What do you think?
Rate this book
Picasso
Rayon : Art Editeur : Thames and Hudson Date de parution : 1996 Description : In-8, 288 pages, broché, occasion, très bon état. Envois quotidiens du mardi au samedi. Les commandes sont adressées sous enveloppes bulles. Photos supplémentaires de l'ouvrage sur simple demande. Réponses aux questions dans les 12h00. Librairie Le Piano-Livre. Merci. Référence catalogue X14014. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks
288 pages, Paperback
First published November 10, 1975
1 person is currently reading
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 27, 2017
Look, you only read a book like this to look smart. And by 'look smart', I really mean 'a little bit cultured'. Sure, Picasso is a divisive artist. One person is enraptured with his work and hails him as the messiah of Western culture. Another (like my nan) has no idea why any sane person would ever consider him an artist. In short, he is the marmite of the artisans.
I found Tim Hilton's work to be almost entirely pedestrian (yes, that is the only word in my vocabulary that makes me sound like a real literary critic). He attempts to walk us through Picasso's oeuvre, pointing out interesting links between periods, possible influences, developments in his artistic philosophy, and his maturing as an artist as he delves into various mediums. While that all sounds very interesting, our mate Tim has a slight (read: very) annoying tendency. For every claim he makes about Picasso, several qualifying ones are sure to follow.
Hilton proceeds thusly: "Picasso's 'rose period' was influenced by his time in the south of France where he was exposed to various proto-Modernists" ... "There is, however, little to no evidence of Picasso's travels to this region of France, nor is there sufficient grounding for us to conclude that he had any interaction at all with the supposed proto-Modernists. It is therefore dubious, at best, to claim that his works have any inspiration from this region or the artists who called it home, leaving his 'rose period' as an enigmatic, misunderstood era whose influence is unknown." Repeat for several hundred pages. [quotations may or may not be from Hilton's actual text]
I mean, what are you trying to say? He wants to make clever statements about the nature of Picasso's works and his inspiration. I understand this. But then he turns around and sows doubt on all his claims and assumes this skeptical post-Barthian literary position of the unknowability of the known. I do not understand this.
Overall, a pretty punishing read that skims through a few hundred of Pablo's works, makes some highly qualified statements about his influences and aspirations, and teaches us nothing about the man himself except that he possibly produced some works of art that may or may not be considered 'good'.
1/5 would not try to look cultured again.
I found Tim Hilton's work to be almost entirely pedestrian (yes, that is the only word in my vocabulary that makes me sound like a real literary critic). He attempts to walk us through Picasso's oeuvre, pointing out interesting links between periods, possible influences, developments in his artistic philosophy, and his maturing as an artist as he delves into various mediums. While that all sounds very interesting, our mate Tim has a slight (read: very) annoying tendency. For every claim he makes about Picasso, several qualifying ones are sure to follow.
Hilton proceeds thusly: "Picasso's 'rose period' was influenced by his time in the south of France where he was exposed to various proto-Modernists" ... "There is, however, little to no evidence of Picasso's travels to this region of France, nor is there sufficient grounding for us to conclude that he had any interaction at all with the supposed proto-Modernists. It is therefore dubious, at best, to claim that his works have any inspiration from this region or the artists who called it home, leaving his 'rose period' as an enigmatic, misunderstood era whose influence is unknown." Repeat for several hundred pages. [quotations may or may not be from Hilton's actual text]
I mean, what are you trying to say? He wants to make clever statements about the nature of Picasso's works and his inspiration. I understand this. But then he turns around and sows doubt on all his claims and assumes this skeptical post-Barthian literary position of the unknowability of the known. I do not understand this.
Overall, a pretty punishing read that skims through a few hundred of Pablo's works, makes some highly qualified statements about his influences and aspirations, and teaches us nothing about the man himself except that he possibly produced some works of art that may or may not be considered 'good'.
1/5 would not try to look cultured again.
July 4, 2018
This book is somewhat dated and does not include Picasso’s later works. The author doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to P’s work—there are several pieces he doesn’t like. I wouldn’t recommend this as an introduction to Picasso though it does cover the essential periods up until the 1950’s. It is a little too technical at times.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews