Thank you Obadiah for that interpretation. As portraits go, the Picasso leaves me cold. Harsh lines and bright colours in a cartoon-like style. It is devoid of any human traits that I could empathize with. In contrast, below are two modern paintings by the relatively young Russian artist Dimitriy Lisichenko. For me they ooze sensuality and ask a million questions about the young ladies they portray but unlike the Picasso, they are conventional in style. Honestly, if I had six grand to spare, I would run out and purchase one of these. If I had hundreds of millions to spare, I still would't be enticed to acquire the Picasso.
Congratulations on connecting two distinct paintings separated by time of creation of 25 years or so. Still, that is about as good an explanation as any that I can find on the net!!! Keep them coming. Butterflies Hurricanes Chaos Theory? - not getting the connection with Picasso's paintings.
Abso-frickin-lutely. Picasso and Modigliani could both be and were fairly good traditional artist/painters when they chose to be, but the money was in the bizarre crap for which, for reasons beyond my ken, they are both still famous. Give me Rubens, Hals, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Constable, ..., any day of the week. Haven't got many of their originals on my bog wall yet, though.
Thanks Ullofaman. I prefer the two paintings by Lisichenko but not enough to buy them. The second one contains hints of impressionism and Van Gogh in the background. Both of the young women look passive and bored. The harsh lines and bright colours of Picasso indicate boldness and vitality. It's the blue flower and block of flats that ruin it. Based on the pictures, an evening with the women in the Picasso would be a lot more interesting than an evening with the ones in the Lisichenko. All my opinion of course. My grandson is coming to visit shortly so the café painting may have to wait until tomorrow. Of the two Picasso's I prefer it so it requires a bit more thought to explain why.
