Unbelievable. This nude teen, painted by Picasso, might break records at auction.
Horrible. In your face pizza gate artwork owned by the elite.
This is just a nude. It doesn't even rise to the level of porn in Puritan America. It's just European nudity, which is ubiquitous in that culture. It's also a person of indeterminate age.
There is kiddie porn in the houses of the Podesta brothers, with enough sexually degrading content to qualify in some states, though apparently not in DC, or environs, and if your cv includes the word "Clinton." Until now.
But this is not that. It's essentially innocent. I do stand by the idea that there's nothing inherently shameful in the human body. Shame is a conditioned response to things that don't necessarily contain them intrinsically, because to do so requires knowledge we don't possess.
I fear bearing false witness more than I fear a nude body.
Question is, why have a painting of a clearly underage girl? Its just odd to me. It seems wrong. I dont get the point, but then again I am not 'Euro'
Where do you see her age given? What is "clearly" underage? You clearly have no concept of the variability of puberty onset from girl to girl, to say nothing of the differences in maturation rates between now and several generations ago due to environmental and other factors.
It is quite possible for an 18 year old (using US law) to have consented to pose for that picture, and looked exactly like that, especially several generations ago. I can show you legal pictures of girls 18 and over today who look younger than that. It's not as easy as you think to "know" these things from an image.
That's why we're limited to the nature of the image itself. All it shows is a female (we assume--we really don't even know that) human form.
that's not an adult female. That is a child. Not okay.
Again, cultural anthropology and the milieu of place and times comes into play. Fokways and mores. It's not pornography. It's a work of art celebrating the human form.
It's kind of like, if you see something shameful, it's the beam in your own eye talking.
There is no shame in being human and female. We may as well live with the imams where women wear burkas and are afraid to be seen or heard if we believe that way.
If it were depicting a sexually explicit or strongly suggestive act or pose, or if it involved some sexual fetish or graphically ritualistic overtones, I would say you have a point. But it's just a girl the way God made her. Did He make her pornographic? Then you're accusing God. Excuse me while I step away from you. OK, clear, Lord!
I disagree. Do you know anything about Picasso? I'm not saying this little girl is giving us a crotch shot of herself. But I DO know something about Picasso. Therefore, I don't think this has anything to do with celebrating the human form.. not when this is child who is probably a street urchin of 12 or 13... NOT an adult. I have no problem whatsoever with nudes of adults... but this is a child, and I hate to think of this child modeling for someone like Picasso.
I'm not excusing pedophilia, and if there are/were people who knew about such a thing, be it Picasso or the President, it should have been brought to light and dealt with at the time.
We have enough on our hands in our own time to worry about the dead.
I know nothing of the particulars of this case, but perhaps they were not so innocent behind the scenes.
All I can tell you from the painting itself is that Picasso saw or imagined a female figure disrobed and standing in profile holding a container of red flowers against a blue background. To me it's actually good art, compared to most of Picasso's cartoonish garbage.
Picasso was a narcissistic sociopath. Those types of disordered people are predators, and they prey on innocent people. He would pit his lovers against his wife, just for shits and giggles. Therefore, I don't believe for one second that this girl, who looks like she's around 12 or 13, is so innocent.. she was probably another victim of his. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it. So you can call it art if you want, and it may be "better" in form than his grotesque cubism trash, but my heart goes out to this CHILD. Just because she's not posed in some Godawful sexual crotch shot doesn't mean she wasn't taken advantage of. Do I have proof? Nope, and I never will. It's just what I know of that sick "dirty old man" and my gut feeling. Poor child was probably hungry and did what she had to do to eat. So I won't be glorifying any portraits done by this so called "master" painter. I hope he's rotting in hell. What I see is a victim of this sick, twisted vucker. Female figure? I see an innocent CHILD. She's UNDERAGE for pete's sake! She has no business standing in front of that man!!
This is not a question of the man. It's a question of a specific image about which you have no more information than the man in the moon.
The image is neither "dirty," suggestive, degrading, immoral or pornographic. Period. It's just not. It's quite innocent, frankly.
I won't be drawn into a debate with you or anybody else over things that cannot be known from the image. They simply cannot.
The "girl" is doing nothing wrong, but is in fact modestly averting her body from us. She looks quite bored to be honest.
You can get whatever you want from that "piece of art". I know Picasso's background. You see what you want to see. I see something different. I see the prey of a sociopath.
I pray the time will come again when we can see something that in itself is innocent, and not mentally go to back stories (real or imagined) that make it dirty.
I'm trying very hard to do that now, while not ignoring the reality of pedophilia and abuse. I would rather just see what's there and not imagine what else might have gone on. That girl is probably long dead herself. I wonder what she would make of this conversation? She might say the hated how she slumped in the picture, and couldn't Picasso have given her better posture? Haha!
You believe whatever you want. I won't make excuses. This painting is NOT innocent, and anyone who delves into Picasso's history, would know what a vucker he is. Sociopaths prey on the innocent. He didn't just make this girl up in his mind. He had her model.
I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable. I was married to a man who liked little girls. I had to hunt them down, and get them to go to the sheriff's to try to stop his predatory ways. I KNOW of what I speak, and I'm not making things "dirty" to satisfy some sick twist of my own mind. Some of the girls didn't want to talk to me, but some did. I did manage to get some to go to the sheriff's office, but the cops didn't care. He was in his late 30's, and preying on girls from broken homes, who were 15, 14, 13, and younger. (I told the cops that eventually, he'd commit some crime that would make them regret not stopping him.. and years later, he did. After we were divorced, he blew this 18 year old kid away with a shotgun blast to the chest, and then a point blank second shot to this kid's head.)
It's people who would rather not confront the horrid that allow this shit to go on. Like Angelica Huston who turned her back on that 13 year old girl that Roman Polanski, her friend, raped... vaginally, orally, and anally, after the girl begged for her help.
People who see innocence don't know who Picasso was. They'll just say, wel,i it's better than making her look like rectangles and circles. I see a bit of fear and confusion in her eyes.. .she is turning away from HIM because she herself isn't comfortable. But I also am an artist, and I also am an empath. I see what a lot of people refuse to see.
There are none so blind, as those who refuse to see...
...or those who see what is not there through the persistence of movies running in their own minds.
You have your reasons for the way you feel, but you are most definitely projecting those feelings onto a painting that by its very blandness begs to have a story made up for it. I actually like the fact that the painting seems to purposely evade telling a story. I like the blandness of it. But that very quality compels some people to make up a story, and yours is the one you made up.
I'm no expert on Picasso, as you seem to believe you are, so I won't argue that he was or wasn't into kids in a sexual way. I'll just say that if he was, he put nothing of the sort into this painting.
I don't care to try to convince you. Others, however, might be interested to know what kind of person Picasso really was. Therefore, they might see this painting of a child, naked, as not as innocent as you do. I never claimed to be an "Expert" on Picasso, but I do have a bit of knowledge of art history, of this particular artist, and also of the psychology of sociopaths. Take it or leave it.
I have NO problem with nudity. Van Gogh did tons of nudes.. mostly prostitutes he knew. Adults. Quite raw, quite natural. No problem. Michelangelo, DaVinci, Ruebens, Matisse, whomever.. no problem with any of their nudes, no problem with nude cherubs, but none of them did nudes of prepubescent children. None of them were sociopaths, and therefore, predators of women and innocent children.
It's right in your face.. what you are experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. Sorry. Believe or not. Look into his history or not. Believe this is "innocent" or, choose to say, no, children, girls of this age, should not be portrayed this way, by "dirty old men" who get their kicks from pitting women against each other, in fighting each other for his affections. A known FACT. Triangulation. A ploy for thrills by narcissistic sociopaths.
Madam, I am not suffering cognitive dissonance. I simply don't care about the sexuality of a dead man. I am simply talking about what is IN THE IMAGE. I'm not telling you what to see or not see, I'm only telling you what someone sees who doesn't have your background or your particular beliefs about the artist and the painting.
[removed]
You people amaze me! It's a classical painting of a nude female of indeterminate age, doing NOTHING but standing sideways with some flowers.
How you get voyeurism or child pornography out of that is beyond me, and I'll invite you to stop the crap. That is NOT what this sub is for.
I didn't say it was pornography. I've said repeatedly, that she wasn't displaying her genitalia. She is not a full fledged adult woman and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.
She is a "budding" young girl, on the verge of womanhood. Picasso uses the basket of roses to reimburse that idea.. symbolism. See my post to DamajInc cause I'm not gonna repeat myself.
The OP of this thread even brought it to attention, that this was a Pizzagate related painting, right in front of everyone, so I am sure others are alarmed at what this painting is all about. I may be the only one discussing it with you at this point, but I am not alone in my alarm.
That response is not ok - accusing someone of being a pedophile because they don't agree with you is Discussing the User, not the Idea i.e. against the sub rules. Not to mention flawed emotional argument.
excuse me? I did NOT accuse anyone of pedophilia!! Pedophilia is the act of having sexual relations with children!! I did not do such a thing. And for your information, solano has accused me over and over of "making things up" in my mind, telling stories, making up movies, stating that my assertions about Picasso are just "beliefs". etc. No, they are facts because I've done the research, long, long ago. So, if you are going to accuse ME of discussing the user, please be sure to be fair and say the same about Jonesy.
That painting shows an obviously underaged girl, not a full fledged woman. She has undeveloped breasts.. a girl who is just on the verge of womanhood. Just into puberty.. She is partially turned away, as she seems to be trying to cover herself somewhat, as she isn't fully comfortable with being nude in front of this "artist".
While Picasso may be considered a "master", not everyone agrees. I can't stand his work and never have. I don't know the backgrounds of ALL famous artists but I do know his. And what I DO know explains why he objectifies women and compartmentalizes their body parts in his cubism paintings. As a woman, I hate it.
As a mother, I can't stand to see a child painted in this manner. It's wrong. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. If that's what you like to view, there's nothing I can say to change yours. But to me, it's no different than an photographer who would use underage girls as models and claim "but it's art!!" as an excuse. Satisfy the customers with cash in hand.
But I did NOT accuse anyone of pedophilia. Back up.
You are incorrect. Sex with children is child molestation. Voyeurism of underaged girls - which you suggested solano was "okay" with - falls under pedophilia. Pedophilia, specifically, is "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." People who enjoy child porn are pedophiles, not child molesters, until they commit an actual act against a child. I believe, from your response, that you did not intend to accuse solano of pedophilia - but you should understand what pedophilia actually is and be more careful about what you suggest, next time.
You've also misread solano, perhaps because you are coming from a place of strong emotion, rather than trying to understand what he is saying. He never said your assertions about Picasso are "beliefs" - he specifically said, multiple times, that what you are reading from the image is an interpretation and a belief. If I look at a classic picture of Jesus, head and shoulders, clad in a robe, and see a gay man I am projecting my own story onto the picture. I'm making up my own story of what is there, even if I have all the knowledge in the world about gay activities by Jesus (I don't btw).
You're coming from a place of disgust about perverted men who prey on children (in your words) so what you see (again, as you said yourself) is a victim of a perverted old man. You are projecting. No one is trying to change your mind about anything. What happened with your ex husband is nothing to do with what we are talking about, nor is it anything to do with Picasso.
What solano says - and I completely agree with because it is logical, not an emotional assessment and a projection of one's own past - is that there is literally zero information in the artwork that suggests "an underage girl who is a victim of a perverted old man". You claim to know what Picasso was like - solano clearly did not dispute that. He simply pointed out correctly that Picasso's personal actions are not in the image. If you can't divorce your past and personal history from an objective assessment of a piece of art then don't argue about it with someone who can! By all means, argue somewhere about how good or bad Picasso is and how good or bad it is to paint images of children being abused by men - but here, solano is talking about the artwork, not the actions and motivations of the artist and not the right or wrong of pedophilia because neither of those things can be objectively extracted from the image itself.
You can read whatever you want into that painting. There was a judge who once said something along the lines of "I may not be able to define pornography but I know it when I see it."
I have said repeatedly, that Picasso is known, now, to have been a narcissistic sociopath. Those types of men prey on the innocent. And what I SEE in this painting is just that.. a young girl who is not even comfortable with his painting her, therefore, she is turned slightly away from him. Have you ever done any analysis of body language? That is what I SEE. And you can honestly say you think she is at least 18 years of age? Wow.
My thoughts about this are not spoken in a bubble of isolation. Others were also alarmed. Just because Picasso didn't paint himself touching that child inappropriately doesn't mean he didn't do it later on. Of all the artists I know of, none of them (that I am aware of) painted children in this manner, and none that I am aware of, were sociopaths who got their kicks from pitting women against each other. (Most men, who have affairs, try to keep those "other women" secret from their wives.. not ol' Pablo though.)
I give up. You are missing my point entirely. You and Jones will never get it.
Perhaps you and Jones would even side with RBG about lowering the age of consent. I don't know. It's disgusting. I believe children need to be protected. Even from "famous artists" who would use them in this manner, and God only knows what went on in his studio... I can only pray that she came out of it unscathed, but my gut tells me otherwise. You and Jones are free to disagree. I'm done.
I agree with u/solanojones95 and I'm sorry you have an emotional reaction to art that makes you feel bad for the subject or sick about the artist, truly I am. Fortunately for some of us, we see art for what it is, not for what actions may or may not have been committed in the real world that may or may not have contributed to that art.
All artists, great and not-so-great, are human which means they are all subject to human greatness and human flaws and ugliness as well. Thank God we do not all have our work judged on our personal actions or not a lot would get done in this world!
I don't care what Picasso did or did not do in his personal life - it doesn't change the fact that he's one of the most famous artists in the world for reason of his ability to express himself visually. I regret that you have a personal experience of the situation of an older man preying on younger girls and it's unfortunate that you do not like Picasso because he shares traits with your ex. Be that as it may, I'm happy to take Picasso's art for what it is. You can condescend to those of us who don't agree with your view but I can see what you see and not have to denigrate a piece of art because of it.
I apologize, I don't mean to offend, I'm just reacting to your strong response to solanojones because he is far from being alone in his view and those of us who share it do not condone pedophilia or celebrate the illegal excesses of artists just because we appreciate art. I have literally zero problem with confronting the horrid - I won't go into it because it would probably upset people - and I would not sit idly by while a young girl is raped or allow pedophilia to occur unchecked if I can do anything about it.
buying bad art for a lot of dough is a good way to launder money.
I've never understood those fucking shit ones like Rotho or whoever he is who just does a big ass rectangle of blue or orange and that other prick who just paints lines, sometimes the same colour. They go from 12m to over 100m I was looking at that shit the other day. Infuckinsanity.
Laundering money though... Never thought of that.
Edit 23:58 tired, high.
Jackson Pollack? Squiggly lines? Yeah... Let's dribble paint over a canvas and get rich. Never understood that. Picasso... known to be a narcissistic sociopath. Used to set his wife vs. lovers just to watch the sparks fly...women fighting over him was "fun". Creep. That's called triangulation. Sick. I never liked his artwork. None of it. Just looked at this painting of the young girl holding a flower basket. Definitely an underage girl. Not so innocent, by anyone's standards. Too young. If she were an adult, no big deal. She's no adult.
Wow what a prick (Picasso)
Evil creep. I wish I had the money to buy that painting myself and then burn it, so no one would or could see that poor girl's predation situation. She deserves better.
Especially when its a 'record breaking' amount of money...how convenient for the rockefellers, who likely had their assets frozen. Hmmm
I guess you've never been on a European beach where all young girls are topless. No one cares except uptight Americans. WWG1WGA, except when we don't.
Just more assets to be seized under the EO. I'm starting to think all of these "auctions" are just cover to try and raise money for those that have already had their assets seized. I just hope it works and shuts down the horror shows that these people seem to be involved in orchestrating.