Cheerskep wrote: "I personally can think of no other 20th century visual creator who I'd say excels Picasso in his range and abundance of worthy creative work."
I used to feel that way as well - back in the 90's when I went to the large international show of contemporary art that used to be centered in Chicago. For me, it was a vast wasteland, except for the ubiquitous prints of Picasso. 'Abundance' is difficult to judge because it depends so much on what has been put on display. And who knows what each of us has in mind with the word 'range'. Does a painter who does figures as well as landscapes, still-life, and portraits have a greater range than one who only does portraits, but does them in a variety of styles? Or, is 'emotional range' more important than either of the above ? Can a single, complex painting (like the Hugo Van Der Goes at the Uffizi) be said to qualify as such ? >From what I've seen, it's Picasso's entire generation (people born around 1880) that "excels in range and abundance of worthy creative work" I don't think anything like them has been seen before or since. ____________________________________________________________ Be there without being there. Click now for great video conferencing solutions! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPnB6xNGFAxAsRBv4OMGwUns Yxhi37lC1jUcz7Lwf643F99D842gI/
