Artists can be a temperamental sort. Even among the painfully reclusive, an artist requires some serious confidence—a belief that their truth is worthy of presenting to the world, and the world in turn deserving to receive that truth. Sometimes (though hardly always and never inevitably), this ego can manifest itself in the artist being what some might call an asshole. As an excerpt brought up on Twitter yesterday by Slate’s Ruth Graham reminds us, the great Pablo Picasso was certainly no exception. (Despite, of course, what The Modern Lovers might have to say on the subject.)
The line in question comes from the artist Françoise Gilot, famously one of Picasso’s muses, in her recently reissued 1964 memoir with Carlton Lake, Life With Picasso. Gilot recounts Picasso’s response to her leaving him, an equally vicious and pathetic attempt to big-time her as she walked out the door.
Even if you think people like you, it will only be a kind of curiosity they will have about a person whose life has touched mine so intimately. And you’ll be left with only the taste of ashes in your mouth. For you, reality is finished; it ends right here. If you attempt to take a step outside my reality—which has become yours, inasmuch as I found you when you were young and unformed and I burned everything around you—you’re headed straight for the desert.
Life, unsurprisingly, did not end for Gilot, given that she was 40 years younger than Picasso. She grew into a notable painter in her own right, and, at the age of 97, is still working to this day.
When Life With Picasso was published, Picasso went to great lengths to prevent its publication, throwing the weight of both his lawyers and his friends in the art community behind him. When his legal efforts failed to stop the book, Picasso permanently cut off contact from the two children they had together, Claude and Paloma. Speaking with The New York Times Style Magazine’s Thessaly La Force last month, Gilot said she has no regrets, neither about how her relationship with Picasso ended, nor her decision to share her own truth with the world.
TLF: I agree. But, there’s something he says to you when you are parting ways, where he says essentially that you’re indebted to him. That life will never be as good without him. Do you want to say something for the record in response to that? You seem to have lived a great life after him.
FG: No. I knew. We have only one life. You have to act your own deeds and your own life, either as a positive or a negative. It’s what it is.
Send Great Job, Internet tips to [email protected]
92 Comments
From Wikipedia:Picasso lived in Paris during the German occupation during World War II. A German officer allegedly asked him, upon seeing a photo of Guernica in Picasso’s apartment, “Did you do that?” Picasso responded, “No, you did.” I’m kind of surprised he didn’t get sent off to a camp for this
He went on that he knew the guy’s boss was a fan, and if he brought the Nazis the bad publicity of arresting the world’s most famous living artist, he’d likely get sent to a camp himself. It worked.
If you have not had a chance you watch Genius: Picasso they address this very interaction in the show
Antonio Banderas was so good.
I loved that show.
Picasso was really, really rich at that point, and famous, and could get away with all sorts of shit. We studied Picasso until I was sick to my teeth about praising and adoring 20th century modernism in my hugely expensive art school. This was the late 80s but we were still supposed to care about Picasso? Who could fart in a teacup and it would be a masterpiece. I cannot tell you how much I want my money back and with what sort of rot with hate at what a hack Picasso was, especially the last half of his unbelievably spoiled and indulged life. There was more than Picasso. Yeah, he was terribly mean to his girlfriends. He was already wildly famous when the ones we know best signed up for it. They knew he was a brute and megalomaniac. I actually wouldn’t care if Picasso and his reputation was flushed down some #MeToo toilet. Because damn, he was an oppressive figure, who also churned out a ton of shit. Picasso sucks. We as a 21st century culture are right to move away from revering his mawkish garbage. Picasso is so overrated. Even in his glory days pre-1920, his paintings are mawkish ones of harlequins that pop illustrators were already doing. Picasso sucks. Art critics on both sides of the Atlantic needed some Great Hero, and Picasso fit the bill, launching him into the art stratosphere. Undeservedly. It wasn’t because he was abusive to his girlfriends and mistresses, but one wonders if critics back then liked that too. His girlfriends and mistresses could not have not known what they were getting into with this powerful, controlling personality. It was impossible not to know. He was actually , eventually generous with the women in his life, but they surely knew he was a selfish bastard anyway. They made the trade-off, bearing Picasso kids and enduring his wrath because it meant fame, prestige, and a comfortable life. I am not knocking that, those are reasonable reasons, especially to impoverished women after the War. Picasso sucks. My point is, he should be removed from the top of the 20th century art pyramid of The Greats, not because he was a bastard to the women in his life, but because his paintings except for a few periods and examples, authentically suck. After the War, Picasso was churning out 50 paintings a day, it was a factory of one, but those paintings mostly sucked, but 20th century art critics were induced to praise them to the skies. Most of these paintings were dreck. It was like he was just printing money for himself. To pay for his mansions, mistresses, and bastard children. (One actually cool alleged thing I like about Picasso’s biography is how he’d buy some large chateau in the South of France, fill the rooms with paintings, then move on to some other large chateau and do the same. It’s a nice story, but from a 21st century Internet perspective, it’s unlikely.) Picasso needs to be acknowledged as a great artist of the early twentieth century, and also overthrown as the be-all and end-all of 20th century art. Because he really wasn’t. There was SO much else, and more interesting, going on. Picasso was never a god to me. His later paintings frankly bore me. Here’s the thing: We in the 21st century are suffused by imagery. All the time, every hour on the internet. It moves, it shakes, it gets our attention, sometimes it’s quite good. Picasso could not have survived our modern era. Sad harlequins. No one would have stopped to give a shit. Clicked away from, boring.
This is a confusing comment.
Picasso’s “glory days pre-1920″ are just harlequin paintings? Besides maybe a couple during the blue/rose periods,the harlequins mostly belong to Picasso’s post-1920 neoclassical period. I don’t care so much for his late career (it was a hugely productive period as you note though not so inventive), but to write off his influence as “a few periods and examples” is nutso. From his African period through the formulation of analytic and synthetic cubism is one of the most extended, varied, and influential runs of any artist.
Finally, you disparage him for “churning out 50 paintings a day” but don’t think he could keep up with the imagery of our modern era? Eh… just doesn’t make sense.
Sorry you are so terribly confused. I will repeat myself: to any astute modern eye, Picasso’s blue and pink periods, his portraits of harlequins and sad clowns and TB patients dying are unbelievably cloying and mawkish, yes. Sentimental and sugary and ghastly. You mention his “African period” which was an improvement, but it was spearheaded more by Braque than him. (I will go on the record here that I deeply adore the “Demoiselles d’Avignon” almost above all other masterpieces. It’s magnificent, and when I was an art student and when the guards weren’t looking, I touched its surface, and it was a joy. I love that painting.) I sound way harder on Picasso than I actually feel- I appreciate him. But he came with a lot of bullshit. You wrote, ““churning out 50 paintings a day” but don’t think he could keep up with the imagery of our modern era? Eh… just doesn’t make sense.” I meant that from his sad harlequin paintings circa 1900, the 20th century visual culture galloped ahead amazingly, rapidly, with photography and the creation of what we call cinema. Painting was quite wiped to the side as photography and cinema and television and even advertising took over as a dominant force in visual cultural expression. This is undeniable. But, it’s cool if you still like Picasso’s mawkish and sentimental early paintings. Or his later ones that he churned out like he was printing cash, he had a very expensive life. Am I clear? I don’t understand what you find so hard to understand about this.
Braque was better.
Great, now the Modern Lovers have to recall hundreds of thousands of LPs and change the name of the song to “Pablo Picasso Was Called An Asshole One Time.”
But still not in New York.
Cancel Picasso!
HIS MAKEUP PALETTES ARE THE HOLOCAUST!
“Also, I’m 5’4″ while we’re at it”
-Pablo
Hmm.. this was supposed to be under the comment pondering a Modern Lovers recall.Oh well. Kinja’d.
Yeah but has anybody asked her if she can taste anything other than ashes? Maybe that part of his curse came true in a literal sense
Any Picasso story just reminds me of the old SNL sketch of John Lovitz playing Picasso sitting at a cafe later in life when he was famous, paying for his tab by drawing a smiley face and signing it. “I’m Picasso!”
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/picasso/2868073
I’m not the world’s biggest Jon Lovitz fan, but I can’t imagine that skit being as funny as it is with any other SNL actor in the role.
Uh yeah we already knew this https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/picasso/2868073
This is very similar to what I told my girlfriend in high school when she broke up with me. Except that she wasn’t in the room. Because it was 5 hours later. And I was in the bathroom staring at myself in the mirror. I showed her.
Oh yeah? Well, the jerkstore called, and they’re running out of you!
SHUT UP Becky! Oooo that would have been sweet.
His was just an… abstract charm.
Reminder: We’re all a bit of an asshole.
which version is better, though, The Modern Lovers or when John Cale did it? For me that’s a tough call.
Phrank’s version FTW.
Wow, I thought you meant the version Catholic Discipline did…then I found Gertrude Stein. That’s fucking awesome.
I don’t know any John Cale songs, but Adam Carolla is obsessed with him, so I hate him on principle.
That would ordinarily be a sensible approach, but I am guessing Carolla somehow loves John Cale while hating the Velvet Underground. Now, Cale’s solo work…there is a lot and it is very different from VU so that’s understandable. Cale didn’t write “Picasso” but he produced the Modern Lovers album and covered that song on record and in concert (and it was awesome). Cale’s solo work is a mixed bag, most people know him best from his cover of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah (he was among early-adopters before EVERYONE covered it). He was classically trained and is known for splitting time between experimental music (or experimental pop [the academy in peril] like some of what he did for Nico solo albums) and more of a roots rock approach.But you do know him, from VU and because he produced three of the greatest protopunk albums ever: the Stooges’ first album, the Modern Lovers, and Patti Smith’s Horses.FUCK ADAM CAROLLA, here is a representative Cale song:
Oh wait… I was confusing John Cale with John Hiatt. Carolla is not into John Cale at all as far as I know. But otherwise, yes, Fuck Adam Carolla.
that seems like quite the mixup. Never heard of Hiatt but he looks like an adult contempo john prine. Not eager to get up to date on his oeuvre. It seemed very unlikely that Carolla would like Cale, but some of his solo stuff was rootsy enough that it wasn’t inconceivable. I mean I think Carolla is a closet white supremacist, so he probably thinks VU was degenerate.
Yeah… As soon as you said Velvet Underground, I thought “That can’t be right.”
As soon as you said Carolla liked something that didn’t suck floppy donkey dick I suspected something was askance.
Very nice. I love this song.
which version is better, though, The Modern Lovers or when John Cale did it? For me that’s a tough call.I’m going to say the Burning Sensations version.
Nice, thanks for the lead
Yes, I saw that Hannah Gadsby special too. There was a lengthy, largely joke-free bit about it.
Hannah Gadsby, joke-free? Inconceivable.
He also was caught by his partner, Fernande Olivier, drawing their adopted 13 year old daughter in explicit poses, leading Fernande to return the poor girl after a year after meeting him, believed to have been out of fear of having Picasso near her. Dude was a creep.
I guess Jonathan Richman had a more positive experience with him than most.
Gabe is trying to prove the Burning Sensations wrong, I guess.
Hot take: most of Picasso’s works for me seem uninspired, rote and produced purely to separate rich dupes from their money.
Ah! You’ve figured out the secret to Capital A Art!Yup. The entire wine and cheese thing exists to get money from rich people who intent to flip the painting a few years down the road. It’s been like that since day one. So if you’re wondering why the dumbest shit makes millions at auction it’s because it’s being created by grifters and bought by people insulated from the true value of money.
I’m happy this take exists.
CineCraft turned into a bitter bourgeois art critic so slowly I barely noticed.On the other hand at least he’s a fan of Jackson Pollock.No?Ummm, Grandma Moses?
Fact: Art has been going downhill ever since they moved away from pointillism.
You’re in luck! Albeit with a twist! (I just secured two works for my December auction). Andrew Myershttp://www.andrewmyersart.com/
You’ve got a point, although to be fair, he produced like 800 bajillion works, so sure, there were gonna be some misses. A Picasso show rolled through KC last year that didn’t really have any of the hugely famous stuff (because why the hell are you gonna ship Les Demoiselles d’Avignon to Kansas City?) and it was interesting to see a show of mostly C- to B+ Picasso. To be sure, there were a handful of things in the show that genuinely took my breath away, but a lot of it was pretty flat, especially once you get to WWII and beyond.I found the current exhibition in KC on contemporary black painters much more exciting, if only because there’s a lot more room for surprise in painters I mostly don’t know.
“Hot take”? This take is as old and cold as a glacier.
I’m sure history will remember this critique and not his work
My job is done![disappears in a puff of smoke]
That’s true (in simple aggregate numbers) for any artist who found success in their own lifetime.
I don’t think it invalidates the quality of the masterpieces among that work though.
SO….ART?
I think this take is wrong, but I do think he’s pretty overrated (or at least pretty inconsistent, as MissouriBen points out). I’ll take Siqueiros any day (who was probably an asshole of a very different kind, given that he took part in an assassination attempt on Leon Trotsky).
a *bit* of an asshole? honey, being an asshole was basically his BRAND.
Not in New York!!??!!???!!!!
Not like you…
It’s commonly known if you appreciate art history or Picasso specifically. He was an ass a lot of time throughout his life, but also produced vital work and is absolutely fascinating.
He, uh, also had an affair with a teenager as a 45 year old. Even if it was “legal,” there’s no way a man that old should be dating a 17 year old. I’m not wigged out by age differences for the most part. But she was a teenager. Sure, his art is important but he is awful.
You grossly overestimate his importance in the 3,000+ year history of painting.
He’s also dead, so whether he was awful or not is an utterly irrelevant question, bandied about just to earn Woke Points.
You are a joke.
Dating? lolHE WAS FUCKING HER AND THATS ALL SHE WAS GOOD FOR.WHY ELSE WOULD YOU SPEND TIME WITH A 17 YEAR OLD GIRL?
This side of him was captured brilliantly by EpicLloyd on Epic Rap Battles Of History…….BEGIN!
this passes as a “Great Job, Internet!” these days?oh, Kinja…
He did some amazing work. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been punched in the face occasionally. You should have to earn being an asshole.
Breaking news: All your heroes are assholes and creative artistic types 10x… Ones born several generations before you, 10x that as well. Also just in, water is wet (although I dig the whole since water cannot be dry it cannot be wet as well dictionary debate I saw recently).
“in her recently reissued 1964 memoir with Carlton Lake, Life With Picasso.”Uh…so he wasn’t Completely wrong? (Kidding! …unless the memoir really doesn’t address that)
So are you. But, you don’t see us writing blogs about it, do you?
Picasso smacks of Charlie Rose, Jeff Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein. And thankfully I’m a philistine who harbors no love for his blocky monstrosities.
he was a scumbag
1) I’ve actually stood in front of “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon”—Picasso’s masterpiece of when he was in his African Primitivism mode heading towards Cubism—an absolutely amazing work of Art.2) So is there a correlation between between an asshole imposing your will upon other people as you end up truly making a mark upon the world? Thinking of famous men, I’d have to say yes.3) She decided to plow a man who could’ve been old enough to be her grandfather, so was there an “I’ll ride his coattails” decision from Gilot to boost the recognition of her artwork? I’d have to say all signs point to yes. Considering benefits vs costs—she won anyway.
TRIGGERED!
I’m so sad for you.
What does she think about the lion attacks?little cubes…gonna…gonna knock…break…into cubes
He’s fucking dead! Who gives a shit?
Uhhh, we’re trying to judge people on the internet here!
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you give a shit who gives a shit?
I do that often, but it still impresses me how fucking stupid and/ormean people can be.
This article’s great primarily because it allows people to post their spicy “Picasso was, in fact, bad” take. Opinions on art from anonymous dummies is truly the internet at its finest.
But, according to this song no one ever called him one.
Picasso was both a groundbreaking genius and a complete and total asshole. That sort of duality actually isn’t all that rare with human beings. His genius allowed him to get away with really, really bad behavior—again, not a uniquely human trait.As for his prediction of Françoise Gilot’s future, I think she managed without him after all. She became a famous artist in her own right. While it could be argued that her association with Picasso opened doors for her, the flip side of that argument is that the association actually hurt her standing in the art world. The body of her work suggests she would have been a notable artist whether she’d met him or not.She married twice, first to artist Luc Simon (with whom she had a third child) and then to Dr. Jonas Salk, the man who created the polio vaccine. She also raised her children on her terms and they grew up to become noted artists as well.
Picasso being a huge asshole is some kind of surprise?
I once went to an exhibit in Berlin of Picasso’s early works. It was 90% sketches of Minotaurs with giant dicks raping women.
I have made $18539 by doing very simple and easy job online. Joined this job 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k easily without any special online working experience before. Very easy job and earning from this are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start making real cash online right now by follow details on this website…….HERE:::::>>>>>> http://www.prizebest.com
“…her own truth…”This is a nonsense phrase.
Conversely, I present you:
Art is good. Artists are douchebags and assholes.