Pablo and the Ladies of Avignon

Damn Pablo Picasso. In the words of famous comedian Chris Rock, he is like "the uncle that molested you as a child yet paid for your college tuition." After some recent studies in African art and culture, this is how I feel every time someone mentions "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon." It is a curious work for me that keeps growing in significance the more and more I study art history. In that reason I find the genius of Picasso, in that 100 years after the creation of the work, we are still talking about it and trying to get in the mind of the artist. It is considered the pioneering work of the cubist movement, the style of spontaneous compulsive painting, yet to me it is very contemplative conceptually. It also makes me ponder the question- why incorporate prominent works of great social significance in African society in a painting so repulsive in subject matter to western society that the painting stayed shelved for 17 years after it's initial exhibition? What does that say about Western thought of the African people in 1907? That they are primitive in nature and no better than the the age old profession of prostitution? That they are second rate citizens of the world on a global scale to their western counterparts?  These are questions that should not be dismissed lightly when we look at the painting below:

Picasso has denied incorporating African society masks into his painting. Why would he give prominence to a primitive society like that? Keep in mind we are not too far removed from Darwin's theory of social evolution when this painting is created. But in looking at the work, there is no denying he saw ancient Chowke masks, a society from the modern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. The figure on the far right incorporates similar imagery to masks found in that society(below):

But while I may condemn Picasso for his racial overtones, I cannot openly call him a racist. I do not know what was on his mind when he incorporated the masks into his paintings. Was he attacking the ignorance of the French Avant Garde concerning the underlying beauty of a culture being ravaged by colonialism? Was his painting an attack on the atrocities being committed on the African continent for the pleasure and benefit of the rich back home, similar to what was happening in brothels in Paris? One will never know.  And what if he had never incorporated the masks in his painting? Would we be talking about the Chowke society as a comparison? Definitely not. Call it what you will, but this painting put African art and cultural artifacts on the map. I truly believe that many works of Africa would remain  lost art if not for one of the most influential painters of our  generation validating it's significance. So in summary, it is through exploitation that an art from Africa has gained significance. But, is that really any different than any pioneering work by an artist? Would there have ever been a Michael Jackson, for example, if there had not been a Sammy Davis Jr. or James Brown? So thank you Pablo, even though it is my opinion the African inclusion was meant to be exploitative, it has opened a new intrigue toward works on the continent and continues to build on their prominence, which in my eyes seems pretty ironic. Until next time -

The Fascination with Aelita Andre- Prodigy or Passing Fad?

As we all know, the world of contemporary art is a fickle thing. There are always trends and movements of the unexplainable in the art market, and the newest sensation causing a stir is four year old Aelita Andre. Yes, I did say 4 year old. She is an Aussie child that is making such a stir in contemporary circles that her work has been called groundbreaking, powerful, and contemplative. Aelita's main media is acrylic on canvas, however she is know to incorporate various fragments of identifiable prompts such as paper butterflies, yarn, paintbrushes( the kind you would find in a cheap set of children's watercolor paint sets). The art is colorful and passionate, and the young artist shows much promise. Below are two of her works:

The one on the left is entitled "Butterfly Islands". The one above is entitled "Butterfly Nebula". Both already show Aelita has a grasp of spaciality, color consciousness, and structure to her works. The art takes up the entire canvas, and the dark tonalities are "cut" or stroked with lighter tones of brushwork, and the media other than paint is "placed" proportionate to the subject mater( the butterflies appear to be on an "Island" isolated from the remainder of the canvas on the Butterfly Islands, for example). These feats alone are fascinating for a 3 year old(her age at the time these were created), and that may be the reason for the art world to be in awe of her art. I, on the other hand, weigh the works in terms of what purpose they serve or will serve the contemporary art world? This question asks if the works are pure aesthetic pieces, or pure commercial art? From a collector's perspective, would you buy this art, and why? For the chance to possible procure a work from the next Picasso at the ground level and gain the prestige of ownership, which to me suggests commercial ramifications, or to own it simple because the art moves you or appeals to your liking? I believe once that question gains a majority answer one way or the other is what will determine the art's significance and purpose. For now, I am going to sit back watch the frenzy. Aelita is currently having her 1st solo exhibition at the Agora Gallery in New York City. Her paintings are expected to fetch anywhere upwards from the mid four figure range. Not too shabby for a toddler!
Well, only 3 days to go until the 54th annual Allentown Art Festival here in Buffalo, NY. I hope to have a new piece in the collection when it's over by the weekend. Until next time _