John Singer Sargent, Short Analysis

Intro

First, a few opinions on Picasso; derived from a conversation I had with an acquaintance.

Intriguing philosophy. I had to read that several times over before I could think of anything appropriate to say. And truly, what's bizarre I've noticed about his artwork is the way his style changed with time, as if to match the period-this wasn't always the case, such as when he reverted back to a more surrealist style and abstract again. I wouldn't say he was exactly conforming to the time, but either way the inconsistency makes for a interesting inspection of the work. I remember watching a documentary not long ago about this madman who called Picasso's work a "falsehood of great art" or something of the sort when a museum wouldn't display his sculptures, but with this newfound knowledge I sort of disagree. There's a lot to it, not just nonsensical patterns and pointless scribbling critics have directed to having a meaning. Really something else. Even myself has thought that the masters of art were always famous for no other reason than having a lot of technical skill, but no, it's clearly much deeper than that!

I think the odd perspectives also contribute to the unreal quality of some of the art, such as when I was examining this piece I noticed that the viewpoint was upward on the body yet the face remains front-view, much like the original image. It's a strange choice, but I refuse to believe something like that is a mistake, it just seems unlikely. On the late 1800s work, you can clearly see the image looks normal. It begs the question if his perception of art changed, or if the change of style was really so minuscule he purposely tried to stray from realism.