Why did Picasso and his friends want to destroy European art so badly? He wasn't Jewish

Art is a cover for pushing degeneracy

Why is it considered destruction? He was an artist. He didn't have to conform to any particular styles?

he was catalan so its the same shit as a jew but more cucked and leftist

Don't blame him for his shitty art
Blame the jews for trading the beautiful traditional art for his cancer

He was never intended to be the face of European art

Thank you j00z

Jews eat food, make food and own restaurants, too. People who don't suck jew cock still get to eat really, really well. Picasso was just an artist expressing himself.

Sure, but it's still something strikingly new and different that you don't have to be an art snob to appreciate. Kind of like a lot of modern music that mostly crap compared to what civilization has done in the past, but you have some guys who manage to do something a bit clever with it.

Just my non-artfag opinion, but I would say roughly everthing up to about Impressionism was still most of the time about skill and capturing natural beauty, or at least the world around you.

>Picasso
>no depth
>no detail
>no perspective'
He is the herald of degeneracy in the Arts

Attached: dfg.png (602x552, 634K)

Catholic

because it's not Jews who destroyed Europe, its the Vatican, same as it always has been for 1000 years since Christ died

>Picasso was fucking terrible though
>It confuses me why out of all the Afro-European abomination artists schools could choose to push out to the hordes he got selected. Picasso was a complete amateur.
- t. unaccomplished at everything

>food is the same as a mark of culture like art

Der Amerimutt

Attached: BB321A2D-8339-4AD2-9DE0-2AD3245EAAF1.jpg (466x658, 60K)

It's a shame he took that route when he could do paintings like pic related at such an early age.

Attached: actual-painting.jpg (535x739, 21K)

F for Fake is a great movie. I recommend you guys watch it.

Attached: Oja Kodar.jpg (1809x1078, 222K)

Picasso was more interested in inventing new ways to portray things, which he accomplished. The ones who destroyed art are the faggots who draw four lines on a canvas and shit like that. Don't be a retard.

He just stopped caring

this thread is degenerate

Isn't it wild when you find out he used to do things like that? But look at all the lines used to suggest the nature of the blouse and the choice of a woman who sort of exemplifies the average rather than the ideal. So you can see he's still sort of already on the path by then.

stop posting retard

You should really invest more time in researching the history of art, and why people like Picasso are not only strikingly boring and unoriginal but also snobs themselves.

We should have never saved you tea drinkers

Attached: 109859.jpg (591x477, 39K)

because his paintings glowed in the dark.

Ive seen Picasso art in person at LACMA and it was so fucking shit I couldnt believe it

He was a communist and successfully deconstructed art by confusing the public into thinking that cubic style is good.

This was painted by Picasso when he was 10.
Picasso, Dali or other artists from that frame were good and their works had meaning.
The tipping point were JewSA pop art and anglo (((new wave))) “artists”.
Nothing wrong with abstract art, post-modernism and the like are the branches that were born purely out of tax evading schemes.

Attached: 41BA90A0-F6AF-4207-8BE9-D03D6C851BCB.jpg (256x200, 39K)

>be Basque
>be hardcore catholic and trad monarchist
>ally with nun raping anarcho communists.
>reeee when the reckoning comes
Hmm.

The name of the painting translate to the whores of something. the women in the painting are "sex workers," that's why he painted their faces to look grotesque, to represent they have stds or something along those lines.

Picasso was very technically skilled when he was young, but he threw it all away. The kikes loved that.

fuck off cultureless amerishart

Attached: arno breker.jpg (455x643, 20K)

>The ones who destroyed art are the faggots who draw four lines on a canvas and shit like that
I believe it's quite the contrary. Art like that has the capability of actually being striking and interesting whereas impressionist and other typical modern art is just boring.

They Look like IDF thot

Why should I? Plenty of non-snobs see it and think
>wow, look at that
and then never really see much in the way of cubism that improves upon it in an particularly obvious way

It's technically competent, but is it an interesting paint, meh. If natsocs ran the world all we would have is 1,000 different variations of the same biblical stories, boring as shit.

It's not about conforming, art isn't subjective, beauty isn't subjective. The idea that it is, is a modernist idea with the aim of deconstructing people's senses with propaganda and suppression of true beauty. If a child painted the Sistine Chapel, he would be a prodigy, if he painted like Picasso, parents wouldn't take a second glance.

It looks like something common in his painting. Abstract faces and shapes in general. He was just bad at drawing faces or something. Painters are artists and artists are liberals and liberals are total deviants. This guy wasn't any better, this guy wasn't above basic urges to FUCK!! Total deviant

I get it, you love pictures of naked men.

>impressionism
>boring
Lmao kys

Attached: 5AE3193B-6444-4976-B6DB-3FE8F21B3B5D.jpg (1000x738, 277K)

That just means his works were that of malice and not incompetence

A Big Mac doesn't last as long, but I'll bet more people died from eating them than Picasso had paintings. Cultural markers are all important, and your denial of this specific analogy, even if I agree for argument's sake, doesn't prove your point. Picasso's works were no one else's desires than his own. Artists can do commissioned work, like the sistine chapel or portraiture, but they make art because they want to express themselves, not because they found a useful trade to market.

(((Modern art))) is dreck. That said, old Pablo was pretty innovative and his shit is kind of likable in a quirky manner.

Picasso litterally was Jewish, though. 100% Jewish.

beer good woman bad

>The Young Ladies of Avignon
I thought it was the whores of Avignon, my bad on that, but
>portrays five nude female prostitutes from a brothel on Carrer d'Avinyó in Barcelona.

They are literally African masks. Picasso did some gay sex tourism in Kenya or whatever and incorporated it into his art.

Attached: maxresdefault[1].jpg (1280x720, 54K)

Art is perspective, user. What you expressed is an opinion, not a fact. The value of any piece of art is based upon the emotional response of the perceiver, not the ability to shade well or reproduce reality perfectly.

According to fascists, any art that doesn’t depict naked men or isn’t an aggrandizement of war, is degenerate.
The Dresden bombings are a German hoax. The RAF did fly missions over Dresden, but they didn’t drop any incendiary bombs, but rather an incecticide to kill lice that were spreading typhus, the real killer of Dresden.

Attached: D5BA055D-5ADF-48C9-864C-A458E78D15BD.jpg (640x470, 62K)

I think they would have invented their own branch of modern art wave and abandoned kitsch but we can never know.

Attached: FBB79D45-A13F-446F-942A-D68B8587D5A6.jpg (1080x1920, 236K)

Yeah, but the two on the right have fucked up faces to represent their stds.

given the collective advancements, should we have drawings and paintings in this century that are equal to, if not better than the old masters? really makes you think.

Attached: vaneyck3.jpg (558x500, 46K)

It's almost like artists who grew up in a world surrounded by war, revolutions and flu pandemics would produce paintings that match the grotesqueness around them or something.

>post-modernism and the like are the branches that were born purely out of tax evading schemes
....so, no possible potential that artists simply express themselves in the manner that they prefer, and it might have nothing to do with conspiracy? The inspiration for creating art is one of the only pure things on this planet.

...according to a modernist's definition.
How about, instead of all that shit, art was not perspective. The value of any piece of art is how well it conforms to standards, not how hard you get from looking at it.

says the faggot

Again, please stop posting in my thread. You're not even attempting to debate.

It's really too bad we don't have more of that sort of thing around, particularly in architecture and sculpture. Being wild and crazy for the sake of doing something curious is all well and good, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to abandon everything else.

The human anatomy is beautiful unlike your horrid el goblino genetic mess of one.

>Picasso was very technically skilled when he was young, but he threw it all away.
He expressed himself and explored forms in a way that hadn't been done before. If his fame and success relied only on his first paintings, no one would know who he was today. He is famous only because he didn't do what was expected.

Lol, of course the Frenchman likes impressionism.

>No YOU are
He actually posted this shit

Attached: 1492826261466.gif (500x225, 1.33M)

lmao idk why you guys keep crying about how "fascists" love naked men, as if your nasty art is any better

Attached: ac18caf839563dcb789a2d7e72c60fe9[1].jpg (358x700, 47K)

How many paintings of naked men do you own?

I think Jow Forums regularly one-ups whoever came up with that idea

And this thread is stupid if you sincerely believe Picasso sat at his painter's chair thinking "how can I destroy Europe today". I'm a graphic artist myself by trade and I get paid by my boss to create stupid cutesy images of of Santa Clause, Valentine's greetings cards and the like for chocolate boxes, but at the end of the day anything I do on my own time comes from my own brain and heart and while I can be told WHAT to draw, it's not easy for me to mime someone else's style and be told HOW to draw it. There is no panel of "Jews" who taught Picasso to start drawing people as cubes, it was no doubt his own decision.

It's probably his mother.

>thinks America saved anything and not dooming the rest of the world to our (((culture)))

No really. Inflated price artists popped up after art was free of taxes worldwide. Look it up.
“Artists” selected by rich faggs are rated in value or “côte” and everything they produce is ranged between X and Y in false market value. It’s just a way to store tax free money.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that some faggot selling all white canvasses sells at a higher price than Van Ghog?
They realised old masters paintings were limited in number so they created false value in some contemporary artists. Every lawfagg like myself is fully aware of that. In France, tax free arts was a law passed by (((Fabius))), whose family is the biggest arts collectioner and auctionner.

>art isn't subjective, beauty isn't subjective
Art and beauty are only subjective, user. If a child painted either way, he would be celebrated. I suggest you get some oils, brushes, thinner, a palette, a canvas and an easel and attempt to reproduce a famous painting. It's harder than you think. It'll give you a greater appreciation even for art that doesn't appeal to you.

His fame was no doubt manufactured by Jewish financiers and communists seeking to "turn traditional art on its head". No one is doubting his talent, but his intentions, although not malicious to those who don't believe in objectivity, were with the agenda to deconstruct art and rebel against traditional beauty. Picasso was filled with hubris.

you guys really are clueless lol. please learn english, by the way.

stop fucking posting you retarded literal nigger

also modern "art" is perfect for money laundering. you can move large amounts of money in plain sight without much scrutiny.

In my view, art is a way of connecting with God and when I see people purposely squander and disrespect the beauty, I see them attacking God. I will not stand for rebellion against the good.

Sarcasm doesn't come through in print, so if that was intended to be snide, it didn't convey, but I see the possibility. Great artists painted what they saw all the time, but art is also about dreaming and conveying different moods. They don't always paint ugly things if they're surrounded by them, but they don't particularly avoid it, either.

Statistically I am more likely to be an immigrant because of the flag of my post. I’m no tea drinker

fucking classless twat

Attached: General Grevious.jpg (343x307, 14K)

You are one whiny bitch.
Never forget, suicide is always an option.

If that was the case, it wouldn't really be "art", would it? It could still be artistic expression, but true art knows only the limitations of the mind, not pre-ordained guidelines. The very notion goes against everything art is about. It reduces art to a skills competition.

>trying to do something different means you want to destroy the past
?

Gross

He's saying you didn't save the tea drinkers.

>You're not even attempting to debate.
There is no debate. I believe what you intend here is simply a Picasso hate thread, for some reason. It's bizarre that you'd even start a thread about that. Your request is denied.

>depection of horrors of war
>invalid cause of horrors of war

Except we did doom the world and ourselves by beating Germany and letting the ZOG and Communism spread their infection around the world and eventually to us.

And I'm saying you're a nigger lover.

when modern architques destroy ur gothic towers

Yeah ... uhm ... was maybe not the best course of action.

Attached: to_bingo_or_not_to_bingo.jpg (540x303, 35K)

Not sarcasm towards you, more the thread in general. Art is always going to change because artists are influenced by the world around them. The peak of the Renaissance was a world of wealthy Italian city states unspoiled by war and Popes willing to pay unlimited funds to produce the most beautiful pieces of artwork ever seen. I'm sure I could produce something close to as beautiful as the Sistine Chapel too if someone paid me to quit my job and spend the next 4 years doing nothing but painting one piece of artwork everyday.

>being this deep into the closet you need to try to convince yourself via Jow Forums you aren't a total flamer

Attached: The dying gaul.jpg (2049x1300, 315K)

Picasso's problem was that he was a modern guy. He had modern influence. And (((modernity))) in culture is Jewish.

Patton should have done in Germany what MacArthur did in Japan.

Like I said, if you're unhappy about the state of the world you have the power to end it all.
Spare me the weird jewish fantasy about how germany would have saved the world and not fucked it all up like they always do.
Go fuck yourself.

money laudering

I have no doubt that there's shiftiness in pricing modern art, but that doesn't apply to the old masters, and the works of those deserving recognition will be the ones sought after in the future. I have no doubt that there will always be pieces of garbage that someone spent too much money on because a gallery owner squeezed a few hundred grand out of him by touting the brilliance of the burgeoning young artist and his impending greatness, but that isn't the gold standard. Art is still purchased based upon emotional response and demand is generated through the same. Truly boring artists can't command interest no matter who is promoting them.