Wikipedia: Pablo Picasso/Talk

Who on earth were the Stuckists?

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/2001/05/24/FFXODZOE3NC.html

GWO - (who is only just resisting the urge to add "nobody ever called him an asshole" to the original page on Pablo Picasso...)

", a view echoed by the Stuckists" I'd like a reference for the 'must paint' line, by the way. Picasso was a horrid man and given to statements like that which he often as not didn't mean, so I'd like to know where/when he said it.

Well maybe he didn't mean it but he was scornful of Maar's photography and encouraged her to focus on her painting. Similarly for a number of his other mistresses, even Ferdinande was encouraged to paint. Whether there is one particular quote that will "prove" the point, I don't know, that would take a true scholar rather than a jobsworth like myself.

Sorry you felt the need to remove the Stuckist reference I felt it made an interesting Wiki link. Unusual connections makes for interesting browsing.

Also isn't "horrid man" a little strong? Wouldn't "flawed" be more neutral?

He was always scornful of any woman's work as an artist. All of 'em. He didnt' think much of most painters, either. I think he was a great painter, but nasty. Read the Norman Mailer biography - he was more than flawed. I restrained myself from saying so in the entry, but someone will come along and document it in the 'life' section, I hope. On the Stuckists, I don't see why they shouldn't show up, but I wouldn't think in the introduction. --MichaelTinkler

I realise this is getting silly but I do think you are being unfair here. He felt Maar was a good artist but found it difficult to disentangle his feelings for her from his views on her works. He seemed to have a more balanced view of her in his last years. I don't really feel that Norman Mailer is the best biographer of Picasso either. I think you are over-stating the case for him being "nasty", he was capable of acts of great spite and cruelty, he could be cowardly and greedy but in a long and complex life that does not make him that different from many other people in similar situations.

: That's why I'm not writing the article, because I find it easier to be objective about his work (which I teach every spring) if I don't think about him as a person; everything I know about him as a person is repulsive. His shallow, unreflective politics, his treatment of his friends and lovers, and his ego. Many artists are that way, of course, and Norman Mailer's argument (tacit in the Picasso book, explicit about his own life) is that you have to be selfish FOR your art. I wonder. On the other hand, I reserve the right to edit the article - the Stuckists don't belong in the first paragraphs of anything except an article about late modern or postmodern art. I did rewrite the sentence to include his work-ethic. I really do think he was a great as well as an important artist, but I don't have to like him as a human being. --MichaelTinkler