise to a then more naïve me. Through the years, decades, I enjoyed seeing/understanding his various styles were not because he didn't draw well but because he had such a solid base to grown from, to see beyond.
15
joan is right; the Picasso museum in Barcelona has enough evidence of his excellent youthful draftsmanship.
6
If money and time is spent to study a painting it should be the $450,312,500 painting, "Salvator Mundi", auctioned at Christie's. And, for that matter, most of the paintings attributed to Leonardo DaVinci. Maybe they could even get behind "Mona Lisa's" smile. And lastly, prove that they were actually done by DaVinci, and not someone else.
2
Some reports attribute the painting underneath "la Misereuse accroupie" to Uruguayan artist Joaquin Torres-Garcia. Your comments would be appreciated.
2
Isn't it ironic that just as Picasso painted over canvases, the art world is painting over the well known way that he mistreated women. No museum wants their valuable investment of Picasso's to be affected by treating him like a lesser known artist. That wouldn't even be a [Chuck] close call.
This is a interesting scientific article on artistic processes. Why are NYT "comment" editors publishing subjective opinions on Picasso?
His failed relationships and the effects on his artwork have been exhaustively researched.
Please stay focused on the science.
Thank you.
5
Lou, alas, what you wrote is nonsense. There is plenty of study of Picasso's life and his treatment of women and any other people. The "art world" has no power to stop it, even if the "art world" wanted to -- the "art world" is not an entity with desires, it's a collection of people with different ideas and purposes.
4
Does this pointless naval gazing serve any purpose? Don't these people have better use for their time and money which is by and large publicly funded from grants or usurious tuition fees. I get it that it is a Picasso, it is valuable. Why can't we just hang it and enjoy it.
4
We can hang and enjoy the finished painting, but these sorts of analysis reveal things about the artist and his process, knowledge of which we may further enjoy.
5
Why bother exploring Antarctica? Have you no curiosity?
4
Rahul: Allow me to add to my reply. Naval [sic] gazing (at observable phenomena) has led to great advances in oceanography and geology. Some of the first evidence of plate tectonics was obtained by naval gazing (with appropriate instruments).
2
When I saw the headline for this story, I immediately thought of lines delineating areas of the painting, with numbers inside the lines. Hey, even Picasso had to start somewhere.
1
As an artist I'm not much impressed. Picasso didn't intend for people x-ray his paintings. Everything you need to know about the piece is visible on the surface. Analysis is based on the artist's intentions and visual choices. If he didn't intend for you to see the painting underneath, what is there to analyze or conclude? I paint over paintings all the time. So what? This is common practice for painters. If anything this process could be good for authenticating work but I don't think art historians will be as excited about these developments as these scientists are.
23
" .. I don't think art historians will be as excited about these developments as these scientists are .."
Reality: rigorous research requires various methodologies, quantitative and qualitative. This is just another one, like how the work of writers is analyzed by scanning and statistics.
Doing yada-yada-yada non-stop is beyond pedantic, tedious, and just plain boring and dull.
2
Science today is simply incredible. They recently scanned ruin areas in Guatemala and found an entire underground, very sophisticated, ancient civilization.
They have scanned pyramids and found hidden treasure.
Now this. Please keep up the good work, scientists! You will prove that the centuries old male-model of death-destruction-fear-anger-hate-rape-pillage-plunder WAR has destroyed many great civilizations.
It's the white-male-European-christian complex that constantly destroys. Time to put an end to it - before they can start WW3.
12
Truly mind-boggling to discover that the world was undoubtedly peaceful and dare we say heavenly before white-male-European-christians!
4
Science today is incredible, for many reasons. Among other things, scientists have been able to determine that many Mayan cities (like the ones discovered buried in the jungles of Guatemala) were abandoned centuries before any white male European Christians ever reached the New World. This raises the possibility that white male European Christians are not the only source of destruction in the world.
2
" .. It's the white-male-European-christian complex that constantly destroys .."
You do realize, many scientists are "white-male-European-christian" don't you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlas...
Facts -- they're usually helpful.
3
A mildly interesting article, but that positivist empiricism (which is what scientific technique is about) allows us to get “into the mind of the artist” to understand “his creative process” is sheer hyperbole and borders on gobbledygook. It may provide employment to some academics and art critics, which is fine, but it doesn’t do what is being philosophically suggesred.
10
Actually, these methods came from medicine .. which, contrary to most WashDC blathers, is as much soft-science as hard-science. Understanding physiology can aid understanding the outcomes.
3
attempt to paint an arm....painting by a different artist....MAYBE picasso was painting the arm to get the draping right...MAYBE the original painting was one picasso had done that he no longer cared about and painted over...the conclusions reached about picasso's choices are stated as factual - more than one explanation could explain the findings.
7
He painted over one ugly painting with another ugly painting.
One day, one thousand years from now, perhaps two, future scientists will scan our collective brains to discover the underlying mass psychosis that made us think that Picasso was a great artist.
Or better yet, someone in the future will just paint over all his paintings.
12
Have they examined Picasso's The Old Guitarist using the same techniques?
3