Talk:Pablo Picasso/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clarification needed

Modernist, I have to question this revert.

When I'm beginning work on an article I haven't touched before, I routinely scan it for low-hanging fruit. For example, I put it to the elegant-variation test. For more information on that, see the essay WP:ELEVAR.

In this case it revealed a few mentions of "the artist" when it is not clear who this refers to. These should be fixable within seconds by someone who is au fait with the article and subject.

There was no need to outright remove the tags. I do not, as you put it in your edit summary, "have a problem with the world artist". Can we clarify these bits of text please? Popcornfud (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above - WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Can you explain why writing "the artist" instead of clearer forms like names and pronouns is better here? The arguments against doing this are outlined in the WP:ELEVAR essay. Note the "director" example in that essay - this article suffers in that regard. Popcornfud (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I was about to revert that edit, when Modernist beat me to it. Note... for the same reason. Coldcreation (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For criminy's sake, you can't just tell people "use common sense" and completely ignore every point they're making. Surely that is common sense. Popcornfud (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If you would like to know who "the artist" is in any particular sentence, read the preceding words or sentence. Coldcreation (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there is a simpler, more concise, more direct way of referring to objects and subjects in sentences. There's no advantage in obfuscating this, and in some cases it harms clarity. The essay explains more about this if you're curious and haven't seen it already. Popcornfud (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Think in terms of the encumbants here, as if some drive by editor made MOS demand on A Moon Shaped Pool, telling you what is what and that you were wrong all along. You said earlier that you like narrative over factfactfact; to us that minset of rigid, rule bound regurgitation of factfactfact is what you are presenting, nay demanding; form (rules) over substance, even for the most significant visual artist of the 20th century. This all might have a nice resolve if you listened to what the editors want convey, and you could greatly assist in the finer points, rather than rule by fiat. To put it another way; i had high hopes all this long week for this Friday about adding content elsewhere, but now this time sink. Please find another hill, I am done with blind arrogance. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh for the love.

I think I've been given a short shrift here. I've made my arguments clearly. At every turn - from the start - I've been told things like "take a hike", "stop wasting our time", and "use common sense". You can bet that if an editor came along and made some reasoned points about a page I'd written that I'd respond to them better than that, whether I agreed with them or not.

This is a brick wall the likes of which I've rarely seen on Wikipedia. I had, believe it or not, hoped to be more than just a "drive-by editor" on this page - which seems to be another way of saying "you haven't worked on this article as much as so you're not really welcome here" - but yes, I will now move onto another hill. Sheesh. Popcornfud (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Total number of artworks

In the section "Style and technique" it is stated "The total number of artworks he produced has been estimated at 50,000, comprising 1,885 paintings; 1,228 sculptures; 2,880 ceramics, roughly 12,000 drawings, many thousands of prints, and numerous tapestries and rugs." which is a direct quote from the reference. However according to Enrique Mallen, the number of paintings and sculptures given (1,885 and 1,228 respectively) only refer to those works in Picasso's estate at his death. Oacdy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

there's an extra "were" in his early life 64.136.207.239 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pablo Picasso and scene painters sitting on the front cloth for Parade (Ballets Russes) at the Théâtre du Châtelet, Paris, 1917, Lachmann photographer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of paintings

According to the article, Picasso produced 1,885 paintings in his lifetime. This estimate comes from John Selfridge. I wonder how accurate this. Other sources on the internet put the number of painting at 13,000 or more. Can we come up with an accurate count somewhere, and how certain are we that Selfridge's estimate is correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.124.210 (talk • contribs) 16:55, July 28, 2021 (UTC)

Presumably, the ultimate source would be the Zervos catalogue raisonné. The numbers given by Selfridge are roughly consistent with the numbers given in Encyclopedia Btitannica and in this Vanity Fair article, where it is specified that the source is the inventory of Picasso's estate. He had little need to sell his works after the 1920s and still owned most of it. Ewulp (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Main image

Coldcreation, it is the same image but without the paper wrinkles from the scan. I fail to see the value in including these wrinkles. --Aitorit (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anixstar25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Picasso was a nonce.

Probably would be fair to mention his suggestive drawing of a thirteen year old girl.

This article seems very whitewashed and doesnt give a very good indication of the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.186.106 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Signature Style of Pablo Picasso

I know it is difficult to put a finger on stylistic choices Pablo Picasso adopted in his career. His career is as diverse and worth envying for any artist. Yet I would like to pinpoint that you can recognize Picasso's work due to the signature style he chose. And that style has a laundry list of things: distorted shapes, unrealistic colours, multiple vantage points in a two-dimensional plane of his paintings. No artist is created in isolation. Picasso was a product of his time. He got his influence in art from Matisse, George Braque, and Mayan and African Tribesmen's Art.

My References Points:

1. Duggan, W. R., Duggan, W. (2013). Strategic Intuition: The Creative Spark in Human Achievement. United States: Columbia University Press.

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Strategic_Intuition/ylGrAgAAQBAJ?hl=en

1. As If Art Matters. (n.d.). (n.p.): (n.p.). https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/As_If_Art_Matters/aXHG9jhc1HMC?hl=en&gbpv=0
2. Saunders, W. R., Haas, G. J. (2005). The Cydonia Codex: Reflections from Mars. United States: North Atlantic Books. (please mention why it is not a good source for this edit. It would help me a lot.)

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Cydonia_Codex/VQTOD5mCXYUC?hl=en&gbpv=0

What are the references we are looking at? Please Guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriChinmaya (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Cydonia Codex is not only not an art history book, it is pure pseudoscience and shouldn't be used anywhere as a serious source for anything. Fram (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd just like to point out that his early work didn't consist of "Distorted shapes, unrealistic colours, multiple vantage points", It was only until his blue period that he began experimenting with color. A small few of Olga's portraits in the "Return to order" period are also fairly naturalistic. Loopitywoop (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank You, Sir. I will keep that in my mind for my future edits on Wikipedia. One more question if you can guide me further...How do I find a reliable source? I found this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources but what should be the rule of thumb for striking out pseudo and non-serious sources from my citations in my current and next edits?

SriSriChinmaya (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC) SriSriChinmaya ([[User talk:SriSriChinmaya|talk]))

Picasso

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War 23.88.217.135 (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he's mentioned at Spanish Civil War. Just like Spanish Civil War is mentioned here. So what are you proposing? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Picasso unknown life in Algeria

Hi This is to announce that Spanish Artist Pablo Ruiz PICASSO lived in Algeria between 1930 and 1938. He used to live in coastal city called Bejaia , spent most of his time there and even married an Algerian woman whom he had a daughter with.

Pablo Ruiz Picasso painted several art works while in Algeria and they are not known / listed in public records.

We have evidence of his marriage certificate in Algeria , personal belongings and pictures of many of his ark works. AAKHALEF (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox missing awards section

Considering that Pablo Picasso received the Stalin/Lenin Peace Prize, it should probably be mentioned in the infobox. Aankom (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Bob Ross reference

Should make it say "was produced quickly" not "was intended to be mass-produced quickly". Bob Ross makes each painting by hand so by definition not mass-produced. 2600:1700:410:6020:3CEF:891C:B97:8F8F (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

1891 A Coruna

Can you add: "In A Coruña, the boy began to draw pretty much all the time. His sketchbooks include quickly recorded Galician scenes as well as portraits and studies of family members." Source: https://cosmopolis.ch/picasso-the-women-in-his-life/ , Nov. 2, 2022. Based on "Picasso. The Women in His Life: A Tribute", Hirmer Publishers, 2022. 213.138.238.128 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

102.119.195.143 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found a mistake and want to correct it but it is fine if you don't want me to correct it. Good day and good bye

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Nu assis v Nue assise

For the picture on the right side of the section Neoclassicism and surrealism: 1919–1929 the English title has correctly Seated Nude Drying her Foot. But the French version Nu assis s'essuyant le pied is nonsense, because the depicted clearly is a woman and neither a man nor a queer. 2001:9E8:268:D900:D0C9:4979:F37A:23B5 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2023 and 6 October 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EMiap (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EMiap (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential justification for Picasso's abusive behaviour

"The women in Picasso's life played an important role in the emotional and erotic aspects of his creative expression, and the tumultuous nature of these relationships has been considered vital to his artistic process. Many of these women functioned as muses for him, and their inclusion in his extensive oeuvre granted them a place in art history"

This could be interpreted as a justification for his abusive behaviour. I began reading midway through the paragraph and returned to the beginning, which did contribute to the impression. Moltengold-surprise (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree and it really should be edited imo. And seems to be complete interpretation of the editor itself since I don't see such concept in the cited source.

I propose to remove the phrase: "and their inclusion in his extensive oeuvre granted them a place in art history" which doesn't give any more info and just seems to insinuate that these persons should be happy to have been abused.

And maybe changing the phrase:

"and the tumultuous nature of these relationships has been considered vital to his artistic process"

to:

"and the tumultuous nature of these relationships has been considered as a key role to understand his artistic process"

And maybe, since it is a key to understand the art of Picasso, adding a line about this in the introduction? Zenowlsd (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)