2006-08-28 18:56:38 · 6 answers · asked by sandra k 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
sacred and profane
2006-09-05 07:30:31 · answer #1 · answered by anotherthirteen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was an innovator who took chances and got lucky in that he could sell his work-I'm not particularly fond of most of his work, though I can appreciate what he was trying to say. Most people aren't aware that he was a representational artist early in his career(as opposed to the popular view of him as a cubist painter). An examination of his earlier works would reveal that he was academically trained and could paint representational pieces quite well. My only real point of contention with him was that he used inferior quality paint and materials while charging exorbitant amounts for the works- which will not stand the test of time, and in fact, some of the pieces he painted are already in a bad state of deterioration. That puts a bad taste in the mouth of one who has paid top dollar for a work.
I also understand that he was a harsh and cruel man to those around him.
2006-09-01 18:31:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He has a point of view a little bit different from our regular point of view.... a deeper, and square one.
mmm... ok, I really don't know but I like his paintings
2006-09-05 15:25:11 · answer #3 · answered by ladybug_abyta 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like any artist, some people loved him and some people hated him.
Some loved his new innovative style, he did help invent cubism after all, but some people thought it was crude, childlike and not art at all!
2006-08-30 17:58:59 · answer #4 · answered by laura_ghill 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great artist. I like.
2006-09-01 07:42:47 · answer #5 · answered by Gordis 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personally, i like his side view.
2006-09-03 13:10:52 · answer #6 · answered by freddy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋