PS here's 'Les demoiselles d'Avignon'pic.twitter.com/0vdknj82df
Show this thread
1906: Sargent skillfully integrates realistic, sapiosexual face portraiture with fluid, post-impressionist brushwork for clothing to create lasting beauty. 1907: Picasso's ruins art for the rest of the 20th century with 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon'https://twitter.com/artistsargent/status/1137017233715204097 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sargent was probably the most expressive and technically skilled American portrait artist in history (his brushwork is incomparable), but he had nothing to say. He was a pro, but not an artist. Picasso was an artist, always innovating, restless, always ahead of the curve.
-
You're redefining 'artist' according to the ideological fashions of Modernism.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
*eyes bleeding in despair*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Exactly. Art should, at minimum, be a rewarding visual experience.
- 3 more replies
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm not saying Picasso couldn't paint good art. I'm saying he didn't paint good art after 1906.
- 1 more reply
-
-
-
My framework for reconciling different art criticism: "Art" is too loaded a term to talk about as "good" or "bad" constructively. Break critique of any art into at least these 4 areas: 1 - Technical skill 2 - Originality 3 - Artist intent 4 - Personal taste
-
There you go, revealing your researcher side again!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.