Picasso & Modern British Art

On the face of it, the concept – an exhibition which examines Britain’s late-flowering appreciation of the genius of Pablo Picasso, along with his influence on a generation of home-grown artists – is appealing. Certainly, if the pre-publicity is to be believed, Picasso & Modern British Art at Tate Britain ranks as one of this season’s must-see shows.

But, with a crowded cultural calendar, (the blockbuster Leonardo da Vinci display at the National Gallery has just closed, while retrospectives of works by the recently-deceased Lucien Freud and the still-very-much-alive David Hockney are drawing large crowds to the National Portrait Gallery and the Royal Academy respectively), does this particular exposition warrant our attention?

The Three Dancers (1925)

The answer is, of course, yes – in my view, any exhibition featuring even one piece by Picasso is worth the entry fee.  And there are quite a few well-known masterpieces featured in this display (including The Three Dancers (1925) and Weeping Woman (1937)), as well as works by the likes of Duncan Grant, Ben Nicholson and Wyndham Lewis – all of whom were greatly inspired by the Spanish master.

Therein, however, lies the exhibition’s fatal flaw – once inside the gallery space, even a cursory glance at the pieces on display leads one to question the wisdom of showing works by the lesser mortals of the British art world alongside the grand master of modernism.

The Tub by Duncan Grant

To put it quite simply, although talented painters in their own right, the offerings of the British contingent just do not stack up to the trailblazing genius of Picasso.  Indeed, with the exception of some ground-breaking pieces by Francis Bacon and Graham Sutherland, almost all the British artworks on display appear to be nothing more than cheap imitations of the original. Which, of course, they were – there are not many painters in the world who could ever hope to reach the standard set by some of Picasso’s best work.

 

But, did we really need an exhibition to highlight this fact?  Wouldn’t it have been better to leave well enough alone, to allow the public to appreciate the talent of our British artists, without throwing their efforts into harsh relief by showing them alongside the glorious virtuosity of Pablo Picasso?

Indeed, one wonders how the artists themselves would have felt about being included in a show alongside the Spanish maestro - I can only imagine that Grant, Nicholson et al would not have been best pleased.

Picasso & Modern British Art

Until July 15 at Tate Britain

Tickets: £14, Concessions £12.20, Free to Tate Members

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/picassoandbritain/

Culture Vulture - Did you know ...

... that Leonardo da Vinci spent 12 years painting Mona Lisa's lips?

... that in 1961, Henri Matisse's painting Le Bateau hung upsidedown in Museum of Modern Art in New York for 46 days before anyone (including the 116,000 visitors) noticed the error?

Le Bateau

... that the French artist Paul Gauguin held down jobs as an investment banker and a labourer on the Panama Canal before trying his hand at painting?

Gauguin Self Portrait

... that Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting, Red Vineyard at Arles, during his lifetime?  He died by his own hand, a pauper and quite mad.

Red Vineyard at Arles

... that Leonardo da Vinci invented the scissors?

... that Degas was so fascinated by ballerinas that he produced over 1,500 paintings and drawings of ballet dancers during his career?

Degas's Ballerinas

... that the Statue of Liberty is the world's largest hammered copper statue?

... that Pablo Picasso was drawing before he could talk?  When he did utter his first word, it was the Spanish word for pencil

Pablo Picasso Self Portrait

 

Louis Vuitton vs The Artist

 © Louis Vuitton

It cannot be denied that this 21st century world we inhabit is one entirely dominated by an obsession with image and celebrity. Proof, if proof is needed, can be found in a quick glance at topics trending on Twitter: it seems the most pressing concerns for the vast majority of the western world is the significance of Angelina Jolie’s latest tattoo or the current style of Justin Bieber’s hair.

This mania for celebrity, and the subsequent column inches devoted to it, comes at the expense of the many humanitarian crises which have been brewing, largely unnoticed, in the developing world. In particular, the worsening situation in Darfur seems to be roundly ignored by the world’s media which instead clambers to feed our incessant appetite for celebrity gossip and scandal. Fortunately, Nadia Plesner, a Danish artist and activist, is on a mission to change this.

Nadia first made headlines in 2008 when she incurred the wrath of luxury goods manufacturer Louis Vuitton. Plesner used a likeness of one of LV’s designer handbags in a controversial image which juxtaposed symbols of western wealth and excess with a starving child. The controversial picture, which was subsequently printed on t-shirts and posters, depicted a small, undernourished black boy holding a Chihuahua in one hand and a LV handbag in the other. The message was obvious, hard-hitting and made for uncomfortable viewing … and Louis Vuitton didn’t like it.

The luxury goods conglomerate, objecting to the fact that money was being raised (albeit to benefit the people of Darfur) on the back of one of its designs, sued the artist for breach of intellectual property rights ... and won. Plesner was forced to withdraw the t-shirts and posters from sale, and ordered to pay damages to the company. And there the story would have ended, if it were not for the admirable tenacity of Ms Plesner.

Undeterred by her legal defeat, Nadia soon got to work on a more ambitious project. The result is Darfurnica, a modern-day take on Guernica, Picasso’s masterpiece which depicts the horror of the Spanish Civil War. Like its predecessor, Darfurnica is a mish-mash of images – western political and ‘cultural’ icons like Paris Hilton, Victoria Beckham and Barack Obama, vie for space on the canvas with an ominous militiaman and the forgotten victims of Darfur’s civil war. But perhaps the most significant image of all is the re-appearance of the boy with the small dog and the designer handbag …

The artist decided to include the contested image because she believed that, this time, Louis Vuitton had no legal basis to object. Her argument centres on her conviction that Darfunica should be viewed as a whole, with the artist’s right to artistic freedom in mind. Louis Vuitton disagreed, and brought the case to court again. The court found in LV’s favour and ordered Plesner to remove the image from her website and to refrain from exhibiting the piece. The artist refused to comply with the order and is therefore obliged to pay Louis Vuitton €5,000 damages for every day the Darfunica image remains on her website. As of today, Nadia Plesner is in debt to LV for a staggering €350,000 and counting. She has launched a counter-claim against LV, claiming that her rights of artistic freedom have been infringed. The case is ongoing.

This is proving to be a showdown to rival that of David and Goliath. Who will win this epic battle of wills – Louis Vuitton, the ultimate symbol of rampant western consumerism or Nadia Plesner, a lone, brave voice trying to make herself heard in defence of the citizens of Darfur?

Whatever the outcome, we can be fairly certain that we haven’t heard the last from this particular artist – she is already working on her next project, using characters from the Mr Men and Little Miss series.

She has said her first piece will be called Little Miss Child Prostitute ….

 Darfurnica © Nadia Plesner 2011

For more information on Nadia Plesner, see her website:
http://www.nadiaplesner.com/

Picasso’s Nude Grabs the Spotlight

Today’s art world is replete with big personalities – and even bigger egos. It goes with the territory in our celebrity-obsessed society. Fame, and occasionally notoriety, have become a by-product of artistic success: remember how Tracey Emin became front-page news when the most reclusive of art dealers, Charles Saatchi, plucked her and her unmade bed from relative obscurity?

Unfortunately, the cult of personality that springs up around successful artists often has a diminishing effect on the work they produce. The art is left to languish in the shade, while the artist soaks up the spotlight: the artist outshines the art. One only has to look to artists such as Damien Hirst and Banksy for proof - they are classic examples of those who have built a brand around their legendary name rather than their actual work.

This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it is a trend that can be traced all the way back to the early 20th century, past Warhol and even Dalí, to the granddaddy of infamous artists – Pablo Picasso.

Let’s think about this for a minute. Picasso was a huge celebrity during his lifetime, famous not just for his ground-breaking work in Cubism, but also for the unorthodox life he led, his tangled love-life and the bohemian company he kept. (Picasso forged friendships with the likes of Chanel, Serge Diaghilev, Jean Cocteau and Stravinsky, and courted controversy by joining the Communist Party in 1944.) Eventually, inevitably, the Picasso legend surpassed the Picasso art, and this has remained true right up to the present day. Most people have heard of Pablo Picasso, but how many have seen his work?

Admittedly, there have been a couple of works by the Spanish cubist master that have emerged from the shadow of their creator, most notably Guernica. The artist’s harrowing and haunting depiction of the brutal bombing of a small rural town during the Spanish Civil War inspires an immense depth of feeling among those who see it, with the result that the painting has become legendary in its own right. This is a work that stands alone, unburdened by the infamy of its creator, but laden down with the terrible legacy of a cruel war.

Guernica

But now, another Picasso creation has been grabbing the headlines, albeit for entirely different reasons. Nude, Green Leaves and Bust, a 1932 painting of Picasso’s sometime mistress Marie-Thérèse Walter, is fast gaining an infamy to rival that of the master himself. Having been hidden away from public view by a private collector for many years (it was only exhibited once, in 1961, to commemorate the artist’s 80th birthday), the painting resurfaced recently after the death of its owner. Understandably, the resulting auction (at Christies New York) attracted much attention, with a projected sale price of $80 million. After a bidding frenzy, the gavel finally came down on a bid of $106 million (£65 million) and Nude, Green Leaves and Bust entered the history books as the most expensive painting ever sold at auction.

When it transpired that the deep-pocketed buyer was an anonymous bidder, the most expensive painting in the world seemed fated to languish in a private collection yet again, to be viewed only by the privileged few. And so, it is hardly surprising that the painting once again garnered headlines this week when Tate Modern announced, with much fanfare, that the work had been given on loan to the gallery by the mysterious owner.

Nude, Green Leaves and Bust

No doubt, Nude, Green Leaves and Bust will attract countless visitors, keen to see the world's most expensive painting. But will it fall victim to it's own success? The heavy price-tag will carry with it a heavy burden of expectation. Undoubtedly, the painting is a wonderful example of Picasso's genius, but as we all know, being the most expensive does not necessarily equate to being the best ...

The painting’s infamy means it has emerged from the shadow of it’s equally famous creator … but will it ever escape the spectre of it’s gigantic price-tag? Ultimately, it will be up to the viewing public to decide ...

"Nude, Green Leaves and Bust" can be viewed in the Poetry and Dream wing of the Tate Modern, London. Admission free.

Picasso and Dali: The Best of "Frenemies"?

I've recently been musing on the fraught love/hate relationship between Pablo Picasso and his fellow countryman, Salvador Dali. It can be best summed up by the following quote, where Picasso succinctly offers his opinion of Dali's work:

"He paints the smell of shit better than anyone"

Meaow!

Picasso's Last Words

When we consider the legacy of Pablo Picasso, we immediately think of masterpieces like Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, Guernica and innumerable others which grace the walls of art galleries all over the world. The influence of his ground-breaking cubist work has resonated across many spheres – from architecture (cubism directly inspired the Art Deco movement of the 1920s), to sculpture (his eclectic style demolished the accepted centuries-old techniques, paving the way for modern-day artists like Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst), to fashion (cubist fabric patterns are now ubiquitous, appearing everywhere from high street to high-end fashion).

But what about Picasso’s influence on music? Although there is not an obvious connection between the two, the Spanish artist did leave his mark on pop music, through the medium of a certain singer/songwriter from Liverpool...

On 8th April 1973, as he and his wife entertained guests at a dinner party, Picasso died of a sudden heart attack. He was 91 years old. Moments before his death, he uttered these final, poignant words:

“Drink to me, drink to my health, you know I can’t drink anymore.”

Halfway across the world, Paul McCartney was having dinner with Dustin Hoffman, when the actor told him the news of Picasso’s death. Upon hearing the artist’s last words, McCartney was immediately inspired. Picking up his guitar, he began to write a melody to accompany them. The resulting song, Picasso’s Last Words (Drink To Me) was featured on the 1973 triple-platinum-selling album Band on the Run. Although never released as a single, Picasso’s Last Words is widely regarded as one of the stand-out songs on the album.

And so it transpired - Picasso’s swan song became immortalized in a Wings song. The worlds of art, music and film collided to produce this tribute - an appropriate homage to a great man, who continued to inspire until he drew his very last breath.

Images:
Self Portrait, 1907
Dove of Peace, 1949

P.S. Check out the video on youtube - it's worth a watch!

Going, Going, Gone - What's the Point of Art Theft?

In the very early hours of last Wednesday, under cover of night, one of the most audacious art heists in recent history took place in Paris. The scene of the crime was La Musée d’Art Moderne, opposite the Eiffel Tower, directly across the moonlit Seine. A lone masked robber gained access to the famed museum by cutting a padlock and smashing a window pane at the rear of the building. Once inside, the bandit, moving quickly, helped himself to five famous artworks by 20th century masters, valued at around €100 million. The thief’s modus operandi involved brazenly cutting the paintings from their frames, rolling them up and making off by the same route from whence he came.

The impressive haul included “Le Pigeon Aux Petits-Pois” by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse’s “La Pastorale” and “L’Olivier près de l’Estaque” by Picasso’s cubism period sidekick Georges Braque. Lesser works by Fernand Leger and Amedeo Modigliani were also taken.

The robbery, however daring, was well-planned and flawlessly executed. The paintings hung near each other in the gallery, and the rear window used to enter and exit is in close proximity to the lanes of traffic that zoom ceaselessly by along the banks of the Seine – a perfect escape route which allowed the thief to vanish into thin air! Images of the bandit going about his dastardly business were caught on numerous CCTV cameras inside the museum. Authorities, however, are puzzled as to why the museum’s sophisticated alarm systems were not triggered. The fact that the three watchmen on duty failed to notice that anything was amiss until the cold light of morning has raised suspicions that the robber may have had inside help, or at least inside knowledge.

Upon discovery of the robbery, the French authorities swung into action. The museum was sealed off and experts began searching for clues. The frames, erstwhile homes to the missing masterpieces, were taken away for forensic analysis. Unfortunately, all this effort may already be too late. The innocuous nature of the loot makes it easily and swiftly transportable. Moving five rolled-up paintings is infinitely easier than moving €100 million, the equivalent cash value. Interpol was alerted two days after the robbery, indicating that authorities believe that the paintings may have already left France.

Given the widespread media coverage of this theft, you would be forgiven for thinking that such a daring robbery is rare. In fact, the opposite is true. Depressingly, art theft is a thriving business. The day after the Paris heist, another Picasso was stolen from the home of an art collector in Marseilles. The unfortunate owner was beaten by the intruder. There has been a spate of similar robberies in Marseilles during the past year. Last January, thieves made off with about 30 paintings, again including a work by Picasso, from another private collection. The previous month, an impressionist piece by Edgar Degas, on loan from the Musée d’Orsay, was stolen from a Marseilles museum.

The above is by no means an exhaustive list. According to the Art Loss Register (www.artloss.com), a database of stolen artworks, there are around 170,000 missing works of art. Interestingly, Pablo Picasso is the most sought after artist, with over 550 missing pieces.

Why is art theft so prevalent? What exactly is the point of going to so much trouble to steal an artwork when the re-sale options are so limited? To be in possession of stolen works is instantly incriminating, so thieves will want to offload the loot quickly. But who would the prospective buyers be? A lot of stolen art, especially by well-known masters, is instantly recognizable. Even to the untrained eye, a Picasso or a Matisse is easily identifiable, so duping a hapless buyer into purchasing a stolen artwork is not a feasible or reliable option. Indeed, any art acquired illegally on the black market could never be exhibited publically; it would have to be hidden away from view forever. Any buyer who is brave enough to purchase a stolen piece is taking on substantial risk - this fact alone means the re-sale value of stolen pieces plummets dramatically on the black market.

In reality, most stolen artwork is not sold on the black market. Increasingly, the paintings are held as “hostages”, while thieves demand ransom payments for their safe return, either from the museum or from the State. In 2005, the Tate Britain paid £3.1 million to recover two paintings by Turner, which had been stolen in 1994 while on loan to a gallery in Frankfurt. (The matter had to be dealt with very carefully, as ransom payments are illegal in the UK. It transpired that the Tate eventually paid a reward as opposed to a ransom – however, the distinction between the two is hazy at best!)

In some cases, stolen masterpieces are used as bargaining chips to help broker deals in the underworld, sometimes being exchanged for drugs or weapons. We also cannot discount the possibility that some of these thefts are “made-to-order”, for wealthy, ruthless individuals with powerful connections and low morals.

This collision between the art world and the underworld is ugly and disheartening. Depriving the public of such profound masterpieces is a highly selfish act, which flies in the face of all that art is supposed to represent. I cannot think of a worse fate for a Picasso or a Matisse or a Degas - to be hidden away, unappreciated, its beauty forever tainted with the dirty fingerprints of its captors.

Christophe Girard, the culture deputy for the mayor of Paris summed up the situation when he said: “This is a crime against the heritage of humanity”. Are the paintings lost forever? Or will they be eventually returned to their rightful place in humanity's heritage? Only time will tell ...