Picasso Portraits analysis.

I did some content analysis of the Picasso Portraits exhibition. It was a huge exhibition so I restricted the range by deciding to only look at images that included women (this was over half the images).  I was predisposed to believe Picasso was disrespectful towards women, because of art history lectures I had listened to. I set rules to decide whether the images were respectful or disrespectful to women, by whether the women were sexualised.  My definition of sexualised was whether the woman was clothed or not, whether other people in the image were clothed when she was not, whether the erogenous areas were displayed.

I was surprised how many different media and styles Picasso used - charcoal, oil, magazine collage, bronze, sheet metal, cubism, classical portraiture - throughout his career.

No	Image/description	Respectful	Disrespectful
1.	Angel Fernandez and a woman. 1905 Male clothed, female nude.  Fingering a prostitute and an erection.		X
2.	Sebastian Junyer; Vidal.  1906 Man with sad prostitute wearing low top and flower in mouth.		X
3.	Head of a Woman. Bronze. 1906 Aloof serenity of classical goddess	X
4.	Fernande Olivier (lover). 1906 Head and shoulders.  No gaze	X
5.	Fernande Olivier. 1905/6.  Wearing mantilla.  Wistful feminine mystery.  Symbolism. No gaze	X
6.	Fernande Olivier. 1909-10 Cubist head. Head and shoulders.  No gaze.	X
7.	Head of a woman.  Bronze 1909.  No gaze.  Model was depressed.	X
8.	Picasso in a Top Hat. 1901. Male self clothed, 2 women half naked, 1 clothed.  Inspired by Lautrec		X
9.	Olga Khaklova in an Armchair.  1918. Full length.  Clothed	X
10.	Olga Picasso.  1923  Full length.  Clothed.  1st prize Carnegie Intl Exhibition, Pittsburgh.  Hint at estrangement – disnified, subtle and classified.	X
11.	Olga and Paolo (son) 1921. Humour for those he loved.  Mother and son clothed.  Caricatured and chunky.	X
12.	Olga in a Fur Collar.  1923 Head & shoulders.  Clothed	X
13.	Woman in a Hat. 1935.  Head and shoulders. End of marriage.  Dark eyes, small pursed mouth, pale skin – mocks the chic hat.  Sad and bewildered expression.  Ashen and mask-like. Barbed but also pitiful.		X?

14.	Jaume Sabartes and Sylvia Lopez. 1958. Collage drawn on magazine image. Female in swimwear ; man clothed, praying and worshipping her		X
15.	Jaume Sabartes and Esther Williams. 1957.  Collage/magazine.  Man clothed, grasping breasts and pouting.  Woman in swimwear given hair under arms and weeds growing in pubic region		X
16.	Jaume Sabartes as a baby, kissing a model.  1962.  Collage on newspaper.  “He’s at it again”.		X
17.	Jaume Sabartes and his neighbor. 1957.  Male nude, female nude.  Prostitute in boots and smoking.		X
18.	Woman in a Yellow Armchair.  Marie Therese.  Huge white breasts, full bodied, sinister and oppressive.		X ?
19.	Woman with Joined Hands. 1938.  Marie Therese.  Half length. Curvaceous lines – her nature. Bosoms and nipples.		X
20.	Nusch Eluard.  1938.  Ethereal, lightweight, thin and bony.  Acrobat.	X
21.	Dora Maar. 1938. Intelligent and tempermental.  Caricature – head larger – recognises her intellect?	X
22.	Marie Therese.  1931. Bronze.  Head.  Curvaceous.	X
23.	Lee Miller.  1937. Half length	X
24.	Nusch Eluard.  1937  Head and shoulders.	X
25	Maya in a Sailor Suit.  1938. To please his daughter – in a childlike style	X
26.	Jacqueline in a black scarf. 1954. Half length.  Spanish dress.  Sensual pleasure in flushed face. Dimple on chin.  Calm and relaxed	X
27.	Woman by a window. 1956.  Jacqueline – muse and companion.  Angular/sinister	X
28.	Head of a Woman.  1941.  Dora Maar. Huge.	X
29.	Woman in a Hat.  1941. Half length. Dora Maar.   Psychological stress and distortion.	X
30.	Madame Paul Eluard. 1941. Vulnerable waif.  Naked.  Half length	X ?
31.	Woman in an Armchair. 1949. Francois Gilot.  Plant-like form.	X
32.	Woman in an Armchair.  1947. Francois Gilot.  Pregnant, with red triangle.	X ?
33.	Paloma and doll.  1952.  Tattooed face.  Menacing.  Relationship failing.		X
34.	Claude drawing.  1954. Son, plus his sister and mother.  Fascination of children drawing – he was not allowed to draw ‘as a child’.  Happy.	X
35.	Las Meninas.  1957  The Infanta as Paloma	X
36.	The Madam – Abortionist, 3 prostitutes and Degas.  1971. 3 nude women and clothed madam, and clothed Degas as voyeur.		X
37.	Raphael and 4 Marina. 1968.  Male virility.  Man clothed and woman nude.  Fecundity to mistress.  Peeping pope.		X
38.	Rembrandt drawing in the style of Rembrandt.  1934.  Man clothed, woman nude.		X
39.	Sylvette.  1954.  Sheet metal.  Head & shoulders.	X
40.	Jacqueline with a Yellow Ribbon.  1962. Head & shoulders.	X
41.	Dora Maar. 1937 Head & shoulders.	X
42.	Marie Therese.  1935.  Head & shoulders.  Upward looking	X
43.	Nusch. 1937.  Head & shoulders on a napkin.	X
44.	Jacqueline.  1955.  Full length.	X
		31	13

I was very surprised at how many of the images of women were what I would call Respectful towards women.  There were some truly vulgar images (e.g. No 1.).  A lot of his portraits were in traditional poses - e.g. head and shoulders or posed sitting in an armchair.  There were also images disrespectful towards women which were quick cartoons on magazine pages which were probably created as informal sketches, rather than planned portraiture.  I wondered whether the curation of the exhibition had deliberately screened out a lot of the disrespectful images - I remember one (in Tate Modern, I think) of a woman with a large bright green vagina, painted when he was impotent in later life, according to the museum guide.  In conclusion, the Picasso Portraits exhibition indicated he was more respectful towards women than I had expected. 

So where does this analysis take me?  When women are naked in imagery and other people portrayed are clothed there is a difference in status.  I read this as disrespecting women.  There is also relevance in the gaze when people are portrayed clothed or naked.  I need to read more around this.  

I am creating Values and Status sketchbooks about my own work and they include naked silhouettes of me.  I do not think they are sexualised or disrespectful in any way - they merely portray what a naked middle-aged woman looks like.  But one of our tutors was definitely uncomfortable about it.  I am still considering what makes a nude image become sexualised (and therefore unacceptable in what I am trying to portray).  At present, I think it is about the gaze, focus on/realism in erogenous zones, and recognition of the individual.  So my naked self silhouettes are acceptable.  I may change my mind!

Reading - David Bohm - On Creativity, 1968

For creative people across a diversity of disciplines (science, art, media) the usefulness of their work is a secondary interest.  Something else is primary.  Bohm questions whether

1. the scientist wants to predict natural phenomena to be able to participate intelligently in nature's process - yet the content of each piece of research is, in itself, actually quite trivial.
2. the scientist likes to solve puzzles as the challenge of explaining a natural process by showing how it works - yet the realisation that ideas are false or wrong leads to disappointment and failure.

Neither of these stacks up.  The scientist is seeking more than pleasure - rather the discovery of new knowledge, of a fundamental significance.  To do this the researcher has to create structure, instruments, testing, and disclosure.

A structure of ideas to demonstrate their harmony and relationship to each other
Instruments that measure in order to aid perception and understanding.
Testing methods to review ideas for truth or falsity
Disclosure of new and unexpected findings.

To be original, the researcher needs to identify how to prevent the imposition of preconceptions on facts as seen.  This means ideas and suppositions valued by the researcher may be overturned.  Small children habitually try something out, find out what happens, and modify/repeat in order to learn.  By school age learning taken on a narrower meaning.  Schooling uses repetition to gain knowledge in order to please a teacher and pass exams.  The workplace does the same.  So  the ability to see something new and original is atrophied.  Learning needs to be a constant in order for links to be seen between diverse situations, and this frame of mind can lead towards new knowledge.  Schooling also trains students not to make mistakes, yet this is where the new insight is often found.  Fear of mistakes is stilting and restrictive.

The competent researcher needs to be observant and sensitive in the creative situation.  Real originality and creativity requires a search to identify the differences between actual fact and one's preconceived notions. I think this thought is critical to my worries about my cross stitch samplers not being original.  Although they are a very traditional form, which can be said to paint a portrait of the maker, I don't think I have seen any with the values and skills portrayed in the way I want to do mine.  I need to refine my perception of what is new and different in my work from what I have gained from previous knowledge.

Bohm asks a good question "What is characteristic of the results of creative action?" i.e. scientific theory, artwork, building, parenting.  There is a need to distinguish between the occasional act and the discovery of something truly new and creative.  A creation of a new basic order with potential significance in a broad and rich field.

Bohm notes the importance of noting similarities and differences.  By becoming aware of patterns in specific disciplines, one may notice similarities and differences in other fields that emulate them.  This leads to the application of ideas in new contexts.  Eg Archimedes principle that the volume of an object, was the same as the volume of water displaced by submerging it in water.  This pattern of original thought is stunted by western schooling as it creates a conformist, imitative, mechanical state of mind designed to pass standardised exams.    Also the inclination to enquire into the unknown, threatens the successful achievement of narrow and limited goals.  New steps may fail altogether.  The acceptance of this potential failure is essential to the creative environment.

The key is in the mindset of the individual.  Schooling trains people to be mechanical when creativity is what is needed.   In 21st century fast-paced change, creative people are able to accommodate the new; mechanical people are not.  Deep and far-reaching problems can be solved in any field by people who are able to respond in a new and creative way.  However, each person has to discover what it means to be original and creative.  This is hard work, and will involve stages of failure.  The health of the mind requires us to be creative. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the first step, to define their own meaning of creativity.  Working to someone else's definition of creativity is a waste of time.

Centuries of schooling have educated us to believe everything can be achieved by technique and method.  But originality and creativity are not among these.  Having your own definition of creativity and following it is the route to originality.