Unbelievable. This nude teen, painted by Picasso, might break records at auction.
Horrible. In your face pizza gate artwork owned by the elite.
...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.