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 -