JaZzArt en València

WHO IS THE GREATEST PAINTER OF ALL TIME?

Well, it could be said that it may be Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519)…
Art history has emphasised that he is the ultimate synthesis of art and science. And furthermore, and these are simply facts, that his Mona Lisa (to me a second rate portrait), and The Last Supper (phenomenal but badly done and due to that it is almost totally deteriorated), are among the most studied and reproduced images on Earth.

It has also been said (mostly by “experts”, good grief!) that he transformed painting into a form of intellectual inquiry. That he was able to merge light, anatomy, spirit and mystery into his paintings successfully.
And finally “experts” simply conclude that he was a genius.

I do not think he was a genius. I think he was a painter of his time and that there were probably many other “Leonardos” in abundance during the Renaissance, especially in Italy. He was not, in my opinion, the author of intellectual inquiry. And reference merging light, anatomy, spirit and mystery to create, well, allow me to introduce you to the real master, Sandro Botticelli, the author of La Nascita di Venere (The Birth of Venus). And let me add that Leonardo was also a bit lazy. Most of his paintings are unfinished and many times he had been commissioned, and paid, to create either a painting or a sculpture and he would leave the job either half done or not at all. Is that the work of a genius? I do not think so…

And The Mona Lisa, definitely not his best portrait and it would not have become so famous had it not been stolen. After the theft the “marketing” campaign created the mystique and after it was recovered the museum sent the painting on a world tour to ensure its fame. If you really want to admire a great Leonardo portrait take a look at “Lady With An Ermine” totally superior to The Mona Lisa.

Now, if we mean the most “famous” painter in art history, one might say it is Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890)…
His life story, along with his art, was woven into a myth. He was the mad painter, victim of suffering and of course his death made him a martyr, and martyrs sell. They (“experts”) say that the struggle, the passion, the vision. I don’t buy it, and it reminds me of another artist, one that I do not like, because I do like and admire van Gogh, which is Frida Kahlo…

Art historians claim that his style, i.e. his use of colour and of “swirling emotion” changed the language of painting forever. Well, perhaps, but the language of painting has been changing and by his day, it had changed much and still is. So that is nothing so big that it can elevate him to that level.
Finally they claim that he put his soul into his work. I would remind the “experts” that most good painters have done that and still do.

So I would conclude that Vincent van Gogh was a great painter and a reference to all artists that study art history. And if you are, or aspire to be, an artist you must study art history. But to me he is not the most famous painter in art history.

But if we mean to say the “most influential painter on modern art”, without a doubt it would be Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)…
Picasso was the true genius of art. He totally reinvented painting and opened the door for all the other painters of the 20th Century. When he invented cubism he created a new way of expression on the canvas that allowed for all the other art vanguards of the 20th Century to come forth. He did not create surrealism, or abstract art, but his break with tradition and classicism allowed others to become surrealists, expressionists, or abstract artists. His innovations even allowed for the clear and unequivocal development of realism and ultra-realism.

Picasso worked tirelessly. His incredible body of work proves that he was the consummate professional of art. He delved into sculpture, poetry, theatre, set and costume design and let us not forget that he invented the collage.
Picasso was the true revolutionary of art.

So, who is the greatest painter in history? Well, you tell me. But, to not let you wondering, here are a few contenders:

• Michelangelo – unmatched in power and divine drama.
• Rembrandt – master of human light and introspection.
• Claude Monet – father of Impressionism and modern vision.
• Caravaggio – light and darkness turned into revelation.
• Diego Velázquez – painter of truth before photography existed.
• Francisco de Goya – Arguably the first modern painter.

CHEERS

Was he a child prodigy? Did he show signs of being a genius even as a child? I don’t really think so at all, but you decide…

Cheers…

A truly hard working, prolific artist. In 1973 there were about 45,000 unsold works in his estate. The catalogue raisonné compiled by Christian Zervos, lists more than 16,000 paintings and drawings in total for the artist. And he painted them all himself, he did not use workers hired to finish what he started or simply touched up, like so many modern artists nowadays do.

I truly would advice any art lover, art collector and especially art students and emerging artists, to look further, to read biographies of artists and to search, experiment, and work, hard, real hard. That is the only way to develop talent.

Cheers…

THE TIMELESS CIRCLE OF MASTERS
(of art)

Usually most people think of the great masters of the Renaissance when asked about their favourite artist. Others look more to the recent past or even to the present. But knowledge of art history is very sketchy among most people and even among many artists who have not gained from the vast amount of knowledge that art history contains. So, the solution is to study art history?

Well, yes, but no, not necessarily. You can subscribe to my blog and to my YouTube channel (www.YouTube.com/@FranciscoBravo Cabrera) and I think you will learn enough. That is if you are simply a lover of art. But if you are, or aspire to be, an artist, then you should study art history, as well as painting, drawing and other techniques. Education and preparation is essential for an artist.

So, let us look at what I am calling the “timeless circle of masters.” These are greats that not many dispute their inclusion in such a special group:

Leonardo da Vinci – mindful, experimental, the searcher
Michelangelo – impetuous, powerful, indefatigable worker, mystic
Rembrandt van Rijn – light and human truth.
Diego Velázquez – visionary, technical perfection, spiritual quest
Johannes Vermeer – seeking the light and its impact on the world and people
Francisco de Goya – painter of reason, nightmare and social criticism
Claude Monet – the birth of perception as art.
Vincent van Gogh – emotion as flame and colour as the medium
Pablo Picasso – inventing new ways to create, innovations, the search without end

I would say, unequivocally, that all of these, (whether I like them or not), redefined the meaning of a painting, or what painting was before them. They did not only work through their good taste and the search for beauty but of art being.

Here are some more that some art historians would probably add to the above “super” group:

• Caravaggio – light, darkness, and violence turned into revelation
• Frida Kahlo – capitalising on being a “martyr”
• Sandro Botticelli – a true maser of light, colour, image and greatness
• Salvador Dalí – self-agrandising, narcissist, non-genius who called himself a genius

And although these painters are now famous, some of them were not famous in their time, although some, like Velázquez and Goya excelled in the courts of kings and Michelangelo was commissioned by popes to decorate churches…

Some would say, and I would agree, that fame is only the faintest reflection of what truly matters in art…

Most of the “greats” did not live to chase recognition. On the contrary, their search, their quest was for truth, light, and the feeling of art, and used a canvas, or a wall, to find themselves within that search. Painting is seeing, and one must see with honesty and if you accomplish that, then you will walk the same path of the great ones even if only a few people know your name, or no one at all. As an artist you add colour to the world and things that did not exist before you picked up a brush, dipped it in paint and placed it on a surface. And that is no small thing. It is a search and it is the expression of what you found.

I have heard it say that, «Art is the quiet echo of the soul made visible. It asks nothing but attention, and in return, it teaches us how to see ourselves and the world anew.» I can subscribe to this statement only if I can add that art is also an academic/professional pursuit which demands of the student/artist education, preparation, discipline and good taste. And also the hunger to exhibit, sell and live off of his art. Art, can also, like a soft brushstroke across still water, stay with you if you let it…

So you, yes, you, what are you chasing in art?

CHEERS

En primer lugar vamos a colocarnos en un punto neutro, sin juzgar. Pablo Picasso nació en 1881, o sea, en el Siglo XIX, y vivió gran parte del S. XX, pues murió en 1973. ¿Entendéis? No es producto de estos tiempos gobernados por los que quieren que todo sea «correcto políticamente» o «políticamente correcto» y otras chorradas. Que era un maltratador y abusador, bueno, quizás, pero ninguna de sus mujeres (supuestas víctimas) alguna vez se quejaron de maltratos. Al contrario, a todas las mantenía muy bien y ninguna, salvo Françoise Gilot, quiso separarse jamás de él Asi que querer ahora desprestigiar a un artista muerto, a un artista considerado el genio del Siglo XX, creador del cubismo, del collage y de la pintura libre de las tantas restricciones que existían, es la cosa mas ridícula, aún entre las tantas ridiculeces de estos tiempos. Que casualidad que en ninguna otra época, ni el los 60, ni en los 70, 80, 90, 2000, a nadie se le ocurrió salir a decir que hay que echar a Picasso a un lado porque maltrato a sus mujeres. Vaya estupidez tan ruin de los que suelen marcar las pautas de esta época neo-puritana y dictatorial. Estos buscan imponer una moral estricta, extrema y rígida. Lo único que les falta es resucitar la Santa Inquisición, pero esta vez en lugar de ser santa seria feminista para impone la rectitud ideológica y el afán por cancelar al que no entre por el aro. Y ahora hasta los pintores y artistas han caído en su censura. Vaya mierda de praxis…

+++

First of all, let’s position ourselves at a neutral point, without judgment. Pablo Picasso was born in 1881, that is, in the 19th century, and lived most of the 20th century, as he died in 1973. Do you understand? He is not a product of these times governed by those who want everything to be «politically correct» or «correct politically» and other nonsense. Was he an abuser and a mistreater? Well, perhaps, but none of his women (supposed victims) ever complained about mistreatment. On the contrary, he took very good care of all of them and none, except Françoise Gilot, ever wanted to separate from him. So wanting to discredit a deceased artist, an artist considered the genius of the 20th century, the creator of cubism, collage, and who freed painting from the many restrictions that existed, is the most ridiculous thing, even among the many absurdities of these times. How coincidental that in no other era, neither in the 60s, nor in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, did anyone think to say that Picasso should be side-lined because he mistreated his women. What a vile stupidity from those who strive to set the standards of this neo-puritanical and dictatorial era. They seek to impose a strict, extreme, and rigid morality. The only thing missing is to resurrect the Holy Inquisition, but this time instead of being holy, it would be feminist to impose ideological correctness and the zeal to cancel anyone who does not conform. And now even painters and artists have fallen into their censorship. Who’s next? Neandertals who were «macho men»?

GRACIAS – CHEERS

I think a lot of you missed this one and it is a good one as Pablo Picasso is one of the most important figures in Art History…

CHEERS

En primer lugar vamos a colocarnos en un punto neutro, sin juzgar. Pablo Picasso nació en 1881, o sea, en el Siglo XIX, y vivió gran parte del S. XX, pues murió en 1973. ¿Entendéis? No es producto de estos tiempos gobernados por los que quieren que todo sea «correcto políticamente» o «políticamente correcto» y otras chorradas. Que era un maltratador y abusador, bueno, quizás, pero ninguna de sus mujeres (supuestas víctimas) alguna vez se quejaron de maltratos. Al contrario, a todas las mantenía muy bien y ninguna, salvo Françoise Gilot, quiso separarse jamás de él Asi que querer ahora desprestigiar a un artista muerto, a un artista considerado el genio del Siglo XX, creador del cubismo, del collage y de la pintura libre de las tantas restricciones que existían, es la cosa mas ridícula, aún entre las tantas ridiculeces de estos tiempos. Que casualidad que en ninguna otra época, ni el los 60, ni en los 70, 80, 90, 2000, a nadie se le ocurrió salir a decir que hay que echar a Picasso a un lado porque maltrato a sus mujeres. Vaya estupidez tan ruin de los que suelen marcar las pautas de esta época neo-puritana y dictatorial. Estos buscan imponer una moral estricta, extrema y rígida. Lo único que les falta es resucitar la Santa Inquisición, pero esta vez en lugar de ser santa seria feminista para impone la rectitud ideológica y el afán por cancelar al que no entre por el aro. Y ahora hasta los pintores y artistas han caído en su censura. Vaya mierda de praxis…

+++

First of all, let’s position ourselves at a neutral point, without judgment. Pablo Picasso was born in 1881, that is, in the 19th century, and lived most of the 20th century, as he died in 1973. Do you understand? He is not a product of these times governed by those who want everything to be «politically correct» or «correct politically» and other nonsense. Was he an abuser and a mistreater? Well, perhaps, but none of his women (supposed victims) ever complained about mistreatment. On the contrary, he took very good care of all of them and none, except Françoise Gilot, ever wanted to separate from him. So wanting to discredit a deceased artist, an artist considered the genius of the 20th century, the creator of cubism, collage, and who freed painting from the many restrictions that existed, is the most ridiculous thing, even among the many absurdities of these times. How coincidental that in no other era, neither in the 60s, nor in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, did anyone think to say that Picasso should be side-lined because he mistreated his women. What a vile stupidity from those who strive to set the standards of this neo-puritanical and dictatorial era. They seek to impose a strict, extreme, and rigid morality. The only thing missing is to resurrect the Holy Inquisition, but this time instead of being holy, it would be feminist to impose ideological correctness and the zeal to cancel anyone who does not conform. And now even painters and artists have fallen into their censorship. Who’s next? Neandertals who were «macho men»?

GRACIAS – CHEERS

Pedir perdón por admirar a Picasso, en mi opinión es una reverenda idiotez y algo muy típico de estos tiempos raros. Hoy en día se quiere ser progresista, secular y tan moderno pero… son más papistas que el Papa y más puritano que los peregrinos del Mayflower.

¡Yo no pido perdón! Soy admirador de Picasso y lo seré siempre y me paso por el forro de las narices a los que se avergüenzan por admirar al pintor más grande de la pintura moderna.

Hay que ser muy ruin para juzgar a un hombre del Siglo XIX y XX con los principios del Siglo XXI. Además, ninguna de las mujeres de Picasso se quejaron.

GRACIAS

Watercolour background for a foreground of expressionist jazzart…

Acuarela abstracta detrás de figuración expresionista y jazzista…

CHEERS – GRACIAS

A drawing is a painting with less elements, said Matisse. I agree.

Visit our social media:

Instagram: @Francisco_Bravo_Cabrera

YouTube: http://www.YouTube.com/@FranciscoBravoCabrera

X: @Euskadi_Bakero

CHEERS