Geoffrey MillerVerified account

He did, and even it might seem less obvious. To some extend, cubism is a pure display of skills & virtuousity.

Cameras work fast. Old painting methods - weeks or months. 1905 shift toward fast-art. Much more economically feasible for making a living.

With this two properties he is a perfect insult to all modern grant-seeking artist guilds!

I'm glad you made that clarification, Geoffrey.

Each the their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer Picasso - so much more expression and joy.

Cynically: lots of virtuoso painters out there. No cubists yet, and a market demand for shocking new stuff. His USP worked => respect.

He did. Just in a myriad of styles of which you've chosen one lesser example. He also drew, etched, sculpted, photographed, etc prolifically

Robert Greene writes about Picasso as a kind of master marketer/Persuader/power-player. As Dali, Picasso knew how to make himself famous.