You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Could Picasso Draw Better than Raphael?
 

The life drawings Picasso produced in the course of his training amply confirm that his studies of classical works failed to give him that grasp of anatomical structure which is central to the classical tradition. A full-length life drawing of a nude black man, shown in three-quarter view with arms crossed, is symptomatic. Among other faults, anatomical features lack structural definition; geometric relationships, as between the figure's rather too diminutive buttock and the head, are not clarified as they should be. Like the Ilissus drawing, with which it was loaned by the Museu Picasso in Barcelona for the Reinventing Tradition exhibition, this life study is most impressive as an exercise in graphic rather than sculptural technique.

There was thus a much stronger naturalistic strain in Picasso's formal training than is commonly realised. That training, in contrast to the old academic system, was pictorially rather than sculpturally oriented. It was more preoccupied with light and the surface effects it produces than with the underlying structure of the figure. Had that not been the case, Picasso would not have failed to communicate the structure of Vollard's face and hands in his laboriously detailed portrait. So the contrast between the "classical" studies Picasso produced as a student and the remarkable portraits he produced on his own in a naturalistic, verista manner is a genre issue, nothing more.

Simplistic shapes (think of the dumbed-down shoulder in the Ilissus study), generic or schematic outlines and tonal gradation remained central to Picasso's draughtsmanship after he forsook the academy. These core components of Bargue's E-Z Method he routinely combined with graphic pyrotechnics of one kind or another. It is not an exaggeration to say that Picasso made a Modernist virtue of the defects in his academic training.

A Picasso self-portrait in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, expressionistically rendered in black chalk and watercolour when he was 20, again calls the Cours to mind. The face, bordered by a thick mane of hair above and a striped cravat below, is blocked out in rigid lines, like a preliminary schematic outline in one of Bargue's how-to plates. The simple design consigned much of one side of his face to shadow — Step 2 in the Bargue method — though here the shadow is very crudely indicated. The facial features were rather hazily sketched in, their tonal qualities clearly indicating photography's influence. And that's Step 3. He had recently taken a similar approach in a number of the portraits he had produced for his first exhibition at the Els Quatre Gats café in Barcelona.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Chaszz
May 31st, 2012
2:05 PM
Ingres was no 'Ingres' either in many ways. Although he preached the classical verities, he relentlessly flattened the space in his best pictures like an Italian medieval painter, or like Picasso in 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.' There is the famous Ingres 'Grand Odalisque' with a face that is a flattened combination of profile and three-quarters view (eerily presaging Picasso's portraits) and the anatomically wrong five extra vertebrae. The pose is also impossible for a human being to assume and looks it. When Ingres was most enamored of tradition, as in his 'Apotheosis of Homer' or 'The Vow of Louis XIII,' he was sugary, sentimental and boring. His most powerful paintings are those like his portraits and nudes where the space is flattened into seeming relief rather than sculpture in the round. These are full of energy and are prescient of the spatial flattening in modern painting, where the formal primacy of the flat picture plane came to be widely asserted.

Toronto
May 31st, 2012
12:05 PM
While Picasso is no Ingres, there are a few unfairnesses in the article. A better sample of some of the mid-1910s drawings would show that Picasso was actually aware of -- and drew carefully -- the bone structure and 3-d outline of the figure (since we see binocularly but are trying to draw 2-d, a good artist gives the feeling of roundedness in his or her lines), which is not what you would get from Bargue. It's also not clear that Picasso was all that absorbed in the gradients of light and shadow, which you would think would be part of the "takeaway" of the so-called photographic approach -- no one has ever suggested Picasso was a painter of light and shadow. It is interesting (as the author intimates) that Picasso did have an entry into what we would now call Gestalts -- he can evoke the human face and body from the slightest cues, which is part of his enduring power. This is obviously a mixture of the Spanish romanesque, icons, Africa, Cezanne, etc. It would be interesting to work out in more detail why this was so. In the current exhibition in Toronto there is reference made to a recurring dream Picasso had of his body parts getting huge and then getting small, and the same happening to others.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.